1. nataka laksana ratana kosa

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA

In the perspective of Ancient Indian Drama and Dramaturgy

SIDDHESWAR CHATTOPADHYAYA, MA, D Phil Kāvyatırtha Reader in Sanshrit, The Unwversity of Burdwan, Burdwan

4MAR1978

ALLAHABAD.

ISCHE STUD INDIS

PUN THI PUS AK

PUNTHI PUSTAK Calcutta 1974

Published by S K Bhattacharya E Punth1 Pustak 34 Mohan Bagan Lane Calcutta 700004

First published 1974

Printed in India by Santosh K Bhattacharya at Sri Ramkrishna Printing Works, 19, $ N Banerjee Road, Calcutta-700013

To PIONEERS In the Field of the Study of INDIAN DRAMATURGY

FOREWORD

It is known to students of Sanskrit Literature that works on Sanskrit Poetics, written in different periods of Indian History, furnish evidence to indicate its growth and develop- ment But the paucity of literature on Sanskrit dramaturgy is a stupendous stumbling block to a critical study of its development through the centuries Though the Nātyasastra of Bharata is looked upon as the fountam source of matters relating to hterature, both poetic and dramatic, yet it is unfor- tunate that an elaborate and adequate study and evaluation of topics on dramaturgy and its various problems is not available in subsequent works which are more or less anything but collections of matters of dramatic interest It 1s, therefore that the present work of Dr Siddheswar Chattopadhyaya will be read by scholars who have a genume interest mn Sanskrit drama and various problems concerned with it ,-its source, analysıs, divisions of the plot and the like Dr Chatto- padhyaya is well acquainted with dramatic technique in its various forms, being himself a finished actor of Sanskrit dramas With his rich personal experience in the domain of histrionic art he has been able to throw light on many difficult issues Dr Chattopadhyaya has utilised the woik of Sāgara- nandın to his advantage I recommend the present book to all lovers of Sanskrit dramas

Calcutta GAURINATH SASTRI August 1, 1973

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Present work is the first part of a study, the second, the last one waits completion It was my revered preceptor Dr Gaurinath Sastri who initiated me into the study of ancient Indian drama and dramaturgy, guided me in my research work and has also graced my book with a foreword from his pen I find no language to express my gratitude adequately to hım I am specially indebted to my esteemed friend Dr Kalıkumar Datta Sastri, Research Professor, Calcutta Sanskrit College It was he who drew my attention to the Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kosa and helped me in every possible way by going through my writings, offering suggestions and clarifying many points through discussions I am also grateful to my respected friend Dr Gobindagopal Mukhopadhyaya, Professor and Head of the Department of Sanskrit, Burdwan University He had been taking a personal interest in the progress of the work Lastly but nowise in the least, I am thankful to my learned friends of the Calcutta Sanskrıt Sahıtya Parishat, but for their pursuation the present work could have neither been completed nor published My thanks are due to Sri Sankar Bhattacharyya, proprietor of "Punthi Pustak" who had to cross many-a hurdle in bring- ing out this book to the light of the day He had even to change the press after first few formats were completed Many thanks to the owner of the Sri Ramkrishna Printing Works who at last managed to produce this volume neatly. I am glad to record my obligation to my students, Prof Miss Archana Chaudhury and Miss Radharanı Datta Ray, Research Scholar, who helped me in preparing the index

x NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

In conclusion, I frankly admit of my inefficiency as a proof- reader Moreover, due to some unforeseen reasons I could not even go through the proofs of first four formats Corri- genda thus became necessary

Burdwan SIDDHESWAR CHATTOPADHYAYA Mahalaya, 1973

ABBREVIATIONS

Abhı bhả = Abhınava-bhāratı Abhı saku = Abhıjñāna śakuntalam of Kālıdāsa ABORI = Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Rescarch Institute Ag = Abhinavagupta Al sa = Alañkāra-samgraha of Amrtānanda yogin Ar dyo = Artha-dyotanıkā of Rāghavabhațta An rā = Anargha rāghava of Murārı Bāl rā = Bāla-rāmāyana of Rājasekhara Bhã pra = Bhāva-prakāśana of Šāradātanaya Bhar ko = Bharata Kosa BSOS = Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies CHCSL = A concise History of Classical Sanskrıt Litera ture of Dr G Sastrı Com = Commentary/commentator Dh ã = Dhvanyāloka of Ananda-vardhana DR = Daśa-rūpaka of Dhanañjaya DSL = Drama ın Sanskrıt Literature of R V Jagrdar Ed = Edited by/Editor/Edition Eng Tra = English Translation f = Following fn = Foot note GOS = Gaekwad's Oriental Series HSL = A History of Sanskrit Llterature HSP = History of Sanskrit Poetics IHQ = Indian Historical quarterly Ind Thea = Indian Theatre of C B Gupta JA = Journal Asiatique, Paris JOI = Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda JOR = Journal of the Oriental Research Institute, Madras

x11 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECIIVE

Kā ā = Kāvyādarsa of Dandın KM = Kāvyamālā Series KSS = Kashı Sanskrit Series Ku mā = Kundamālā of Dınnāga 1 /11 = Line Lines LPSD = The Lawas and Practice of Sanskrit Drama of S N Shastri Mã ag = Mālavıkāgnımıtra of Kālıdāsa Mã mã = Mālatī mādhava of Bhavabhūti Mu-rã = Mudrā rāksasa of Vıśākhadatta Mr/Mrccha = Mrcchakațıka of Sūdraka Mg = Mätrgupta Nāgā = Nāgānanda of Śrīharșa NC = Nātaka candrıkā of Rūpa gasvāmın ND = Nātya darpana of Rāmacandra-Gunacandra NLRK = Nāțaka-lakşana ratna-kosa of Sāgaranandın, Ed M Dillon NŚ = Nāțya-sāstra NSP = Nırnaya-sagara press OH = Our Heritage PHAI = Political History of Ancient India of Dr H Roychoudhury PRYB = Pratāpa rudra-yaśo-bhūșana of Vıdyānātha Ra ca = Rasa candrıkā, commentary of Śanakara on Abhı-saku RB = Rāghava-bhațta RS = Rasārņava-sudhākara of Śınga-bhūpāla R t = Rāja-tarangınī of Kahlana R V = Ratnā valı of Śrıharșa San-dā = Sangıta dāmodara of Śubhankara SCAS = Some concepts of the Alankāra āstra of V Raghavan SD = Sāhitya-drapana of Visvanātha Śdt = Śāradātanaya Sgn = Sāgaranandın SOLRP = Some Old Lost Rama Plays of V Raghavan

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY X111

Śr pra = Śrngāra prakāśa of Bhoja SSP = Sanskrta-sāhıtya Parisàt The Skt Dr = The Sanskrit Drama of A B Keith Ți-sar = Țıkā sarvasva of Sarvānanda The TSS The Theory of Sandhis and Sandhyangas of T G Maınkar *TSS = Trivandrum Sanskrit Series U ca = Uttara-rāma carita of Bhavabhūti VDP = Vsnu dharmottara purāna Vık u = Vikramorvaśıya of Kālıdāsa V sam = Veni samhāra of Bhattanārāyana

Chronological position of some important writers and works on Indian dramaturgy, and commentators of dramas, accepted in the present work - .

Nātya sāstra of Bharata C 300 B C-300 A D Abhinava-bhārati of Abhinava-gupta 980-1030 Dasa-rūpaka of Dhanañjaya 975-995 Avaloka of Dhanıka C 1000 Śrngāra-prakāsa of Bhoja 1005-1054 .

Nātya-darpana of Rmacandra- Gunacandra 1093 1175 Bhāva-prakāsana of Sāradātanaya 1175-1250 Pıatāpa rudra yaso-bhūsana of Vıdyānātha 1275-1325 Sahitya darpana of Visvanātha 1300-1340 Rasārnava-sudhākara of Šıngabhūpāla 1340-1360 Nātaka-candrıkā of Rūpa-Gosvāmın 1470-1554 Jagaddhara (Com Mālatı-mādhava) 14th cen Kāțayavema (Com on Mālavıkāgnımitra) 1381-1416 Rāghava-bhațta (Com on Abhı saku) 1475 1500 Śankara and Naraharı (Coms on Abhı-saku) C 1500 Ranganātha (Com on Vikramorvašīya) C 1600 Dhuņdirāja (Com on Mudrā-rākșasa) 1713-14 Rucipati (Com on Anargha-rāghava) C 1600

CONTENTS

Foreword VII

Acknowledgements IX

Abbreviations XI XIII Chronelogical position of works and authors accepted XIV

Introduction XXIII-XXXV

CHAPTER I

Plot of the Sanskrit Drama Qualitative Analysis 1-15 Natya and its eulogy-division of the Vastu- Prakhytā, Utpādya and Misra-view of the Nātya sastra-Mātrgupta's opinion-contempo- rary king as hero-views of Sāgara, Abhinava ctc -the view of Ghantaka and others-Udātta -four types of the hero

CHAPTER II

Five Avasthā s 16-25 Mätrgnpta's analysis-that according to the Nātya sāstia-Ārambha-Prāyatna-Praptyāsā- Nıyatāptı-Phalāgama

CHAPTER III Arthaprakrtı 26-48 Formal dıvısıon of the plot-Ādhıkārıka, Prā- sangika-three different views on the nature of Arthaprakrtı-s-critical analysıs of the views Bya 29-34 Meaning of Bya-its indication-view of an Acarya and its implication-three types of the Bija according to Matrgupta-exposition of the view-ways of the beginning of a Play Bındu 34-38 Definition of Bindu - opinion of Kohala - other views - Bindu as pivotal idea - view of Abhinava - significance of the term

KVI NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Patākā 38-43 Sıgnificance and definition of Patākā Patākā nāyaka - ally of the enemy - Upanāyaka achie vement of the Patākā nāyaka - extent of the Patākā in a play Prakarī 44 Definition, extent and achievement of Prakari - significance of the term 44-48 Karya as the end from different standpoints - as maın purpose - two kārya s - Kārya and Phala - Kārya as Phala hetu - Kārya and Phalāgama - are all the Arthaprakrti-s essential ?

CHAPTER IV

Sandhı 49-92 Nature of Sandhi - want of the idea of three unities - unity of impressione - lision of Sandhı or Sandhı-s - reason - number of Sandhi-s in different types of play - essential Sandhı-s Mätrgupta's theory 54-64 Exposition of the text is difficult - each Sandhi has 'got three aspects - Mukha-sandhı Pratı- mukha-sandhı - Garbha sandhı - Vimarśa-sandbı Nırvahana-sandhı originality of the theory - piot of the drama Māyāmadālasā - the Sādhyādı- pañcaka theory - its connection with Sandhi - wrongly attributed to Mätrgupta - utility of the methods Mukha-sandhı 64-66 Definition - different views - orgination of the Bija as the source of Rasa - Bindu with Bija - view of an Acārya regarding the indication pf Bija

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY KVI

Pratımukha-sandhuı 66-70 Definition - drsta nașta characteristic of the Bija in this Sandh opinion of Sāgara - six views referred to by Abhinava and that of his own - other views

Garbha-sandhı 70 73 Definition - significance of the term Garbha - controversy over the meaning of the words prāpti, aprāpti and anvesana in Bharata's defini tion - different views

Vimarśa sandhı 73-78 Bharata's definition - significance of Vimarśa - different views referred to by Abhinava and Sägara - other views development of views - explanation of sandeha, vimarsana and vighna

Nırvahana-sandhı 78-84 Definition - meaning of artha chief characteris- tic - brief recapitulation of the course of action - eleventh-hour tragic complication appearance of a god - Adbhuta-rasa at the concluding portion - shape of the composition like a cow's tail - conclusion

Relation among the Three Pentads 84-91 Sagaras silence - all the pentads in full are not essential in all types of plot - interrelation of the pentads - view of Abhinava and others - Avasthā and Sandhi related - View of Dhanañjaya and others - three pentads are correlated - mnconsis tency of Abhinava - absurdity of the view of Dhanañjaya and his followers opmions of the commentators of plays - views of Bharata and other ancient writers - conclusion Anu-sandhı ... 91-92

XV111 NATAKA LAKSANA RATN4-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

CHAPTER V

Sandhyanga-s 93-130 Angas of the Mukha-sandhi 92-97 Pratimukha 97-103 Garbha 103-108 Vimarsa 108-115 Nirvahana 115-122 Number, name and defimtions of Sandhyanga s a 122-124 Applications of the Sandhyanga-s 124-127 Order in their application-are all of them necessary - mechanical application Necessity and nature of the Sandhvanga-s 127-130 They are not subdivisions of Sandhi-s - views of Bharata and others new theory of Subandhu tendency towards over elaboration and grouping

CHAPTER VI

Sandhvantara-s (Procesa s) 131-135

Only names of twentyore Sandhy antara s in the Nātya-sāstra - later authorities give little impor tance - Sägara first defines and illustrates each - their purpose - discripency in names Mātr gupta's view - Bharatan or post Bharatan evolution of their definitions

CHAPTER VII

Patākā sthānaka-s 136-142 A dramatic artifice defintion their number two schools - a synthesis exposition of the four Patākāsthānaka s they do not form the sub sidiary portion of the plot order in their use -

OT ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY x1x

relation between Patākā-nāyaka and Patākā- sthänaka - restriction on their use in a play

CHAPTER VIII

Division of the play for representation 143-162 Anka (Act) - 143-147 Meaning of the term - reading of Bharata's definition opinions of Lollata and Sāgara number of Acts in a Nataka - ielation of Acts with Avastha-Sandhi - divergent views - some minor characteristics of an Act What is and what is not permissible to be visibly represented in an Act 147 155 View of the Natya sāstra different interpreta tions death scene and Bhäsa plays - opinions of Sägara and Abhinava an old view support- ing death-scene in an Act death of the hero - some other items prohibited on stage - some items prohibited m theory but accepted in prac- tice standpoint of the Nātya-sāstra Duration of time covered by an Anka 156-158 Different views passing of a long tıme Kārya- dina Other regulations 160-162

CHAPTER IX

Arthopak sepaka . 163-190 Pravesaka 163-169 General purpose introduces character of the next act no character should enter without prior indication - other uses - characters to take part in it view of Mātrgupta and Sagara - opinions of commentators - Udātta-vacana - position in the play no regulation seems to be absolute,

xx NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVL

Vıskambhaka 169-173 Twice defined in the Nātya sāstra - its nature and function - a novel definition offered by Sägara - meaning of the term - no essential difference between Praveśaka and Vışkambhaka - its position - view of Kohala it was first not related to the Nātaka Ankāvatāra (Garbhānka) 173-179 Sagara's definition - transition of next Act though intervened by an interlude Dhanñjaya admits of no intervention confusing stand of Vısvanātha and Śāradātanāya conflicting defin1 tions in the Nātya sastra and Abhinava bhārati standpont of Bhoja appearance of the term Garbhänka - later it was not included in the Arthopaksepaka-s Ankamukha (Ankāsya) 179-183 Sāgara defines it as a resume of the leading ideas of the following acts Abhinava takes it to be the definition of Ankavatara opinion of Bha- rata Visvanātha gives two views - in all, two views are available both are based on the Nāiya-sāstra Cūlıkā 183 184 indication of something from behind the screen - partıcıpants - Sıngabhūpāla's treatment of the topic A General review of the Arthopaksepaka-s 185-190 Nātya-sāstra uses the term only once authenti- city of this verse and definitions of the five Arthopaksepaka-s' in Chap XIX of the Nātya sāstra - view of Kohala who comed the term Arthopaksepaka - Praveśaka and Vıskambhaka are scenes - other three are not treated as scenes . they denote modes of the beginning of Acts

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY xxi

real significance of the device - misinterpretation of the Nätya-sastra by later theorists

CHAPTER X

Title of the play 191-192 No regulation in the Natya-sastia old practice - Sāgara's view that of Sāradātanaya - views of Viśvanātha and Amrțānanda and commentators Title of the Arka 193-196 Only Sāgara formulates a principle - all the names of Anka-s referred to by Visvnātha and Sāradātanaya are found in the Nātaka laksana - necessity for the naming of Anka-s - staging of selected Acts - a perusal of the foregoing chapters

CHAPTER XI

Vrtti 197-229 Number of Vrtti s 197 202 Four Vrttis of Bharata - theories of two and three Vrtti s - Udbhata's scheme of Vrtti misre presentation of the theory by Dhanañjaya and others criticism by Lollata and Abhinava - View of Bhoja - common vtew Characteristics of Vrtti s and Vrttyanga-s 202-215 Forms of the four Vrtti-s - critical assesment of different views Vrtti and Rasa 215-221 Controversy regarding the distribution of Rasa s to Vrtti s - root of all conflicting views - view of Sāgara - opinion of Kohala standpoint of Abhi- nava Rasa-s of the four Vrtti s - opinion of later theorists

xxJ1 NATAKA-LARSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Vrtti ard Riti 221 222 Three Ritı s according to Sägara Bhāratı is the Vrtti of all Rasa-s and Riti s - particular Riti 1s Bhärati qualified by a particular Vrtti three groups of Rasa-s and their relation with Riti and Vrtti Nature and mutual relation of the Vrtti s 223-229 Nature of Vrtti - Abhinaya and its forms - their relation with the Vrtti s - Vrtti-s are interdepen dant - root of the misconception in limiting Bhäratı to Prologue only evolutmn of Abhınaya - conclusion

Notes and References Bibliography Index

INTRODUCTION

From my college days, I have all along been an ardent admner of Sanskrit drama and an active participant in the production of and acting in Sanskrit plays As a student and then as a teacher in the Under Graduate and Post Graquate classes, very often I came to be confronted with difficult problems concerning varfous topics of Sanskrit drama ard dramaturgy These problems could not be satsfactorily solved with the help of either the standard text books like the Dasa rupaka and Sahitya-darpana, or the available commen taries of dramas Though of much help in some cases, the commentaries do not mostly follow a definite school of thought but unhesitatingly quote divergent opinions frcm different sources and thus help little to form a definite con- cept Their value as treasure house of quotations from lost works, however, cannot be ignored My confusion became worse confounded when I made an attempt to compare the views of these works with those found in the Natya-sastra and Abhinava-bharatī It is a common experience to every student of Sanskrt drama and dramaturgy that the commentators and later theorists profess an almost religious allegience to the Nätya-sastra while giving divergent and sometimes self- contradictory views on any topic To name only a few, the theory of correlation of the three pentads (Avastha, Sandhi and Arthaprakrti) the nature of the five Arthopaksepakas and their relation with the Anka, the significance of Vrtti, the prohibitive injunctions against the representation on the stage of such incidents like death, marriage etc, are some such topics The standard work of Dr A B Keith is mnadequate to explain these problems like many others It is not our busmness to find out here the shortcominge of my fore runners in the field With due respect to those scholais, it may be stated that none of the recent publications1

xxIV NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE could answer fully the problems raised in my mind or by my students There had been no comprehensive and historical study of all the topics, related to the souice, analysis and division of the plot of Sanskrit drama from different stand points and according to divergent views The technique, involved in the division of the play for representation and other allied topics have been discussed so long very casually That the theory of Arthopaksepaka had a history of develop- ment from a very simple state to a complex one, remained overlooked so long For the first time, an attempt has been made here to have a comprehensive and critical study of all these topics So far as the available texts on dramaturgy are concerned there is a long gap of more than seven centuries between the Nātya-sāstra (C 300 BC to 300 A D) and the Abhinava- bharatr (A D 980 1030) But that this long period was not completely barren is brought home to us by the views dis cussed ın the Abhinava-bhāratt, Nātaka laksana ratna kosa, Śrngāra-prakāsa and the Bhāva prakāsana mainly For a proper comprehension of the theories of the Natya-sastra, it is imperative that all these works should be studied Abhinava- gupta followed a particular school ot thought in interpreting the Natya sastra and almost at every step he referred to and criticised other views Many of these views are found to be followed by Sagara and it appears that he followed an earlier school of thought Nowhere in the topics studied in the following chapters, Sagara betrays any Inowledge of the opinions of Abhmnava gupta specifically, excepting mn cases where both agree In the following chapters the Nātaka laksana-ratna kasa has been taken up as the starting point for a comprehensive study of the theories of the Natya-sastra and their later developments The work is neither a full commentary of the Natya sastra like the Abhinava bharati nor an independent treatıse lıke the Dasa-rūpaka, Natya darpana etc, nor it is a collection of all the current views with occacional attempts

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY TXV

of bringing about a synthesis among them, as the Šingāra prakāsa and Bhāva-prakāsana The portion of the Nātaka- laksana-ratna kosa with which we are concerned in the present study, is based on only a few chapters of the Nātya-sāstia It has been shown in the following chapters that almost in each case Sagara quotes from the Nātya-sāstra and adds his comment, or describes a topic and then quotes from the Nätya-sāstra in his support It has also been shwon that wherever Sagara's readıng of the Nātya sastia differs from Abhinava gupta's, the former finds support in one or other of the manuscript readings Sigara refers to and comments on many views not found in the Natya-sastra, but those of Mätrgupta receive his special attention, where the latter differs from the most commonly accepted opinions, Sagara sides with him and this has been shown in several cases in the following chapters Following Matrgupta, Sagara admits only Sanskrit speaking characters as Vita, Tāpasa, Vipra etc, in a Praveśaka Matrgupta's novel theory of Sandhi-s, as found in the Nataka lak sana-ratna-kosa has been fully explamed and it has been shown that Matrgupta's shorter method is but an alternative one and not a substtute of the elaborate method of Bharata and that the Sadhyadi pancaka theory is most probably older than Matrgupta to whom it is attributed by some scholars, other than Sagara Matrgupta's opinion about the San- dhyantaras has also been fully dscussed Nātaka-lakşana-ratna-kosa "The gem treasury of the views of dramaturgic text", makes us acquainted with some princi- ples which are found to be generally followed by ancient dramatists Some later theorists and commentators ascribes them to Bharata, but the principles are not found in the present versions of the Nātya sastra 2 An attempt has been made for the first time, to trace the roots of these principles and their implications In the following chapters, each topic as described in the

XXV1 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PFRSPECIIVE

Nälya-sāstra has been studied independently and mn the light of Sagara's exposition The view of Sagara has been com pared with that of Abhinava In doing so, all the different views on any particular top c, as referred to by these two authorities have been discussed To make the study thorough and comparative, the standpoints of the Śrngāra-prakāsa, Dasa rūpaka, Nātya-darpana, Bhāva prakāsana, Rasārnava-sudhā- kara and the Nataka-candrika have been discussed In some cases the Prataparudra yasobhusana and the Alamkāra-samgraha have also been consulted In every case, however, attempt has been made to present a comparative study of the theories and their application in ancient dramas In this conr ection the views of the commentators of dramas have been discussed Attempts, wherever possible, have also been made to show chronological development of theories from the Nātya āstra to later commentators In short, in the following pages the development of the theories concerning mainly with the plot of Sanskrit drama through ages has been studied mn relation to the dramatic literature Most modestly th's thesis can claim to have treated for the first time in the above method, some views of Matrgupta, the problem relating 'to the source of the plot of Nataka and featuring of a contemporary hero therein the actual implica- tion of cach member of the three pentads and their mutual relation and the evolution of the Sandhyantara-s The nature of the individual Arthopaksepaka s has been explained fully (Chap IX) and it has been shown that the original concep- tion of this pentad was thoroughly misunderstood later and that the Anka itself was recognised by early theorists as an .

Arthopaksepaka Fresh light has been thrown on the topic of Sandhyanga s, Patakasthanaka s the naming of plays and the Vrtti s The history of the Sandhyantara-s, specially of of their definitions has been traced Under the topic "What is and what is not permissible to be visibly represented in an Act" the prohibitive injunctions of the Nātya-sastra have been thoroughly discussed and it has been chown that the

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMA1URGY

spirit behind these injunctions has been overlooked in later texts and the variety of acts and incidents perm ssible to be visibly represented came to be curtailed more and mere Most of these topics had hitherto been discus ed either very casually or giving more importance to later text books The fact that there were different schools of thought, followed by dramatists and theorists had been overlooked The Nātja- sāstra treats the science of dramaturgy in extenso and is undoubtedly based on a tradition which developed through centuries in ancient India It acquired a sanctity, almost religious in character, in the dim past The sutra-like verces of the monumental treatise are amenable to different inter pretations So, the propounders of later school found ro difficulty in maintaining divergent views and at the same time professing allegience to the Nātya-sāstra We have tried here to trace the origin of these schools as far as possible and to clarify their standpomnts The Nātaka lakşana-ratna kośa of Sāgara nandın and its age The text of the Nātaka laksana ratna kosa used here is the colitary one that was edited by Professor Myles Dillon mn 1937, from a single manuscript which was discovered by Professor Sylvain Levi from the collection of the Rajaguru Hemraja Sarman of Nepal Professor Levi published a report on the work in the Journal Asiatique (Vol XCml, October- December 1923) Several papers on the work were published by eminent scholars hke P K Gode M R Kavi and Dr V Raghavan Then in November, 1960 a translation of the text by Professor M Dillon, revised by Dr Murray Fowler and Dr V Raghavan with introduction, notes and amenda- tions by the latter was pnblished as a volume of Transactions ot the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia Dr V Raghavan has identified most of the illustrations quoted by Sagara from a member of plays His notes, amendations and identifications have proved to be very useful for our purpose of exposition and comparative study There are, however, cases where we have failed to share the opinions of Dr Raghavan for which reasons have been given along with

XX VI11 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

our suggestions Most gladly and frankly do I acknowledge my indebtedness to the above scholars In a few cases, sourc es of illustrations from anonymous works have also been traced

Besides many anonymous sources (referred to with such remarks as tathāhı, anyeca, ācārya āha etc ), Sāgara refers to a host of authorities on ancient Indian dramaturgy The name of Bharata, however, tops the list 3 But it is significant that the name of Kohala is conspicuous by its absence While describing the distribution of the Rasa s among the four Vrtti s, Sagara quotes a verse4 the third foot of which is ascribed to Kohala by Abhinava gupta 5 The entire verse may thus be ascribed to Kohala The editor of the Nātya sāstra (GOS) informs us that one mātrkā support the reading of Kohala instead of that accepted by Abhmnava and gives the whole verse6 which again tallies with the reading of Sagara It is to be noted here that there is no mention of Santa rasa in the verse and Sagara also does not count that Rasa But Sagara ascribes the verse to Ācārya In ten occasions Sagara refers to his source as the saying of Acarya, eight of which have been traced in the Natya sastra 7 Another verse, attributed to Äcärya, describes the three ways of sow- ing the germ and seems to be taken from some lost version of the sastra 8 In the present case also it may be presumed that Sagara believed that the above verse distributing the Rasas among the Vrttis was Bharata's Mm P V Kane opines, "It appears that Kohala's work influenced the redac tors of the Natya-sostra" It is possible that the above verse was included in some version of the Natya-tastra long before Sagara-nandın who had an access to that version and found no reason to suspect its authenticity In our discussion on Bindu it has been shown that Sagara seems to follow the view of Kohala, of course without mentioning his name Besides these two cases any direct influence of Kohala is not found ın the Nātaka-lakşana ratna-kosa There are many references to the name of Kohala in the Abhinava bhāratt

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY xx1x

and Bhāva Prakasan, Sagara-nandin's silence in the matter is inexplicable It has been stated above that Sāgara gives more impor tance to the views of Matrgupta His work has not come down to us and it is a serious loss to any student of Indian dramaturgy The Rajatarangim gives an account of one Matrgupta who ruled for some years in Kashmir in the 7th cen A D, and was a celebrated literary figure and patron It is generally believed that he wrote an independent treatise on dramaturgy in anustubh verses Several verses from hıs work with his name are found to be quoted in the Tika- sarvasva of Sarvinanda and the Arthadyotanıka of Raghava bhatta Ranganātha and Vasudeva give the definition of Sutradhara from the work of Matrgupta Saradatanaya also refers to his views with and without mentioning his name 11 But it is the Nātaka lak sana ratna kośa from which we can have a real ins ght into Matrguptas originality and under- standing of the art of dramaturgy Special attention has been given here in dealing with the views of Matrgupta and it has been shown that Sagara also seems to have quoted some verses from the work of Matrgupta without mentioning his name 12 It may be pointed out in this connection that Abhinava who refers to the views of a host of ancient Indian theorists, quotes Matrgupta only once and that is also on Puspa, a technical term for a particular way of the playing of the bina 13 Abhinava's comparative silerce about the views of Matrgupta is also inexplicable Subhankara in his sangita dāmodara quotes Matrguptas view on Sandhi but does not mention his name It appears that he had no duect access to the work of Matrgupta and took those verses from some other work, most probably the Nataka-laksana 14 In any case, Matrgupta's "work must have been available until recent times15" as can be surmised from the quotations found in the late commentaries pointed out above It is interesting to note that Raghava-bhatta quotes verses of the Nātya-sāstra but attributes them to Matrgupta16 Either Raghavabhatta

xxx NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

is wrong or it may be presumed that some verses of the Ntya sāstra were taken by Mātrgupta verbatım Prof Sylvain Levi observes that Visvanatha seems to have drawn extensively upon the Nataka-laksana without acknow- ledgement 17 Dr V Raghavan substantiates this observa tion and poin's out that regarding the Natyalankaras the Sāhıtya darpana be ındebted to the Nāaka laksana, but so far as the examples of the Upa-rūpakas and some other illustrations are concerned, Visvanātha's indebtedness to Sigara is certain He also gives a concordance of passages c ommon to the Nataka-laksana and the Bhāva prakasana and observes that a close relation between these two works is undeniable and further shows that Bahurupa misra knew the Nataka laksana-ratna kosa 18 It has been shown in the present discourse that all the names of Acts referred to in the Bhava prakāsana and in the sixth chapter of the Sahitya-darpana are found in the Nataka-laksana 19 Not only the names of Acts but the citations therefrom in the Bhava prakdsana (written between 1175 1250 A D) and in the Sāhitya darpana occur in the Nataka-laksana in sımilar contexts in almost all" cases, whereas all the names of Acts found mn the Nataka lakşana do not occur in the above two works So, the indeb tedness of Sāradātanaya and Vısvanātha to Sāgara nandın seems to be undeniable None of them, however, mentions the name of either the work or its author Subhankara, a Bengalı theorist of the 15th century, names a Ratnakosa in hıs Sangita-dāmodara as one of his sources20 and this Ratnakosa ıs undoubtedly the Nātaka lakşana-ratna- kosa Most of the cases where Subhankara appears to be indebted to the Nataka laksana come under our discussion and have been noted in respective places A concordance of passages common to the Nātaka laksana ratna kośa and the Sangtta dāmedara is given here 21

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY xxx1

Sangita domodara Nātaka lakşana-ratna-hoša (1) P 16, 1l 18-19 ll 17-18, rgbhyah pāthyam abhūd gītam sāmabhyah samapadyata| yajurbhyo' bhınayā jatā rasāšcāthar vanah smrtāh// The verse contains what is said mn the Nātya-sāstra (GOS) I 17, but the reading 1s

(2) P 71, 1 16 quite different 1 2167, harıtālādı sāmagni ması sana tu varnikā / (3) P 72 Kutopı svecchaya ete ll 365 366, (Infia pp 171) (4) P 72 asūcıtasya pātrasja etc 1 331, (ınfra pp 163) (5) P 73, 1l 4 5 11 1045-1046, (infra p 223) (6) P 81 devatā dar sanāntum etc, 1 389, (Infra p 82) (7) P 97 ll 460-469, (infra View of Mātigupta on Sandhıs) (8) PP 98-99 11 925 929, 994-995, (infra Sandhyantaras) Mr M R Kavı has pointed out that Sarvananda, Subhūti, Jataveda, Kumbhakarna, Rāyamukuta and Jagaddhara have mentioned or quoted from the Nātaka-laksana-ratna kosa 22 Dr V Raghavan, however, notices that Sarvanarda practi cally refers to Ratnakosa the lexicon23 which has been referred to by many including Sankara and Naraharı from Mithila Mr M R Kavı of Jātaveda's borrowing cities, srngāra-vīra etc ıtı ratnakose cakārāt sānto pı grhītah But Sāgara nandın enumerates the Rasas in a verse (11 1861-1862) where there ıs no cakāra My esteemed friend Dr K K Datta Shastrı informs me that Rayamukuta actually quotes from the Nātaka lakşana ratna kośa 24 Among commentators of dramas Jagad dhara, Ranganatha and Rucipati are stated to have drawn upon this work 25 Ranganātha cites Sagara regularly by

Xxx11 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

name 26 Rasa-candrika and Tippam, two commentaries on the Abhyñāna sakuntala by Śankara and Naraharı respectively,27 gve clear evidences of their indebtedness to Sāgara-nandın Both explicitly state the name Ratnakosa 28 Most of their citations come under our discussion which have been pointed out in respective places Thus, it appears that the Nātaka- lakşana ratna kosa came to be recognised as a standard work fit to be drawn upon by the writers and commentators beginn ing from the 13th century A D In our discussion it has been shown in many places that Sagara betrays no knowledge of the Abhinava-bharati and the Dasa-rūpaka, whereas in several occasions Abhinava criticises the views held by Sagara who seems to follow an older school Mr M R Kavı opines that the style of Sägara is older than that of Abhınava The Viddhasāla-bhañjıkā of Rājaśekhara (10th cen AD) has been cited ın the Nātaka laksana (1 3071) and this provides the upper limit of Sagara's date Mr M R Kavı and P K Gode29 assert that Subhūticandra borrowed from the Nataka-laksana T R Cintamanı, P K Gode and M R Kavı, all aie of opinion that Subhūticandra was alive between 1062-1172 A D 30 Sarvananda wrote his commentary in A D 1158 1159 The validity of the suggestion that he quotes from the Nātaka-lakşana has been challenged by Dr V Raghavan, as stated above He, however, admits that the two passages where Sarvananda and Sagara illustrate the three types of Srngära are very close to each other, though the contexts are different 31 The closeness is so intimate that it suggests the borrowing of one from the other Sarvananda refers to the name Ratnakosa So, the suggestion that he quotes from the Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kosa cannot be ruled out altogether though no conclusive evidence is available From all these it appears that Sagara nandin cannot be placed below the 11th century A D

NOTES

1 Most important recent publications are - The Lawas and practice of Sanskrit Drama (1961) by Dr S N Shastri, The Theory of the Sandhis and Sandhyangas (1960) by Dr T G Mainkar The Conception of Sandhis in the Sanskrit Drama by Dr V M Kulkarnı (JOI Vol V) is a brilliant paper So far as the method of treatment is concerned, I am glad to confess my indebtedness to Dr Kalıkumar Dutta Sastri His two highly learned papers, Prologues and Epilo gues in Sanskrit Drama and Purvaranga, (OH Vol V, Pt I, Vol IX, Pt I) give a comprehensive and historical study of the topics In this respect Dr V Raghavan (then a resear- cholar) showed the way in his illuminating discourse on Vrthi in J O R, Madras, 1932 33 2 Cf infra, the different ways of bya-nyasa (chap Bya), the prohibition regarding the entrance of a character without being previously indicated (Chap on Pravesaka), the disting- uishing mark between the Pravesaka and Viskambhaka 3 For the list of names of authorities cited or used in the NLRK see the NLRK Eng Tra p 71 4 NLRK 1I 1059 1062 This one has been taken into account in our discourse on Vrtti, Chap XIX 5 NŚ GOS Vol II p 452 6 NS GOS Vol III p 105, the mātrkā bha Cf the text of the NLRK below ll 133, 333, 355, 535, 905, 912, 1394 2778, NS (GOS) respectively XIX 20-21, XVIII 34-35, XVIII 37, XIX 39, XIX 104 106, XVIII 42 XXII 33, XVIII 45 8 NLRK below 1 548 For elaborate discussion see infra chap III, Bja It may be noted here that at least in one case Sgn attributes a verse (NLRK below 1 2409) to the sage Bharata which is not found in the present NS.

WXIV NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

9 Mm P V Kane, HSP p 24 The pomnt has been discussed in Chap VIII B, particularly below "A general review of the Arthapaksepakas" . 10 Vık-u, p 6, Karpūramaňjarı, p 5 Konesvar tıkā on Vik-u (ABORI Vol 38, Pts III-IV edited by H D Velan kar) also quotes a verse of Mg on tenā gīti p 286 11 Bhã pra p 234, 1 22 mentions the name of Mg, but in p 216, ll 9-10, Sdt refers to the view of Mg without mcntianing his name 12 Infra fn 40, below the Sandhyanga Karana 13 Mm P V Kane, HSP, p 54 14 Infra, Chap IV, below Nırvahana-sandhı of Mātr gupta 15 Dr Raghavan, NLRK Eng Tra p 7 16 Infra Chap VII, f n 16 below fourth Patāka-sthanaka 17, Journal Asiatique, Octobre-December, 1923, p 211 18 Journal of the University of Gauhati, Vol III, 1952, pp 29-33 19 Infra chap X, Title of the Anka For date of Śdt see the Introduction of the Bha pra pp 73-77, Mm P V Kane, HSP p 439 20 San-dã p 1 21 In "Sources and References" (San da pp 125-136) the learned editors have pointed out (1) (6) (7) and (8) of the above agreements, and the (1) is said (San da p 127) to be quoted ın the Bhaktıratnākara 22 A Volume of Indian and Iranian Studies presented to Sır E Denison Ross, 1939, Date of Sagaranandın, pp 198-205 23 NLRK Eng Tra p 6 24 Calcutt Sanskrit College Research Series, Commen tary of Rāyamukuta, m Press 25 Of papers of Prof Levi and Mr M R Kavi, referred to above and also the Introducton of the NLRK by Prof M Dillon In our discussions some other cases of agreement have been noted in proper places

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY xxxV

26 Cf Vik-u, Ed K P Parab, Second edition 1897, pp 4, 7, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 26, 55, 65, 126 27 . The two commentaries, edited by Ramnath Jha, have been published in a single volume by the Mithila Institute, Darbhanga 28 See infra Chap I, f n 19 29 M R Kavi's paper referred to abave f n 22, Kuppu swami Sastri commemoration valume Subhūticandra, p 49 30 (1) ABORI, Vol XVI pts 3-4, pp 313 314 Subhūti s camentary on the Amarkosa-P K Gode 1i) Kuppuswamı Sastrı commemoration volume, pr 47 51, Subhūticandra,-P K Gode 111) JOR, Madras, Vol VIII 1934, Pt IV, pp 372 380, Subhuticandra's Commentary on Amaralosa,-T R Chıntamanı 31 NLRK Eng Tra p 6

CHAPTER I

Plot of the Sanskrit Drama

Qualıtative analysıs

Sanskrit rhetorecians use the term Kāvya to denote all sorts of the poetical compositions Kavya may either be abhınāya (drsya) or sravya the former comprises all types of dramatic compositions which are primarily meant to be enacted and are appropriately designated as rūpa, rūpaka1 or natya while the latter includes all other varieties of Kāvya which are meant to be read, recited and heard 2 "Natya is imitation," says Sagara nandin8 and in support of his view quotes avasthā yā tu lokasya sukhaduhkha-samudbhavā / tasyāstvabhınayah Prājňaır-nātyamıtyabhıdhiyate4 // Here Natya has been used in the sense of dramatic representation It is the abhinaya (1mitation on the stage, 1e, dramatic representation) of states or situations of human life arising out of joy and sorrow 5 Through fourfold abhanaya (āngıka, vācıka, sāttvika and āhārya) the characters portrayed in drama are represented on the stage The term abhrnaya, accordiug to Sägara owes its origin to the fact that it brings the events, depicted in the drama, before the eyes of the audience and makes out the meaning of the composition 6 Natya has been highly eulogised by Bharata and later authorities alike It is as sacred as the fifth Veda7 and its different elements are said to be taken from different Vedas 8 It is also the highest of all arts to comprise in itself all sorts of knowledge and learning9 and gives pleasure to all without any distinction of caste and creed In praise of Nātaka Sagara quotes the following verse from an anonymous source apı sakyeta vıdvadbhır-muktır-abhyāsa-kausalāt / na tu nātaka-vıdyeyam sarvalokānu-rañjanī10 //

2 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

It is interesting to note that the verse, attributed by Sankara to no less an authority than Prajapati himself, places nātakavıdyā even above parā vidyā in India where moksa has been universally proclaimed as the highest end of human life This single verse amply demonstrates the reverence with which ancient Indian critics took up drama and dramaturgy The richness of Sanskrit drama can be comprehended from the list of names of the types of rūpakas The Nātya-sāstra though it speaks of ten rūpakas describes eleven types of rupakas including the Natika The Nataka-laksana and some other works deal with the upa rūpakas also Of these rūpakas Nātaka and Prakarana are recognised as full fledged drama with all the five Sandhis and four Vrttis Between these two, Indian dramaturgy accepts Nätaka as the main type Sagara like all other authorities on Nataka first for the treatment of his subject and institutes interesting discussions on the qualitative analysis of the plot of drama, for the proper comprehension of which some preliminary observations are necessary In Sanskrit dramaturgy the plot of a play is variously called as vastu, ākhyana, rtıvrtta, ztıhāsa, kathā and samvrdhā- naka 11 In the Nātya-sastra the theme of a drama has been described as its body T2 Now, from the standpoint of qualitative analysis, later authorities beginning from Dhanañjaya are of opinion that plots are of three kinds the renowned, invented and mixed When the plot 1s derived from the mythological or historical (utrhāsa-purāna) sources It is renowned (prakhyata) The plot is said to be invented (utpādya or kalpya) if it is a creation of the poet's own imagination The mixed type of plot (misra) 1s partly invented and partly derived from historical or mythological source 13 This type is derived but refashioned or remodelled by the poet to suit his purpose As a general rule, the invented story cannot form the subject matter of a Nataka The Nātaka-candrikā is most vocal on this point and says, ktpta- varjyam tu nātake 14 Plays of Prakarana, Prakaranıkā, Praha- sana and Vithi types have their plots invented by the poet The plot of a Nataka should always be renowned (khyātett-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 3

Urtta) Abhinava gupta informs us that according to his preceptor, the quality of being prakhyata for a story depends upon threefold renownedness The hero of the story himself, his activities and the country he lives in,-all are required to be famous 15 The above threefold division of the plot is undoubtedly of later origin The Nātya-sāstra nowhere has explicitly divided the plot as renowned invented and mixed From description of the different types of dramas, it appears that the Natya sastra recognises only two kinds of plot prakhyāta and utpādya, to be taken up for different types of drama Both in theory and practice all sorts of stories found a place in the rich dramatic literature in India But the best or the highest type of drama i e, the Nātaka has been restricted to deal with the stories found in the two Great Epics, the Puranas and the Brhatkatha, and these wor ks have all along been accepted as the perennial source of the themes of Natakas in India Sagara quotes from the Natya-sastra the description of Nataka which says that the theme of a Nataka should be famous, it should be related to the renowned activities of famous and noble heroes belonging to the families of royal sages and having divine supports or having divine sources 16 By famılies of royal sages Sagara means Lunar and Solar dynasties17 and adds that the renowned activities are those that are lokānām-anurañanam karma Rāma's determination in carrying out father's command, his heroic discharge of duty in slayıng Rävana to avenge the wrongs done by the latter through the abduction of Sita and also difficult tasks like the offering of own body by Jimutavahana have been cited as illustrations of renowned activities of the heroes 18 Regarding the quality of the plot of a Nātaka Sāgara remerks nātakasyetıvrttam bhavatı upāttam pratı-samskrtam caļ Upāttam purāna-sıddham rāmādı-vrttāntah / Pratısamskrtam upāttam kevalam kavınā kımcıd-utpādya-vastvıtı munī-vacanāt prapancitam/19

4 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Thus, according to Sägara the plot of a Nātaka, though taken from any traditional source, can be refashioned by the poet and this is explained by the observations of the Mun But who is this Muns according to whose view the plot of a Nataka can be reshaped from its original form? The Nātya-sāstra is quite silent regarding the matter Bharata categorically neither gives nor denies the liberty of the poets in refashioning the plots of Nātakas In actual practice, however, it is found that all our renowned Natakas are based upon stories the frameworks of which are borrowed from traditional sources, but nowhere the story is represented as it is found in its original fource In every case it 1s Prat-samskrta, refashioned Historically speakıng, Nataka had its beginning in some crude and sımple form of rūpaka lıke Dıma and Samavakāra but gradually developed through ages into Purna-sandhe and Pūrna vrttı Nātaka proper z0 At the primary stage, it can be presumed that simple and short stories in their original form from the epics and Puranas were sufficient to meet the demands of drama But in a full-fledged drama lıke Nataka those stories were required to be elaborated and refashioned The poets took the liberty of remodelling the plots to give them proper shape of Nätaka and to make them more appealing to the audience Thus, in every extant Nataka we find that the plot as a whole is pratisamskṛta Among the texts on dramaturgy, the Bhāva-prakāsa only informs us that it is Matrguptacarya who enjoins that the plot of a Nätaka, though taken from a traditional source can be refashioned by the poet 21 This statement of Saradātanaya 1s attested by a quotation from the text of Matrgupta found in Arthadyotanıka, a commentary on Abhyñāna-saluntala by Raghava bhatta Dr Raghavan points out that Sāgara directly borrows here the view of Matrgupta 22 It thus appears that Sagara here refers to Matrgupta by the word munt, who keeping an eye on the actual practice of the day, enjoins the right of the poet in reshaping the plot of Nataka the framework of which is to be borrowed from the traditional source.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 5

For various reasons Matrgupta's description of Nātaka as quoted by Raghava-bhatta is interesting It says - 1 Prakhyāta-vastu-visayam dhırodāttādı nāyakam/ 2 . rājarsı-vamsa-carrtam tathā drvya srayanvitam// 3 yuktam Vrddhı-vilāsādya r-gunaır nānāvibhūtibhrh/ 4 srngāra-vırā-nyatara-pradhāna-rasasmsrayam// 5 prakrtyavastha-sandhyanga sandhyantara-vibhūsanarh/ 6 patākē-sthānakarr-vrttam patangarsca (tadangarsca 2) pravrtribhah// 7 nātyā lankaranaır-nānā bhāsā yul-pātra-samcayarh/ 8 arka-pravesakmr-adhyam rasa-bhava samurvalam// 9 sukha-duhkhotpattı krtam Carıtam yastu bhubhrtam/ 10 ıtourttam kathod bhūtam kımcrd-utpādya-vastu cal/ 11 nātakam nāma taj jneyam rūpakam nātya-vedibhih/23 It is evident that Sagara directly borrows the expression krmc d utpadya-vastu from the tenth line of the above quotation Taking into consideration the actual practice, as discussed above, the texts of Mätrgupta and Sagara may be interpreted to mean that the plot of a Nataka is to be borrowed and at the sametime may be refashioned, upatta and pratrsamskrta, in this sense indicate two characteristics of the plot and imply that though the framework of the plot of a Nataka should always be related to the achievements of the epic or puranic heroes yet the poet is free to handle it in a manner suitable to his own purpose Singabhūpāla accepts this principle and says that the theme of a Nātaka should be khyātetr vrtta- sambaddha24 (connected with some renowned story), allowing thereby the scope of refashioning The Dasa rūpaka allows this scope of the poet in clever terms and shows the reason It says that the poet is free to discard or change the incidents in the life of the hero, as depiced in the source, which are not in conformity with the desired Rasa, or go against the merits of hero The Bhava prakasana and the Sahstya-darpana reiterate the same The Natya darpana also maintains the same Several instances from existing Natakas have also been cited by Dhanika to show how poets very often take the liberty of changing and rejecting incidents of the lives of heroes as described in original sources 25 The Na a darpana

6 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

seems to be more practcal in stating that the poets, while depicting traditional stories, freely innovate new situations and reject old ones for the sake of making the Nataka more attractive to the audience 26 It may be added here that all the works on Indian dramaturgy pay unconditional respect to Bharata and profess to follow him The present Natya-sastra also acquired a sanctity, almost religious in character, centuries before the days of Abhinava-gupta It may be presumed that had there been no support of the Natya-sastra, at least an implicit one, no theorist could have stated so explicitly that the epic and puranic stories could be refashioned by the poets Abhinava- gupta's silence also on the matter cannot be explained otherwise Similar was the position of the playwrights Without the sanction of a rse, possibly none could have remodelled an ärsa-story for fear of hurting the feelings of at least the orthodox section of audience On the otherhand, remodelling of traditional stories was a practical necessity for the avoidance of boring repetitions Thus both theorists and playwrights sought for an arsa sanction which they certainly derived from the Natya-sastra It will not be out of place to point out here that a simple epic story, depicted in its original form in a Nataka, cannot be expected to portray diversities of prosperity, amorous pastimes and so forth, as demanded by the Natya-sastra itself 27 Thus, it will not be unjustified to conclude that the Natya-sastra implicitly supports the general practice of remodelling tradıtional stories in Nātakas Dr Raghavan says, "Themes are of three kinds, Renowned, Invented and Mıxed , Prakhyata, Utpadya and Misra" and about upātta and pratrsamskrta of the Nataka laksana, he remarks "These are two subdivisions of the first type of the plot, the Prakhyata 28" But Sagara does not divide the plot mnto prakhyāta, utpādya and misra kinds Moreover, this division refers to the theme of drama in general and not of Nataka only Like all other authorities Sagara maintains that the invented story forms the theme of Prakarana etc It appears then that according to Sagara also, plots of dramas are of three kınds, upātta, pratrsamskrta and utpādya corres-

ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 7

pondıng respectively with prakhyāta, misra and utpādja of others Thus upatta and pratisamskrta cannot be taken as two subdivisions of prakhyāta Sagara further maintains that even the lives of historical or contemporary kings may form the subject matter of Nātaka This view deserves special treatment, as it is opposed to that commonly held and finds support from no other authority excepting Sāradātanaya who declares prayojana-vasāt-tat-tu vartamānam apı kvacıt /29 This is the gist of Sagara's statement vartamānam-apı-nrpater-mahābhūtasya kavı buddhı-prakaısād āsādıtabıja-bındvādıl am yadı bhavatı bhavatyeva nātaka visayam30 At the outset, it should be pointed out that any insignifi- cant contemporary king cannot be featured ın a Nātaka according to the Nātaka laksana The contemporary king should be an exceptionally endowed indıvidual (mahābhūta), so that the Poet may find scope to develop his life-history into the theme of a Nataka The events of his life, selected for the treatment in a Nataka, should be suitable to be invested with the Arthaprakrtıs and also to be dıvided ınto Kāryār asthās Sandhis etc Sagara seems to mean that if such an endowed contemporary king is found, the playwright is free to delineate the events of his life in a Nataka What, however, is exactly meant by the word varttamana is not clear It may indicate historical as opposed to epic and Puränic or simply contem- porary, belonging to the age to which the poet himself belongs The traditional story of the composition of Natya out of the elements of all four Vedas by Pitämaha himself, the use of the term itihasa to denote dramatic plot,31 and the subject matter of the first dramatic performance 1e, the defeat of the demons at the hands of gods, as recorded in the Nātya- sastra's 32 all tend to suggest that in its origin drama certainly utilised current old stories But the Natya-sastra nowhere explicitly prohibits the lives of contemporary kings from being depicted in Nātaka It 1s Abhinavagupta who most emphatically opposes the above view championed by Sagara The great commentator of the Natya-sastra maintains that hves of contemporary and

8 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

historical kings should not be depicted in any form of drama (Nātya) not to speak of the Nätaka, the highest form of drama But that there were earlier adherents of the view which was in favour of portraying the activities of contem- porary kings in dramas, is borne out by the statements foynd in the Abhinava-bharati itself In the first chapter of the Nātya sāstra, Abhinava-gupta refers to a view said to be held by some, according to which a poet may places his master by depicting the latter's lıfe in Natya Abhinava-gupta opposes the view on the giound that some of the rūpakas are to deal with invented stories and some with renowned stories according to the Nātya sāstra So, there is no scope of prabhu- carıta ın Nātya Here Abhınava remarks naca varttamāna- caritā-nukaro yuktah, and adduces arguments in hs favour He maintains that the disinterestedness necessary for aesthetic response or moral edification may be hampered by the spectator s personal reactions to the proximate events of the lfe of a contemporary king depicted in a Nātaka as hero 33 Later in the chapter XVIII of the Nātya sastra, Abhinava further remarks that if the life of the hero of a Nātaka is picked up from contemporary history, his high achievements described in the drama may fail to convince the audience and it is for this reason that Bharata speaks of Prakhyāta again and again 34 Even a god should not be featured as a main hero mn a Nataka according to Abhinava who, however, maintains that divine heroines and gods as secondary charac- ters may be introduced mn Nātakas A hero in a Nātaka says Abhinava is generally portrayed as subject to separation and pathos etc, and a god cannot be so represented without being dragged down to the level of ordinary human beings 35 Thus, according to Abhinavagupta neither a contemporary king nor even a god could be featured in a Nätaka as hero The hero of a Nataka should always be one who is ? ajarsi-vamsapr abhava The Natya-darpana simply repeats what has been said by Abhinava-gupta in this matter in different words 36 The view of the Dasa rüpaka and its followers has already been discussed Thus, with the solitary exception of Sāradātanaya all other authorities on dramaturgy beginning from Abhinava-gupta

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 9

opine against the inclusion of contemporary kings as heroes ın Nāțakas An enquiry into the actual practice regarding the delinea- tion of the lives of contemporary and histor ical kings in dremas by ancient Indian play wrights cannot but be interest- ing here The enquiry may be started with Kalidasa though there has been a great controversy regarding his date Dr SN Dasgupta places him in the 2nd century B C,1 e, in the Śunga period 87 Accepting this view it can be pointed out that the character of a contemporary and historical king has been depicted in a Nataka by the Prince of Indran poets himself ın hıs Malavikaammitra 35 On the other hand, a drama, consisting of nire Acts and with a famous theme describing the activities of historical Personages like Buddha, Sānputra and Maudgalyāyana, has been designated Sāriputra- prakarana by its author Aśvaghosa Accordıng to Nātya sāsira, as interpreted by Abhinavagupta, the plot of a Prakarana may be ınvented or taken from anārsa-kāvya lıke Brhatkatha etc, or similar works of other poets 39 The story of the drama Sarputra-pr akarana is neither invented nor taken from any anarsa source known to us That the story was not taken,from any arsa source like the Epics and Puranas, that Sārıputra, the hero, was neither a king nor did belong to the family of any rajarsı and that Asvaghosa perhaps utilised some old anarsa source for the story might have been the reasons behind calling the drama a prakarana It can also be surmised that Asvaghosa took the events described in the drama, as contemporary even after four long centuries It is also interesting to note that the Svapna-Vāsavadatta has all along been regarded as a Nätaka though its story is not taken from any arsa source Candragupta certainly did not belong to any family of royal sages, but Mudrā rāksasa is a Nātaka and Abhinavagupta takes it to be so 40 Moreover, the storv as depicted in the drama is not taken from any known arsa source 4T Later allegorical dramas like Prabodha- candrodaya, Moharāja-parājaya and Sankalpa-sūryodaya are all styled as Nātaka The drama Moharāja-parājaya of Yasah- pāla, describing the conversion of Kumārapāla, the Caulukya

10 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

King of Gujrat to Jainism may be said to have featured a contemporary king as hero The drama, of course, written after the death of Kumarapala But within a few years events cannot shake off varttamānatva and assume prakhyātatva Moreover, the drama may be supposed to have written Prabhu- paritosaya, as the author himself served under Cakravartın Abhayadeva who reigned after Kumārapāla 42 From the above, it may be concluded that the school of thought to which Abhinavagupta appears to belong has not been followed by some dramatists of even later ages On the other hand, Bhāsa, Kālıdāsa and Višākhadatta appear to have given little importance to the theory that Nataka should depict the lives of those royal heroes of Epics and Purānas who led exemplary lives and that its theme should always be taken from some arsa source as maintaned by Abhinavagupta But the theory itself is old enough and this can reasonably be surmised from the adherence of Aśvaghosa to it, other- wise Sāriputra prakarana could not have been so designated Among ancient theorists also, there was a powerful school of thought the adherents of which had no objection to the featuring of historical and contemporary kings as heroes in Nätakas, as an erudite like Abhinavagupta, as shown above, cannot be supposed to have fought against non-existent views or those advocated by negligible persons Abhinavagupta further refers to a view as championed by Ghantaka and others which maintains that a king, whether he is renowned or not, is fit to be featured as a hero in a drama including Nātaka 43 Sagara also seems to maintain that it is the story that counts and that the story should satisfy all the technical exigencies of Nataka as discussed above, the hero may or may not be a rajarsi-vamsa-prabhava one Sāgara distinctly says that the vartamana king can be featured in a Nataka, if he is an exceptionally endowed (mahabhūta) one 44 A drama properly depicting the life of an exceptionally endowed historical or contemporary king can reasonably be expected to achieve its ultimate object which is moral edification through aesthetic pleasure of all sorts of spectators, as stated by the Nātya- sastra 45

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 11

Thus, it appears that Sāgara here simply supports an earlier view and it cannot be said that he is the earliest authority to formaulate the theory, as supposed by Prof Biswanath Bhattacharyya 46 The Nātya-sastra nowhere explicitlv prohibits the historical and contemporary Kings from being featured in Nataka On the otherhand, it seems to have lent its implicit support to the view when it enjoins that the characters of kings and their activities, arising out of their joys and sorrows may be depicted in a Nātaka 47 Mātrgupta also says the samething in the ninth line as quoted above So, neither Sagara himself nor the authority or authorities he follows, can be said to have violated any principle of the Nātya-sāstra in this vital matter It should also be remembered in this connection that according to Indian dramaturgy, the plot of a drama is only its body48 and it is the Rasa that infuses life in it Without Rasa the composition fails to carry out any sense 49 The success or otherwise of a drama depends upon whether it can or fals to evoke the Rasa (sentiment) in the minds of the spectators It matters little whether the hero is a rājarsı- vamsa-prabhava one or a historical or contemporary king This seems to be the view of catholic theorists like Sagara and others whom he follows Abhinavagupta's objection is based on the assumption that historical and contemporary heroes are incompetent to arouse aesthetic pleasure, the ultimate end of every literary activity Those who favour the incorporation of historical and contemporary events in the domain of drama, certainly believe in their competency in evoking the same aesthetic pleasure, if only properly handled Moreover, drama is an art for the people In its early days the people could be satisfied with the stories of legendary kings but which grew hackneyed in course of time, and there was certainly a demand for new elements The first step adopted by the playwrights to meet this popular demand was presumably innovations in the framework of traditional stories In due course this process brought about a complete change in the details of those stories leaving only their bare outlines with the names of heroes and heroines to survive, and this 1s

12 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

evident in extant dramas For the same reason some play- wrights ventured to introduce historical and contemporiry stories in the field Puritans naturally, opposed the idea and Abhinava seems to hava voiced their View in his Abhrnava bharatr This tussel between the catnolic and puritan groups of critics is a natural feature in tne history of every literature Indian theorists have all along sought the sanction of the Natya sastra for their views and as a result serious divergences have crept in so far as the interpretation of this ancient text is concerned Sagara seems to have gone a step further and declares that it is not the profession of the Śastrakāra to punish the learned who deviate a bit from the chalked-out path 50 Sastra is not to obstruct the progress of literature and this seems to be the view of a true critic in the modern sense of the term Sagara seems to have had no objection against the portra- yal of gods as heroes in Nätakas He himself states that Nataka is the imitation of past activities of gods etc, and in his support quotes the following verse from the Nārya- sastra devatānām manusyānām 1 ājñām lokamahātmanām/ pūrvavrttānucarıtam nātakam nāma tad bhavetļ/ The GOS edition of the Natya-sastra reads the first half of the verse as devatānām rsīnām ca rājām cotkrsta-medhasām/ A manuscript reads nātya in place of nātaka There are several other variants also 5T The reading nātya indicates that the verse refers to the contents of drama in general and not of Nataka only The word natala may also be used in its generic sense to mean rupaka In any case, the verse sanc- tions the representation of gods as main characters in dramas including Nātaka From the above discussions it follows that it is the quality of the hero that determines the suitability or otherwise of the plot to be depicted in a Nātaka The Nātya-sastra in this matter, simply states that the hero of a Nataka should be renowned and exalted or magnanımous (prakhyātodātta- nãyakam) 32 The word udatta is very important here Diver-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY I3

gent views on it's interpretation have given rise to different opinions regarding the type of the hero of a Nātaka The word udatta has not been explained in the Nataka laksana-ratna kosa Abhinava bhāratī refers to the view of Sankuka who is said to have maintained that the word udatta implies that renowned characters only are to be selected from the epics But according to the teacher of Abhinavagupta, the word refers to the third type of renownedness as two others have been included by prakhyatavastu 58 Abhinavagupta hım- self states, udatta it vira rasayogya uktah, and adds that all the four types of Dhira-lalita, Dhira-prasanta, Dhīroddhata and Dhirodatta have been included by it Thus, according to Abhinavagupta, the hero of a Nataka may belong to any one of these four types 54 Dr S N Shastri maintains that Sagara seems to adhere to the school of thought according to which the hero of a Nataka should belong to the Dhira lalita class only and goes on to prove the untenability of the view by citing instances of Natakas having Dhiroddhata heroes He also declares that Sagara has misunderstood the real implication of Bharata's instructions contained in the following lines 55 devā dhıroddhatā jřeyāh syur dhıra lalıtā nrpāh / senāpatır-amātyasca dhīrodāttau prakīrttitau // dhıra-prasāntā vyjřeyā brāhmanā vanyastathā //5 6 Dr S N Shastri appears to have overlooked the full relevant text cf the Nataka laksana ratna kosa which distinctly says sarvathā yena sarvam samāpyate sa khalu nāyakas catuh- prakrtıkah| dhīroddhatah| dhıra lalıtah| dhirodāttah |dhīra-prasāntas- ca/57 It is apparent that like Abhinavagupta, Sagara also main tains that the hero of a Nataka may belong to any one of the above four types Following the above general instruction of the Natya sastra Sagara states that the gods are Dhiroddhatas (vehements), a king 1s Dhira lalita (gay), the general and minister are Dhirodattas (gallants, and a learned (srotryya) Brahmin and merchant are Dhira-praśāntas (quiet) Besides these, mixed types of heroes have also been recognised in the

14 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Nataka-laksana-ratna-kosa which adds that these types are determined by their mode of conduct in love matters 58 The Natya sastra reads the verses, quoted above, in connection with the description of upacara Sagara is fully conscious that the above division of heroes in the Natya-sastra is a general instruction, mainly related to the behaviour of the heroes in their love affairs Nat ya-sastra as it appears, here points out the most dominating quality of main characters in a drama and thus lays down some general principles regarding the delineation of characters That there was a school of thought of which Sagara has wrongly been supposed to be a supporter by Dr S N Shastri, as stated above, has been borne out by a reference in the Abhinava-bharati It informs us that some opine that the hero of a Nataka should be of a Dhira-lalita type And this follows from the instructions contained in deva dhiroddhata etc, of the Natya-sastra (quoted above), because a king only should be featured as hero in a Nātaka and according to the Natya sastra he belongs to the Dhira- lalita type Abhinavagupta opposes the view and points out that Janaka, Rama etc, depicted as herces in Nātakas do not belong to Dhira-lalita group 59 His conclusion 1s that the hero of a Nataka may belong to any one of those four types 60 The Natya-darpana follows this mnter pretation of Abhinavagupta and goes a step further to declare that kings may belong to any one of the four types rājānastu caturvidhāh 61 Thus, there has been a controversy, among even earlier authorities, regarding the interpretation of the description of four types of heroes in the Nat ya-sastra and also regard- ing the admissibility of those types in Nātakas Sāgara clearly states that all the four types are suitable to Nātakas Abhinavagupta followed by the authors of the Natya-darpana admits the same in a clever way It has been shown that there were other views also The Dasa-rūpaka seems to have bypassed the contro- versy It maintains that the hero of a Nataka should always be a Dhirodatta one In this respect, later works like

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 15

tne Rasamava sudhakara and Sahrtya-darpana follow the Dasa-rūpaka 62 If Dhanıka's interpretation of the term udatta 1s accepted, then this view does not appear to be so untenable as taken by Dr S N Sastri 63 Dhanıka maıntans that audattyam hi nama sarvotkarsena vrttrh 64 According to this interpretation, undoubtedly a new approach to the problem, the hero of a Nataka should be described as surpassing all others around him in merits The character of the hero in any serious drama should be the most impressive one so that the attention of the audience may easily be focused on his acting Sanskrit drama closely observes this Principle The Nātya sastra itself and authorities lıke Sāgara and Abhinavagupta give stress on this point in their own way, as has already been shown The Dasa rūpaka, as interpreted by Dhanika, also tries to achieve this end in an ingenious way With the above interpretation of the term udatta Dhanika finds no difficulty in declarıng Jimūta-vāhana as a Dhīrodātta hero 65 The view, however, has been severely criticised in the Natya-darpana 6 6 The division of the heroes in dramas into Dıvya, Adıvya and Dıvyā-dıvya groups is decidedly of later origin Probably under the influence of Vaisnavism67 Natya sastra, Nātaka-laksana and Abhrnava-bharatı do not make any attempt of classifying the heroes in this way

CHAPTER II

Fıve Avasthas (Five successive states)

"An action when developed in full, as normally it is in the Nataka, the most perfect of forms of drama, involves of necessity five stages of developments "1 These five stages are called five Avasthas or Kāryavasthas of the plot, the twrtta They are,-Arambha (Prarambha), Prayatna, Prāptısambhava (Prāptyāśā), Nıyatā-Phalaprāptı (Nıyatāptı) and Phalayoga (Phalagama) They occur in this order as they are enumerated in the Natya-sastra and the preceding stage naturally leads on to the succeeding one 2 Sagara-nandın describes the five Avasthas in prose and mostly in terms of the Natya-sastra without quoting it word for word But at the close of his discussion he quotes Mätrgupta and states that Matrgupta describes the five Avasthas brieflv in the following way 3 It can be presumed from this, that according to Sāgara, Mātrgupta's description of five Kāryā- vasthas does not vary from that of the Nātya sastra Matrgupta's description, as stated in the Nataka-laksana 1s prārambho rāvana vadhe khara prabhrti varsasam / prayatnah sūrpanakhayā krtah sıtāpahāratah // sugrīvasya tu sakhyena samjātah prāptı-sambhavah / nıyatā phala samprāptıh kumbhakarnādı samksaye|| yo devar rāksasapateh kāryo dustamater vadhah / phala yogah sa rāmasya dharma-kāmārtha-sıddhaye //4 Matrgupta, as it appears from the above, described five Avasthas with reference to a Nätaka, beginning with the forest life of Räma and ending at the killing of Ravana Sagara informs us that all these are clear in the Raghava- bhyudaya,5 an old lost Nataka from which there are fourteen citations in the Naaka lal sana From the above description it appears that according to Mätrgupta each of the five successive stages is marked by an incident or incidents and the Phalayoga is marked by the last mcident

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 17

bringing about the gains of the hero in the forms of virtue, pleasure and prosperity Here Rāvaņa-vadha has been taken to be the Phalayoga and the first stage ie, the annihilation of Khara etc, has been shown to lead to the second stage marked by the abduction of Sita and so on But at the time of killing Khara etc, Rama cannot be supposed to be conscious of the ultimate end, 1e, the killıng of Ravana So, it cannot be said that according to Mätrgupta the ultimate object of the hero is fixed in the stage of Arambha Moreover, in the stage of Prayatna, Matrgupta seems to have given the scope of describing the pursuit after the desired object by some one other than the hero

ARAMBHA (Beginning)

Sāgara defines Ārambha as byasyaut sukya-mātr aban dhah,6 and illustrates the same with a verse, said to be taken from the Kosalanka As a comment on the illus- tration he says, "This Arambha is to accomplish this "T The illustration cited describes a situation where Räma is determined to move to the forest at his father's command and praises the move as commendable in all respects Bija according to Sāgara, as will be shown, is the cause of the final stage of the action Now, the exile of Rama, the first incident, ultimately leads to the destruction of Rävana, the final stage of the action, through successive stages But at this first stage the hero, here Rāma, cannot be said to be conscious of the ultimate goal This is quite in conformity with the above exposition of the Arambha by Matrgupta Thus, according to Sāgara Ärambha consists in the beginning of the action where- from a move sets afoot which ultimately leads to the final stage of the action It is evident that Sagara does not make any attempt to explain the text of Nat ya-sastra quoted by himself, but through illustration brings out the implication of Ärambha 2

18 NATAKA LAKSAN PATNA ACSA JN THT IERSI ECTIVE

and in doing so he follows Matrgi pta, prsumably with a belief that Matrgupta does not differ from tle Nata sastra The Bhara-prakasa also follows his hre of thought as it appears from the illustrauon ht cites from the 4theqnana- sakuntala According to the Rasarnava-sudhalara the begmn- ing of exertion by the hero for the final aim is the Arambha and in this respect it is followed by the Nataka- candnka 9 Only anxious desire (antsukva matram) tor the accomplishment of the chief aim is the Arambna according to the Dasa rūpaka and Sahitya darpana 10 The Dasa rūpaka 1s not explicit enough whether the first move or anxious desire should be always of the hero himself or not Viśvanatha, however, maintains that this autsukya may be aroused in the mind of any leading character lıke the nāyaka, nay.ka etc 11 The finel object is reached thiough successive stages It canrot be said that in every case, this final object is consciously desired by the character concerned at the stage of the first move Following the view of Mātrgupta as exrlained before, it can be pcinted out that Rama cannot be represented as bent upon the k lling of Rävana at the stage of the annihilation of Khara etc, by hım Abhinavagupta takes Bīja to mean upāya sampat, 1 e means and explains Arambha as a state of deliberation and anxiety regarding the means for the attainment of the final end suitable to the hero in question The desire giving rise to deliberation and enxiety may at this stage be rooted in the mind of the hero or his minister or heroine or hero's enemy or it may be simply an affair of dava (providence) 12 Abhinavagupta seems to mean that whoever might be anxious for the means at this stage, the means should be always for the final achievement But how it is possible in the case of a pratnayaka in not clear The natya-darpana adds movement with anxiety for the means but follows the line of Abhinavabharat closely so far as the implication of Ärambha is concerned 13

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 19

PRAYATNA (Fffont)

Foilowing the Natya sastra, Sagara defii es Prayatna as rhala yogam apasyata eva tatra vyaparah and illustrates this second stage of the action by citing the part of a verse from the Kulapatyanka where Ravana in the guise of a hermit descr'bes his effort, presun atly directed towards the abduction of Sita 15 Ravana certainl ss not the hero of the drama from which the illustration l as been cited Thus, according to Sagara, the zealous pursuit after the objec' of desire which has not yet been found, is the Piayaina This pursuit may or may not be cone by he hero himself or relatea directly to the final object, but must lead to the neat stage of the action This is what Mātrgupta says about Prayatna, as pointed out before According to Abhin ivagupta, Pravatna is the more scrious endeavour of any one, as in the case of Arambha, in finding out the means for the final achievement Here also Ablunavagupta gives stress on mental activity The Natya-darpana follows Abhinava but states more explicitly tha only anxiety is Arambha but Prayatna is serious anxiety 16 The Dasa-rūpaka, as interpreted by Dhanıka, maintains that Prayatna is the speedy activity of some one, consis- ting in the employment of means 17 The Sahitya-darpana follows the Dasa rupaka and Avaloka 18 Persistence of the anxiety for the attainment of the desired object is Prayatna accordng to the Raserara sudhakara and this is followed by the Nātaka-candrıkā 19 The Bhāva prakāsa defines Prayatna after the Nātya- sastra and illustrates it by citing the veise from the Malatı- madhava Act I, where Kamandaki's determined effort in uniting Madhava with Malati has been described 20 Thus the effort is not of the hero here

20 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

PRĀPTI-SAMBHAVA OR PRĀPTYĀSĀ (Prospect of success)

Sagara defines Prapti-sambhava briefly in the words of the A ãi ya sastra as bhavamatrena phalasya ya praptih 21 The word bha amatrena is significant, but has not been explained by him The Bhava-prakasa in this respect comes to our help It gives the same definition of the Prapti-sambhava as is found in the Natya sastra but reads sattamatrena instead of bh avamatrena 22 The stage is illustrated by Sāgara with a citation from the Sugrwvanka, where the furious monkeys ate asked to fall upon the demons Sagara comments on this illustration that here at the news of Sita there is the determined effort of the monkeys to destroy the demons 23 Here the final end (phala) is evidently the rerovery of Sitā and this is possible only when her whereabouts are known Hence, here there is at least a mental accomplishment of the final object of desire (phalasya prapts) so far as its possibility (bhavamatrena) 1s indicated and the whole effort of the hero is directed to the final achievement Thus, bhavamātrena in the above definition seems to mean sattāmātrena 1e, in its mere existence So, it appears that according to Sagara Prapti-sambhava is the knowledge of the existence and as such, possibility of the future phala-prapt The main characteristic of this stage is thus a psychological forestalling of a chance of achieving the end, tantamount to the adop- tion of a plan, based on materials in hand which are regarded as conducive to success The Rasarnava-sudhakara says this in a more simple language 24 The Nataka-candrika tollows the Rasarnava-sudhakara and also quotes the Nātya sastra mn its support It also quotes the view of Dhanañjaya evidently to indicate its difference with that of the Nātya-sastra 25 Abhinavagupta takes the expression bhāvamatrena to mean the iemoval of obstacles and the gain of additional means Due to these two factors according to Abhinava- gupta, the possibility of specific achievement but not its certainty, comes to be known at this stage But to w hom to be known is not clearly stated though this Avastha has

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 21

been stated to be the third one of the hero 26 So far as the gain of means is concerned Abhinava's view here seems to be sımilar to that of Mātrgupta Mātrgupta, as quoted above,27 seems to mean that the possibility of Rāma's success in killing Rävana is born of his friendship with Sugrīva, 1e, the gain of means The Natya-darpana follows the line of Abhinavagupta 28 According to the Dasa-rūpaka also, this third stage s one of uncertainty regarding the final accomplishment due to the existence of both suitable means and apprehension of obstacles The Sahitya-darpana here quotes the Dasa-rūpaka ad verbum 29 It is interesting to note that all the authorities referred to above, try in their own way to suggest that in the third stage of development of the plot of a drama, the playwright suggests the final mark he wishes to hit Here he indicates the possibility of hero's success but not its certainty

NIYATĀ PHALAPRĀPTI NIYATĀPTI (Certainty of attainment)

The Nataka laksana offers two views so far as the descrip- tion of the Niyatapti is concerned The Natya sastra means that at this penultimate stage of the action, the sure success of the hero comes to be visualised an idea (bhavena) 30 It appears, that according to the Natya-sastra the playwright is to handle the plot in such a way that the audience in this stage can form an idea of the final achievement of the hero, which is yet to come and that the dramatic suspense is also maintained Abhinavagupta interprets the above description of the Niyatāpt mn his own way He takes the word bhavena to mean by main means According to his interpretation, at the stage of Niyatapti it becomes apparent that the hero's final achievement is assured by main means, through the

22 NATAKA LARA A RAINA KUSA L 1HT PERSPECTIVE

assistance of heiping mears and by the removal of obstacles Natya darpana follows this explaration of Abhinavaguptq 1 It may be pointed out that here also A bhinavagupta does not state specifi aily to whom it becomes apparent thit the means are sure to bring about the phala Sagara first explains the erm Nıyatāpt as myati mscita phala praptur-upasthitarretr yavat 32 He means to say that at this stage of Niyatapt the final attainment is to be shown as almost come alout As an iliustration he cites f-om the Veni sam ara where Pafcalaka iel>tes the message from Väsudeva to Yudhisthira asking the latter to make preparations for the coronation, as Bhima is sure to kill Duryodhana in the battle already in progress 3' The illustration shows that the success is about to come But even after this a tragic complication is created by the un- fo eseen entrance of Carvaka in this drama So, Nıyatāpti according to this explanation of Sagara seems to consist mainly in the removal of all known obstacles Sägara then gives the view of Aśmakutta which says ar ater-apacaya-parampara myati ea phalapr apti 34 Accordirg to this view successne losses sustamed by the enemy constitutes Niyatapti This seems to be what Mtrgupta means by myatā phalasampraptıh kumbhakarnādısa nksaye 5 Sāgaia Illustrates this Niyatäpti by a citation from the Act VI of the lost Rama-play Janahi rahava ol a forgotten dramatist Here, in the citation Laksmana appears to console Rama that there is no cause of his dejectiol as the more for- midable yourg enemies like Kuml hakarna Indrant and Kumbha have aleady been killed and there remains only the old Rävana 36 The illustration refers to the number of losses of Rävana, the enemy of the hero (Rāma) of the diama and this is the characteristic feature of Nıyatapti according to Mitrgupta and Aśmakutta as recorded by Sāgara The Dasa-rūpaka holds that Niyatāpti is the certainty of final achievement of the hero due to the want of obstacles 37 The Sah tya-darpana simply quotes this statement of the Dasa- rupaka and the Rasarnava-sudhakara also means the same

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 23

and is followed by the Nataka-Candrika38 This view seems to be somewhat similar to that of Abhinavagupta but not so expressive and clear

PHALAYOGA (Accomplishment, Const mmation)

Phalagama or Phalayoga is the last stage of the action eonsisting mainly of the accomplishment of the de ired object of the hero Fo'lowing the Natya sastra Sagara describes ph alavoga as abhıpıetam anurūpam kriya pholam vatro m pannam sa phalayogah 39 The illustration is cited from ihe Janal raghava In the Act I of the drama as quoted ana commented upon by Sigara, the lilling of Ravana and the rescue of sita have been referre to througn the dialogues of Sita and Privamvada In te last Act, say Sagara, both have been accomplished in arcordance with what was referred to before and as such, both are to be considered as Phalayoga 40 By anurūpa he seems to mean in accordance to what has been hinted at before It may be noted here that Matrgupta also as quoted above, says that the killing of Ravana by Rama is Phalayoga It appears then that according to Mätrgupta whom Sagara seems to have followed, Phalayoga is also marked by incident o1 incideuts Sāgara thus seems to maintain that here in the last stage the desired fruits of action (abhapretam krryaphalam) should be represented as attained (nispannam) and this should occur in such a way as to conform with the beginning According to Abhinavagupta, that state of the hero (sāvastā nayakasya) is phalayoja in which he achieves in full the suitable object desired by hım The Nātya darpana also says the same in different words 41 The Dasa "ipaka simply states that the phalayoga consists in the full and final attainment of the hero The Sahitya-darpana, Rasarnava sudhalara ard Nataka randnka just follow the Dasa- rūpaka 42

24 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

In this last stage of the action of a drama the play- wright unfolds the meaning of the beginning and successive stage In every serious Sanskrit drama worthy of its name, the dramatist conveys a noble idea and tries to set 'n ideil This idea acts like a guiding force throughout the plav The incidents are represented to occur as connected by a chain ,-the central idea In the Phalayoga this idea hnally unfolds its nature and establishes the ideal firmly Thus, from another point of view, the Phalayoga consists in the achievement of the dramatist's own desired object There has been a great confusion regarding the exact implication of the five Avasthas and the fact has been recorded by Saradatanaya who maintains that the Phala, so far as the construction of the plot of drama is concerned, 'Is connected with the desired end either of the poet or of the hero of the play concerned "43 It may be said that the Avasthas are connected with the hero and other dramatic personages objectively, but subjectly they are the concern of the poet and that the Natya sastra itself and Abhinavaguptabhārati appear to have supported this view 44 Dr V M Kulkarnı after a studv of the Avasth's, mainly in the line of Abhinava-bharat, arrives at the con- clusion that this division of the plot of a drama is a sub- jective analysıs of the theme inasmuch as, "The Avasthas are primarily the mental states or attitudes of the hero with reference to the end armed at by him "4 But from our above analysis it appears that no stage can strictly be called as a mental state of the hero It has been clearly shown that at least the first two stages may not refer necessarily to the mental attitudes of the hero according to Abhinavagupta and that no stage has been explained as mental state of the hero by Mätrgupta and Sagara and also that according to the later theorists the question of the final end aimed at by the hero may not arise at all in the first two stages Other authorities also hold almost the same opinion in the matter, as has been dıs- cussed in details The analysis is subjective no doubt,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 25

but that is from the standpoint of the playwright, as pointed out above Abhinavagupta, of couise, gives in some cases stress on mental states in explaining the Avasthas but not always of the hero himself Abhinava gupta's analysis of the Avasthas seems to be one from the standpoint of the dramatist materialised through the characters of the play concerned Sagara following Matrgupta mainly, analyses the plot purely from the standpoint of a spectator and his process may be called an objectve one He seems to have given stress on the fact that the Avasthas aie successive stages in the development of the action and each Avasthā 1s marked by an incident or incidents It has also been shown where he differs from other theorists and mamly from Abhinavagupta Among other writers, the authors of the Natya darpana follow closely the line of Abhinavagupta and Sāradātanaya in some places seems to adhere to the school of thought represented by Sagara as has been pointed out in respective occasions All the theorists, however, are of opinion that from the very beginning of the action the situations in a drama, should be depicted in such a way that in each case the preceding stage should naturally lead on to the succeeding one and ultimately the whole action should culminate to one point This leads us to conclude that the idea of a mono centric plot was firmly established in the realm of Indian dramaturgy

CHAPTER III

ARTHAPRAKRTI (Const t ent Elements of the Plot)

The analysis of tne plot into five Arthaprakrus dube a upon the formal division ot the plot of a dramia into princ.pal and secondary actions, known in Indian dramn- turgy as Adlı karıka and Piāsangika Vrttas The iturttu or the plot oi a drama consists of siluations some of which are directly connected with the main thread of the story and some indirectly From this pomt of view the plot has been analysed as consisting of two Parts Ādhıkarika and Presangika or Anusangika 1 The plot of a drama is an organc whole and the so culled parts die inseparably connected behaving like elements in the cins- titution of a living organism When they are artificially thought to Le separated, they lose their dramatic qualitv Moreover, the complex structuie of a drama dos not to easily yield to the above soit of formal division But the profession of a critic is sometimes like that of a student of surgery For the sake of the analysis of the plot sach a division is essential Adhıkarıka-vrtta or the principal action plays the leading part in the final attamment and is directly connected with the hero The Prasangika one (incidental or secondary action) on the other hand, is not directly related to the final achievement but is contributory to it2 The point has been made clear by an illustration in the Nātala-lakşana- ratna-losa It says that in a plot where the killing of Ravana ıs the Karya (Principul action), the slaying of Val by Rāma to win Sugriva's alliance is Ānusangıka ? Sagara mnforms us that according to some, the Anusangika is a contubutory story within the main story 4 Evidently, this is not the opinion of Sagara The secon- dary action is undoubtedly contributory to the principal action, but it m y nou always be a full fledged story (katha) It mav he a mere incident

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 27

There has been a long standing cortroversy regarding the significance of the term Anhapralrti According to Abhinavagupta the five Arthapral rtis are but means for the attainment of the fruit, 1e, the final end 5 This is also the opinion of Dhanika and Visvanitha simph repeats the statement of Dhanika The Natya-darpa a also maintains the same opinion 6 Rasar rara- udhahara takes the Aitnaprakrtis to mean parts of the story The view is rot a new one Abhinava- gupta rightly criticises the view on the ground that if Arthaprakrtis are taken to be the parts of the whole story, then the Sandhis also should pe iegarded as Arthaprakrtıs, which they are not 7 The standpoint of the Bharaprulasa is a bit difficult to ascertain due to the nature of the text It reads ar thaprak- tayah pañca kathā bhedasva (one manuscript reads tatha deha va ) hetavah| etc kathasarırasya hetavah parıkirttitah > The reading dehu ,e seems to be probable as the two statements become ide n.1 According to Satacatanava then Artha- prakrtis are elemer ts of the pkt Thev are the causes of the plot inimuch as they combnie to produce the plot This definition of the Bha pra is evidently taken from the Sngira Prakasa of Bhojaraja who also looks upon the Arthaprakrt , is elements of the plot 9 Leaving iside the standpoit of the Rasārnava-sudhakara we get two views regarding the neture of the Arthapra- krtr According to Abhinavagipta and others, as shown bofore, thev are, phala-hetuvah el prayojana siddhı-he tavah, and according to Bhoja and Saraditanaya they are, katha sarira hetavah It is interestiny to note that both these schools of thought accept the word pralil to mean hetu (causr), but according to the former artha means phala while according to the latter it denotes the kathasarira, the story gal t stys nātakiyavastunah pařca prakrtayah svabhāvāh bhavant " I is evident that the word artha here, has been taken to mean the plot of a drama, but only a synonym of the word Prck ti 1 ewven The werd prakrtt

28 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

or svabhäva here may however, be taken to mean consti- tuent elements or inherent properties as other meanings of these two words appear unsuitable in this context It thus appears that according to Sagara Arthaprakrts "are constituent elements of the plot This interpretation is also supported by his own statement that without these there can be no plot of a Nātaka 11 Bhojaraja and Sāradātanaya as discussed above, appear to have shared the view held by Sagara It may also be pointed out here that Rūpa- gosvamin, an ardent follower of the Rasārnava sudhakara, describes Arthaprakrtı as pañca vıdhyāt kathāyāstu prakrtıh pancadha smrta T2 It 1s, however, not clear that the word Prak'ti means here, but from the statement it appears that the Vaisnava savant believed in the five-fold division of the plot The whole statement may mean that as the plot has not got fivefold division so their causes or elements are also five In any case, it is a confusing description having its origin, perhaps, to the influence of the Rasarnava- eudhakara and the school of thought represented by the Nātaka laksana ratna kośa It may further be pointed out that the view held by Sagara and Bhoja regarding the Arthaprakrtis, appear to be an older one Abhinavagupta refers to it While com menting on strrtte yathavasthah13 of the Natya sastro he says artha ıtıurtte prakrtaya itr vaktavye arthagrahanam atıriktam syat ityarasthābhisca tulyatārarnanam varnanāmātram syādıtı kmanena 14 The above verse of the Natya sastra enjoins that as there are five Avasthas in the itwrtta, so there are five Artha prakrtis Abhinava-gupta seems to mean that artha in the word arthaprakrtayah of the verse, becomes superfluous if it is taken in the sense of itirtta which follows from the first halt of the verse Moreover, in that case Arthaprakrtis becore cquated with the Avasthas, as both of these groups signify nothing more than the nature of the plot, analysed in its diffcrent stages of development and as such, the description of the Arthaprakrtis becomes useless So far as the above verse of the Natya-sastra is concerned, the cogency of the first argu- ment of Abhinavagupta is unquestionable But the editor

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMA1URGY 20

informs us that the first half of the verse is not found in most of the manuscripts15 and Sagara also has not included the verse in his text The second argument cannot be directed against Sägara inasmuch as according to his standpoint Avasthas are five stages in the develop ment of the action and the Arthaprakrtis are but consti tuent elements and not divisions of the plot and as such, the two pentands cannot be equated Regarding the order of the Aithaprakrtis in [a drama, Sagara maintains silence The problem will be considered in details in due course 16 To sum up, Arthaprakrtıs have been taken at least in three different senses by different schools of thought According to the Abhinara bhāratr Dasarūpaka, Nātya- darpana and Sahitya-darpana, they are the means for the final attainment (phalahetavah) Sagara maintains that they are constituent elements of the plot and this view seems to be shared by Bhojadeva and Sāradatanaya The Rasarnava- sudhakara takes them as parts of the plot

BIJA (Germ)

Bija is the first of the Arthaprakrtis and as the very seeds of the dramatic action it comes first Bija accord- ing to Sāgara 1s nātakārthasya phalabhūtasya karanam I It has been shown that Arthaprakrtis according to Saraga are constituent elements of the plot and artha in this context has been taken to mean the plot itself, the action as a whole with phalayoga as its final stage Thus, Bija according to the Nataka-lakşana-ratna kosa is that constituent element of the theme which causes the action culminating into fruition Simply speaking, it is the cause of the final stage of the action It has also been shown that accord- ing to Mätrgupta and Sāgara each stage ( Avasthā ) Is marked by an event or events Germ of the final event is sown in the initial stage of the action The action practically begins with the sowing of the germ which

30 NATAK LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PLRSPECTIVE

sprouts and develops with the progress of success ve stages culminating into fruition, 1e, the final event, and as such, it is said to be pervad ng over the entire play Sagara in support of his view quotes the descriptio, of the Bija fiom the Naya sastra which says that tne Bija is ind.cated or sown (in the initial stage) slightly but spreads out in various ways and ends in fruition2 We Lave shown that there are three different views held by different schools of thought regarding the nature of the Arthapral rtis Bija being an Arthaprakrti, has also been taker in three dıfferent senses, viz, philahetu, natakryavasiu scabhava and kathabhaga But that it causs the action to culmiate mto fruition, is the oprnion of all 3 There are, however, subtle differences of opinions regarding the exact imrlication of fruition and this will be shown later The Naya-sastra ,ays, as shown above, that the Bija 1s to be indicated or sown slightly (at the initial stage) By slightly (kimcit stokam) Sagara means by such ways as slesa, chāya and upaksepa 4 Ślesa, says Sāgara, is dvyarthavacana, 1 e, conveying of double meanings, chaya is similarity of incidents (kathasamyam) and upalsepa means introduction of the plot (arthopasthapanam) 5 While discussing the Mukha-sandhı, Sāgara quotes a verse with similar import as above and attrbutes the same to Āchārya The text runs ācārya aha / yasmınnākhyāna byasya slesena cchāyayāpı vā / krıyate kırtonam sadbhıs tan ınukham parıkīrttitam /0 Of the three ways of sowing the Bija, as mentioned by Sagara above, two are included here in this verse, the Upaksepa is onntted By the cpithet acirya Sagara refers to Bharata invariablv It may be presumed that accoraing to the belief of Sagara the above verse belongs to the work of Bharata But no trace ot tis found in the present Natya sastra It is interesting to point out here that Tra- natha Tarkavacaspati in his commentary on the verse "satpakşa madhuragirah " of the Veni-samnāra quotes ślesacchāyopadešaišca samuddıstam vısarpatı | Yat phalodaya-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & LRAMATURGY 31

par antam tad byam tha kirttitam' // The said pandita then remarks ıti bharatokta phalodaya paryantam prabandhapıatı- padyam artham byarūnena slesena varnayatı' vpadesa.h in the first pada of the verse quoted by Tārānātha Tarka väcasnati, may be replaced by upal separh on the evidence of the Nataha lahsia ratna kosa Sigara also illustrates the indication of the Bija through slesa with the same verse from the Veni-samhära as above, where the Sūtra- dhära describes Autumn but the hidden meaning of which is the total destruction of the Kauravas & The verse, quoted and attributed to Bharata by Tiranātha Tarkava- caspati also is not found in the present Nātya sastra Of the above two verses, attributed to Bharata, the one found in the Nairha lalsana ratna-Fosa describes the Mukha andhi and the other, quoted by Torinitha Tarkavacspatı describes the Bija The former one mentions two ways of indicating the Bija while the latter points out three ways Sagara him elf also maintains that Bija can be indı- cated in the same three ways The different ways of indicating the Bija, referred to in the above two verses, have not been mentioned by any other known authority like Abhinavagupta, Dhanañjaya, Rīmacandra, Sāradātanaya, Viśvanātha etc But both the verses have been attributed to Bharata The only conclusion that can be derived from all these is that there were other versions of the Natya sastra which have not come down to us The view contained in the above two verses might have been current in the eastern part of India, piobably in Bengal, the homeland of Taranatha Tarkaväcaspati where it was extant even before a century, otherwise we could have found it in the work of any other authority, mentioned above Tāränātha might have collected the verse from some other commentary or from any other second-hand source But Sagara certainly utilised a copy of the Natya sastra which did not differ materially from its present version It seems probable that Sagara, also hailed from eastern India and that there was an eastern veision of the Natya sastra 9 Of course, a single instance cannot decide the issue Sagara illustrates the indication of Bija through similarity

32 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN 1HE PERSPECTIVE

of incidents (slesa) with a verse from the Janakı-raghara The verse concerned, seems to be the opening one of the drama10 and describes how Vişnu rescued his beloved Earth from the nether region by killing the demon who confined her there 11 Here a hint is given of the future events of killing of Rāvana by Räma and the rescue of Sita constituting, evidently, the Phalayoga of the drama As an illustration of the indication of the Bija through Upakşepa, the last verse ot the Prastāvana from the Kundamāla has been quoted Here the Sutradhara intro- duces directly the play with such words as, here Laksmand is taking Sita to the forest 12 It should be noted that in each of the above three cases the hint to the fintl object (phak) has been taken to be the indication of Bija Practically speaking, Bija does not differ materially from the Phala, the former is the unmanifested state and the latter is the fully manifested state of the same element Abhinavagupta rightly says that the fruit also may be said to be the germ phalam apıca bhavryadupāyāvınābhār ad brjam styucyate 13 It also appears that Sagara supports the indication of Bija in the Prastāvana Sagara offers another view according to which Bija is the means of achieving the desired end and in five successive Sandhis it should be shown as sown, sprouted, developed, sought for and yielding fruit T4 This evidently is the opinion of one of those theorists who take Arthaprakrti as phala hetu The metaphor of the growth and develop- ment of a tree from the seed, as used here, has also been utılısed ın the Bhāva prakāsana and Rasārnava sudhakara to explain the progress of the action from its initial stage to the conclusion 15 How to begin a drama is really a problem to the play- wright The genesis of action, called byanyasa in Sanskrit dramaturgy, should be appealmng and capable of leading the whole action to the desired end of the playwright, and this must appear as its logical consequence Much of the success of a drama depends upon the beginning The Bija should be so introduced that it appears in the circumstances natural

OF ANCIENT INLIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 33

and appropriate The Indian theorists took up the matter seriously and consequently we come across different sugges tions fegarding this important topic Mātrgupta, as quoted by Raghava-bhatta treats the introduction of Bija more elaborately and from different angles 16 According to Matrgupta the Bija may be introduced in different manners The playwright may begin his drama with a hint to the cause of the fruit only, or the fruit itself The play may also be started with the beginning of the endea- vour for the attainment of the final end The poet may first introduce both the frait and activity for its attainment or simply the activity, particulariy mentioned Matrguptd turther maintains that Phalabija is that which ends in fruition, the story (katha) is the Vastubya and the hero is the Arthabya This Plala-bya of Matrgupta is the Bija of the Natya sastra as explaned above But what is exactly meant erther by the Vastu-bija or Artha bija is not clear Vastu and Artha are generally used as synonyms in the texts of dramaturgy to mean rtsortla, the theme of the drama Moreover, Katha is said to be the Vastubija, while Katha and Vastu also denote the samething A subtle difference between Katha and Vastu may, however, be surmised, Kathā may be taken to mean simply the story and Vastu to mean the plot of the drama The story is the source (bya) of the plot in the sense that the latter is shaped out of the former Artha may also mean the Prayojana and the hero is the Artha-bija in the sense that his Prayojana is represented as served in a drama Now, in e ery Nätaka these three germs are certainly present The only significance that can be surmised in designating the above three as Bija is the fact that according to the nature of the plot any one of them may get promipence over the others and tha action may be started with any one of the three types of Bija There may be Nätaka where either the course of the action or the conclusions is not definitely known to the audience In such a case the story itself becomes more attractive The Kundamāla and the Uttara-rama-carita are the best examples of this type of Nataka In both the dramas the plot, though related to the Ramayana, is practically new 3

34 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

in the sence that neither the conclusion nor the course of the action is borrowed from the source and known to the audience In such a case the theme (vastu) itself receives better attention from the spectators and we know that the above two Natakas start with a critical situation of the main story borrowed from the source On the other hand, ın a Nātaka lıke Venī-samnāra, where there is no such striking innovation in the plot or deviation from the known conclusion of source, the hero becomes the main centre of attraction and the poet takes special care in his characterisation Such a Nataka may be started with the introduction of the hero on the stage Bhima in the Ven-samhara captures the audience at the very starting of the play 1" The drama Abhynana-sakuutala begins with the Artha-bija, 1e, with the entrance of the king as chasing a deer, but very soon the poet creates opportunity of sowing the Phalabija in the form of a benediction showered on the king by the ascetics 18 The drama Ratnāvali, practically begins with the Phalabija After the exit ot the Sutradh ira, the minıster Yaugandharayana enters and almost expresses the ultimate end to be achieved by the king The above three Bijas, as described by Mitrgupta must be there in every drama but any one ot them may get prominence due to the nature of the plot, as shown above Matrgupta's above observation thus seems to be based on a close study of the actual practice 1º Abhinavagupta also maintains that in different dramas Bija may be of different forms The sowing of the Bija may be done by indicating the means or the Phala or both, and the Phala may be of difterent vareties The Natya-darpana reiterates what has been said in the Abhinava- bkarati 25

Bındu (Sign of Continuity)

Săgara quotes the definition of Bindu from the aiya- Sastra1 and according to his interpretation Bindu is the cause of the continuity of the action upto the end when its mam purpose (pradhana prayojana) is interrupted by some subsidiary

OI ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 35

issues He illustrates Bindu with the verse "laksagrhanala rom the Ven-samha'a and comments that in the verse the succession of wrongs done by Duryodhana has been referred to and thus the continuity of action is maintained by showing the continuity of purpose, ie, the destruction of the Kauravas . Neither the illustration nor Sagara's comment on it is expres- sive enough to give an idea of the Bindu The illustration is practically the opening verse of the Vent-samhara and as such, the interruption of the main purpose by subsidiary issues giving scope for the Bindu does not arise here at all Sāradātanaya informs us that according to Kohala when the main purpose (pkala) of the Bija is disconnected by subsidiary purposes, Bindu is the cause of its continuation + This is also what Sāgara means Śaradātanaya agamn says lāksāgrhānaletyādı bendoh amānyalaksanam 5 Sāradātanaya here seems to be influenced by Sagara and offers a clue to the exposition of the latter's view on Bindu The verse lalsāgrhanala , indicates the main purpose of the drama and continuity of this purpose acts as a connecting link where there is a break in the main motıf So, this verse has been taken to be a samanyalaksana of the Bindu Like the Bija the Bindu mn this sense also continues throughout the play Sägara records two other views on Bindu, according to the first of which it is the basic factor of the theme of a drama which is voiced in every act with indignation and firmness tll the end of the action 6 The view is really significant, continuity is shown here "in the form of pivotal idea, recurr- ing in each Act "7 The pulling of Draupadi's hair has been voiced in every Act of the Veni-samhara with indignation, and the resolution of self-sacrifice by Jimūtavāhana has been mentioned with firmness in the Nagananda These are two well known instances of the reference to the main urge behind the action, in every Act Besides these two Sagara cites two other illustrations, one from the Raghavabhyudaya and other from the Jānakirāghava 8 Sāradātanaya holds also a sımilar view and states that Bindu may be due to mana or vypatt the former is expressed through anger and the latter through grief 9

36 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Another view on Bindu has been discussed in the form of an illustration by Sgara It is said that the representa- tion of successive slaughter of Marica, Khara with hts hosts Kumbhakarna and Indrajit is the Bindu n a theme depicting the killing of Rivana Similarly, the killing of Drona etc, is so in a play describing the destruction of the Kauravas To But the description of successive losses sustained by the enemy has been shown by Sagara to be the characteristic of Nıyatāptı according to Aśmakutta and this has been discussed before The view seems to imply that it is only in the stage of Nıyatāptı Bindu is the cause of conunuity (acch edakarana) Before this stage the certainty of the final achievement cannot be disclosed for the sake of dramatic suspense In Nıyatāpti a clear idea of the final achievement of the hero can be formed by the audience and as such a real connection is established between the past stages and the future Phalagama This view has not been referred to by any other authority and cannot be deduced from the text of Bharata Moreover, Bindu as a connecting element may be required to be employed n any stage of the action of a drama Abhinavagupta seems to maintain that Bindu is the hero's knowledge of the connecting link when in course of the action the employment of means for the attainment of the desired object becomes disconnected by something else 11 Arthapra- krtis are means according to Abhinavagupta and this knowledge of the connecting link also acts as means so far as the progress of the action is concerned According to this view the constant employment of means for the final attainment, 1 e, the gradual progress towards the final end, constitutes the main thread of the action This progress may be side-tracked due to the subsidiary elements of the story In such cases the playwright revives the main current of the story tactfully by representing the character aiming at the final achievement, as being conscious about the employment of means Abhinava- gupta further seems to mean that under different circumstances in different dramas, the hero himself or his associates or both may be represented as searching after the means for the final achievements and as such, the revival of the mam current of

OI ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 37

the theme (Bindu) may also be represented as due to the eftort of the hero or his associates or both It is also clearly stated by Abhinavagupta that both Bija and Bindu continue throughout the action and the difference between the two is that the scope of the latter originates after that of the former r From the above discussion it appears that there is no two opinions, so far as the basic function of the Bindu is concern- ed Sägara offers three views regarding the nature of the Bındu and the last two are referred to as those maintained by others The first view, evidentry his own, followe the line of Kohaia, as presented by Sāradātanaya This one is the generally accepted view on Bindu T3 The secord one is really sıgufi- cant, inasmuch as it shows that a single idea maintains the continuity throughout the action of a drama 14 Both the views have been recorded by Säraditanaya without any line of demarcation drawn between the two The third view, referred to by Sagara, has been shown to be an obsolete one Abhinavagupta elaborates the matter and shows how Bındu, as a means originates and maintains the continuity of the action He in so many words practically says the samething as said by Kohala and partally supports the second view offered in the Nāt aka-laksana-ratna kośa In another place Abhınava- gupta states that Bindu as the speech at the end of each Anka connects the preceding Anka with the succeeding one The Nātya darpaņa and Daša-rūpaka also maintain the same view I5 It is interesting to note that Katyavema in hıs commentary points out Bindu at the close of each Anka of the Malavikagnimitra 16 The view occurs in the discussion of Anka mn both Abhınava-bharati and Natya-darpana The close of an Anka may be taken to be an occasion of the Bındu but certainly not the only one, and the above two works also do not mean so Bindu may occur whenever there is a break in the mamn current of the story and at the close of an Anka it is to provide for a fresh impetus to the movement of the play The word Bindu, meaning a drop has been taken up in different works to elaborate the idea with the help of similes Sagara says that as drops of water dripping from th. sides of

38 NATAKA LAKANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTI VE

a thatch indicate the fall of water even when the ramn is over, so Bindu also indicates the purpose and maintains the continuity of the mamn action when it is interrupted by secondary issues 17 Abh'navagupta maintams that Bindu is like a drop of oil and the simile has been elaborated by Dhanika when he says that as a drop of oil spreads over the urface of water, Bindu also is a wide-spreading element T8 Ricipati quotes a verse with similar meaning and attributes the same to Bharata [9 The verse, however, is not found in the pi sent Natya-sastra The Rasarnava-sudhakara draws a very inturesting sımile on Bindu It says that as drops of water being sprinkled to the root of the tree produce fruit, so also the Bindu is indicated again and again 30 This simile suits better with the view that holds Bindu as a pivotal idea recurr ing in cach Act

Patākā (Episode)

It has been pointed out before that tae plot ot a drama is generally analysed in Indian dramaturgy as consisting of two Parts,-the Adhikarka and rhe Prasangika, ie, the principal and the secondary action This secondary action or the subsidiary portion of the plot (prasangika-orita) 1s of two kınds -the Patāka and Prakari The main difference between the two is that the duration of the former is longer than that of the latter 1 The naming of the subsidiary portion of the action of longer duration as Patäk i seems to have given rise to several conjectures regarding its exact significance Sagara says that as a banner on a pole placed in 1 certain place indicates the whole army, so also the Patki eucupying a certamn portion of the action exposes the entire play (nāțakailadesa-vartınī nātakam sakalam eva prakāsayatı) 2 Abhinavagupta says that the episode (Pataka) 15 called a Patākā by tradıtıon as it ıs useful 3 Dhanıka maintamns that as the banner is the symbol of the king so also the Patākā bears the special marks of the hero, so far as it

OT ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 39

helps hım Similar also seems to ibe the view of the Rasarnava-sudhakara The subtle differences of views regarding the nature of Patākā among above authorities are thus brought home to us According to Sagara, Arthaprakrtis are elements of the plot and as such Patāka being an element helps the delineation of the entire plot through its assistance to the main plot According to Abhınavagupta Patākā, being a means, as all Arthaprakrtis are, 1s uscful to the hero Dhanıka and Śingabhūpāla state this more explicitly Sagara quotes the definition of the Patāka directly from the Natya sastra and adds a gloss on the same He maintains that the existence of the Pataka is for the sake of another as it contributes to lead the main action to its goal The Pataki (vrtta) itself also assumes the character of the mamn action for the display of heroic quality As an ıllustration of Patākā-nāyaka Sāgara cites the character of Karna mn the Vemsamhara and comment that though this character has been introduced to help Duryo- dhana, yet itself displays its own valour and has been endowed with the qualities of a hero by the poet, It appears from the above that accordıng to Sāgara Patākā may be the helper of even the Pratinayaka, 1 e, the enemy of the Pradhānanāyaka Sagara further says that Pataka according to some, is the action of the Upanayaka and that it is sthulartha According to this view, adds Sagara, what is done by the Upanāyaka (secondary hero) coming forward (prādhānyam avalamvya) to help the main hero, constitutes Patāka, as the activities of Makaranda in the Malatimadhava comes to the help of Mādhava 7 The Bhava-prakasana and the Rasarnava-sudhakara explici- tly state that the upanāyala-vrttānta is the Patākā Sāradā- tanaya mamntains that the Patāka nayaka is almost equal to the mamn hero (tatsamāna) 8 Abhinavagupta cites the characters of Sugriva and Vibhīşaņa, as Patākānāyakas, Dhanıka maintains that characters like Sugriva etc. which help the hero are Patakas 9 Viśvanātha also holds the view

40 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

that the Pataka-nayaka should always be an ally of the main here 10 It is evident then that Sagara's view that an ally of the Pratınäyaka also may be taken to be the leader of the Patakā is opposed to the views of almost all the reputed authorities on dramaturgy It is easy to under tand the position of Abhinavagupta and others who take the Arthapra- krtis as means for the final achievement of the hero (prayr jana- siddhe-hetaoah or phala-h-tuJah) Either by the Pratinayaka or by his ally no prayojana sıddhe of the main hero is possible if not in an indirect way 1he Natya Sasta says that the Patakc ıs pradhānasyopakāraka aud pradhānavat Abhinavagupta and others take the word pradhana to mean the main hero, while Sägara seems to have taken the word as referring to the main plot itself In a drama where the main theme is related to a struggle between the hero and his enemy (nāyaka and pratinayaka), both of them should be considered as pradhanas Both the characters are equally important as the main plot rests on both In uch a drama an ally of the either may be called a Patika nayaka if oniy he satisfies other conditions In dramas, where there are no such struggle the ally of the hero may occupy the position of a Patak"-nayaka if o'herwise surtable This seems to be the view of Sagara The drama Vent samhāra describes the struggle between Bhima and Duryodhana mainly Karna an ally of the latter whose ortta bears the marks of the pradhana, may rightly be called a Patāka- na yaka from the above point of view The view that the upanāyaka-carta is the Patākā is sthulārtha varnana accordng to Sägara Here he wams to mean that generally the Upanāyaka, who 1s an ally of the hero, is considered to be a Patākā nāyaka but not everywhere The vrtia of the Pratınayaka hımself mn dramas like the Veni-fambara cannot be called a Patäka a. he also aspires ior the achievement and his struggle agamst the main hero constitutes the main plot, in short his ertta according to Sgara is also pradhāna Regarding the problem whether a Patakā-nayaka may be depicted as gaining some end or not, Sagara maintains

42 NATAKA LAKSAVA AAINA KOSA IN 1HC PERSPECTIVE

exacthy Visvanatha means here is not clear The whole may be tarei tr mean that the Pataka nayaka should not have any ein"' Phalt isvarina phalontara) whatever the Pataka- najal cans is ht nuidertal and uitimately comes to the hulp of the hero The rapualabha of S igriva is not a separ, e Phyla labha but a means through which the hero himself gets an ally This mitra lbha of the hero i. to be showit diest in he Vimarsa-sandh Reyarding the extent ot Patala's duration in a arama the Mohrt sn r says agarbhad avimarsad va pataka vini- vartate t 'ccording to Abhinavagupta the verse enjoms that trt acmievemen of the desired ohject of the Pataka- nayiba is te be depicted either in the Pratimukha or mn the Gubha Sinom Atter that, says Abhinavagupta, the Pat" niyaka can persist being engaged in the assistance of the principal hero, and in that case the designation Patalt mav be applied, not of course in the primary sense of the teim but simply because it was termed so before Moreover the exisience of the Pataka in the Vimarsa-sardhi is almost essential according to Abhinava- gupta !" Then it comes that according to Abhinavagupta the Pataka may eais+ upto the last Sandhi but the achieve- ment of the Patakā-nayaka should be depicted before the Vimarsa sandhı Viśvanātha also informs us that this is the opinion of Abhinavagupta 18 The Narya-darpana makes this pomnt more clear It has got no objection to take the an both in the sense of abhividhi and maryada Accord ing to the Natya-darpana thus, the achievement of the Patiki-nayaka may be depicted in any one of the first four Sandhıs The Nātya-darpana further states that the Patāka as means, helps the main action and as such the achieve- ment of the desired object of the Pataka-nāyaka cannot be depicted in the Nirvahana Sandhi where the final attain- ment of the main hero is to be shown T9 This seems to be the most reasonable view The Dasa-rūpaka 1s silent regarding the duraton of the Pataka, so also the position of the Rasarava-sudhakara and the Nataka-candrska

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & T RAMATLIGY 43

Regarding the extent of Pataka's duration Sagara romarl: sa ca garbhe avamarse cu nıvartata iti nātyan- tikam etad avagantavyam 20 Th's refers to the precept "agarbhad avimarsad " of the Naida-sactra as quoted above Sagara takes the precept to allude to the subsidiary action and not to the achievement of its hero as taken by Abhinavagupte and Ramacanara-Cunacandra He mears to to say that the operation of the Pataka need not be necessarily con pleted in the Cubha or Vimarsa Sandht, ie, it may continue further 21 In conclusion it may be pointed out that any achzeve- ment of the desired object by a Pataka-hero is purely incidental The presence of more tlon one motif in a drama has never been favoured mn Iudia either in practice or mn theory There are many Pataka-navakas having no personal interest in Sanskrit Plays In case of military alliance the dramatists generally depict some son of wartha-labha of the Pataka-niyaka through the coopertion of the mamn hero This is done simply to convince the audience that the alliance between the Patāka-nayaka and the mam hero is strong enough to withstand the trial of adversity Vibhīsana and Sugrīva, two well known Patākā-nāyakas of Rama-plays are depicted as assisting Rama whole-heartedly being highly grateful by latter s co-operation in their own cause The gain of Makaranda in the Malati-Madhava has been shown just to heighten the effect of the drama by introducing parallelism The gaın of the Patakā nāyaka is to be depicted logically betore or in the Vimarsa-sandhi because for the sake of vinipāta pratilara , the help of the Patākā-nāyaka is essential here as ștated by Abhinavagupta Moreover, there are manv Pat ka-nival as lıke the Vidūsakas or ministers in Sanskrt dramas, in whose cases no achieve- ment is depicted Thus the achievement of the Patāka- näyaka is purely an incidental affair and Sagara seems to have found no necessity of mentioning this point particularly The Natya sāstra also does not state anything explcitly regarding the matter

44 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Pranari (Incident)

Sägara quotes the definition of Prakari from the Nafa- sastra and his gloss on the samel means that the Prakari should have no uninterrupted development (nairantaryena Pravartanam tena vihinam), and that its necessity is for the sake of other's interest That the Prakari serves other s interest only comes from its derivative meaning according to Abhinavagupta 2 The duration of the Prakari is also very short These are the two characteristics w hich differentiate it from Pataka The Natya-darpana maintains that the Prakari is not essent al like the Patākā in a diama' But it will be shown that even the Patāka is not masyambhau in every drama or even every Nataka From Dhanañjaya's defnntion of tie Prasangıka-vrtta as given before, it appears that like PatL" the Prakari may have its sartha a view which is suppoited by none The general opin.on regarding the Pr .kari is that it is almost an interesting casual incident scunpving a small portion of the whole action # Sagara upholds the utility oi Piakari as a decorat.ve device of the plot and says that like a floral design (puspa prakaru it produces beauty 5 The Bhava prakasana seems to have taken up this idea of floral decoration but have gone a step further It says that as flowers and aksatas are for the beauty of the religious rites so also the description of the Prakarı in a composition 6 As an example of the Prakarı Sigara cites the incident of Ravana and Jatayus from the Kulapatyank The same illustration has also been cited by Saradātanaya and Viśvanātha ? The N; ya de rpana too, maintains that in Räma- plays the characier of Jatiyus is Prakari 8 Vasudeva in the Veni-samhara ıs a Prakarī-nāyaka accordıng to Abhmave- gupta 9

Kärya (Denouement, Object, Purpose to be achieved)

Every Sanskrit drama, as a rule, ends in some sort of achievement of the hero which is called phala-yoga In our

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 45

previous discussion on the fifth Avastha, it has been shown that the dramatist also aspires tor the attainment of the some end Kärya may be described as the end both on the part of the principal hero of the drama and the drama- tist hımself Sagara takes Kārya in the sense of the main purpose to be served mn a drama 1e, the main undertaking for which the action begins and when it is accomplished, the drama ends Now it is generally found that many purposes are served at the conclusion of the action For example, the death of Rāvana in a Rama-play may serve several pur- poses like the recovery of Sita, the killing of an enemy the gods and country alike, the victory of Dharma etc But the poet aims at one as the main and there may be subsidıary purposes which enrich the mam purpose, says Sāgara 1 Thus Kārya according to Sāgara is the main pur- pose for the accomplishment of which the action begins and ends when it is finally accomplished At the conclusion the true nature of the Karya is revealed to the audience In support of his view Sagarı quotes from the Nātya- sästra, and as a gloss adds that there are two Karyas, one ıs Adhıkārika and the other is Prasangika 2 Here Karya seems to be correlated with the iortta which has got two elements Adhıkarıka and Prasangika 3 Sagara's treatment of the matter here is a bit of confused nature the word Karya has been used here loosely According to Sagara Arthaprakrtıs are elements of the plot, as dis- cussed above, Karya being an element cannot be taken to be the entire plot Perhaps Sagara means to say here that Karya as an Arthaprakrti is the purpose related to the Ädhıkārıkavrtta, otherwise the entire stevrtta is Kärya 1e, for some purpose The main purpose mn a drama is represented as served with the hinal achievement of the mam hero The mamn hero is one, says Sägara who brings the representation of the drama invested with Bija, Bindu etc, to a close and by whom everything is represented as completed He also enjoys, adds Sāgara, the fruit (phala) in the form of Dharma (doing good to others), Kama

46 NTAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTI/CI

( winning the desired woman) and Artha (attamment of something rare) 4 Thus a subtle difference between the Kirya and Pnala has been drawn by Sagara It has been shown betore tha+ Abhinavagupta takes the Arthaprakrtıs as means So, Kārya as an Arthaprakrti is definitely means according to Abhinavagupta What can be made out of the confused text of the Abhim e- bharate 1s this In the achievement of the hero various means in the form of resources, both physical and mental, and therr proper employment are represented as adopted by the Pradhāna-nāyaka, Patīkānāyaka and Prakarī-nīyaka (pra- dhāna-nāyaka patāl anayala-prakarı nayaharscetana-rūpath) The Bija is the chief of all these means (pradhanasya bijt- khyopayasya) and all other means which contribute to the final fruition of the Bija, constitute what is meant by Karva" The Natya darpanc follows this opinion of Abhinavagupta "But this meaning of Kiryd' points out Dr kulkarnı, is rather unusual and even the Abhinava-bharat and the Natya darpana not to speak of-other theorists, take the term Karya to mean Phala or Sidhya in the treatment of Avasthis and Sandhyingas 7 It is evident that there is a confusion regarding the exact implication of the Karya Abhinavagupta takes all the Arthaprakrtis as means (phalahetanak), but Kirya has been taken in several places ot the Abhinava-bharatr, to mean Phala Now the Phala and Phala-hetu cannot be the samething The position of the Natya darpana also is similar to that ot the Abhrnarugupt. Dhanañjaya and Dhanıka frankly asserts tnat Kirya 19 nothing but the Phala which is Trivarga in the form of Dharmarthakama 8 Here also the inconsistency is apparent, as according to the Dasarūpala also the Arthaprakrtis are means. Rasārnava-sudhākara, and Nāala-candrıkā, also take the word Kärya to mean Phala and according to the former the Phala is Trivarga 9 According to the Rasarnava-Sudha- kara the Arthaprakrtis are parts of the story and how part of the story can be regarded as the Phala is not known to us The Bhava-prakasana takes Silhya, Karya and Phala

ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 47

in the same sense and this Phala is Trivarga 10 Śarada- tanaya mitigates the confusion as he, following Sagara, takes the Arthaprakrtis as elements of the plot (katha 'arira hetavah) Dr Kulkarn' points out that Prof H K Dhruva's attempt to draw a distinction between Karya, the object of the play, and Kärya the Arthaprakrti is baseless 11 According to Dr Kalkarnı "Karya is the main drive for the hero's action and as such i means to the end" The said scholar further observes, "The Sahitya darpana gives slaying of Rävana as an example of the Kärva Taking a clue from it one may say that wth the killing of Ravaņa, Sita's recovery is as good as achieved which 19 the fruition of the Bija Thus Karva mav be taken as the event immediately antecedent to the final fruition (Phalā gama)" 12 It may be pointed out in favour of Abhinava gupta that there is no material difference between the means and the Phala Bija the chief of the means trans forms mnto Phala with the assistance of other means, and Karya is nothing but this transformation and as such it is a hetu As a resume of the above it may be said that in Indian dramaturgy there are as good as three different schools of thought regarding the exact implication of the term Arthaprakrtı which has already been discussed above That the Pataka and Prakari constitute what is called the Änusangika or Prāsangika vrtta is accepted by all including the Natya sastra Curiously enough the Bhāva-prakasana ıncludes the Patakasthanakas with Patāka and Prakari as constituting the Prasangika-vrtta But this theory of Sara- dātanaya is supported by none Sagara concludes his discussion on the Arthaprakrtis with the remark that sometimes one of these five may get prominence and the others may become subordinate 13 In his support he quotes from the Nātya sāstra a verse which means that anyone of these five Arthaprakrtis mav get prommence in cases where some special purpose is served by it and is deemed more useful, the others becom-

48 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

ing subordinate 14 Abhinavagupta in his commentary on the same verse remarks that unlıke the five Kāryāvasthas which are equally essential in every drama, any Arthapra- krtı may become main when it serves the purpose of the hero best, others though they may exist become as non- existent But Bija, Bindu and Kārva are essential in every case though there may be prominence of the one over the other 15 In short, the prominence of particular Artha- prakrtı in a drama depends, according to Abhinavagupta upon its usefulness in serving the interest of the mamn hero Sagara 1s silent about the problem whether the Patākā or Prkari or the both may be absent in a plot The Natya-darpana clearly states that if not required by the mam hero the Patka and Prakari may be omitted altogether Where the hero does not require any help then only the three means Bija, Bindu and Kärya may serve the purpose Bija and Bindu are considered to be mukhya by the Nätya- darpana, as they pervade the entire plot Among the rest the Kärya may be regarded as more prominent. Rama- chandra refers to his drama Satyahariścandra, where there is no Prasangika-vrtta 16 According to the Rasārnava-sudhakara the Patāka and Brakari are always subsidiary and even Bija etc, in some places may come under the subsidiary division, the axga 17 But this is undoubtedly a view finding support from none

CHAPTER IV

SANDHIS

The division of the plot into Sandhis and Sandhyangas is the most elaborate system of anylysis of the action of a drama The Nātya-sāstra gives no general definition of the Sandhis which, however, receives special care in the hands of later authorities Sagara defines Sandhi as the joining together of different purposes of the same plot 1 The plot in its development serves different subsidiary pur- poses at different stages Sandhis join them all and drect the whole towards the final end To make this position more clear Sägara refers to the view of an anonymous authority which says that these (divisions) are called Sandhis as the purposes are joined together by them 2 Abhinavagupta seems to mean by Sandhı, the joining together of the differcnt parts or phases (avayava) of the mamn purpose (artha) in its progress towards being finally served and as such, each part or phase 18 called a Sandhi ' The Nat ya-darpana states this more directly as sanddhayo mukhya vrttamsah In their exposition of this definition the authors follow Abhinavagupta closely 4 The view that the Sandhi is the connection of parts of the plot of a drama, is accepted by the Dasa rūpaka also According to the Dasa-rūpaka, as interpreted by Dhanıka the different parts of a dramatic plot having their secondary ends, are linked together as they all contribute towards the same end, evidently the final one and this is Sandh 5 This view may be said to be a development of the one held by Abhinavagupta inasmuch as, how the connection is established has been stated here The Sahtya darpana simply repeats the statements of Dhanañjaya and Dhanıka, while the Bhāva prakasana gives an elaborate and versified form of the same 6 Commentators like Raghava-bhatta and Dhuņdirāja follow the Dasa rūpaka 7 The Dasa-rūpaka in

4

50 NATAKA LAKSAN A-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

another place uses the word Sandhi to mean a section of the plot of a drama s This also is the view of Bhoja 9 According to the Rasarnava-sudhakara the Sandhi is the connection of subsidiary ends (avāntarārtha-sambandha) for the sake of the finhl end (mukha prayojanavasat) in the matter of linkıng together of different parts or sections of the story (kathanganam samanvaye) TO It is interesting to note here that the Rasarnava-s idhahara takes up the views of the Nātaka laksana-ratna-kosa and Dasa rūpaka both, and gives an original explanation of the Sandhi A further probe into the explanations given above dis- closes a clear development of the idea behind the implica- tion of the word Sandhi It appears that at first it was taken to be a connection of subsidiary purposes in the development of the dramatic plot by some authorities as stated in the Nataha laksana-ratna-kosa, while others took it to be a linking up of the different parts or sections of the story and the Abhinava-bharah and Natya-darpana followed this view The latter idea ie, the view followed by Abhı- navagupta was further developed by Dhananjaya and Dha nika The Rasarnava-sudhakara closely tollowed by the Nātala- candrika evidently took up both the original views and made a successful attempt to give a fuller definition of the Sandhı Thus, with the story-element in mind, Abhinava gupta and Rämachandra-Gunacandra analyse the plot into five Sandhıs, Sägara does the same keeping the different purposes served in different parts of the story before his mnd's eye The Dasa-rüpaka elaborates the former view and the Rasar- nava-sudhakara accepts the both and arrives at a synthesis The word 'juncture' or 'critical juncture', is generally used as an English equivalent of Sandhı But Sandhis are not merely joining points The word Sandhi in Sanskrit drama- turgy denotes both linking up of the parts, and also the parts themselves The idea of the so called three unities is conspicuous by its absence in Indian dramatic tradition On the other hand special stress is given on the unity of impression both in theory and in practice The plot of a drama

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURQW 51

according to Indian theorists should have a ste AL ABAD.

from the beginning to the denouement through the Avas- *has The five Arthaprakrtis, as has alreadv been shown, go on moulding the plot in its elaborâtron frem the genesis and finally in its conclusion to a particular achievement In this progress of the plot, maintain Indian theorists, special care is to be taken so that the unity of impression is maintained throughout The conclusion should be depicted as following naturally from the begmnning, Viśa- khädatta expresses this idea in a dramatic way through the dialogue of a mınor character, Samıdharthaka , tā kim mmitt- tam kukavı-kida nadnassa na annam muhe annam nirwahane 11 The different subsidary episodes and incidents, as well as the different phases of the main story should all be deli- nated to yield a single and logical conclusion and nowhere the chief interest should be shifted from the central theme or lost sight of It follows from what little has been said about the Sandhis above, that the theory of the structural analysis of a dramatic plot into Sandhis evolved out in Indian dramaturgy mn pursuance of the above ideal of unity The five Sandhıs are Mukha, Pratımukha, Garbha, Vımarsa (Avamarśa, Āmarša) Upasamhrtı or Nirvahana and they should occur in a drama in the same order in which they are enumerated I2 It is a matter of common sense that all the five Sandhis cannot occur mn any and every type of drama (rūpaka) As a matter of rule, says Sagara, a Nataka should con- tain five Sandhis He quotes here a verse from tne Natya- Sastra, which means that as a rule a drama should contain five Sandhis but due to some reasons it may contain less The reason according to Sagara is the brevity of the subject matter 13 In the matter of elision of a Sandhi or Sandhis the Nat ya sastra, as quoted in the Nātaka lal sana vatna kosa, enforces a rule When only one Sandhi is to be omitted the fourth one (Vimarsa) gets the preference In the case of elision of two Sandhis, the third and the fourth (Garbha and Vimarsa), in that of three the second, third and the fourth (Pratımukha, Garbha, Vimarsa) are elided 17 It 1s

52 NATAKA.LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

evident that the first and the last (Mukha and Nirvahana) Sandhis cannot be omitted The theory is based on sound practical reason Every plot, it it is to be treated „in a drama, must have a beginning and an end 15 Elabora- tion, however, may be curtailed If, however, says Sägara, the subordinate theme serving the interest of the principal one is extensive enough then the five Sandhis can be delineated and in that case the above rule regarding the elision of Sandhi or Sandhis should not be taken as necessary 16 Sāgara here seems to be of opimion that the number of Sandhis in a drama depends upon the extent of the Prasangika-vrtta, it may be hve or less according as the subsidiary poition of the plot is short or extensive In support of this view Sāgara quotes from the Nātya-sāstra prasangike parārthatvān-na tvesa niyamo bhavet / yad vrttam tu bhavet kincit tadyojyam avirodhatah //17 esa miyamy in the verse has evidently been taken by Sagara to refet to the myama of the elision of Sandhi or Sandhis as presented in the verse immediately preceding this one (GOS XIX 18) in the Natya-sastra Thus the first half of the above verse, according to the Nātaka-laksana- ratna-kosa means, that the rule regarding the elision of Sandhi does not apply to the subordinate plot as it exists for the main plot The second half of the verse has been taken to mean that the whole action should be de- picted in compatibility with the Sandhis 18 It thus appears that according to Sagara the brevity of the subject matter is the reason behind the elision of Sandhi or Sandhis and that the rule of the Natya-sastra regarding the omission of Sandhi is not applicable in the delmneation of subordinate plot If the subordinate plot is extensive enough, five Sandhis may be used mn a drama and the whole action should be depicted in conformity with the Sandhis The whole thing as presented by Sagara, becomes unintelligible If the rule regarding the elision of Sandhi is not applicable mn the cases of delmeation of the subordinate plot, how then may its extent be regarded as the factor for the use of all the Sandhis.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 53

The above verse of the Natya-sastra has evidently been misconstrued in the Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kosa The verse does not refer to the rule regarding the elision of Sandhi, as taken by Sāgara Abhinavagupta rightly takes the verse to refer to the general principle (NS GOS XIX 17) that as a rule a drama should contai five Sandhis According to Abhinavagupta the verse means that in the delineation of the subordinate plot the said rule (1e, drama should contain five Sandhis) is not applicable and the subordinate plot should not be incompatibl with the main plot 19 Regard- ing the elision of one or more Sandhis Abhinavagupta refers to the view of his preceptor according to which the stwrtta should alwavs be consisting of fve Sandhis, as no action can be completed without the five Avasthas, and Sanohis are correlated with the Avasthas Thus, as per rule, the plot or a drama according to Abhinavagupta, consists of five Sandhis but due to some reasons, 1 e , when the plo. is not Pu nanga, it may contain less 20 Where the main plot is extensive enough, five Sandhis may be used 71 According to the Vātya-sāstra, the Nātaka and Prakarana are regarded as Pūrnangarūpaka and these two types con tain all the five Sandhis The Vimarsa sandhi is absent in the Dima and Samavakara while in the Vyayoga and Īhämrga, Garbha and Vimarsa both are omitted The Prahasana, Vithi Anka and the Bhana contain only two Sandhis, the Mulha and Nirvahana the Pratimukha, Garbha and Vimarśa do not occu" in these types of rūpakas 22 As a rèsumè of the above discussion it may be said that every dramatic plot should contain at least two Sandhis, Mukha and Nirvahana, there are exceptions regarding the use of other three Sandhis in dramas Sagara takes the Sandhis as connecting different purposes served at different stages in the progress of the action as a whole and he opines that the existence of one or two or of all the three Sandhis other than the Mukha and Nirvahana, depend upon the extent of the subsidiary episodes whose purposes are served before the conclusion The theory, as has been shone

54 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

cannot be deduced from the verse, prasangike pararthatvāt etc, of Nātya-sastra Abhinavagupta and others maintain that the Sandhis connect the different parts of the main plot and the extent of which, evidently, determines the number of Sandhıs in a particular drama The Nātya-sāstra enjoms definite rules regarding the omission of the three Sandhis, Pratmukha, Garbha and Vimarśa Some modern critics ,of Sanskrit drama maintam a sceptic attitude about the Sandhis Prof Jagirdar rightly observes that the Sandhis are ways of knitting the incidents of a drama but his theory of parallelism between the five Sandhis and five members of a syllogism in Indian logic23 cannot be accepted and the theory has been ably refuted by Dr Kulkarnı 24 Dr Kulkarnı further and rightly asserts that neither the five Sandhis are concerved in analogy to the five parts of the human body nor their names owe their origin to those parts of the body, as suggested by Dr Pandey 25 Keith remarks, "The classification of elements of the plot is perhaps superfluous besides the junctures" 26 If the Arthaprakrtis are taken as five sections of the plot, as done by the Rasārnava-suahakura the statement is justi fied But they are accepted as elements of the plot by Keith himself 27 How these elements can be considered as superfluous beside the Sandhis is unintelligible to us

View of Matrgupta on Sandhis

Regarding the treatment of Sandhis by Matrgupta, Dr Raghavan observes "In lines 459 534 the NLRK, enables us to appreciate the independence of and resource with which Mätrgupta discussed the fundamental concept of the five Ignoring the sixty-four elements or limbs of the five juncture the Sandhyangas, Mätrgupta gave two kinds of analysis of the five Sandhis, one somewhat detailed and the other concise Though brief when compared with the Sandhyanga method of treatment, the first exposition analysed each Sandhi into three phases, giving a crucial place to the Artha-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 55

prakrtı and the Avastha In a still more concise analysis, in a single verse, he showed that the action in a play, like all action, fell into five phases agent, means, end, achieve- ment, and enjovment 1 It is evident from this remark of Dr Raghavan that the view of Matrgupta is of special interest and deserves special attention An exposition of the text of the Vataka-laksana-ratna- kosa containing Matrgupta's view and Sagara's gloss on it, 1s difficult due to the random use of dandas (manv of which have been sugyested to be removed by Dr Raghavan) and underuning, M Dillon informs us that the technical term in the manuscript of the Nataka laksana ralna kośa marked red, have been underlined by him - But in this portion of the text some underlined words do not appear to be technical terms and this will be shown in proper places The text of Mätrgupta as quoted in the Nātaka-laksana- ratna kosa here, is also found in the Sangita-damadara, of Subhankara, a theorist from Bengal, who perhaps, lived in the 15th Century AD > Subhankara's reading differs very little from that of Sāgara. Matrgupta, as it appears from the Nataka-laksana-ratna kosa describes each Sandhi as having three aspects and in most cases the aspects themselves have also been described but whether anv order among them is intended to or not, is not clear The Mukha sandhi has been defined as prārthanāvısayautsuk yam ārambho hetucintanam / byam sādhyopagamanam mukha sandhırıtı trayam //4 In the gloss of Sagara, on this verse, three words Ärambha, Hetucmtana and Bija are underlined5 and as such can be accepted as names of three aspects of the Mukha- Sandhı According to Dr Raghavan, however, the names of the aspects are Prarthana, Ärambha and Bija 6 The text is amendable to both the mnterpretation But in every case the names of the aspects are given in Sagara's gloss in the first case-ending If Dr Raghavan's suggestion is accepted the name Prarthana becomes missing On the other hand, an attempt of defining the aspects, though not of all, has been made in the quoted portion of Mätrgupta's text If

56 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PRESPECTIVE

Ärambha is taken as the name of an aspect, the aspect Hetucintana remains undefined From the text of Sagara, however, Arambha instead of Prarthana appeais to be the name of the aspect It is better to interpret the text as it 1s, of course if there arises no incongruity in doing so The above verse of Mätrgupta means that Arambha, 1 e the yearning for the desired object (Prarthana-visayautsukyam) the reflection upon the cause and the germ, (Bija) 1e, the indication of the end, are the three aspects of the Mukha- sandhi 7 The Act I of the Nataka Māya-madalasa has been cited as an illustration of the Mukhasandhı Sāgara remarks that here Arambha is the eagerness of the king Kuvalayiśva to go to the penance grove in response to the entreatv of the sage Galava, wishing the death of 'Talaretu Then a verse is quoted in which the sage says that they themselves are capable of restraining the demon, but this is the duty of the king, so, the king should accompany him Here, com ments Sägara, due to the reference of 'rajadharma the king reflects on the cause of his torest sojourn and thinks that one sixth of the merit of the sacnfice performed, will be accrued to him, and this is Hetucintana Then Sagara quotes another verse in which the abduction of Madālasa has been referred to According to Sagala, the recovery of Madā- lasã is the fruit, the germ (Bija) of which is sown here by 'the referunce of Madālasa's abduction by Tālaketu 8 Thus, according to Matrgupta, eagerness for a move, reflection on the cause of the move and an indication of the final end, are the three aspects of the Mukha sandhi From the illus- trations, cited by Sägara above, it appears that these three phases may occur in the order in which they arc enume- rated It is interesting to note here that there is no reference to Rasa in Matrgupta's description of the Mukha-sandhi The text, as we have it, in the Nātaka-laksana ratna kosa, is sılent whether the genesis of the plot has got any connection with the Rasa or its origination and development

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGI 57

Pratımukha-sandh1

The definition of the Pratimukha-sandhi has been given as lābhah sādhana-sampattıh prasarah prasrtā krıyā / bınduh sādhana sambandhah ıtı pratımukhe trayam //9 In Sägara's gloss on this verse the underlined words are sadhana-sampatts, prasara and sadhana-sambandha But, Lābha, Prasara and Bindu appear as technical terms here 10 Lābha (gain) is sadhana-sampatts which according to Sagara, consists in the acquisition of the desired object through means This may be called the initial success In the second Act of the said drama, relates Sagara, the king kills Tālaketu with an arrow given by the sage, and marries Madālasa This is gain' through means (sadhana here is the arrow) 11 Prasara corsists in the extension of the action (prasıtā- kriya) which has been illustrated where Patilaketu, the brother of Tālaketu, prevents Madālasā from going The act of hostility is thus further extended after the initial success 12 Bindu has been described by Mātrgupta as sadhanasambandka 1e, relation or association with the means Bindu, main- tains Sagara, is illustrated in the same Act wheie Pātālaketu renews the act of hostility by making a fresh attempt in abducting Madalasa as is expressed in the speech of Madā- lasa, ajjautta paritayahe etc, and this is sadnana sambandha as Kuvalayāśva takes up bow and a.row imediately, as it 1s expressed in his speech 1 1hus according to Sägara the entire Act II of the drama Mayamadālasa is the second Sandhi which consists of initial succes., turther extension of the action and a fresh employment of mcans The aspects here explamn a gradual development of action After the initial success of the hero, the playwright extends the action by introducing iresh obstacles and depicting the hero as conscious about the employment of new means which is Bındu It may be pointed out here that Abhinavagupta also interprets Bindu as hero's knowledge of the connecting lmnk consisting in the employment of means 14

58 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Garbha-sandh1

The Garbla-sandhı has been described by Matrgupti as sumbhogo yogyatā tatra udbhedah sıddhıdarsanam / mıtra sampat patāketi trayam garbhe prakırttitam //15 In the gloss of Sāgara on this verse, there are as mar' 1s five underlined words all of which cannot be accepted as technical terms as both Matrgupta and Sāgarn explicitly state that the Garbha-sandhi also consists of three phases 16 Moreover, Sāgara does not use the word patāka at all in his gloss, though it is a common technical term in drama- turgy Here Mitra sampat is the technical term intended for perhaps, just to avoid a confusion as, pataka is not used here in the sense of, yapiprasangiha ortia, in which it 1s generally used The Act III ot the same drama Māyēmadālaa, accord- ing to Sagara constitutes the Garbha sandhi Sambhoga seems to be the name of the first aspect which is but only yogyata tatra, Sambhoga here in this Sandhi is to be taken in the sense of suitability of enjoyment and not in the sense of actual enjoyment, 1e, a situation where enjovment is possible Thus the first aspect of the Garbha-sandhi may be taken as the prospect of enjoyment This is illustrated in a verse where the hero expresses his desire for amorous play Udbheda has been described by Sägara as the happening of unwished for separation and this is illustrated in the speech of Madalasa where she says, "My right eye throbs "f7 The throbbing ot the right eye of a woman is an evil omen The addhi darsana, says Sagara, is the counteraction of that evil omen, as in the speech of the king "May the thro- bbing be for good omen "18 Udbheda and Sıddhidarsana combine to make the second aspect It appears that this aspect signifies the foreshadowing of a fresh mishap and its counteraction The third aspect is Mitrasampat which has been termed as Pataka This is illustrated in the friendly behaviour of the Fire in not burning Madālasa who fell into it by the black magic of Kutilaka Thus the third Sandhi

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURY 59

according to Mätrgupta consists of the prospect of enjoy- ment, fresh chance of mishap and its counteraction and the making of friends All these have been shown as occurring in the above order in the drama

Vimarśa-sandhı

Vımarsa has been described as nāsah kārana vardhuryam Iimcr-cchreyah savghnata/ pu arbyena sampattir vimarse tritay: (m) bhacet //I° Sagara s gloss on this runs caturthe anke madālasāyā naso darsitah/ sa ca ragnah mukhya-kāranasya vadhurvam bhavet / tatrawa brhadasvena pitu- stapah phalam kathayato rājah srejah lathitam / tatra ca grha- mānıy tasya samarpantavyeti avrghnatayā (pā) tālal etu prabhr- tīnam vadhe bījasya sampatt,rits trryuto urmarsah/20 Here also all the underlined words cannot be taken as technical terms The entire Act IV of the drama comprises the fourth Sandhi The first aspect of this Sandhi is Nasa which is a bereavement te the main cause of the action 1 e, hero, and is illustrated in the (temporary) loss of Madalasa The second aspect is a bit of good fortune for the hero though the obstacle continues This is illustrated in the statement of Brhadaśva reporting the fruit of his father's penance which seems to be capable of warding off the evils But the obstacle is there, as the body of Madālasā is to be brought to the palace of the king The third element, 1 e, the nouri- shment of the germ is illustrated in the kıllıng of Patālaketu and others Thus a temporary loss or mishap to the hero, a bit of good fortune accompanied by obstacles and the nourishment of the germ, represented through the renioval of obstacles are the aspects of the Vimarsa sandhi accordng to Mätrgupta

60 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA ROSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Nirvahana-Sandhı The last Sandhi has been described as abhıpretārtha-sampattıh sıddhıh sādhyasya sıddhatā | prārabdhasya ca nu vāho bhaven-nırvahane trayam //21 The three aspects of the last sandhi appear to be the accompalishment of the desired object, success and the carrying out of the undertakings The first aspect is illus- trated in the return of the victouous prince Subahu and revival of Madalasā Siddhi is the attanment of the pur- pose In the drama Măvāmadālasā the destruction of the demons, according to Sāgara, is the main purpose (sādhya) and this has been represented as served The third aspect has not been illustrated particularly Sagara savs that the harmonious carrying out of all the undertakings has been shown clearly 22 Mätrgupta's method of analysis of the plot of a drama, as discussed above, is quite novel It avoids the Sandhy- angas of Bharata and describes each Sandhi as consisting of three aspects The names of only three Arthaprakrtis, Bija, Bindu and Patakā occur as characteristic muks of the first three sandhis respectively But all these terms are not used here exactly in the same sense as in the Maya sasta Dr Raghavan maintains that in describing the Sandhıs Mätr- gupta gives a crucial place to the Arthaprakrtıs and Avasthās," But it has been shown that out of five, three Arthaprakrtis have been connected, with three Sandhis respectively The names of the Avasthäs or any reference to them do not occur at all in Matrgupta's descuption of the Sandhis It has also been shown that the Samgita-damodara also contains Matrgupta's description of the Sandhis Subhankard at the beginning of his work refers to the sources from which he has drawn his materials and here with others the name Ratnakosa occurs 24 This Ratnakosa is undoubtedly the Nataka-lakşana ratna kosa from which Subhankara seems to have taken directly mn several occasions including the lines containing the theory of Mätrgupta as discussed above 25 The differences in readings may be attributed to the scribe'e fault It is really surprising and significant also that the

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 61

theory, on no less an important topic than Sandhis and propounded by an authority like Mätrgupta who has been generally accepted as living in Kashmir in the 7th century AD , was known to none but a Bengalı theorist of the 15th century and most probably through the work of Sagara

Appendıx

All the Sandhis and their aspects, as described by Matr- gupta have been illustrated by Sagara with citations from the lost drama Māyāmadālasā The Nātaha laksana ratna-kosa informs us that it is a Nataka consisting of five Anka the hero is present -6 From the citations in the Nataka laksana- ratna kosa the plot of the Nataka may be reconstracted for a clear understanding of Mätrgupta's standpoint, as the following

Act-I

A sage, named Galava came to the king Kuvalayāśva and informed him that the demon king Talaketu, the son of an asura's daughter and ruler of a region near the eastern mountains, was creating hindrances to sacrifices and Fad abducted Madālasa, the daughter of Menaka and mānas sakhinah suta 27 The sage expressed his desire that the king should accompany him in the forest to punish the demon Presumably, the king went with the sage Act-II

The sage helped the king with a deadly arrow by which the kıng kılled Tālaketu and married Madālasā But Pātā- laketu, the brother of Talaketu, renewed the hostility and made a fresh attempt to carry away Madālasā Act-III

This act begins with a Pravesaka where a couple of vultures28 describe the battle in which the king came out

62 NATAKA LAKASNA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

victorious Then foliows a scene of love making of the hero and heroine Then due to the black magic of Kutilaka, an accomplice ot T hutu, Madalasa fell in fire but was not burnt

Act-IV

Loss, 1e, deatn of Madīlasā took place somewhere out- side the palace The king was informed by Brhadaśva of the fruit of his father's penance (by which, perhaps, a dead man could be rastored to life or all evils could be warded off) and Pitalaketu was killed

Act-V

Madalasi was restoied to life and prince Subihu return ed after killing the enemv The demon power was totally annihilated and everything ended harmoniously Each Act of the drama comprises a Sandhi The drama has been cited by no other renowned theorist Perhaps Sagara had some special re'ation to or interest in the drama It appears that just to illustrate the pecuhar dramaturgic conception of Sandhis expounded by Mätrgupta the drama Māyāmudālasā was composed most probably by Sāgara hım- self or by somebody intimate to hım

The Sidhy idipañcaka theory

The Sidhvadipancaka theory, as found in the Vaialut- IaAsana-ratna Kosa is another novel method of analysis of the plot of a drame 29 According to this theory a dramatic composition, specially Nataka, consists of five elements, viz, Sidhaka (agent, the hero), Sadhana (the chict of the ineans), Sidhya (the end or the object to be accomplished), Sıddhy (success) and Sambhoga (the enjoyment), Sägara illustrates these five clements from the drama Bhimaviaya, hitherto unknown " In this drama, says Sägara Bhima is the Sadhaka, the mace given to him by Väsudeva is the Sadhana the killing of Duryodhana is the Sadhya Siddhi is the installation of Yudhisthira

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 63

on the throne and Sambhoga being the amorous play of Bhima with Draupadi who has achieved her object Here it is inter- esting to note that Siddhi goes to a person other than the Stdhaka who himself, however, gets Sambhoga The theory, in fact, has got no connection with the Sandhis excepting that in both cases the number is five It does not aim at the analysis of the plot and seems to be a rudimentary method of pointing out the elements of a dramatic action with sambhoga as the end In no way, from the text as given in the Nataka-laksana-ratna-kosa, a conclusion can be drawn that M itrgupta defines the Mukha-sandhi and others as dealing respectively with Sadhaka etc, as has been pointed out by Dr S N Shastri 31 Moreover, from the text of the Vātaka lak sana ratna- kosa, it appears that the theorv has not been given much importance to even by Mätrgupta himself, who simply states that some experts describe the pentad of Sadhya etc So the theory seems to be older than Matrgupta and cannot precisely be attributed to him 12 After describing the theory of five Sandhs as propounded by Matrgupta, Sagara takes up Bharata's method of analysıs of a dramatic plot into Sandhis and Sandhyangas with the remark samagra lakşanam nātakam-uddıdıksur ācāryah punar- aha3 This statement shows that acccording to Sagara, Mätrgupta's simpler method of Sandhis falls short in analys ing the complex structure of the plot of a Nataka, having all the characteristics, while Bharata's elaborate theory is suitable for that purpose Matrgupta's own opinion also seems to be the same when he gives importance to the Sandhyangas in describing the Nataka, as quoted by Righavabhatta 4 It 18 enjomed there that the Nataka should be endowed with the Sandhyangas and these Sandhyangas in no way can be taken to mean the three aspects of each Sandhı of Mātrgupta Neither by Mätrgupta nor by Sagara they are so termed Evidently, by Sandhyangas in the above description of Nītaka, Matrgupta refers to the Sandhi-Sandhyanga theory of the Natya sastra. So his shorter scheme of Sandhis seems to be elaborate one of Bharata which 1s accepted by Matrgupta himself.

64 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE FERSPECTIVE

A full-fledged drama (Samagra-laksana nātaka in the words of Sagara) with all the Vrttis and Sandhis, admits of many details, varieties of incidents and moods Here Mātrgupta seems to have recognised the importance of elaborate Sandnfy- anga theory Most probably with shortet and simpler drama, in his mind Matrgupta who is supposed to have written an independent treatise on dramaturgy,35 formulated his simple scheme We have seen that Matrgupta's Sandhis have been illustrated with reference to the plot of the Nataka Maya modala a by Sigara The plot of this drama, as has been shown, is neither verv extensive nor complex It thus appears that Mätrgupta's theory of Sandhis was formulated, as an alternative o e to that of the Ntya sastra for the analysis of the plots ot uimoler and shorter dramas, or only to show broadly the re er il course of dramatic action Sindhis ( is described mainly after the Natya sastia)

Mukha-Sandhı

Regaiding the definitions of Sandhis Dr T C Mainkar Inaint uns, "There is very little difference of opinion among the text book writers and Bharata's definitions have been verbally accepted by them"1 But in the following pages it will be shown that a number of views other than those of th Natya sastu, regarding the characteristics of the Sandhr developed in later ages and some of which have been mentionud in the Jutaka lak sana-ratna kosa Sigara quotes the definition of the Mukha sandhi from the Natya- Fsha,2 and takes it to mean, as it appears from his gloss, that the Mukha-sandhi contains the ongmnation of the Bija which is the source of different arthas remaining in har mony in the plot ' artha here has been taken to mean different purpose served at different stages Thus according to Sāgara, the inception of the Bija is the cause of the diversification of the plot also, but all these diversities should be in harmony with the main action

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 65

Abhinavagupta gives special stress on the point that the inception of the Bija is the source of different Rasas originating from diversified facts He bases his arguments on a different reading of the verse describing Mukha-sandhı in the Natya- sastra from that as found in Nataka laksana 3a According to Abhinavagupta the Mukha-sandh1 comprises that section of the plot where the incidents, sutable for the beginning, give rise to various asvadas The Natya-darpana follows the Abhr navabharatı verbatım 4 The Sahitya-darpana gives the definition of the Mukha-sandhı from the Natya sastra but adds no gloss on it The Bhāva prakasana also follows the line of Abhinavagupta 5 Dhanika makes the point more clear He maintains that Mukha-sandhi contains the origination of the Bija and is the source (hetu) of different purposes and Rasas This is also the view of the Rasarnava-sudhākara So far as the illustration of the Mukha sandhi is concerned, Abhınava-bhārātī, Nātya-darpana, Bhāva prakāsana and Sāhitya- darpana cite the Act I of the Ratnavali 7 From the above it is clear that excepting Sagara all the renowned theorists rightly accept the Mukha-sandhi as the source of different Rasas It seems that Sagara in this respect is influenced by Mätrgupta who, as has already been shown, maintains a silence regarding the origination of Rasa n the Mukha-sandh1 8 From the Bhava-prakasana we come to know that there was a school of thought which maintained that the origination of the Bija in the Mukha-sandhi could not be accepted as the source of the Rasas because they are not generally connected with the Trivarga, the main fruit (pradhanaphala) of the drama 9 Sāradātanaya establishes here a connec- tion of the Trivarga with the Rasas and concludes that the Mukha-sandh1 should be considered as the hetu of the Rasas 10 It 1s, however, not fair to conclude that either Mätrgupta or Sägara belonged to that school of thought which has been criticised by Sāradātanaya as above Sāgara refers to the view of some anonymous experts who maintain that the Bindu can be placed together with the Bija in the Mukha-sandh1, a view which 1s hitherto 5

66 NATAKA LAKASNA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

unknown 11 Evidently, this view avoids the correlation between the Sandhıs and the Arthaprakrtıs But the Nātaka laksana-ratna kosa says that this is paksantara and accoraing to some they come consecutively I2 This second view is shared by all the theorists and commentators There are, however, different views regarding the Bındu It has been discussed in details that as a connecting lınk Bındu may be of different forms In case where the main purpose or a single pivotal idea maintains the continuity throughout the action, the Bindu practically finds place in the Mukha- sandhı This may be illustrated from the Venī-samhara where the Bindu is placed in the Mukha-sandhi and the matter has been fully discussed T8 Sagara then quotes the view of an Acarya which states that where the Bija is indicated through slesa or chaya that is the Mukha-sandhi 14 By Acarya Sāgara means to refer Bharata So, Sāgara main- tains that according to Bharata the most important element of the Mukha-sandhi is the inception of the Bija Other im plications of the view has been fully discussed 15

PRATIMUKHA-SANDHI

The Natya-sastra defines the Pratimukha-sandhi as

byasyodghātanam yatra drşta-naştamıva kvacıt | mukhanyastasya sarvatra tadvaı pratımukham smrtam //

The Nataka laksana-ratna-kosa reads the third pada as mukhāhrtasya sarvatra 1 The verse simply means that every- where in the Pratimukha-sandhi of a drama, the Bija having its inception mn the Mukha-sandhi, goes on sprout- ing, and in this development it is sometimes lost sight of and sometmes is seen But this drsta nasta characteristic of the Bija in the second Sandhi seems to have given rise to a storm of controversies among the theorists According to Sägara the Bija is seen in the form of the cause and is lost from the view in the form of effect As the Bija is said to be sown in the Mukha-sandhi, there

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 67

it Is seen as the cause But it becomes obscured, as it were, by subsidiary issues which are employed for proper development of the main plot according to Rasa In the second Sandhi it should be brought into the view again 2 From the above it appears that Sāgara, takes the drtsa- nasța feature of the Bija in the sense that it is drsta in the Mukha-sandh1 but becomes nasta and in the Pratı- mukha sandhı it becomes again udghatata Sāgara illustrates this feature of the Bija from the Veni-samhara He points out that in the Act I, the Bija is seen in the speech of Bhima where he says, "Shall I not crush the thighs of Suyodhana with my club",8 and in the Act II the same topic of breaking of the thighs is brought to the fore by Kañcukın in his evil-omened utterances 4 According to Sagara the sowing of the Bija through Slesa is done in a verse of the Sutradhära where the destruction of the Kauravas has been referred to 3 Sāgara seems to mean that the Bija, sown (1e, hinted at) in the verse of the Sutradhāra, becomes known (drsta) in the above speech of Bhima through the hint to the breaking of Duryodhana's thigh which stands for the total annihilation of the Kaura- vas 1e, the final event in the affair Then for sometimes it remains obscured (nasta) by subsidiary issues like the love scene between Duryodhana and Bhanumati, and 1s again made prominent through the utterances of Kañcukin Abhinavagupta refers to as many as six views including his own regarding the drsta nasta feature of the Bija and refutes five of them The first three of these views are

(1) kāryatayā drstam kārānatayā nastam (seen as an effect and veiled as a cause) This view seems to be sımilar to that held by Sagara so far as the approach is concerned (11) upadeye drstam heye nastam (seen in the acceptable but obscured in the unacceptable) (111) nāyaka-vrtte drstam pratınāyaketivrtte naşlam (seen in the plot connected with the hero but not seen in that of his opponent)

68 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PRESPECTIVE

All these interpretations have been rejected by Abhinava- gupta on the ground that they overlook the unity of action and fail to explain nasta 6 (Iv) The fourth view noted by Abhinavagupta which seems to be the Siddhänta-paksa, maintains that the un- veiling of the Bija is a particular state contributing to the final fruition, and even though the Bija is seen it remains obscured due to the presence of opposing forces The unveiling of the Bija is like the sprouting of the seed covered by dust 7 As an illustration, Abhinavagupta quotes the verse asastra grahanad etc, of the Kancukin from the second Act of the Veni-samhāra Abhinavagupta introduces a counter argument that according to some, here the rise of the Pandavas indicated in the Mukha-sandhı 1s perceptible (drsta) due to the death of Bhisma and imperceptible (nasta) due to the slaying of Abhimanyu, as both the incidents are mentioned in the verse cited above for illustration But in that case, according to Abhinavagupta, the significance of wa in nastamiva is overlooked.9 Abhinavagupta seems to maintamn that in the above illustration from the Vent- samhara the sprouting of the Bija (1 e, pāndavābhyudaya) is indicated by the reference to the death of Bhisma, while the reference to the killing of Abhimanyu screens it for the time being, 1 e, it becomes nastamwa and not actually nasta as stated in the counter-argument (v) Some others maintain that drstata and nastata are features useful respectively in the Pratımukha and Avamarśa So, drstanastatva is a matter of degree, the Bija though drsta in the first stage, appears to be nasta when compared with the next stage, as it goes on developing 10 But Abhinavagupta remarks, atrapīvartho na samgacchata eva1I, 1 e, the significance of wa is overlooked (v1) The view of Sankuka and others, as put in the Abhrnava-bharatī seems to take drstanastamua to mean slıght visıbilıty But Abhinavagupta rightly remarks that this is ekadesa lakşanam,12 evidently because the feature of nastatva has been overlooked here Abhinavagupta then clarifies his own standpoint He

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 69

maintains that the Bija is sown in the Mukha-sandhi as to be seen and veiled as it were, by subsidiary incidents which, however, contributes to its further development. The analogy is derived from a seed, sown and covered by dust that contributes to its sprouting The Pratimuk ha- sandh1 represents a steady manifestation of the Bija like the sprouting of the saffron seeds In the opinion of Abhinavagupta this can be derived from the etymological explanation of the term Pratımukha as pratrrabhimukhyena yato'tra vrttih 1 e, where the progress (of the Bija) is favo ur- able T$ Abhinavagupta illustrates this progress of the Bija from the Ratnavali T4 The Natya darpana follows this inter- pretation of Abhinavagupta and cites the same illustrat 10r with a clear exposition It says that in the Mukha san dh1 of the Ratnaval, the Bija is sown in the Act I by the minister while stating dvīpadanyasmadap etc, and then it 1s screened by spring festival etc But in the Pratımuk ha- sandhı the sprouting of the Bija is shown in the Act II by the meeting of the hero and heroine through the endeav our of Susangata 15 It appears that according to Abhinavagupta drstanastatva of the Bija is a regular feature in the Muk ha- sandhi and it is immaterial in the second Sandhi where the steady progress of the Bija is delineated This seems to be indicated by the word kvacet in the definition of the Pratimukha sandhi found in the Natya-sastra, as stated a bo ve_ Dasa-rūpaka and the Sahrtya darpana avoid the word drsta-nasta and use laksyalaksya instead, while the Rasamewva- sudhākara and the Nātaka-candrıkā use drsyadrsya in their description of the state of the Bija in the Pratimukha san dhi The Bhava prakasana, on the otherhand, uses both laksyalaksya and drśyādrsya 16 The Bhāva-prakāsana explains drsyata as prayoananam nispattı and adrsyatva as the want of that I7 According to these works the development of the Bija in the Pratimukha-sandhi is represented as perceptible and imperceptible by turns and this is the characteristic of this Sandh1 From the above discussion it becomes clear that the Natya-sastra in defining the Pratimukha-sandhi presents a

70 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

riddle, so to say, and all the later authorities appear to have tried hard to solve it, each in his own way and thus giving rise to a host of views discussed above Sagara himself neither follows any of the above views nor 1s followed by any Mātrgupta, as discussed above, tactfully avoids the expression drsta-nasta, but the aspects labha (mnitial success) and prasara (further extension of the action) in his des- cription of the Pratimukha-sandhı, may be accepted as a reasonable explanation of Bharata's above riddle The Bija in its progress may be said as visible (drsta) when the hero attains some sort of success at the initial stage of the play But the drama cannot end there The playwright introduces fresh hurdles on the wav of the hero and the theme continues and thus the object of desire (Bija) 1s pushed back far beyond the reach (nasta) Mātrgupta, as it appears from the above, in his attempt of explaining the Sandhis in his own way, could not totally avoid the influence of Bharata's text

GARBHA-SANDHI

The Garbha-sandhi occupies the middle part of the play and the name according to Sagara owes its origin to this position by analogy of a human body 1 The Natya-sastra as quoted in the Nataka-laksana-ratna kosa defines Garbha- sandhı as the part of the plot where the Bija sprouts and where there are attainment, frustration and again pursuit2 The Bija, having its inception (utpatts) in the Mukha- sandhi, is brought into view (udghatana) in the Pratimukha- sandhi and it sprouts further (udbheda) in the Garbha-sandhi Sāgara says mukha-pratımukhābhyām mukhotthānasya bījasya yatra udbhedah prakasanam3 Garbha sandhı thus represents further manifestation of the Bija than in the Pratimukha- sandhi Abhinavagupta, followed closely by the authors of the Natya-darpana, more explicitly says that the Bija having [its origin in the Mukha and sprouting in the Pratimukha

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 71

develops further in the Garbha sandhi towards the produc- tion of the Phala 4 The Sahitya-darpana also means the same and attempts to explain the Garbha-sandh1 with the help of a popular etymology phalasya garbhikaranad garbhah 5 The three words of the Nātya sastra prapte (attainment), aprapti (frustration) and anvesana (pursuit) in the above definition of Garbha-sandhı have given rise to controversies among theorists Abhinavagupta offers two views, and from the printed text it is difficult to ascertain which one he hmself prefers According to the first of these two views prapti is concerned to the nayaka (the hero) and apraptr 1s in relation to the pratinayaka (villain, the chief opponent of the hero) while anvesana is concerned to the both 6 The view seems to maitain that the third Sandhi describes some sort of gain to the hero and loss to his main enemy, both striving to accomplish their own ends But, remarks Abhı- navagupta, as this explanation suits well in cases of Vira and Raudra Rasas only, others maintain that the Garbha-sandhı represents gain, loss and pursuit by turns and as it co exists with the third Avastha it produces the embryo of the Phala, the final attainment 7 This Sandhi, according to this view, thus brings out the prospect of final attainment of the hero So, the loss, gain and pursuit are all related to the hero The Natya darpana8 simply repeats what is stated in the Abhi- nava-bharati This Sandhi has been illustrated by Abhinava gupta from the second and part of the third Act of the Ratnavali where the meeting and separation between the hero and heromne have been represented several times 9 The Dasa-rūpaka as interpreted by Dhanıka, the Bhava- prakāsana, the Sāhrtya darpana, the Rasārnava-sudhākara and the Nataka-candrika follow this view in different words Bhoja-deva also maintains this view 10 Abhinavagupta further maintains that the third Avastha 1e, the Präpti-sambhava represents only a possibility of gam and not its surety and as the Garbha-sandhi correlates to this Avastha, the presentation of the loss is essential here In the Avamarsa-sandhi, on the other hand, the prominence is given to tne gain over the loss IT

72 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Regarding this problem of prapti and aprapte in the Garbha sandhı, Sagara maintains a different view which has not even been referred to in any of the above works According to Sägara, dramatic plots either describe oblga tion or prohibition, the former takes the form of gain and the latter that of loss As an illustration of the first form Sagara presents an anustubh verse containing both definition and illustration 12 This verse itself yields no easy exposition It seems to mean that the Bija, 1 e, the destruction of the demons which has already begun, becomes obligatory to Rama due to the abduction of Sitā by Rāvana This is an instance of prapti-(vidhi) rupa-vastu This form of the vastu appears to be illustrated ın the Nataka-lakşana- ratna-kośa by a quotation from the drama Janakı-rāghava in which Sugriva says that by carrying away Sitā Rāvana has provoked Rama's hatred for his own destruction 13 The second form, 1 e, the aprapt rupa, has been illustrated by an analysis of the plot of the drama Tapasa-vatsaraja Here the separation of (loss, aprapts) Vāsavadatta from the king Udayana deeply engrossed in her love, has been shown to be brought about by the minister through the pretext of the burning of Lävanaka when the country was attacked by the enemy The pursuit has been shown in the practice f penance by the king 14 It is difficult to form any clear idea regardıng Sāgara's conception of the Garbha-sandhi from the above He seems to mean that the characteristic praptr of the Garbha- sandhi occurs in dramas where the deeds of the hero are represented as of obligatory nature, while apraptt consists in the separation of the hero from his beloved Thus the representation of prapti or aprapte in the Garbha-sandhi depends upon the nature of the plot, some dramas show prapt and some aprapte This explanation is quite novel and is unknown to the theorists and commentators From the standpoint of Mātrgupta prāpt may be taken mean prospect of enjoyment (sambhoga yogyata) and aprapts nay be explained as fresh chance of mishap (udbheda) he counteraction of this fresh chance of mishap and

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 73

making of friends (mitrasampat), as described by Mātrgupta may be said to be corresponding to anvesana (pursuit) in the defaition of Garbha-sandhı of the Natya sastra 15

VIMARŚA OR AVAMARŚA

Bharata's definition of the Vimarsa-sandhi, as quoted by Sāgara, is very knotty and defies a satisfactory inter- pretation 1 Abhinavagupta himself criticises as many as five expositions and offers his own But from none of these the exact reading of the verse can be determined No explanation of the word vilobhanakrta is found in any of the views referred to by Abhınavagupta Sımilar is the position of the Nataka-laksana-ratna kośa The definition means that where the byartha disclosed in the Garbha- sandhı, becomes either vilobhanakrta or connected with the aslesa of that (tasya), 1s Vimarsa Sagara himself says that Vimarśa is connected with the embrace (aslesana-samyukta) of something creating confusion or perplexity to the bījartha disclosed by the Garbha-sandhi 2 Abhinavagupta refers to a view which takes Avamarsa in the sense of urghna, obsta- cles He further adds that according to this view here Bija in the Bharata's definition is to be taken to mean the fruit of the Bija and artha to mean murttr 8 Thus, byartha means the fructification of the Bija With the help of this exposition Sägara's above statement may be taken to mean that the Vimarśa sandhı presents the fructification of the germ as led astray The full implication of Bharata's definition of the Vimarsa-sandhı, as quoted in the Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kosa 1s now clear The Garbha-sandhi describes further progress of the Bija than in the Pratimukha-sandhi towards the produc tion of the fruit In the Vimarsa-sandh1, according to this view this progress is represented by the dramatist as led astray or, as perplexed or, beguiled fully (vilobhanakrta) or partially (tasya vāslesa yukta) It thus appears that though not expli- cıtly stated, Vımarśa has been taken by Sāgara here in the sense of uighna The causes of vighna have not been mentioned in connection with this view in the Nātaka laksana-

74 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

ratna-kosa, where two other views on the Vimarsa also occur In simple words, this view maintains that the pro- gress of the action towards the final achievement 1s depicted in the Vimarsa-sandhi as totally or partially arrest- ed Abhinavagupta, however, clearly points out that the obstruction may be created by such causes as anger, tem- ptation (created by the opponent), misfortune, curse etc 4 Visvanātha appears to be the most consistent author who expressess very clearly that the Bija (chief of the means) in the Vimarsa-sandhi manifests further than in the Garbha- sandhi but fresh obstructions due to curse etc, are put before its fructification The illustration is also very clear In the Abhrnana-sakuntala the entire portion beginning from the fourth Act where Anasuya says pramvade ja-1-vg gandhavvena uvahena etc, to the seventh Act upto the recognition of Sakuntalā, comprises the Vimarsa sandhi, as this portion is sakuntala-vismarana-rūpa-vighnalingitah 6 From the Abhinava-bharati it appears that the view has not been fully discarded by Abhinavagupta 7 Sägara himself seems to have given little support to the view discussed above, as no illustration has been cited He presents another view, as said by others This view maintains that the Vimarsa-sandhi depicts a state of obscurity (samvrt) so far as the progress of the action towards the final achievement is concerned This obscurity arises out of heroes' deliberation over diversified purposes The enemy of the hero here is made to suffer a heavy loss also 8 Due to the multiplication of subsidiary issues the central portion of the plot of a drama is elaborated to its best and the main purpose may be represented as branching towards many directions Gradually these subsidiary issues merge to the mamn plot and produce a single result This elaboration and ramification of the main purpose should be completed before the close of the Vimarsa-sandhi so that a clear and steady progress towards the final end may be depicted in the last Sandhi Thus, in the second half of the third Sandhi and in the first half of the fourth Sandhi the plot of a drama reaches to the highest degree of com-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 75

plexity The Natya sastra gives clear direction to the dra- matist that the achievement, if there be any, of the Patākā- nayaka should be delineated betore the close of the Vimarsa sandh1 9 Due to this elaboration and diversification the hero 1s generally depicted in tbe Vimarśa-sandhi as brooding over the facts for finding out a right drection Thus, reflexion is said to be the nature of the Vimarsa sandhı by Sankuka as stated by Abhinavagupta Reflexion or deliberation, maintains Sankuka, may be due to various reasons as temptation, anger, misfortune etc 10 Abhinavagupta, however, refutes this view on the ground that deliberation is not limited to this Sandhi only and as such, it cannot be taken to be the characteristic of the Vimarsa-sandhi only 11 Udbhata's view also, as represented by Abhinava- gupta, seems to be similar to the above one, refuted by the latter According to Udbhata, in the Vimarsa sandhı, the hero being obstructed in the course of his pursuit after the desired aim, broods over the situations T2 The theory that deliberation constitutes the chief feature of the Vimarsa-sandhi has been supported not only by pre- Abhinavagupta authorities like Sankuka and Udbhata but also by post-Abhinavagupta theorists like Dhanıka, Bhoja, Śāradātanaya, Sıngabhūpala and Rūpa-gosvamin The Dasa rūpaka, as interpreted by Dhanka, maintains that deliberation due to krodha or vilobhana characterises the Vimarsa-sandh1 13 The Bhava-prakasana gives two definitions of the Vimara- sandhi, one of which is verbally quoted from the Dasa-rūpaka and the other states the same thing in different words 14 The Rasarnava sudhākara followed by the Nataka candrka maintains the same view 15 The Nataka-laksana-ratna kośa contains another description of the Vimarsa-sandh1 According to this description, doubt (sandeha) appears to be the dstinguishing feature of the Vimarsa-sandh1 16 In this portion of the plot, maintains some, the final accomplishment though seems to be within the reach, is presented as doubtful due to some turn of facts This final fruition (phalagama) becomes doubtful after the Garbha-sandhi, upto which the progress 1s

76 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

unhampered Sımply speaking, the Vimarsa-sandhi puts up the last hurdle on the way of final fruition of the Bija and naturally a doubt arises in the mind of the audience regarding the end of the drama The hero himself is depicted as doubtful regarding the accomplish- ment of his desire This doubtful state, says Sagara may be depicted as the result of temptation, perplexity, anger or mishap Sāgara illustrates Vimarsa through vrlobhana from the Raghavabhyudaya, where Ravana with the inten- tion of making a false peace, presents to Rāma a demoness Jälini by name who takes the form of Sita Thus the demons here through temptation cause doubt in the mind of Räma regarding the course to be adopted 17 The krodhaja-vimarsa is said to be illustrated in the seize of the capital of the king of the Vatsas by the enemies 18 The vyasanaa-vamarsa has been illustrated from the Act VI of the Ven-samhara by quoting the verse, tırne bhisma- mahodadhau etc 19 The situation refers to the mace-duel between Bhima and Duryodhana which causes a doubt in the mind of Yudhisthira Abhinavagupta himself maintains that doubt is the nature of Vimarsa 20 From the standpoint of Abhi- navagupta it may be said that the third Avasthā (Prāptyāsā) coexists with the third Sandhi (Garbha) and as such, It describes a possibility of attainment (sambhavana) The Vimarśa-sandhı coexists with the fourth Avastha (Nıyatäpti) where samsaya (doubt) preponderates Samśaya is possıble even after sambhavana if some unforeseen obstacle is put on the way of the final achievement Through the medium of a highly scholastic discussion Abhinavagupta conveys that at this stage the forces, in favour of and opposed to the progress of the action towards the planned end, are depicted as of equal strength and as such, a doubtful situation is created This gives a scope to the hero for the display of his best parts in overcoming the obstacles and creates a suspense, so essential for the suocess of a drama 21 Thus from the standpoint of both the hero of the drama and the audience Vimarsa-sandhi depicts doubt (sandeha)

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 77

On a perusal of Abhinavagupta's view, it appears that though sandeha 1s the chief characteristic of the Vimarsa- sandhı yet vighna is there as the sandeha 1s caused by some sort of uighna 22 This point is made clear by the Natya-darpana where the authors give almost equal stress on sandeha and ughna,23 otherwise they follow the Abhinava- bharati closely The above discussion proves that there has been a con- troversy regarding the correct interpretation of Bharata's definition of the Virmarsa-sandhi and Abhinavagupta seems to have discussed and criticised the views separately, while Sägara appears to have arranged them into three groups Sagara refers to three views without entering into the critical task of evaluating ther merits and it 1s not possible to find out his own opinion regarding the matter It is interesting to note that all the three views given in the Nātaka-laksana-ratna kośa are deduced from the same definition of the Natya-sastra as is evident from the Abhinava bharati The three views with their adherents may be arranged in the following way 1 Vighna is the main feature of the Vimarsa-sandhı Only Viśvanātha 1s the consistent supporter of this v1ew Sagara presents this view as that of Bharata mun1 2 Deliberation (paryalocana) 1s the nature of Vımarśa- sandht This view has been supported by the majority of theorists including Sankuka, Udbhata, Dhanıka, Śāradātanaya, Šıngabhūpāla and Rūpa-gosvāmın 3 Doubt (sandeha) 1s the chief feature of the Vimarśa- sandh1 This view finds strong support from Abhı- navagupta and Rāmacandra Guņacandra Sāgara illustrates Vimarśa according to this view Now, it may be pointed out that sandeha and vimarsana (anvesana, paryalocana) differ very little in sense and both originate where there is a scope of ughna so far as the plot-construction of a drama is concerned Vighna gives rise to doubt in the mind which causes deliberation From the standpoint of the audience it may be said that the

78 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVF

Vmarśa-sandhi presents obstacles to be overcome on the way of the final achievement, 1e, the fructification of the germ Judged by the mental state of the hero it may be said that in the Vimarsa-sandhi he is depicted as perplexed due to the doubtful situation created by opposing forces and as such, brooding over the situations to find out the way From both objective and subjective standpoints it appears that vighna forms the basis for the delineation of the Vimarsa-sandhı Vighna creates a doubtful situation Udbhata and Sankuka, two almost contemporary authors, appear to have taken into consideration the reaction of the mind of the hero at this situation while describing deliberation as the main characteristic of the Vimarsa-sandhi Abhinava- gupta taking the situation into consideration describes it as sandehātmā Dhanıka, Sāradātanaya etc, cling to the old view of Udbhata and Sankuka Visvanatha describes the Vimarśa-sandhı taking into consideration the root cause of the sandeha and paryalocana Sāgara most cleverly supports all the views, as it appears from the text of the Nataka-laksana-ratna-kośa In conclusion it may be pointed out that Matrgupta also enumerates, as shown before, obstacle connected with a bit of success as one of the three aspects of the Vimarsa-sandhi It appears thus probable, that chronologically also the views may be arranged in the same way as has been done above

NIRVAHANA SANDHI

Sagara gives the definition of the Nirvahana-sandhı, evidently from the Natya sastra samāptıh samyagarthānām prastutānām mahāujasām/ nānā-bhāvottarānām ca bhaven-nırvahanam tu tat//1 Sāgara's comment on this verse means that where the arthas (purpose) of the Bija etc, introduced previously are represented as finally served, is called the Nırvahaņa- sandhi 2 It has already been shown that the Arthaprakrtis

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 79

according to Sagara are elements of the plot 3 He thus seems to mean that in the last Sandhi the purposes of all the elements of the plot are represented as fully served Everything comes to a conclusion here Different elements of the plot, according to this view, are introduced to serve different purposes A proper delineation of these elements in a Nātaka assumes a great proportion (mahaujasam) and give rıse to varied mental states nānābhāvottarānam The final achievement in the Nirvahana sandhi marks the ful- filment of all these purposes Mātrgupta also maintains, as has been shown,4 that the Nirvahana-sandhi is characterised by the accomplishment of the desired object and a successful carrying out of all the undertakings Sagara's interpretation of Bharata's definition of the Nirvahana-sandhi seems to be influenced by the view of Matrgupta Abhinavagupta strongly supports the theory of correlation of the Sandhis with the Avasthas He takes the word artha in the definition of the Nirvahana-sandhi to mean Avastha and maintains that the first four successive Avasthas corresponding to the first four successive Sandhis depict the gradual transformation of the Bija and thus give rise to the state of excellence as the basis of aesthetic experience (camat-kārāspadatve jātotkarsāhām) through the delineation of varied mental states (krodhadibhirbhavaih) That part of the plot where they culminate to produce the fruit, 1s the Nirvahana-sandhi, covered by the Phalajogavastha 5 Abhi- navagupta presents another explanation of this sandhi, said to be the view of others The word artha has been taken in the sense of upaya (means) in this explanation Accor- ding to this view the Nirvahana sandhi depicts the success of the chief means, set forth in the Mukha sandhi in producing the desired phala 6 The Natya darpana describes the Nirvahana sandhi after the first view of Abhinava- gupta 7 Later authorities closely follow the line of Dhanañjaya, who himself seems to be influenced by the above view According to Dhanañjaya the Nirvahana sandhi is that portion of the plot where the purposes of four other sandhis,

80 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

containing the Bija and distubuted in due order, are brought together to produce one result, 1 e, the final end 8 The Bhava-prakasana gives this definition verbally The Sahtya-darpana reproduces both the text of Dhanañjaya and commentary of Dhanıka verbatım The Rasārnava-sudhākara and the Nātaka-candrika also follow the Dasa-rūpaka 9 From above discussion it appears that the chief mark of the Nirvahana-sandhi is that herein the playwright depicts the final achievement The successful carrying out of all undertakings, the fulfilment of all purposes, the production of the fruit, success of the means,-all mean the samething, the achievement of the desired object from the standpoint of both the playwright and the hero of the play Bhoja also means the same when he says -kriyaphalena samyag-yogo narvahanam 10 The last portion of the drama Ratnavali beginning from the entrance of the magician comprises the Nirvahana-sandh1 The Nataka laksana-ratna-kosa records two post-Bharatan views which deserve special attention Sagara says that some favour a brief recapitulation of the course and canclusion of all the Sandhis in the last Sandhi 11 Abhi- navagupta also refers to this view, as maintained by some 12 This view seems to be given importantce to in the Nātya- darpana, and the illustration has been cited from the Satya- hariscandra of Ramacandra himself 13 The other theory, recorded in the Nataka-laksaha ratna-kośa advocates the mntroduction of another obstacle in the Nirvahana sandhi, put on the way of the final success of the hero The fire ordeal of Sīta has been cited as an example of this theory 14 This introduction of an eleventh hour tragic complication increases tension and saves the play from a tame and commonplace ending 15 From Bharata's analysis it appears that in the Garbha sandhi the plot takes a definite shape and the audience can form an idea of what is to follow To keep alıve the interest of spectators unforeseen obstacles are put forward in the Vimarsa sandhi, where the progress of the action towards the desired end is represented as checked The

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 81

curse of the sage Durvasas in the Abhiana-sakuntala and the capital punishment of Carudatta in the Mrcchakatikam may be taken to be good examples of this unforeseen obstacle But when this obstacle in the Vimarsa-sandhi is surpassed, the course of the action acquires momentum and proceeds without interruption till the conclusion is reached Now, after the Vimarsa-sandh1 which 1s full of actions due to the tussle between the opposite forces and the victory of the one favourable to the cause of the hero over the unfavourable ones, the Nirvahana-sandhi becomes tame There remans nothing interesting, as the audience can fairly guess the conclusion A short recapitulation of the entire action, referred to by Sagara is of little help, as it fails to create any new interest This device may simply explain the entire course of the action by giving the synopsis of the former events and connecting them with the conclusion, and perhaps owes its origin to the attempt of the dramatists in showing the inevitability of the conclu sion, which is so important for the success of a drama Dramas lıke the Mudra raksasa of Visākhadatta, where the course of the action is too intricate to be followed by the audience, also require a brief recapitulation of the former incidents to show their interrelation Canakya in the Mudra-raksasa discloses to Raksasa his plans in the Nirva hana sandhı Sımilarly, Mārica in the Abhyñana-sakuntala discloses to the hero and heroine the cause of their separation But in both the cases, particular dramatic interests have also been served by this reference to past events Raksasa should know the circumstances leading to his defeat and should not think himself polluted by the touch of Candalas before he can accept with a clear mind the post of Amatya under Candragupta Similarly, a real union between Duşyanta and Sakuntalā is possible only when the actual cause of their separation is known to both Some dramatısts, as it appears from the Nātaka laksana- ratna-kośa16 took recourse to invent a fresh but momentary complication at the last stage of the action to avoid a tame 6

82 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

denouement The motif of this device is found in the fire- ordeal of Sita in the Ramayana This portion of the Rama-story forms the theme of many Rama-plays Sudraka, ın hıs Mrechakatıka, depicts Dhūta's attempt to commit suicide by entering into fire when all are jubilant at the reunion of the hero and heroine This device of introducing an "eleventh hour tragic complication" has undoubtedly hightened the tension ef the last Sandhı in the Mrcchakatika Sägara records another view according to which, at the concluding portion of the Nätaka a god should appear on the stage, 17 evidently to make the finishing more charming The appearance of Vasudeva in the Venisamhara and that of Gauri in the Nāgānanda, have been cited as exemples of the device Sagara mintains that the appearance of a god at the last moment in a drama indicates the pros- perity (abhyudaya) of the hero The appearance of divine sages, equivalent to gods, also serve the same purpose T8 The entrance of the divine sage Nārada, just to finalise a/ happy conclusion ın Kālıdāsa's Vikramorvası, may be cited as an example The above theory seems to be based upon an observation of plots where dıvinties or divine- sages are presented on the stage at the concluding part of the Nātaka for some dramatic purpose and also to enhance the charms of the finishing It is interesting to note here that Rucipati in his commentary on the Anar- gha raghava ascribes the view to Bharata and quotes a verse of the same import 19 This verse is also found in the Sangīta-damodara of Subhankara 20 Sāgara also, seems to quote the first hemistich of the verse,2T but refers to no authority These sorts of quotations in the Nataka- lakşana-ratna-kosa which are not ascribed to any authorty or introduced with any such expression as anyastvaha etc, are mostly found to be taken from the Natya-sastra It may be surmised that the above verse was current in the name of Bharata in the days of Sagara. The above view, however, follows from the dictum of the Narya-sāstra, quoted mn the Nātaka-lakşana-ratna-kosa Where it is said that in the denouement of all sorts of

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURY 83

compositions there should be the Rasa of wonder (adbhuta) 22 The sentiment of wonder may be aroused by depicting the occurrence of unexpected things like the appearance of divinities or divine sages on the stage The re union of Dusyanta and Sakuntala in the hermitage of Mārica in the Abhyñana sakuntala and the entrance of real Sita on the stage in the Uttara-rāma carita, may be cited as apt examples of this theory The Nātya-sastra with an eye on the possibility of a tame conclusion, further enjoins, as quoted in the Nātaka- lasana ratna-kośa that the composition should take the shape of the end of a cow's tail and exalted ideas should be depicted in the last half of the Nataka 23 There has been a controversy regarding the implication of the statement that the composition should be like the end of a cow's tail Sāgara simply says that the first half of the Nataka should be elaborate (purvavhage vrstaranīyam) and the second half com- pact (paścārdhe ca samharanīyam) 24 It has been discussed above that the Garbha sandhi, occupies the middle portion of the plot and from the Vimarsa sandhi begins what 1s technically known in English the Falling action and before that is Rising action according to the G Freytag's pyramidal structure of the plot of a play 25 The rising action Is extended and the falling action is shortened just to keep alive the interests of the spectators as they, to some extent can form an idea of what will follow from the very begin- ning of the falling action Abhinavagupta offers two explanations According to some, the above statement of the Natya-sastra means that the angas, evidently the Acts, should gradually be shortended 26 This implies that the first Act of a drama is the longest and the last is shortest But this carries little sense and is too mechanical and has been hardly followed by dramatists According to others, informs Abhinavagupta, as some of the hairs at the end of a cow's tail are longer and some shorter, so also some karyas in a drama end in the Mukha-sandhı, some in the Pratimukha, some others last 'upto the Avamarśa and the rest is completed in the Nırvahana-sandhı 27 The

84 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

complicated plot of a Nataka deals with various incidents and their purposes are represented as served in successive stages while the most important ones are retained upto the conclusion Thus, the second explanation of Abhmnava- gupta seems to be reasonable From the above discussion, it appears that the Nātya sastra in describing the Sandhis takes into account mamly the gradual transformation ot the Bija from its origination to fruition The Bija originates mn the Mukha-sandhi (yatra bigasamut pattih) and goes on sprouting (byjaeyodghātanam yatra) through- out the Pratimukha-sandhi but fully sprouts in the Garbha- sandh1 (garbha-nubhinna) Its progress towards fruition is checked by unforeseen obstacles (vilobhanakrta krodhavya- sanaja) in the Vimarsa-sandhi, and finally transforms itself into fruit in the Nirvahana-sandhi

RELATION AMONG THE THREE PENTADS, THE AVASTHĀS, SANDHIS AND ARTHAPRAKRTIS

The analysıs of a plot into Avasthās, Arthaprakrtis and Sandhis has been discussed in details along with the nature and characteristics of each member of the above three pentads Sagara follows the Natya-sastra closely in maintamn- ing a silence regarding the interrelation among the three pentads, but other theorists and commentators have worked out different theories, a perusal of which is essential for the proper comprehension of the topics Sagara, as has been shown, takes the five Avasthas in the sense of five successive stages in the development of a plot Regarding the problem whether these five Avasthas are all present or not in the plot of all types of plays, he states nothng explicitly The Natya sāstra clearly states that every action must possess the five Avasthas in the same order in which they have been enumerated 1 But the implication of the expression 'every action' is doubtful and it may by taken to refer to the plots of full fledged dramas lıke Nātaka and Prakaraņa, having all the Sandhis, or plots of all types of plays Abhinavagupta seems to support the first explanation

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 85

and the point will be discussed shortly Dr K K Datta Sastri rightly points out2 that Bharata, while speaking of the division of plots into Sandhıs and Arthaprakrtis, gives no such special stress as above, and actually sanctions that there may be plots without some of the Sandhis and Arthaprakrtıs There 1s, however, no such relaxation, sanctioned by the sage in the case of the Avasthas The Natya-sāstra thus seems to maintain that any type of play must possess the five Avasthas The silence of Sāgara in the matter, may be taken to be his support to this view Sandhıs, according to the Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kosa as discussed above, are structural divisions of the plot from the standpoint of different purposes served in the progress of the action All the authorities, beginning from Bharata, maintain that every type of play does not contain all the five Sandhis Thus, from the standpoint of the Nataka laksana ratna kośa, it may be said that the Sandhis may or may not correspond to the Avasthas For this reason, Sägara seems to have neither asserted nor denied any correlation existing between the Sandhis and Avasthas Arthaprakrtis, according to Sāgara, are essential elements of the plot and are not divisions So, the question of any correlation of the Arthaprakrtis, either with the Sandhis or with the Avasthas cannot reasonably be comprehended from the viewpoint held by Sagara It is, of course, certain that the feature bijotpatt (origin of the germ) occurs in the Mukha-sandhı, but like Bindu (the sign of continuation) the Bija also continues throughout the play The Patāka and Prakari are not restricted to any particular Sandhi in the Nataka-laksana-ratna kosa Thus, according to Sagara there is no necessary correlation among the above three groups of five Like the Avasthas, the Sandhis also occur in a drama in the same order in which they have been enumerated Abhi- navagupta holds that each Sandhi rests on the corresponding Avasthã 3 So, according to Abhinavagupta, the types of plays not having all the Sandhis (hinasandht), cannot have all the Avasthas also The Natya darpana closely follows Abhrnava- bharati in this respect and clearly states, sandhayo mukhyavrtta-

86 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

mšāh pancāvasthānugāh kramāt 4 The Natya darpana further maintains that all the five Avasthas occur in the Nātaka, Prakarana, Nātıkā and Prakarani5 and as such, all the five Sandhis also occur in these types of plays Viśvanātha also is a follower of this view and explicitly states that in connection with the five Avasthas respectively, the five sections of the plot constitute the five Sandhis 6 Thus, it 1s not the Natya-darpana that tries to link the Sandhis and the Avasthas, as maintained by Dr Mainkar 7 Ramacandra and Gunacandra smply follow the line of Abhinavagupta Abhi- navagupta, himself, however, is not the propounder of this school of thought He may be said to be the mamn advocate The above view has been attributed to his preceptor in the Abhrnava-bharali 8 This school of thought thus maintains that 1 The Mukha-sandhi rests on Arambha 2 The Pratimukha sandhi rests on Yatna 3 The Garbha-sandhı rests on Prāptyāsā 4 The Vımarsa-sandhı rests on Nıyatāpti 5 The Nirvahana-sandhi rests on Phalāgama The essence of the above theory is that a plot of a full- fiedged drama (Purņānga-rūpaka) in its development passes broadly through five stages (Avastha) and each stage is the under current determining its corresponding Sandhi, a struc- tural division of the plot From this it, however, cannot be supposed that the doctrine of stages is a later addition to Bharata, as has been done by Dr Mainkar 9 There is another school of thought that advocates almost a mechanical theory of correlation existing among the members of the Avasthas, Arthaprakrtis and the Sandhis The Natya-sāstra says arthaprakrtayah panca jnātrā yorvā yathā- usdha 10 The statement means that the Arthaprakrtis are to be used in a drama according to rules But there is no such rule (vrdht) regarding their order of use in a drama, prescribed in the Nalya-sastra and the sage seems to have given the playwright a complete freedom He may use them according to his discretion Abhinavagupta as the printed text of the Abhinava-bhärati stands, seems to maintai that the five Arthaprakrtıs are to be used mn a drama mn the same order

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 87

in which they are enumerated in the Natya sastra 11 The Nat ya darpana rightly opposes this view and enumerates the Arthaprakrtis in an order different from that of the Natya- sästra It further declares that their application in a drama may not follow the order of enumeration and also all of them are not essential in every drama 12 But there are some theorists who maintain that like Avasthas and Sandhis, the Arthaprakrtis also should occur in a drama in the same order in which they are enumerated, and regarding enume- ration they follow the Natya-sastra Naturally, the theory evolves that each Sandhi rests on the corresponding Avastha and Arthaprakrtı The Dasa-rapaka is generally believed to be the chief exponent of the above theory 13 Both Dhanañjaya and Dhanika assert that the five Arthaprakrtis, combined res- pectively with the five Avasthas give rise to the correspond- ing Sandhis 14 Dhanañjaya further maintains that the anyas of the Mukha and Pratimukha Sandhis are determined by the samanvaya of the Avasthas and Arthaprakrtis concer- ned 15 Sāradātanaya, Šıngabhūpāla and Rūpa-gosvāmın maintain this view Bh ojadeva also seems to support this view 16 Commentators lıke Rāghavabhatța, Kātayavema and Dhundi are staunch followers of the above view Now this theory of correlation may be stated clearly in the following form 1 Bija and Arambha combine to form the Mukha- sandh1 2 Bındu and Prayatna combine to form the Prati- mukha-sandhı 3 Patākā and Prāptyāśā combine to form the Garbha- sandh1 4 Prakarī and Nıyatāpti combine to form the Vimarśa- sandhı 5 Kärya and Phalāgama combine to form the Nırva- haņa-sandhı It has been shown above that according to Abhinava- gupta the five Avasthas and their corresponding Sandhıs should occur in a pūrnanga rūpaka and that all the Artha-

88 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

prakrtis are not essential everywhere like the Avas- thas, the Pataka and Prakari may or may not occur in a drama 17 Thus, according to Abhinavagupta the absence of the Patāka and Prakari does not hamper a drama from being Pürnänga, having all the Avasthas and their corresponding Sandhs Abhinavagupta further rejects mn unequivocal terms the existence of yathā samlhya nıyama among the Avasthas, Sandhis and Arthaprakrtis 18 This 1s also the view of the Natya darpana 19 The entire theory of correlation of the three pentads has thus been exploded by Abhinavagupta But it is not mentioned in the Abhinava bharat that any theorist upholds the view Abhinavagupta might have fought back either a possible theory or a really existing one But his method of argument in rooting out all the pre conditions of the said theory of correlation among the members of the three pentads in a drama, seems to pre-suppose the existence of such a theory at his tıme It is curious to note that Dhanañjaya, the chief exponent of the above theory of correlation admits that the Patāka may or may not occur in the Garbha-sandh120 and keeps silent as to the position of the Prakari mn a drama Sāra- dātanaya mamtains that in the Garbha-sandhi the Patāka does not occur ın some dramas lıke the Mālavkāgnmitram and does occur in sum dramas like Malatmadhavam and as such, the occurrence of the Pataka in the Garbha-sandhi is optonal. This view has been attributed in the Bhava- prakāsana to Kohala 21 If Sāradātanaya is to be believed, then Kohala may be said to have assigned the place of the Patākā, if it occurs at all, in the Garbha sandhi Inconsistently enough, the Bhāva-prakāsana further main- tains that the Praptyasa should occur in the Garbha-sandhis and in the absence of Pataka, sometimes either the Bija or Bindu should be used there 22 The Rasārnava-sudhakara also maintains the same view 28 The above theory of correlation cannot stand if the Bija or the Bindu is allowed to occur mn the Garbha-sandhı unless Saradātanaya admıts that these two may occur more than once in a drama which

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 89

again goes against the main thesis of correlation Like the Dasa rūpaka, the Bhava prakasana also maintains silence regarding the position of the Prakari in a drama It thus appears that the Dasa-rūpaka and the Bhāva-prakasa, though uphold the above theory of correlation, they do not try to invest it with a mechanical perfection disregarding the characteristics of the subsidiary elements, the Pataka and Prakari They are inconsistent, so far as they maintain that each Sandhi is formed by a combination of the respective Avastha and Arthaprakrti and at the sametime declare that the Pataka may or may not occur in the Garbha-sandhı and observe silence regarding the place of the Prakari, which according to their theory should occur in the Vimarsa-sandhi Śıngabhūpāla seems to have given the above theory a mechanical perfection He repeats what has been said by the Dasa rūpaka, regarding the determination of the angas of Mukha and Pratımukha Sandhis, but asserts that the angas of the Garbha and Vimarsa Sandhis also depend upon the combination of the Prāptyasa with the Pataka and that of the Prakari and the Niyatapti respectively 24 Most incon- sıstently the Rasarnava-sudhakara follows the Dasa-rūpaka and the Bhāva-prakasana in maintaining that the Patāka may or may not occur in a drama 25 The Nātaka candrikā closely follows the Rasarnava-sudhhakara and adds that the angas of the Nirvahana-sandhi depend upon the combination of the Kārya and the Phalāgama 26 Singabhupala and Rūpago- svämin are apparently consistent isasmuch as they take the Arthaprakrtis as sections of the plot, which of course 1s opposed to the Bharatan conception, as pointed out before 27 Among the commentators, Rāghava-bhatța, Kātayavema and Dhundi are staunch supporters of the above theory Rāghava-bhatta follows the Dasa-rūpaka so far as the dependence of the angas of the Mukha and Pratımukha Sandhıs is concerned, but takes resort to the Rasārnava-sudhākara to show that the angas of the Garbha and Vimarsa Sandhis also similarly depend upon the combination of the Avasthas and Arthaprakrtis concerned 28 It is also interesting to note that

90 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

the Mātalıvrttānta is not a Prakari according to Rāghava- bhatta, simply because it occurs at the close of a Sandhi and the angas of the Vimarsa-sandhi do not depend on it 29 Kātayavema follows mainly the Bhāva-prakasana in his commentary of the Malavikagnimitra and maintains that the Garbha-sandhi in this drama depends upon the correlation of the Praptyasa and Bindu 90 In connection of the Vimarsa- sandhi of the said drama, he says that here it is Vimarsa- sandhı, as the Bija, occurring in the due place of the Prakarī is connected with the Nıyatāpati 31 Dhundi in his commentary of the Mudrāraksasa connects all the Artha- prakrtıs with the respective Avasthas and Sandhis and in this respect he follows the Rasarnana-sudhakara The Nat ya-sastra represents a tradition, developed through centurires It does not seem to betray any predilection towards the views that connect the Sandhis either with the Avasthas or with the Avasthas and Arthaprakrtis both Practically speaking, none of the above terms have been defined in the Natya-sastra Later authorities defined them in their own way and different views evolved, as have already been discussed From their treatment in the Nātya-sastra, it appears that the Avasthas may correspond to the Sandhis, though no hard and fast rule can be formulated The Arthaprakrtis are quite different things and all of them cannot reasonably be comprehended to coexist with either the respective Avasthas or Sandhis This seems to be the most ancient view which has been reproduced by Sāgara As the number of members of these three groups is five, a tendency developed from an early age to establish a mutual relation among them Saradatanaya, as has been shown, records the view of Kohala regarding the position of the Patākā in the Garbha-sandhi It has also been shown that according to the preceptor of Abhinavagupta each Sandhi rests on the corresponding Avasthã Mātrgupta, as dis- cussed above, in his treatment of the first three Sandhis gives crucial position to the Bija, Bındu and Patākā respec- tively These three Arthaprakrtis are not taken there exactly in the same sense in which they are used in the Nātya-sāstra,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 91

at least as interpreted by Abhinavagupta, Sagara and others Some other authority perhaps, drew inspiration from Kohala and Mätrgupta and also being tempted by the word yatha- vıdhı ın arthaprakrtayah pañca jātvā yorya yathavidhi of the Nātya-sastra (GOS XIP 10), took the Arthaprakrtis also to occur in a drama in the very order in which they are found to be enumerated in the Natya sastra A tendency naturally deve loped to correlate the members of these three groups of five The final result of this tendency is found in the doctrine that each Sandhi rests on the corresponding Avastha and Artha- prakrtı Dhanañjaya, so far as the available texts are concerned, is the earliest exponent of this theory But from the criticism of Abhinavagupta, as discussed above, it appears that the theory is much more older Dhanañjaya and Sara- datanaya, however, could not give the theory of mechanical perfection which work was completed by Sıngabhūpāla Commentators mostly followed this absurd mechanical theory of correlation simply out of loyalty to the theorists who preceded them

ANUSANDHI

The Nātya-sāstra says that the Patākā (vyāpı prāsangıka- vrtta) may contain one or more Sandhi or Sandhis, but as they are subservient to the interest of the main, they are called Anusandhıs 1 Abhinavagupta informs us that Lollata and others favour an analysis of the portions of the plot dealıng with the Patākā-nāyaka, into Anusandhis 2 Abhi- navagupta himself rejects the idea of taking the Anusandhis into account, because the Patāka itself serves the interests of the main hero Moreover, if a Pataka is to be fully treated with, then it should be provided with another Patākā, thus giving rise to the anavastha-dosa 3 In principle, however, Abhinavagupta accepts that the Patākā-vrtta may contain sandhi or sandhis, as any and every episode may contain five Avasthas on which the Sandhis are based, but he finds no necessity of enumerating them as they are all for the main plot 4

92 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Following the Abhinava-bharat the Natya-darpana makes the point more clear The Natya-darpana calls the Anu- sandhs as Gauna sandhis, because they are dependant to the Sandhis of the main plot and as such, they deserve no separate treatment and are mainly hinted at or may be inferred The problem of Anusandhi does not arise at all with regard to the Prakari due to its short ness 5 The Dasa-rupaka, on the otherhand, maintains that the Patākā vrtta should contain Anusandhis, whose number should be less than that of the main Sandhis by one, two, three or four, but the Prakari should be used without any Sandhı 6 The attempt of analysing the Pataka-vrtta into Sandhis 1s mainly due to its extensive character The problem, however, seems to have had its origin to the fact that the Sandhis have been taken to be concerned to the main plot only by a school of thought to which Abhinavagupta and Rāmacandra belong 7 Sāgara takes the plot as a whole in his analysis of it mnto Sandhis, as discussed above From his standpoint the question of the Anusandhi does not arise at all This seems to be the reason behind Its omıssıon ın the Nātaka-lakşana-ratna kośa

CHAPTER V

Sandhyangas

Angas of the Mukhasandhı

Sagara quotes the definitions of the Sandhyangas from the Natya sastra in almost all cases and illustrates them adding a short gloss on each There are casual references to other views also 1 Upaksepa Upakşepa ıs defined as the beginning of the play 1 Herefrom the Kavyartha starts As an illus- tration of the Upaksepa, Sagara quotes the verse, nırvāna- varradahanāh etc, from the Veni-samhara 2 The verse prac- tically occurs in the Prastāvana and is put into the mouth of the Sutradhära Sagara, however, says that the illustra- tion is given from the first Act of the drama Venī-samhara 3 Thus the Prastavana also is taken into account in the Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kosa while analysing the plot into San dhis Abhinavagupta and Ramacandra take strong objection to this method 4 Abhinavagupta illustrates Upakşepa with the vease lāksa-grhanalavisanna etc, the first dialogue to be recited by Bhima from nepathya before the exit of the Sutradhāra, 1 e, in the Prastāvana 5 It thus appears that according to Abhinavagupta the plot begins from the first significant speech of one of the characters of the play con cerned Viśvanatha also follows Abhinavagupta and quotes the same verse as an illustration of the Upaksepa 6 Sāgara seems to maintain that the plot begins from a clear hint to it by the Sutradhara in the Prastavana This is evident from the above illustration of the Upaksepa in the Nātaka laksana- ratna-kośa The verse concerned, along with the attached prose portion of Sutradhāra's speech, expresses a pious wish, "Let there be a peace between the Pändavas and the Kauravas through the attempt of Krsna," and thus indicates the beginning of the theme Through slesa it also gives a hint to the destruction of tha Kauravas, the ultimate object of the drama 7

ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 95

Bhima in the verse cancad-bhuja bhramita etc, in the same diama, as an illustration of Vilobhana 16 The Rasarnava- sudhakara takes Vilobhana to mean a description of merits of the hero or the heroine 17 Abhinavagupta remarks that the above four angas generally occur in the Mukha-sandhi and in the same order in which they have been enumerated 18 The Natya-darpana follows a different order in enumerating the angas but maintains that Vilobhana occurs after Parinyasa up to which it follows the order of the Natya sastra 19 5 Yuktı Yukti has been defined as the careful con- sideration of facts 20 As an illustration of Yuktı, Sāgara cites a verse which means that a mighty hero, though unarmed kılls the enemy just as Vışnu slew Hıranyakasıpu 21 This seems to be the speech of some one arguing in favour of valour Yukti according to Abhinavagupta, discloses what is to be unfolded 22 6 Prāpti Sāgara defines Prāpti as the reference to or mention of (upagamana) the central issue23 (mukhartha) and illustrates it with the verse,-'mathnāms kauravasatam samare' etc, from the Veni-samhara 24 In this verse Bhima expresses his firm determination to dısobey Yudhısthira in avenging of the wrongs done by the Kauravas and to kıll them The central issue, 1 e, the destruction of the Kauravas has been mentioned here The Nat ya-sastra defines Präpti as the approach of a pleasurable situation 25 The Dasa-rūpaka, Nāt ya-darpana, and the Sahstya darpana follow this definition of the Prapti 26 7 Samādhāna Samādhana 1s the re-establishment of the purpose of the germ (bijarthasyopagamanam) 27 The con- cluding verse of the first act of the Veni samhara has been cıted ın the Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kosa as an illustration of Samādhāna 28 Sāgara defines Prāpti as mukhārthasyopaga- mana and Samadhana as bīgarthopagamana Byartha and mukhartha practically indicate the samething Thus one definition overlaps the other Abhinavagupta points out that the Bija in Samadhana comes to be related to the main hero and is properly sown 29

96 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

8 Vidhana A situation causing both joy and sorrow 1s Vidhana 30 Sāgara cites two examples of Vidhāna, one from the Balacarta and the other from the Venī samhāra 31 Viśvanātha also cites the same verse from the Bālacarita as the example of Vidhana 32 The verse bhuyah paribha- vaklanti-laga etc, of Bhima from the Veni-samhara, cited by Sāgara as an example of Vidhana, has also been quoted by Dhanika in the same context,33 but in the Abhinava- bharatī and Natya-darpana, the same has been taken to illustrate Udbheda 34 9 Paribhavana The incident or situation (artha) that provides for fresh curiosity (kutūhalāntarādāyī) 1s Parıbhā- vanā 35 Abhinavagupta maintains that the agitation (āvega) mixed with curiosity is Paribhāvana 36 Sāgara illustrates this anga by citing from the Veni-samhara Act I, where Draupadi, on hearing the sudden beating of the war-drums becomes curious and asks its reason to Bhima 37 Abhinava- gupta, Dhanika and Viśvanātha also cite the same situation to illustrate Parıbhāvanā 38 10 Udbheda Udbheda has been defined as the sprou- ting of the Bija 39 Sagara cites the slaying of Mārica and others as an illustration of Udbheda as these activities of Räma have been taken to be manifestation of the germ of the doom of Rāvana 40 11 Karaņa The Nātaka-lakşana-ratna-kosa reads Kārana, but all other works follow the Natya-sastra and read Karaņa which has rightly been suggested by Dr Raghavan to be the correct reading 41 Karana has been defined as the com- mencement of the action to accomplish the desired object (prakrtārthah samarambhah) 42 The speech of Bhima, "Let us proceed to destroy the race of Kuru, in the Act I of the Vemt-samhära has been cited by Sagara, as an illustration of Karana 43 As an anga of the Mukha sandhı, Karaņa (kārana) thus may be described as situation representing the first step towards the realisation of the purpose The Natya-darpana records a view, said to be maintamned by some, according to which Karana is suppression of diffi- culties (vvpadăm samanam) 44

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 97

12 Bheda Athorities differ regarding, the exposition of this anga Its definition in the Natya sastra seems to mean that the situation disrupting the union of something, is Bheda 45 Sāgara takes this definition of the Nātya-sāstra to mean that Bheda 1s the breaking up of affairs or purposes (artha), united through aggregation, Two Anustubhas have been cited to illustrate this anga 46 These two verses refer to a situation where the confusion of Dasaratha as to how can Rāma, forceless and weaponless, be expected to kıll Tādakā is represented as dissolved by Viśvāmitra's reply that it will be possible through his power 47 From the illustration it appears that according to Sagara Bheda is a situation which represents the solution of some problem by dissolving the factors creating it According to Abhinavagupta, Bheda is the situation meant for the exit of characters from the stage He further points out that Bheda as means (upāyatma) should be counted among Sandhyantaras 48 The Nātya darpana defines Bheda (Bhedana) as the exit of characters and follows Abhinava- bharati both in exposition and illustration 49 According to the Dasa-rūpaka, as interpreted by Dhanıka, Bheda is the encouragement of some factor fostering the germ 50 The Sahstya-darpana follows Abhinavagupta 51 The Nātya- darpana records another view according to which Bhedana (Bheda) 1s the move that removes the obstacles against the growth of the Bija 52 These are the twelve angas of the first Sandhı Dhanika maintaıns that among these, Upaksepa, Parıkara Parınyāsa, Yuktı, Udbheda and Samādhāna are essential to the presentation of the Mukha-sandh,58 The use of the rest according to Dhanika, is thus discretionary

ANGAS OF THE PRATIMUKHA-SANDHI

Sagara enumerates the angas of the Prati-mukha-sandhı after the Natya-sastra with slight deviations in naming of two angas which will be noted in proper places It is the 7

98 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Natya-darpana that differs most from the Nātya-sastra so far as the names of the angas and their order are concerned All other authorities mostly follow the Natya-sastra with bits of changes introduced here and there 1 Vılāsa Following the Nātya-sāstra, Sāgara defines Vilāsa as the longing or effort (samīha) for amorous plea- sures He offers another definition of Vilasa as the enjoy- ment of amorous play 1 The illustration is cited from the second Act of the drama Janaki raghava, where Rāma expresses his delight on seeing the bashful and amorous move- ments of Sita 2 Abhinavagupta rightly limits this anga to the second Sandhi of those dramas where Srngära is the dominant Rasa and criticises the ill timed and ill-placed inclusion of it in the second Act of the Venī samhara, depict- ing Duryodhana's dallance with Bhānumati 3 Abhinava- gupta, however, does not exclude this anga from the second Sandhı of dramas having Vira as the dominant Rasa He maintains that mn these dramas Utsaha should take the place of Rati, as the word Ratı in Bharata's definition here stands for the Sthayi-bhava 4 The point has been made clear in the Natya-darpana where it is clearly stated that the Utsäha etc, expressed through the behaviour of man and woman is to be taken as Vilāsa mn dramas with Vira etc, as the main Rasa 5 Thus, according to this view the anga Viläsa may also occur in dramas with a Rasa other than the Srngara, as the main 2 Parısarpa Following the Nātya-sastra Sāgara des- cribes Parisarpa as the pursuing of what has been seen at first and is lost afterwards 6 The illustration, eited by Sagara from the drama Janakī-raghava, depicts the situation where Rama describes Sita who spent many days when he, seen formerly was no longer in her sight, and now casts glances on some pretext without speaking to him 6ª The Natya-darpana places it as the last anga of the second Sandhı and calls it as Anusarpa In definition, however, the Natya-darpana follows the Natya-sastra " The Bhava-Prakāsana defines Parisarpa as the pursuing of the Bija, seen before but lost sight of temporarily 8 This definition suits well

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 99

with the drsta-nasta characteristic of the Pratimukha-sandhı which has already been discussed in details 3 Vidhūta Vidhūta is the non-acceptance of a courtesy or request at the first instance 9 Abhinavagupta makes the definition of the Natya-sastra more clear and say that Vidhuta is non-acceptance of the request at the first instance and then acceptance of the same 10 Sagara for illustration quotes the verse vikira dhavaladırghāpānga-samsarpı etc, from the second Act (Bhanumatyanka) of the Veni-samhara where Duryodhana's entreaties to Bhanumati have been described 11 The Dasa rūpaka takes Vidhūta to mean aratı 12 Only aratı cannot explain the situation taken as Vidhuta in the Natya-sastra and this definition has been rejected in the Natya darpana on the ground that it overlaps the definition of Rodha (Nirodha) 13 4 Tāpana Tapana has been defined in the Nātaka- laksara-ratna kosa after the Natya-sastra, as the visualisation of a danger 14 As an illustration, the verse dullaha jananurão etc, from the second Act (Kadaligrha) of the Ratnavalı has been quoted, where Sāgarıkā pines for her love for a person beyond her reach and finds nothing but death as the last refuge 15 Abhinavagupta also quotes the same verse to illustrate Tāpana 16 Viśvanātha defines Tapana as the non-availability of any means, but quotes the same verse as above for illustration 17 The Dasa-rūpaka reads Sama nstead of Tapana and defines it as the dispel ling of the arate which is the characteristic of Vidhuta 18 5 Narma While decribing the angas of the Kaisıki vrttı, Sāgara defines Narma Evidently, Narma the anga of the Pratimukha-sandhı, has been taken by Sagara as iden- tical with Narma, the anga of the Kaisıki-vrtti There he gives the view of Acarya, 1e, Bharata, according to which Narma consists mainly in the use of dialogues provoking . laughter and promoting love (Srngāra) 19 The Nātya-sastra in the context of Sandhyangas defines Narma as the laughter caused in sport 20 According to the Dasa-rūpaka it 18 simply humorous speech21 and this definition has been taken up by Višvanātha 22

100 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

6 Narmadyutı Narmadyutı, accordıng to the Nātaka lalsana-ratna-kosa is the laughter for the purpose of play and allurement 23 For illustration Sagara quotes from the second Act of the Rantavali a passage where the Vidūsaka on hearing the words of the sārka says to the kng that there is a ghost on the tree 24 The Nalya sastra, however defines Narmadyuti as the humourous speech used to cover one's own flaw and the Natya darpana aiso maintains the same view 25 Rämacandra and Gunacandra restrict Narma and Narmadyuti in plays depicting love affairs where the Kaıšıkī vrttı gets prominence 26 Dhanañjaya takes this anga to mean the joy arising out of Narma and finds Viśvanatha as his follower 27 7 Pragamana The name of this anga has been vari- ously read in different treatises Abhinavagupta reads Pragayana and says that it is a rūdht-sabda He, however, gives an elaborate etymology of the term following other's opinion and records another name Prāgayana 28 The Daśa- rūpaka29 reads Pragamana and this reading has been accepted by others The Nātya-sastra, as followed be Sāgara, defines Fraga- mana simply as a series of questions and answers 30 For illustration, a portion consisting of a series of questions and answers between Janaka and a batu (pupil) has been quoted from the second Act of the drama Rama vilrama i1 From this characteristic of the Pragamana, it appears that this anga may occur anywhere in a drama and has no special connection with any Sandhi Dhanañjaya defines this anga as uttarā vak, and Dhanika seems to interprete it as a repartee contributing to the progress of the main topic 32 The Bhava-prakāsana defines it as yuktottara which means nothing more than a fit reply $s 8 Virodha Without any substantial difference in defi- mition the name of the anga is read as Virodha in the Nātaka-lakşana ratna-koša, Sāhstya-darpana, Rasārnava-sudhā- kara and Nātaka-candrıkā, and Nırodha in the Dasa-rūpaka and Bhava-prakasana The Natya-darpana reads Rodha while the Natya-saatra (GOS) reads Nirodha but one ms reads

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURY 101

Virodha Virodha is the appearance of some trouble (vya- sana-samprāpti) 34 Sāgara cites illustration of this anga from the second Act of the Janaki-raghava where Sita expresses her apprehension of troubles to Räma for his enmity with Paraśurāma $5 The Dasa rūpaka defines it as hatarodha and the Natya darpana says that Rodha is arts and makes this definition clear when it says artıh khedo vyasanam istarodhad rodhah36 1e, Nirodha (Rodha) consists in the frustration due to the obstruction to the desired aim 9 Paryupāsana Paryupāsana is the propitiation of an angry person and has been illustrated by Sagara with reference to the situation where Dasaratha tries to appease Bhargava with concilatory words 37 Other authorities also agree with the definition of the Natya-sastra, as followed by Sagara The Nātya-darpana, however, names this anga as Sāntvana 38 10 Puspa Puspa has been described as flowery speech (msesa-vacana) in the Natya-sastra39 and Sāgara explains the significance of visesa-vacana as a speech describing the excellence of a particular action with reference to some other action 40 The illustration, cited from the second Act of the Janakī-raghava is the speech of a character who consoles Sita by describing the excellence of Rama's prowess and hıs victory over Paraśurāma 41 Abhinavagupta says that the speech expressing the ardour of love is also Puspa 42 This is most suitable to the Prati mukha sandhi of dramas depicting love intrigues The Natya-darpana states that a statement becomes visesavat when it says something over and above a former statement and it is Puspa (flower) as it enhances the beauty of the former statement like flower doing the same of the braid 43 11 Vajra The anga Vajra, consists in a harsh state ment,4+ 1e, a shocking utterance The illustration 1s cited from the Pumsavananka where Rama is accused of not abandoning Sitā, taken away and kept so long by Rāvana 45 12 Upanyasa Accordiug to the Natya-sastra as accepted by both Abhinavagupta and Sāgara, Upanyāsa consists 1

102 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

logical statement 46 This anga has been illustrated by Sagara by a citation from the second Act of the Jānakī- rāghava where Satānanda, on hearing the reasoned speech of Dasaratha expresses his pleasure and supports it 47 This definition has also been followed in the Natya darpana 48 But according to one ms of the Natya-sastra, Upanyāsa consists in a statement embodying some means (upāya) and the Dasa- rūpaka follows this definition 49 It is interesting to note that the editor of the Dasa-rupaka records a different defi- nition according to which Upanyasa is propitiation , Viśva nātha and Saradātanaya follow this definition of the anga 50 It is curious to note that Bhoja omits this anga of the Pratimukha sandhi and says that this Sandhi has got twelve angas51 instead of thirteen Raghava-bhatta spots out this anga in two places in his Arthadyotanıka in two different senses 52 13 Varna-samhāra The Nātaka lakşana-ratna kosa records two definitions of this anga According to the first one Varņa-samhāra consists in concealing or repudiation of something which has already been exposed 53 The illustra- tion is cited from the incidents of the Kadaligrha in the Act II of the Ratnavali where the Viduşaka asks the kıng to win over the tattling Susangata by a reward, so that the secret, 1e, the picture incident, which has already been known to her, may be guarded 54 Sagara further mforms us that according to some Varna-samhara consists in the congregation of four castes 35 The GOS edition of the Natya sastra gives this second defintion of the Varņa-samhāra but one ms supports the first definition 56 It is evident that Sagara takes the first definition as authentic, the second one is introduced as the opinion of some Abhinavagupta following his teacher, takes cāturvarnyopagamana to mean the drawing together of the Varnas 1e, the characters, disso- cated for some reason and rejects the view that the congre- gation of four castes is Varnasamhara 57 The Natya-darpana follows the Abhinava-bharat but refers to other two views found in the Nataka-laksana as opinions of some.58 The Dasa-rūpaka, Bhāva-prakāsana and the Sahitya-darpana up-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 103

hold the view maintaining the assemblage of different castes to be the Varna-samhāra 59 Dhanika maintains that among the above thirteen angas of the Pratımukha-sandhı, Parisarpa, Prasama (Sama), Vajra, Upanyāsa and Pușpa are essential (pradhāna) and the others may be used whenever possible or necessary and this is also the view, upheld in the Natya darpana 60 Bhoja, as has been stated above, maintains that the Pratımukha- sandh contains twelve angas

ANGAS OF THE GARBHA SANDHI

1 Abhutodāharana The Natya-sastra as well as other text books read the name of this anga as Abhūtāharaņa instead of Abhūtodāharana of the Nātaka laksana ratna- kosa and Asatyaharana of the Natya darpana All the theorists follow Bharata in defining this anga as consisting in a deceptive statement 1 For illustration Sāgara refers to the passage from the Act called Asvatthāma, 1e, the Act III of the Veni-samhara, where the Suta describes how Yudhişthira took resort to falsehood in announcing the death of Aśvatthāman 2 2 Märga All the theor'sts agree in describing Mārga as a statement of truth or of facts 3 This anga has been ıllustrated ın the Nataka-lakşana ratna kosa with a passage from the Act III of the Janakr-raghava where Hanuman describes the achievements of Räma which are facts 4 3 Rupa Following the Natya-sastra, Sāgara defines Rupa as a conjecture having a crtrartha 5 By cttrārtha Sagara seems to mean unusual or wonderful sense, as 1s ewident from the illustration cited from the Sanketanka, (the Act III of the Ratnavali) where the love lorn king describes his own condition and says that it is really wonder- ful or unusual that Kama pierces with all his arrows at a time the mind which is fickle by nature 6 The same illustra- tion has been cited by Bhoja and Viśvanātha 7 But Abhı-

104 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPFCTIVE

navagupta and Ramacandra refer to the above situation to illustrate Udāharana 8 Abhinavagupta interpretes the definition of Rupa of the Natya sastra as some inconclusive statement due to the diversity of facts and distinguishes this anga from the Yuktı by saying that the latter contains a fixed conclusion which is wanting in the former 9 For illustration of Rūpa, Abhinavagupta cites from the Act II of the Ratnaval the verse,-prasıdeti brūyām tdam asatı etc, forming a speech of the king which has been taken as an illustration of the Paryupasana by Dhanıka 10 The Dasa-rupaka omits the epithet citra and states that the Rupa consists in a statement containing conjectures 11 The Nat ya darpana follows Ahhtnava-bharatt but records the view held by Dhanañjaya, as the opinion of some and also refer to a view according to which Rüpa is a striking description, as is clear from the illustration cited from the Vent-samhara (Act IV) where Sundaraka gives a vivid description of the battle-scene 12 4 Udāharaņa The Nātya sāstra as accepted by Abhinava- gupta defines Udaharaņa as a statement expressing excel- lence of something 13 Sāgara does not difier very much from this in describing Udaharana as an exaggerated state ment 14 For illustration Sagara refers to the verse yo yah sastram bsbhartts etc, from the Vens-samhara (Act III) where Aśvathäman boastfully declares that he would kill all the heroes of the Pandava camp 15 The Śrngara-prakasa and the Sahitya-darpana also cite the same illustration 16 5 Krama The Natya-sastra as interpreted by Abhinava- gupta, describes Krama as the knowing of the real state of affairs concerning something pondered over 17 Sägara defines Krama as the knowledge of the events to come, bhavrsyat tattvopalabdhah 18 The illustration is cited from the Aśvatthamanka (Act III of the Vent-samhara) where Krpa asserts that given the supreme command, Asvatthaman 1s able to destroy the whole world, not to speak of the Pändavas 19 But, strictly speaking this cannot be taken as bhavssyattattva, it is simply a bold assertion of Krpa regard- ing the future events which is never to materialse It thus

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 105

appears that any bold assertion regarding a future event is Krama according to Sagara The view held by Sāgara with illustration has been recorded in the Nātya darpana as the opinion of some 20 Dhanañjaya describes Krama as the accomplishment of the desired end and this view has also been recorded in the Natya darpana as the opinion of some, while the Bhara-prakasana repeats it 21 The Dasa- rupaka further says that according to some Krama consists in bhavajnanam 22 This view is in conformity with that of Abhinavagupta and the Natya-darpana upholds this view 28 The Sahitya-darpana gives the definition of Krama from the Nātya sāstra 24 6 Samgraha All the authorities agree in describing Samgraha as a statement mntroducing conciliation (sama) or offer of some gift (dana) or other expedients lıke bheda and danda 25 Sagara illustrates this anga with the concili- atory speech of Dhrtarästra from the Act V of the Veni samhāra 26 7 Anumāna Anumna has been described as arriving at a logical conclusion through inference from something perceptible 27 This anga has been illustrated mn the Nātaka- laksana ratna kosa with the second half of a verse, quoted from the Janak raghava, as informs the Sahztya-darpana Herem the conclusion of one's being the son of the Sun has been drawn from one's lustrous body and prowess 28 8 Prarthana Dhanañjaya, Sāradātanaya and Sınga- bhupala do not take this anga into account and maintamn that there are twelve angas of the third Sandhi29 instead of thirteen of Bharata as followed by Sagara, Ramacandra and Vıśvanātha The mātrkā bha text of the Nātya-sāstra as informed by the editor of the GOS text, does not contain the definition of Prarthana 30 The Natya darpana also ınforms us kectt tu praktanam idam cangam na manyante 31 Prārthana according to the Natya sastra is a request for the enjoyment of love (rats), rejoicing (harsa) or festivity (utsava) 32 But Sāgara describes this anga simply as a request and for illustration quotes from the Sampātyanka where Mäyävati seems to try her wit on someone 33

106 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

9 Utksıpta There are several variants so far as the name of this anga is concerned 84 According to the Nātya- sästra as interpreted by Abhınavagupta Akșıptı consısts in the bursting out of the secret (garbhasyodbhedanam), hidden mn the heart .3 The Natya-darpana defines the anga as the revealing of the Bija but accepts the above view of Abhı- navagupta as an alternative 36 The Sāhitya darpana also follows Abhınava bharate 37 Sāgara describes Utkşıptı as the 1evealing out of the Bija (byodbhedanam) 38 For illustration a verse from the Balacarita, an unidentified work, is quoted where it is said that Rama promised the kingdom as a reward for the recovery of Sita and slaying Vāln he had given it to Sugriva 89 Sagara comments on this illustration that the accomplishment of the garbhabya has been disclosed 40 The accomplishment of the hidden Bija here evidently refers to the recovery of Sita The Dasa rūpaka also defines Äkşepa as the disclosing of the garbha bya 41 From the above it appears that here the word garbha in the definition of the Natya-sastra has been taken by some to mean secret feeling while others take it in the sense of main purpose (bya), remaining hidden and as a result we get almost three separate definition of this anga, disclosing of the hidden feeling, that of the mamn purpose and the same of the hidden main purpose The Natya-darpana informs us that some authorities do not take this anga into account at all 42 10 Totaka Sāgara describes Totaka after the Nātya- sastra as the speech full of samrambha43 (excitement) For illustration a verse from the Balacarta has been quoted where Rävana mn excitement declares that his fire of anger will fall on the forest of enemies 44 Here Ravaņa's agita- tion is due to anger The point has been made clear by Abhinavagupta who says that a speech, pregnant with excite- ment (avega) 1s Totaka, as it pierces the heart, and this excitement may be due to joy, anger or to some other reason 45 The Natya-darpana also means the same 46 11 Adhıbala The Nātya-sāstra as interpreted by Abhinavagupta, defines Adhibala as a situation where one is

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 107

overpowered by another through deceit, as is the case in the Act III of the Ratnaral where the king is deceived through the foolishness of the Vidūsaka by Vāsavadattā ın the guise of Sāgarıka 47 The Dasarūpaka, Nātya-darpana, Bhava-prakasana and Sāhitya darpana48 follow Abhinavagupta But one ms of the Nātya sāstra defines Adhibala as kapa- tasyānyathābhāva 49 This definition has been accepted by Sagara and Bhoja 50 Adhibala, thus according to Sagara and Bhoja consists in the baffling of an attempt of deception The illustration is cited from the Sampatyanka where an attempt of - the Rāksasī Māyāvatī to dupe Angada, Hanumān and others has been depicted as foiled 51 The Natya darpana also refers to this view as the opinion of some 52 The Dasa rūpaka informs us that in some works Adhibala 1s defined as totakasyanyathābhāva 58 The Nātya-darpana records a view that describes 't as, sopālambham vākyam 54 12 Udvega Fear from the king, or the enemy, or the robber gives rise to the situation of Udvega according to the Natya-sastra 55 Abhinavagupta maintains that here enemy (art) includes even the herome,56 evidently in love intrigues Dhanika also means the same when he illustrates the anga by referring to the situation where Sāgarıkā is afraid of Vasavadattā But Dhanañjaya defines Udvega as arekrta bhīth 57 The Natya darpana follows Abhinava gupta and the Nātya-sāstra 58 In the light of the above, the scope of Sāgara's defini- tion of Udvega as, nrpatyanitabhayam59 (fear from the king) 1s too small The reading here in the text may be amended as, nrpadyanitabhayam This reading finds support from a ms of the Natya sastra, the Sahstya-darpana and the Srngara- prakāsa 60 As an illustration of Udvega, Sāgara quotes a verse from the Sompätyanka where Angada being unable to find out Sita thinks in despair what will he say to Rāma 6 I The verse really depicts Angada's anxiety (udvega) and not fear from the king 13 Vıdrava Sagara says that Vidrava ( agitation, panıc) ıs due to sankā, bhaya and trāsa 62 A subtle differ- ence in meanings of these three words has been brought

108 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RAINA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

home to us by Sagara when he illustrates Vidrava with a verse that depicts a situation where, on hearing terrible noise created by Khara etc, Rāma apprehended (sankā) (some mischief), Sita became afraid (bhaya) and the sages became panic stricken (trasa) 6% Thus, Vidrava according to Sigara is a state of confusion arising out of apprehen sion, fear and panic and Visvanatha also means the same b4 For this exposition of Vidrava, sāgara seems to be indebted to Śankuka whose view has been reproduced in the Abhinara- bharat 65 Sāgara further says that according to some the Vidrava may arise from any one of the above three causes 6b Abhınavagupta hımself maintaıns that Vıdrava is sankā pro- duced by bhaya and trasa67, and this interpretation has been accepted by Bhoja and Rämacandra-Gunacandra 68 The Dasa-rūpala names the anga as Sambhrama and defines it as sankā trāsau, and Bhāva prakasana simply reiterates this 69 It is thus shown that Sagara follows the Natya-sas'ra in enumerating the above thirteen angas of the Garbha- sandhi It has already been pointed out that Dhanañjaya, Śaradātanaya and Šıngabhūpāla omit Prārthanā and main- tain that the third Sandhi has got twelve angas The view has been recorded in the Nātja darpana as shown above Viśvanātha also refers to the view 70 Among these angas Abhūtāharaņa, Mārga, Totaka, Adhıbala and Ākșepa are main according to Dhanika and Rāmacandra-Guņacandra 71

ANGAS OF THE VIMARSA-SANDHI

1. Apavāda Apavāda is censure and all the authori- ties beginning from Bharata define it as the declaration of fault 1 The Nat ya darpana, however, makes the point more clear and says that Apavada is parivada which means, sva- para-doşodghattanam 2 The ıllustration ın the Nātaka-lakşana- ratna-kosa ıs taken from the Act Māyā laksa-(kşma)-na of the drama Janaki-raghava, The verse quoted for the purpose

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 109

gives a list of wrongs committed by Ravana and declares that the terrible consequence of these is sure to come 3 2 Sampheța Sampheta is an exchange of angry speeches 4 Sagara offers two illustrations of this anga , one from the Veni-samhara (Act VI) where Yudhisthira and Cārväka engage in altercation regarding the duel between Bhima and Duryodhana, and the other is from the Samke- tanka, 1e, the Act III of the Ratnāval where Vāsavadattā chastises the king 5 Abhinavagupta informs that some name the anga as Samsphota, taking the root sphota to mean anādara 6 3 Drava The Nātaka laksana ratna-kosa defines Drava after the Natya-sastra as guruvyatıkrama7 and dıstinguishes it from Vidrava of the Garbha-sandhı by statıng , sankādībhir manasah ksobho vidravah sa eva paribhava krto dravah 8 Thus, according to Sagara both Vidrava and Drava signify mental agitation, the difference lies in the cause of that agitation In the case of Vidrava, it is caused by sanka etc, while in case of Drava, it is caused by paribhava (humiliation) The illustration is cited from the Act VI of the Vens samhara where Yudhısthira expresses his mental agitation before Draupadi by referring to the great humiliation they suffered at the hands of the Kauravas even before the superiors and kinsmen, the only remedy for which is their own death or that of Duryo- dhana 9 Abhinavagupta, however, takes the expression guruvyatıkrama in the sense of disrespect or insolence towards the superiors 10 Dhanañjaya, Ramacandra Gunacandra and Bhoja also define Drava as consisting in showing of disrespect to the superiors,11 to this Viśvanātha adds the reason sokāvegādisambhava 12 According to this view, Drava is the showing of disrespect to the superiors by some one out of grief, mental agitation etc It may be noted here that the Natya-darpana admits of two Dravas, one in the Garbha sandhi and the other in the Vimarsa-sandhı The first is the Vidrava of the Nātya Sāstra and Nātaka-laksana ratna kosa 4 Śaktı Almost all the theorists follow the Nātya-sāstra in defining Sakti as the putting down of an antagonism Dirodhaprasama 13 Abhinavagupta, evidently with love

110 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

dramas in his mind, interprete the definition of the Nātya- sastra as placating one who is angry I4 Sagara picks up the illustration from the Cūdāmant-samhara (Act V of the Nagananda) where Garuda at the advice of the hero promises not to kill any living being mn future 15 The situation referred to in the illustration may be taken to depict the putting down of the virodha of Garuda with the Nāgas The Natya darpana defines Saktı following the above explanation of Abhınavagupta as kruddha-prasādanam, but extends its scope and says that Sakti consists also in the total annihilation of the angry enemy 16 It also informs us that some theorists omit Sakti and admit a new anga Bhavantara, while some others place Ajña in the place of Śaktı Bhāvāntara is said to be the existence of contrary intentions and Ajña consists in giving an order without considering the propriety 17 5 Vyavasāya Vyavasāya has been defined in the Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kośa as a statement connected with the pratyjna-hetu 18 The expression pratyna-hetu has not been explained by Sagara For illustration Sagara quotes a por- tion of a speech from the Veni-samhara (Act VI) where Pāfcalaka describes the finding out of Duryodhana by Bhima and refers to the statement of Vasudeva that Duryodhana knows the art of mastery over water ( jalas- tambhana) 19 From this illustration it appears that pratyna- hetu has been understood by Sägara to mean the means for the fulfilment of the resolved end Here the finding of Duryodhana is the resolved end of Bhima, who secures the means from the above statement of Vasudeva The definition of Vyavasaya in the Natya-sastra has been explained by Abhinavagupta also in the sense of acquisition of means for the accomplishment of undertakıngs 20 The Dasa-rūpaka defines this anga as the declaration of ones own power, 1e, boasting 21 The Bhava-prakasana and the Rasārnava- sudhakara follow this view, and the Natya-darpana refers to It as the opinion of some 22 5 Prasanga Prasanga according to Sāgara is the declaration of something which is not the chief subject-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 111

matter 23 1e, irrelevant The mourning of Yudhisthira on hearng the false news of Bhima's defeat and death from Cārvāka in the Ven samhāra (Act VI) has been cited as an illustration of Prasanga 24 Here lamentation over Bhima's death 1s entirely irrelevant as the fact is otherwise than the defeat of Bhima This definition of Prasanga, though supported by one of the manuscripts of the Nātya sāstra25 differs from that accepted by Abhinavagupta, but is followed by the Bhāva prakāsana and 1s referred to in the Nātya- darpana as maintained by some 26 The definition of Prasanga in the Natya-sastra as accepted by Abhinavagupta and followed by Dhanañjaya, Ramacandra and Visvanātha, means that the anga consists in the state- ment where superiors are respectfully referred to 27 7 Dyutı The Nātya-sāstra defines Dyuti as a contemp- tuous speech, vākyamādharsa-amyuktam 28 Sāgara adds two more adjectives, viz, threatening (tarjana) and insulting (adhiksepa) to the speech and concludes that an address (ahūts) with a harsh effect (duruktr parinama) is meant here 29 The challenging rebukes and harsh addresses hurled to Duryodhana hidden under water by Bhima, as reported to Yudhışthıra by Pāñcālaka in the Ven samhāra have been referred to as forming an illustration of Dyuti by Sāgara 30 The same situation has been referred to for illustration of Dyutı ın the Dasa-rūpaka and Sāhitya-darpana, while defining the anga as consisting in a threatening and intimidating speech 31 The Natya-darpana takes this anga to be smple tiraskara and refers to all the above views as those of others 32 8 Kheda Theorısts lıke Dhanañjaya, Šāradātanaya, and Singabhupala do not count kheda as an anga The reason perhaps is, as indicated by Abhinavagupta, that śrama a Vyabhicaribhava cannot be included in the list of Sandhyangas Abhinavagupta, himself, however, maintains that srama, udvega, vitarka etc, though included in the list of Vyabhicārins, may also be used as Sandhyangas if there 1s scope 38 The Natya sastra followed by the Nataka-laksana-ratna- kośa, Natya-darpana and Sāhitya-darpana, defines Kheda as

112 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

exhaustion (srama) due to mental and physical over- working 34 For illustration Sāgara quotes a verse from the Janaki-raghaia (Act VI) where Rama visualises Sītā's weariness 35 9 Pratışedha The Nātaka-laksana ratna kosa and the Sahitya darpana follow the Natya sastra in taking Pratisedha into account as an anga The Natya-darpana also seems to admit this anga but terms it as Virodha 36 Pratıs dha has been defined as the obstruction to the (achievement of the) desired object 37 Sagara, for illustration, refers to the situation where Sankhacuda describes his frustration in offering his body to Garuda, due to Jimūtavāhana's interven- tion in the Act V of the Nagananda 38 10 Virodhana In complete agreement with the Natya sāstra Sāgara defines Virodhana as the appearance of delay or lapse (atyaya) to the karya, 1e, the accomplishment of one's own desire (kāryātyayopagamanam) 39 Bhoja and Viśvanātha also maintain this view 40 As an illustration of this anga Sagira refers to the situation in the Act VI of the Venā samhāra, where the Kañcukın mıstakes Bhima as Dur- yodhana, evidently out of fear, and declares that the latter after killing the former is coming here and is seeking Pāñcali here and there 41 The Virodha of the Nātya- darpana, as identified with Pratisedha above, also comes very near to this anga There is a confusion among the theorists regarding the exact significance of this anga The Dasa-rūpaka, defines ıt as samrabdhānam virodhanam and Dhanika cites the angry exchange of hot words between Bhima and Duryodhana from the Veni samhara (Act V) as an illustration 42 The Bhāva prakāsana gives two similar definitions of Virodhana 43 The Rasarnava-sudhakara defines the anga as, vīrodhanam niro- dhoktıh sabdānam ca parasparam 4+ Several mss of the Natya sastra also define Virodhana in the similar words 45 It thus appears that from an early time there have been two distinct views regarding the nature of Virodhana, one taking it in the sense represented by Sāgara, Abhinava- gupta, Bhoja and Visvanatha and the other supporting the explanation offered by Dhanañjaya, Saradātanaya etc

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 113

11 Ādāna Sāgara quotes the definition of Ādāna from the Natya-sastra 46 According to this definition Ādāna signifies a situation that shows the nearness of the object indicated by the Bija It shows that the final fruition of the Bija is drawing near Sagara illustrates this anga from the Act IV of the Ratnavali by citing the speech of Vāsa vadattā who on seeing the conflagration request the king to save Sagarıka kept bound, and the king readily accepts 47 The Natya darpana also defines Ādāna as , phala-sāmīpyam 48 Another school of thought repiesented by the Dasa rūpaka, Bhāva prakāsana, Rasārnava-sudhākara etc, define Ādāna as a recapitulation of the action 49 12 Sadana The term Sadana as an anga of the fourth Sandhi is found only in the Nataka-laksana-ratna-kosa The Natva-sastra followed by the Natya-darpana, and the Sahrtya-darpana names the anga as Chadana while the Dasa rūpaka, Bhāva-prakāsana, Rasārnava-sudhākara, read Chalana Sagara describes this anga as an insulting speech, apamānakrtam vākyam, while the Natya-sastra enjoins that insulting speech is to serve a purpose (kāryārtham) 50 The illustration, cited by Sägara is from the Act VI of the Venisamhara where Bhima after his final triumph returns and from behind the screen asks for the where- abouts of Draupadi and refers to the insults she had to suffer in the past 51 Here the speech of Bhima cannot be taken to be an insulting one though it refers to the past humiliations of Draupadi Abhinavagupta makes the point clear and justifies the name Chadana as it covers the insult 52 Sägara's illustration may also be taken in this sense The Natya darpana follows Abhinava-bharatī and defines Chadana as manyumārjana 53 The Dasa-rūpaka and the Bhāva-prakāsana understand Chalana simply as insult and the view is recorded in the Natya-darpana 54 Sımılarly the Rasārnava-sudhākara defines Chalana as avamānādıkaranam kāryāntam 55 Viśvanātha, following the Nātya-sastra defines Chalana as the suffering

8

114 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

of an insult or the like for the sake of a purpose 56 The Kavyamāla edition of the Natya sastra records a manuscript reading according to which Chalana is sammoha due to an insult or a similar discomfiture 57 It is interesting to note that the Natya-darpana records both the views as opinions of some 58 That there were divergent views regarding the implication of this Sandhyanga is evident from the above 13 Prarocana Sāgara defines Prarocanā as a situation that shows the samhatartha,59 but what is exactly meant by samhatartha is not clear For illustration Sägara refers to a verse in the Act VI of the Janaki-raghava60 where Laksmaņa appears to console Rāma and says that more formidable and young enemies lıke Kumbhakarna, Indrajit and Kumbha have already been killed and it is the old Rivana who remains This verse foresees the final victory of Räma, ie, the consistency of the final accomplishment is shown here Samhatartha in the definition may thus be taken to mean consistent or coherent purpose to be served Prarocanã may thus be taken to signify a situation that fore- shows the final end of the play The Natya-sastru defines Prarocanā as samharartha pradarsin which has been explained by Abhınavagupta as, nırvāhyamānasyārthasya darsıkā €1 Thus according to Abhinavagupta also, Prarocanã means a situation that shows the desired end which is going to be accomplished The final accomplishment, however, is repre- sented in the last Sandhi Bhoja and Viśvanatha also give the above definition of the Natya sastra 62 The Natya darpana defines Prarocana as bhavasiddhth but follows Abhinava- bharati in its commentary 63 The definition of the Dasa- rūpala which seems to be followed by the Bhava-prakāsana and the Rasarnava-sudhakara54 do not differ in sense from that of the Natya-sastra as interpreted by Abhinavagupta Besides the thirteen anga discussed above, the GOS edition of the Natya sastra gives names and definitions of three other angas of the Vmarsa-sandhi which are not commented upon by Abhinavagupta They are,-Vyāhāra, Yuktı and Vicalana which are defined respectively as, pra-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 115

tyaksa-vacanam, savıcchedam vacah and avamānārtha-samyuta 65 On the other hand Dhanañjaya omits Kheda and Pratı- sedha of the Natya-sastra and admits two new angas, Vidrava and Vicalana defined as, vadha bandhādı and vrkatthanā respectively 66 Sāradātanaya, Šıngabhūpāla and Rūpago- svämin follow the Dasa-rūpaka in this respect 67 All these simply show that the confusion regarding the number and definition of the Sandhyangas is very old Abhinavagupta himself informs us that some authorities omit any of the above thirteen angas,68 and maintain that the fourth Sandhı consists of only twelve angas 69 The Natya darpana also records this view Dhanika maintains that among the thirteen angas of the Vımarśa-sandhı, Apavāda, Šaktı, Vyavasāya, Prarocanā and Ādāna are important 70 The Nātya-darpana omits Apavāda from this list 71

ANGAS OF THE NIRVAHANA-SANDHI

Artha Artha as a name of an anga of the last Sandhı occurs only in the Nataka laksana-ratna-kosa where it is defined as an allusion to the main theme T In this sense it is not different from the Sandhı of all other authorities including Bharata Sandhi has been defined in the Natya-sastra as the coming up of the Bija sown in this Mukha-sandhı Z Pradhanartha of Sagara may be taken to mean the Bija of Bharata's definition The definitions offered by other authorities do not differ in sense from that of the Natya-sastra $ The illustration cited by Sāgara is said to be taken from the Mārīca-vañcitaka 4 Here Lakșmaņa requests Rāma to enter Lankā and accept the hospitality of the citizens The killing of Ravana and the recovery of Sita appear to constitute the pradhānartha of the play which has been indrectly hinted at in the portion, cited as illustration 2 Grathana Grathana according to the Nātya-sāstra, as followed by Sagara, Viśvanātha and Bhoja, is a reference

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 117

Gunacandra, however, restrict this censuring to one's own self only 15 For illustration Sagara refers to the situation ın the Veni-samhara (Act IV) where Bhima censures Duryo- dhana and Duhsāsana, and begs Yudhisthira for leave to tie up the braid of Draupadi with his hands, tinged with the blood of the chief enemy 16 Bhoja also refers to the same situation for illustration 17 Dhanañjaya understands this anga as mutual conversation simply18 and the view has been referred to in the Natya-darpana as the opinion of some 19 The Bhava-prakasana accepts both the above views 20 5 Dyuti (Krtı) Dyutı according to Sāgara is the removal of the torment produced by jealousy or that of the jealous and torment 21 Bhoja defines this anga as the removal of jealousy and anger and a manuscript of the Nātya-sāstra supports this definition 22 The sense of the illustration, a single sentence, cited by Sāgara from the Kāmadattāpūrt,23 is not clear Sagara's view on this anga, however, has been referred to in the Natya-darpana, as the opinion of some 24 The Natya-sastra as interpreted by Abhinava, defines Dyuti as the appeasement of anger etc 25 Excepting the Nat ya-sāstra, Nātaka-lakşana-ratna-kosa and Śrngāra prakāsa, all other works read the name of the anga as Krtı A manuscript of the Nātya sāstra also uses the term Krti instead of Dyutı 26 Ihe Dasa-rūpaka defines Krtı as lab- dharthasamanam,27 1 e, peace due to the attamment Krti may also imply the confirmation of the thing attained, as it appears from the Avaloka 28 The Bhava-prakasana also gives these two implications of Krti 29 The Sahitya-darpana quotes the definition of Krt from the Dasa-rūpaka and illu- stration from the Avaloka verbatım 30 The Natya-darpana gives a quite new defintion of the anga as krth ksemam, 1e, the maintenance of the result attained 31 This defi- nition does not differ in sense from that of the Dasa-rūpaka as interpreted by Dhanıka The Natya-darpana further in- forms us that some substitute Dyuti for Krti and define it as, prāptasya prātskulyasamanam 32 6. Prasada According to the Natya-sastra, as followed by Abhinavagupta, Sāgara and Bhoja , Prasāda consists in

118 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPCTIVE

a propitiatory speech or situation 33 Both Abhinavagupta and Sāgara cite the same speech of Vasavadattā for illus- tration from the Ratnaval (Act IV) where she propitiates Sāgarıkā and dresses her with ornaments 34 Abhinava- gupta informs that some read this anga just after Dyuti, 35 as is actually done in the Nātaka-laksana The Nātya darpana names an anga Upästi and defines it as seva which is para- prasattıheturvyapārah, but mnforms us that some recognise Prasāda instead of Upāsti 36 Thus, some sort of propitiation is the main element of Prasada and this is the opinion of all other theorists 37 7 Ānanda All the theorists agree with Bharata in defining Ananda as the attainment of the desired object 38 Abhinavagupta very aptly remarks that the name is Ānanda as it gives joy 39 Abhinavagupta and Sāgara cite the same illustration from the Ratnaval (Act IV) where the king gladly accepts the offer of Väsavadatta, 1e, the hand of Sāgarıkā 40 8 Samaya Samaya has been taken ın the Nātya-sastra, Śrngāra prakāsa, Dasa-rūpaka, Nātya darpana, Sāhitya-darpana etc, as the disappearance of misery 41 But Sāgara defines it as the end of opposition, virodha-samanam, and illustrates it by quoting from the Act IV of the Ratnaval the speech of Vāsavadattā where she herself presents Sāgarikā to the king and requests to treat her affectionately 42 Thus by virodha samanam, Sāgara also means a situation which depicts the disappearance of troubles for principal characters 9 Anuyoga The term Anuyoga denoting a Sandhyanga is used only in the Nātaka-laksana-ratna kosa where it 1s defined as the searching for the right object 43 For illus- tration Sägara cites a speech from the Samhāranka (last Act) of the Janakı-rāghava, where Rāma eagerly asks Vıbhīşaņa whether it is a fact that Sita is unburnt, as he himself fails to see clearly due to the overflow of tears of joy 44 That Sita Is safe and that the reunion which is the final end (karya) of the drama is approching, may be taken as the yukta kārya here and Rama is seeking that From the

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 119

above exposition it appears that Anuyoga of Sagara is the Nirodha of the Natya-sastra and Nātya darpana, while it 1s termed as Virodha in the Bhava-prakasana and Vibodha in the Dasa rūpaka and Sāhitya-darpana Tne Nātya-sāstra, as interpreted by Abhinavagupta, defines Nirodha as the search for the final object of desire through reason 45 The same has been said about Nırodha in the Nāt ya darpana in different words 46 The Dasa-rūpaka omits yuktya from the definition of the Natya-sastra and says Vıvodha ıs, kāryamārganam, this definition seems to be followed by other theorists 47 10 Upagūhana (Nātya-darpana Parıgūhana, Rasārnava- sudhākara Upagūdha) All the theorists follow Bharata in defining Upagühana as the occurrence of something marvel- lous or wonderful 48 This is considered to be an important haracteristic of the concluding porton of a drama and the point has already been elaborately discussed in connection with the Nirvahana-sandhi Sagara illustrates this anga49 by referring to the concluding portion of the Venr samhara where Krsna describes how a marvellous situation is going to be created as all sages, generals, princes of different dynesties and even Vyāsa, Vālmīkı and Paraśurāma themselves are coming to celebrate the corronation of Yudhışthıra 11 Bhāșana · According to Sāgara, Bhāsana is a state- ment of conciliation etc 50 The Natya-sastra also means the same when it says that Bhasana is the statement accompanied by concilation or gifts or the like 51 Other theorists also understand this anga as acquisition of honour, or conciliatory statement or praise 52 Both Abhinavagupta and Sagara, for illustration refer to the same situation from the Ratnaval (Act IV) where Vasubhūti praises Vāsava- dattä, as she herself gives Sägarika to the king 53 Abhinava- gupta rightly points out that Samgraha of the Garbha- sandhi also bears the same characteristics as Bhașana and maintains that as the latter is compulsory in the Nirvahana sandhı, it is enumerated here 34 The Natya-darpana also maintains that the use of this anga is compulsory in the last Sandh1 53

120 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

12 Pürvavākya The definition of the Pūrvavākya, as given in the Natya-sastra and commented upon by Abhinava gupta, signifies that this anga consists in the disclosure of the main purpose, proposed (evidently in the Mukha-sandhı) to be served 56 Sagara also seems to mean the same when he says that Pūrva vakya is the disclosure of the Bija 57 As an illustration Sägara cites the speech of Bhima from the Venī-samhara (Act VI) where he says to the maid "Where Is Bhanumat1 ? Now let her insult the wife of the Pândavas 58 The reference is directly to the insult of Draupadi by Bha- numati, reported to Bhima by the maid in the Mukha- sandhi This gives rise to a confusion as to the suitability of the illustration as the above does not contain any refe- rence to the Bija 59 But the speech of Bhima really refers in a covert way to the total annihilation of the Kauravas and the victory of the Pandavas which is the Phala of the drama Moreover the prose portion quoted by Sāgara is a part of the whole speech of Bhima and is immediately preceded by a verse (krstā yenäsr etc ) where the killing of both Duryodhana and Duhsāsana has been referred to The Dasa-rūpaka defines the anga as the sight of the Krya and in this respect is followed by the Natya-darpana and the Bhava-prakasana 60 The Sahitya-darpana follows the definition of the Natya-sastra 61 The Natya-darpana further informs that some authorities understand Pūrvavākya as a statement similar to that made in the Mukha-sandhi, etc 62 13 Kāvya samhāra Sagara defines Kavya-samhara in the words of the Natya sastra as the granting of the boon and obtaining of the desired end 63 The definition of other authorities also do not differ in sense from that of the Natya-sastra 64 For illustration Sāgara refers to the verse Krodhandharh sakalam etc, from the conclud- ing portion of the Veni samhara where Yudhisthira says that he has already obtained all the desired ends mn reply to Vasudeva's question, "What more do you wish" 65 It is a convention that towards the conclusion of a Sanskrit play some semior or noble character or the mamn helper of the hero, as the case may be, asks the hero a question lıke, kam

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 121

te bhuyan prryam usakarom The hero in reply expresses hıs full satisfaction and in many cases gives a list of attain- ments This portion of the play is designated as Kāvya- samhara and marks the termination of the dramatic business of a play and also is invariably followed by the Praśasti 14 Praastı Sāgara following the Nātya sāstra says that Prasastı is the end of the play and consists of a prayer tor the welfare of the king, the Brahmanas and cows etc 66 For illustration, the concluding verse from the Rāghavā- bhyudaya 1s quoted 67 This is the conventional ending of a Sanskrit play and as a Sandhyanga, Prasastı should be used compulsorily The Nātya-darpana enjoins that Kāvya- samhara and Prasastı are compulsory angas and the latter also forms a part of the play 68 Prasastı is always written in verse The above fourteen angas of the last Sandhi are generally held to be equally important 69 The Natya-darpana rightly restricts the use of Sandhı, Nıroda, Grathana, Pūrvabhāva, Kāvyasamhara and Prasastı in the Nirvahana-sandhı only 70 The Kavya-samhara is generally found to be concluded with such speech of the hero as atah param apr priyam ast, and then mn many cases a list of his achievements also is found to be put in his mouth In many printed texts of Sanskrit plays the term Bharata vakya is found to be prefixed to be benedictory verse (Praśastı) just after the anga Kāvya- samhara In some cases the term 'is found to be appended to the introductory speech itself of the Prasastı as tathāpidam astu bharata-vakyam 71 The term in such cases is included in the speech 72 This particular term has given rise to a confusion Now-a-days the Prasasti verse itself is known to be the Bharata-vakya The most interesting point is this that the term Bharata-vakyam is not found in any of the renowned works on dramaturgy lika the Natya-sastra with Abhınava bhāratī, Nātaka laksana ratna kasa, Daša rūpaka, Bhāva prakāšana, Rasāranava-sudhākara, Sāhitya darpana etc Rāghava-bhatța seems to observe that the Prasasti is meant for the recitation by a member of the dramatic troupeTs

122 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

(Bharata 1e Nata) and as such, it 1s called Bharata- vākya The Prasastı, the last and obligatory Sandyanga cannot be taken to be recited by any character of the play concerned Technically the play ends wth the Kavya-samhāra after which none of the participants in acting can be regarded as a character of the play, and the Prasasti is recited by a Nata or Natas (Bharata) on behalf of the troupe Svarama in his commentary on the Nagananda says that the Prasasti itself 1s Bharata-vakya and the Nata is to recite this as there is no scope for any character to do the same after the play is over Dr K K Datta Shastrı thus rightly suggests that the Bharata- vākya prefixed to the Prasastı-verse is sımply a stage-direc- tion It is neither an anga of the last Sandhi nor can it be appended to the last speech as done by some editors

NUMBER, NAME AND DEFINITIONS OF THE SANDHYANGAS

There has been a long standing confusion regarding the number, name and definitions of the Sandhyangas Like all other theorsts Sagara maintains that the number of the Sandhyangas is sixtyfour,1 but following the Nātya-sastra he himself has described sıxtyfive Sandhyangas Abhinava- gupta, the great commentator of the Nalya-sastra, also does the same 3 The Natya-sastra, as it has come down to us, cannot help much in the matter It distinctly says that the number of the Sandhyangas is sixtyfour,8 but enumerates and defines sixtyfive of them It has also been shown above that three extra angas of the Vimarsa-sandhi have been recognised and defined in the GOS text of the Natya sāstra but Abhinavagupta omits them 4 There is no controversy regarding the number of angas of the first, second5 and the last Sandhıs Abhinavagupta seems to be in favour of accepting twelve angas of the fourth Sandh,6 though the view in another place has been referred to as maintamned by some in the Abhrnava-bharats itself? The Natya-darpana records a view that admits twelve angas

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 123

of each of the third and fourth Sandhi 8 Broadly speaking there are two views regarding the number of the angas of the third Sandhı The Dasa-rūpaka, followed by the Bhāva-prakā- sana, Rasārnava-sudhākara and the Nātaka candrıkā assıgns twelve angas to this Sandhı, while in the Natya-sastra, as inter- preted by Abhinavagupta and Sagara, the number is thirteen The Natya-darpana and the Sahitya-darpana follow this view, Besıdes the Abhınava bhāratı, Nātaka laksana-ratna-koša and Śrngāra-prakāsa, the Natya-darpana and Sahitya-darpana may be said to be close followers of the Nātya-sastra so far as the Sandhyangas are concerned The first group of works omits Prarthana from the list 9 Similar controversy regard ing the acceptance of the Āksepa (Utksıptam) as an anga has also been noted before Abhinavagupta fails to assert which one of the sixty five Sandhyangas, explained by himself, is to be dropped so that the total number becomes sixty four He records a view that omits Prasastı, as it is not included in the subject matter of the play 10 Visvanatha also informs us that some omit Prarthana of the third Sandhi to make the total number sixty four and some omit Prasastı for the same purpose 11 All the theorists of Indian dramaturgy and the com- mentators of plays are of opinion that the total number of Sandhyangas is sixty four The view had its origin in the dim past and can be taken as one of Bharata, no matter whether the term Bharata signifies a sage or the nata sampradaya of the day, as taken by many 12 The present Natya sastra is the product of a long tradition and when it came to be codified, it acquired a religious sanctity But even after its codifica- tion the dramatic literature went on developing and new situations and moods came to be depicted in those works, all of which certainly could not be explamed by the earliest terminology and definitions of the Sandhyangas So, new terminology and definitions of the Sandhyangas evolved, but always there was a persistent endeavour to keep the total number sıxty four In the expositions of the respective Sandhyangas it has

124 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

been shown that there are divergent views regarding their names and definitions Moreover, some of the names of the angas of the Pratımukha-sandhı (Vilasa, Vidhuta, Narma, Narmadyutı) show that they were evolved, mainly for the analysis of love-plays But the attempt of the later theorists and critics to make them suit in dramas with other sentiments depicted in the second Sandhi, resulted into twists of defini- tions of the Natya-sastra So far as the Sandhyangas are concerned, the text of the Natya-sastra as followed by Sāgara is essentially similar to that followed by Abhinavagupta It has been shown in respective places that where the readings of the Nataka laksana ratna kosa do not agree with that accepted by Abhinavagupta, Sagara finds support from manuscript readings recorded in the GOS text or from the views referred to by Abhinavagupta13 That long before Sagara, Abhinava- gupta, Dhanañjaya and Rāmacandra-Gunacandra, different versions of the Sandhyanga-portion of the Natya sastra evolved is evident from the divergent views held and referred to in their works, (as noted above in respective connections) and also from the varient readings of the manuscripts of the Natya-sastra itself Sagara followed the text of the Natya- sastra that was available to him and evidently in that text there were names and definitions of sixty five Sandhyangas in spite of the well-established view that their number is sixty four

APPLICATION OF THE SANDHYANGAS

Sagara himself says nothing explicitly regarding the problems whether the Sandhyangas are to be used in the plays in the same order as they are enumerated and whether one anga of a particular Sandhi can be used in another Sandhi also Sa far as the first problem is concerned, Sagara seems to maintain that the Sandhyangas need not necessarily be used in a play according to the order of their enume- ration This can be shown from the passages he cites for illustration from the Act I only of the Veni-samhara 1

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 125

Abhinavagupta clearly states that no order is required to be maintained in the use of the angas of a particular Sandhi and refutes the theory of Udbhata and others who hold that the angas of a Particular Sandhi should be used in due order and in that Sandhi only 2 According to Abhinavagupta an anga of a particular Sandhi can be used in another Sandhı also 3 He further states that if the Sandhyangas occur one after another in due order, then Sandhyantaras and Lāsyāngas etc , cannot be used at all 4 From this remark it is event that according to Abhinavagupta Sandhyangas are neither the subdivisıons of Sandhis nor the Sandhis are mere combina- tions of Sandhyangas arranged in an order, there are other elements to be used along with the angas in a Sandhı Śāradātanaya and Šıngabhūpāla maintain that no order is to be maintained in using the Sandhyangas in a play 5 The Natya-darpana also maintains the same opinion and enumerates the Sandhyangas in a different order than the Natya sastra The Dasa rūpaka lıke the Nātaka-laksana ratna koša keeps mum, but Dhanika seems to support the view of Abhinava- gupta as is evident from the illustrations he cites 6 Among the commentators it is Räghava-bhatta who specifi- cally states that the Sandhyangas may be used in a play by altering the order in which they are enumerated and all the Sandhyangas need not be used in a play 7 Kātayavema also gives no stress on their order, as is evident from his commen- tary on the Malavikagnmitra 8 Thus the view of Udbhata, as referred to by Abhinavagupta, finds no support either from the theorists or from the commentators like Raghava-bhatta and Kātayavema The view of Abhinavagupta and Rämachandra regardıng the problem whether an anga assigned to a particular Sandhi can be used in another Sandhi or not, has been discussed above Abhinavagupta, however, maintains that some of the angas of some Sandhis necessarily and naturally belong to those Sandhis only 9 The text of the Nātaka-laksana ratna-kośa on this point ıs not clear It states sammiśrānyapı dur-trı-samkhyā-yuktans anantarasamdhıtesu bhavantyetāns rasa-bhāvapekşaya TO It 1s

126 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

difficult to find out from this sutra-lke cryptic statement what Sagara exactly means In support of this statement Sāgara, however, quotes two easily intelligible verses, attributed to Acarya, 1e, Bharata The verses actually occur in the Natya-sastra 11 The first one of these two verses means that poets considering Rasa and Bhäva should use the angas in a drama according to the Sandhis The second verse according to Abhinavagupta means that one anga assinged to a particular Sandhi may be used in another Sandhi and that an anga belonging to a particular Sandhı may be used there twice or thrice,12 and also that a single anga may serve the purpose of the two or three angas 13 In the light of this explanation of the two verses of the Natya-sastra, quoted in support of the above statement of Sagara, the statement itself may be taken to mean that according to the exigencies of Rasa and Bhāva (rasabhāvāpekşayā) angas of a particular Sandhi may be used in other Sandhis (sammisran- yapı, anantara-sandhıteşu) and that a sıngle anga may be used twice or thrice, or a single anga may serve the purpose of two or three angas (durtri-samkhya-yuktam) In actual practice also some of the angas are seen to be used more than once in a drama The Natya-darpana points out that Sampheta and Vidrava in the Venz-samhara and Vilāsa in the Ratnaval have been used more than once 17 Sagara enjoins that these sixty four Sandhyangas should be used by poets ın Nāțakas 15 This may be taken to be a general rule based on yatha sandhi etc, of the Natya- sastra, quoted ın the Nātaka-lakşana ratna-kośa 16 From this it cannot be concluded that according to Sägara each and every Nätaka should contain all the angas, as no attempt has been made ın the Nataka-lāksana-ratna kośa to locate all the angas in a sıngle Nataka Abhinavagupta also main- tains that all the angas may be used in a drama but not as a rule 17 This is also the opinion of Sāradātanaya. Among the theorists only Vıdyānātha and Šingabhūpāla illustrate all the sixty four Sandhyangas, each from a single work Vidyanātha, truly speaking, to illustrate the rules of dramaturgy, writes a novel Nätaka in five Acts

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 127

co-related to five Sandhis depicting the career of his patron Prataparudra, upto his corronation The drama itself 1s practically a part of the work Pratāparudrayasobhūsana Śingabhupala, however, illustrates sixty four Sandhyangas from the Balaramayana and proudly declares his achieve- ments I9 Among the commentators Dhundiraja is the single person in his class to point out all the Sandhyangas from a single drama, the Mudraraksasa The very nature of the Sandhy- angas shows that all of them cannot be used in a single drama of normal type The angas lıke Narma and Narmadyuti, intimately related to the Srngara-rasa according to the Nātya- sastra, cannot be comprehended to occur in a play like the Mudrā rāksasa Logically speaking, no hard and fast rule can be formulated regarding the use of the Sandhyangas, and this is the standpoint of the Natya-sastra itself To sum up, according to Indian dramaturgy all the angas of each Sandhi need not be used, neither they are to be used in a particular order nor all of them are to be confined to the particular Sandhı to which they are assigned

ITI

NECESSITY AND NATURE OF THE SANDHYANGAS

Sandhyangas are generally regarded as subdivisions of Sandhis and the subdivisions of each Sandhi are understood to have formed the Sandhi concerned 1 But mn the fore- going discussion2 it has been shown that Sandhis are meant for a structural analysis of the plot and the Sandhyangas only do not form a Sandhi 3 If the angas of a particular Sandhi are regarded as its subdivisions, they cannot be logically expected to occur in another Sandhı which they actually do and this is accepted both in theory and practice, as shown above So, strictly speaking Sandhy- angas cannot be treated as the subdivisions of Sandhis Dr Raghavan rightly remarks that the Sandhyangas indicate so many points in the unfoldment of a story or action 4 In the Natya-sastra they are really treated as but different

I28 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

moods and situations which help the expansion of the plot and leads the entire action to its logical conclusion The Natya-sastra maintans that the Sandhyangas serve sixfold purposes, other authorities also generally accept this view 5 Following the commentary of Abhinavagupta6 it may be stated that the Sandhyangas help the gradual expansion of the plot to evoke the desired Rasa and rouse the interests of the audience Through Sandhyangas, the poet can conceal what ought to be done so, and a known story can be so modelled as to create suspense and wonder by giving it a new form The angas also contribute to the expansion of that which is more essential for the delineation of the Rasa No conscious attempt should be there on the part of the poet to use them, that may spoil the very purpose of the Sandhyangas Like the Alankāras their use should be prayatnāntarānapeksa All these have been very aptly and precisely stated in the Nātya darpana 7 According to the Natya-sastra, as followed by the Nataka- lakşana-ratna kośa the Sandhyangas should be used consi dering the exigencies of the Rasa and Bhava 8 The Dhvan yaloka9 enjoins that the Sandhis and Sandhyangas are to be used in a way so that they can contribute to the desired Rasa and not only to observe faithfully the precepts of the Śastra Abhinavagupta bitterly criticises the introduction of a love scene (vilāsa) between Duryodhana and Bhānu- mati in the Veni samhara, as it is out of place there 10 In the light of the above discussion, Sandhyangas cannot be considered as "having no real value" and their definition and classification also are not without any "substantial interest "11 That the theory of Sandhis and Sandhyangas was over- developed, is a fact This becomes apparent when the entire scheme is taken into account with all the divergent views on their number, name and definition There were also schools of thought which did not follow Bharata closely At least one such school has been referred to in the Bhava-prakasana,12 where Subandhu has been credited with a novel theory of Sandhis The name of Drauhmı,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAM & DRAMATURGY 129

is also associated with this theory 13 It groups the Nātakas into five types of Pūrņa, Praśānta, Bhāsvara, Lalıta and Samagra Their mutual difference lies in the nature and number of the Sandhis contained by each class No trace of this theory is found in the Natya sastra and the Sandhis of Subandhu, as represented in the Bhava-prakasana have got no similarity with those of the Natya-sastra This Is altogether a separate theory and the Rasarnava-sudhakara summarily dispenses with it as unsatisfactory and unrecog- nised by Bharata I4 Mätrgupta's view on Sandhis and the theory of Anusan- dhis of Lollata have already been dscussed Then there 1s the Dasa-theory which is referred to and refuted by Abhinavagupta 15 This theory mainly divides each Avastha into three Sthānas, upakrama, upasamhāra and madhya each of these Sthanas has been dıvided into five Dasas (stages) Arambha, Yatna etc Thus there are fifteen Dasās mn every Avastha and altogether seventy-five Dasas in a drama The theory is undoubtedly of post-Bharata origin and rejected by Abhinavagupta From the above, it is evident that structural analysis of plays attracted the attention of many a scholar in an early age in India As a result there arose different theories and views There was also a tendency to remodel and simplify the views of Bharata as was actually done by Subandhu and Matrgupta The Dasā theory, the San- dhyantaras16 and the Anusandhis of Lollata undoubtedly point out a drift towards over elaboration There were also some authorities who tried to stick to the principles laid down by Bharata and Sagara belongs to this group, but he pays due respect to other pūrvācārya s, specially to Mātrgupta Another interesting tendency of grouping can be men tioned in this connection Abhinavagupta refers to a view that makes no difference between the Laksanas and Sandh- yangas 17 Dandin goes a step further and considers the Sandhyangas, Vrttyangas and Laksaņas as Alankāras 18 Dr Raghavan rıghtly remarks, "Alankāra in Dandin is a wide 9

130 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

berth which can conveniently accommodate these and many more" 19 From the standpoint of dramaturgy it may be said that the Sandhyangas as different moods and situations contributing to the progress and forming parts of the dramatic action cannot be brought under Alankāras, the poetical embellishments

CHAPTER VI

SANDHYANTARAS

Sāgara omits the theories of Anusandhı and Daśā, both of which are referred to and rejected by Abhinavagupta, but treats the Sandhyantaras in details The GOS edition of the Natya-sastra, gives the names of twenty-one Sandhy- antaras and the editor notes that some of the manuscripts enumerate them in the earlier part of the chapter 1 The KSS edition enumerates them in the earlier part of the chapter (XXI 49-51) Abhinavagupta gives only a short exposition on the nature and utilty of the Sandhyantaras but neither the Natya sastra nor Abhinavagupta makes any attempt to define and illustrate them Dhanañjaya and Viśvanātha clearly avoid the topic Bhoja does not define the Sandhyantaras but illustrates each of them 2 The Natya-darpana at the end of the first Viveka refers to these, as according to the view of some and enumerates them 3 The Bhava prakasana also simply gives a list of twenty-one Sandhyantaras 4 Chronologically speaking then, so far as the available texts are concerned, it is the Nātaka- laksana-ratna-kosa first that defines and illustrates each of them The Rasarnava-sudhakara with its close follower the Nātaka-condrıkā also, gives a detailed account of the Sandh- yantaras with definitions and illustrations 5 Sangīta-damo dara also gives the names of the Sandhyantaras and there they are called the Pradesas of the Sandhis, as in the Nātaka- lakşana-ratna-kośa 6 Sāgara maitams that these twenty one Pradesas (situa- tions, points) of the Sandhis occur in a play to serve some purpose and for the proper delineation of the plot, as many of them as are required may be used within the Sandhis 7 Thus, there is no hard and fast rule regarding the use of the Sandhyantaras Singabhūpala also opines that unlike the Sandhyangas any one of these twenty-one

132 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

can be used anywhere within the Sandhis whenever necessary and without any restriction 8 Sagara says nothing definite regarding the utility of the Sandhyantaras The Natya-sastra seems to indicate that the necessity of these twenty-one lies in the role of their con- necting the angas of the Sandhis 9 The Rasarnava-sudhakara also maintains that they are to prevent the looseness in the use of the Sandhyangas and the Nataka candrka repeats the same 10 Abhinavagupta himself gives little importance to the Sandhyantaras He refers to two views regarding the purpose served by them in a drama He informs us that according to some the Sandhyantaras fill up the gaps between the Sandhyangas and thus they are primarily related to the angas 1T Others, as stated by Abhinavagupta, maintain that they are but varieties of the Sandhyangas like Upaksepa etc, each of which may be of different varieties 12 A single anga Upakepa has been shown as of different variety in different drama It ıs krodhātmā ın the Venr-samhāra, bhayātma in the Ramābhyudaya, svapnarūpa in the Pratrmanruddha and hetvavadharanatma in the Udattaraghava 13 Thus the Sandhy antaras have, according to this view, got no separate entity besides the Sandhyangas, they are but to indicate the special marks of the latter group of sixty-four Abhinavagupta himself understands them as nothing more than the Vibhava, Anubhava and Vyabhicāribhava, they are the causes of brightness (ujjvalatvahetu) of the Prayoga (dramatic perfor- mance) 14 Abhinavagupta further says that the Sandhyantaras occur in all types of plays and as they can be easily discerned they need not be illustrated 15 Thus, Abhinavagupta neither rejects the Sandhyantaras altogether, nor attaches much importance to them The Dasa-rūpaka maintains that they may be covered by the Alankāras or Vyabhicāri- bhavas16 and as such, require no separate treatment Following the Abhinava bharati, the Natya-darpana also maintams that the Sandhyantaras require no elaborate treat- ment, as some of them (Sama etc) are identical with the Sandhyangas, some (Mati etc ) are Vyabhicari-bhivas,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 133

some (Duta, Lekha etc ) are but the very incidents of the plot of the play, while others are but the varieties of Upaksepa etc 17 Thus, excepting Sagara, Bhoja and Sınga bhūpala, none of the authorities takes any interest in the definitions and illustrations of the Sandhyantaras There is a general agreement among the different lists of twenty one Sandhyantaras found in different works excepting minor variations Sagara and Subhankara read Dhi, Rujah and Upadhi instead of Hri, Ojas and Lekha of the Natya-sāstra Dhĩ The Rasārnava-sudhākara also reads The Bhava-prakasana enumerates both Upadhi and Lekha and omits Dhi or Hri It reads Hasa instead of Sähasa of others Sagara further states that into the Sandhis there may be introduced aerial voice uttered by a celestical person and the reading of letters and in support of his statement quotes an anonymous authority 18 Again after discussing the four Patākāsthānas, Sāgara states, svapnodūtah nepathyākāsavacanam lıkhıtānyanantara samdhısu kathyante 19 Svapna and Dūta have been included by Sägara in the list of the twenty-one Dr Raghavan points out20 that this line of the Nataka-laksana- ratna kośa seems to be a reference to the view of Mätrgupta, as quoted by Räghavabhatta in the Arthadyotanika Rāghava- bhatta says ukto mātrguptācāryarh svapno dūtasca lekhasca nepathyoktıstatharva hı/ākāsa vacanam cetr ñeyā hyantara- sandhyayah 21 This gives us another important information that among the ancient authorities on the subject Mätrgupta also accepts the Sandhyantaras Excepting Nepathyokti and Ākāśa-vacana, other names given in the above verse of Matrgupta, occur also in the list of the Natya-sastra It is interesting to note that the number of the Sandhyan- taras like that of the Sandhyangas, also went on increasing and Sagara takes into account at least twenty four of them including Lekhyoktı, Nepathya-vacana and Äkaśa-vacana from different sources The Upadhi found in the lists of the Nātaka-laksana, Bhāva prakasana and Sangita dāmodara 1s found neither in the Natya sastra nor in any other text The Dhi 1s found as a variant Of the Hri i one manuscript 22 The first

134 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

anonymous authority cited by Sāgara does not refer to Matrgupta whose view, however, has also been recorded in the Nataka-laksana Matrgupta accepts Nepathyokti and Ākāsa-vacana as two separate Sandhyantaras Thus Sāgara had before him another authority excepting Mitrgupta who counted Ākāśa-vacana as a Sandhyantara From the treatment of the Sandhyantaras by most of the authorities, as discussed before, it appears that the theory was not given much importance to in the face of the more elaborate scheme of the Sandhyangas Singabhu- pāla maintains that some Acārya approves of ther utilty acāryā-ntara-sangatyā camatkaro vrdhiyate 23 The Nātya- darpana also expressly states that the Sandhyantaras are taken into account by some theorists only 24 These factors tend to support the assumption that the Sandhyantaras are post-Bharatan 25 But neither Abhinavagupta nor any other authority gives any such hint Abhinavagupta accepts them as Bharatan without any suspicion, as it appears from his commentary The above statements of the Nātya-darpana and Rasārnava sudhākara may sımply mean that some theorists do not approve of any utility of the Sandhyantaras while some attach importance to them. It is also a fact that all the topics of the Natya-sastra are not equally treated by each and every later authority The Natya-sastra gives no definition of the Sandhyantaras and this also cannot be taken to be an indication of their post-Bharatan origin Perhaps no necessity was felt to define these common features of plays, as maintamed by Abhinava- gupta. Their definitions gradually took shape in the hands of later author ties Sägara himself in most cases gives only the synonyms of the names of Sandhyantaras while explaining26 them and these are in no sense can be called as defimtions The Dana has only been illustrated27 and a curious ex- planation has been given to Māyā as fraud planned by the demon Maya to deceive the gods, while for illustration a situation is referred to from the Sugrivanka, where false Hanumat has been used against Sugriva 28 Sagara, however,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 135

cannot be credited as the first authority to explain and illustrate the Sandhyantaras, as he himself refers to other's views in this matter He defines Ruja as physical pain caused bv blow etc, and then says that others include even the sight of an evil omen causing mental angnish In Ruja 29 The definitions of Sandhyantaras given in the Rasarnara-sudhakara on the other hand, are fuller and in most cases have got no apparent similarity with those found in the Nataka-laksana Sagara's treatment of these twenty-one thus seems to represent an early stage in the development of their definitions which took a definite form by the time of Singabhupala, 1 e 14th century A D It has been pointed out above that Räghavabhatta quotes the view of Mätrgupta to support that the Nepathya vacana is a Sandbyantara But at least in ten cases the said commentator, while pointing out other Sandhyantaras, quotes their definitions from the Rasarnava-sudhākara 30 The quotation concerned from the text of Matrgupta, as given above, only enumerates some Sandhyantaras but gives no definition As Nepathya-vacana and Ākāsa bhāsıta have not been taken into account as Sandhyantaras in the Rasarnava-sudhākara, Rāghavabhatta gives no definition of them From this it may be supposed that Matrgupta himself also did not define the Sandhyantaras Probably their definitions began to take shape after Matrgupta and did not reach to a final stage even upto the time of Sagara At present, however, there is nothing to prove conclu- sively that the Sandhyantaras were not included in the onginal Natya-sastra and that some other seer formulated them If they were included in the Natya-sastra after Matr- gupta we could have found the names of Akāsa-vacana and Nepathyokti mn the list given there It can thus be accepted unhasitatingly that the Sandhyantaras were there in the Naiya- sastra at least before Mātrgupta Mātrgupta took up the Sandhyantaras from the Natya sastra and increased theirnumter at least by two, Nepathya-vacana and Aka'a vacara We, of course, know nothing definite atout Matrgupta's opinion regarding the purpose served by the Sandbyantaras in a play

CHAPTER VII

PATĀKĀSTHĀNAKA

Patākāsthānaka is a dramatc artifice to foreshadow future events It signifies particular spots in the bo dy of the theme of a play where an equivocal speech or situation suggests, indicates or brings on, or helps to bring on a coming event Sāgara describes the Patakāsthānaka as yatrānyasmımscıntyamāne tallıngo'nyah prayujyate / āgantukena bhāvena patākāsthānakam tu tat //1 The Natya-sastra (GOS) reads the first pada of the verse as yatrarthe cintite'nyasmin, but the reading of the Nataka- laksana-ratna kośa is found in a ms 2 By agantuka-bhāva Sāgara understands Vyabhıcārıbhāva Thus, according to Sāgara, that is Patākāsthānaka, where something is being thought of but some other things having the same character- istics (tallinga) is indicated or mntroduced through a V yabhicarı- bhava For illustration, Sagara refers to the Dasarathanka and says dasaratho rāmasya rājye cıntyamāne bharatasya rājyam tallınga-jātamıtı visādenāgantukena vyabhıcārınā bhāvena grhītah pathati ramo'pi gacchatu vanamityādi 3 But this interpretation of Sagara is quite novel and is not accepted by any other theorist There may be a change of Bhäva in the acting of a char- acter on the stage due to the indication of some future event, but that indication is not given by any other Bhava, agantuka-bhava here in this context simply means some accidental or extraneous matter which is not in hand Abhınavagupta says sahakārı-krtam āgantukam ucyate 4 We know that in a play every episode ıs sahakārt to the pradhana-vrtta In the gradual development of a plot the playwright introduces at places new turns to the course of action and gives hint to the future event by bringing in something not expected at the present moment (āgantuka- bhava) These spots are called Patakasthanakas in Sanskrit dramaturgy

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 137

The Nātaka lakşana, Srngāra-prakāsa, Nātya-darpana and the Sahitya-darpana follow the Natya-sastra and maintain that there are four types of Patākāsthānakas But the Dasa- vūpaka accepts only two varieties of the Patākāsthānaka, inasmuch as, the similarity between the indicating matter and the matter indicated hies in respect of situation or attribute 5 Dhanika clarifies this and says that where the indication is given through the alankara Anyokti, it 1s the first type (known as Tulyasamvidhanaka) and in the case of the second type (named Tulyavisesanaka) the indication is offered by the alankāra Samāsokti 6 Sāradātanaya seems to have expanded this theory to make it corroborate to the view of the Nātya- sāstra Šıngabhūpāla and Rūpagosvāmin also follow suit They maintaın that the Tulyasamvidhānaka variety of the Patākā- sthänaka is of three kinds conforming respectively to the first three varieties of the Natya-sastra and that the Tulyavisesana variety is a kind by itself and corresponds to the fourth Patāka. sthanaka of the Natya-sastra 7 But none of the theorists like Abhinavagupta, Sāgara, Bhoja and Rāmacandra-Guņacandra refer to this view Neither the standpoint of the Dasa-rūpaka in this respect, nor its elaborated form as in the Bhāva-prakā sana etc, can be supported by the canons of the Natya- sastra The Dasa-rūpaka maintains clearly a different view from that of the Nātya sāstra regardıng the Patākāsthānakas and Saradātanaya with a synthetic outlook tries to correlate the two Singabhupala seems to have followed the Bhāva- prakāsana in this respect Sāgara, Bhoja, Sāradātanaya, Viśvanātha and Šıngabhū pāla quote the difinitions of the four Patākāsthānakas verbatım from the Natya-sastra Rāmacandra-Gunacandra in their own way offer sutra like definitions, but in the gloss follow the Natya sastra closely In the Natya darpana the order of the Patākāsthanakas is found to be a bit changed The fourth variety of the Natya-sastra is the third one of the Natya darpana and vice-versa Dhanan- jaya sticks to his own position and Dhanıka illustrates two types of Patākāsthānakas

138 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPCTIVE

The first Patākāsthānaka according to the Nālaka- lakşana-ratna kośa, consısts mn the immediate fulfilment of the desired end (tatksanadeva samīhasyartha.ya mspattrh)' through the attainment of the object longed for (abhivan- chana siddhsnispadanatah) 9 The illustration is given from the Nagananda where Jimutavahana wishes to sacrifice hım- self but Sankhacuda refuses to give him the vadhyacthna, the purpose of which is served by a pair of red cloth, sent by the mother of Miträvasu through the Kañcukin, who hands it over to the hero Abhinavagupta also offers the same illustration10 along with another from the Ratnavali The second Patākāsthānaka is a statement having double meanings (slstam vacanam) and incorporating many purposes (bahvartha-samādhanam) forming the basis of the composi- tion (prastutasya kāvyayāsrayam) 11 The verse mırvana-varra dahana etc, recited by the Sūtradhāra in the Prastāvanā of the Veni samhara has been chosen to be the illustration 12 The verse through Slesa refers to the annihilation of the Kauravas and the victory of the Pandavas, though apparently it expresses the welfare of both the parties This verse of the Veni-samhara undoubtedly forms the basis of the play as it arouses the wrath of Bhima and also contains the central theme in a nutshell The third Patākāsthānaka, as Sāgara describes it, con- sists in the intimation of the object (arthaprakasam) with courtesy and in a subtle way through exchanges of equi- vocal words 13 Sāgara illustrates this Patākātsthānaka by citing a verse, evidently not from any play, of an unknown poet The verse contains equivocal dialogues between a khandıtā nāyıkā and the nayaka 14 The more common illus- tration, however, is the dialogue of Canakya and Sıddhär- thaka ın Mudrārākșasa, (Act I) Cānakya -apı nāma durātmā raksaso grhyeta ? Sıddhārthaka -(Pravišya) aam ganhido15 Rāghavabhatța quotes the same definition as in the Nātya- sästra of the third Patākasthanaka twice with a minor varia- tion but ascribes it to MatrguptaT6 It shows that

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 139

Matrgupta in his work on dramaturgy took some verses from the Nātya-sāstra verbatım The fourth Patākāsthanaka, according to Sāgara consists in a well-knit and ambiguous arrangement of words giving reasons (upapattımān) and capable of linking the motive of the composition (kavya-yojana-ksama) 17 For illustration a verse, addressed to Sitā by Rāma, has been quoted from the Janakrraghava 18 The verse carries two meanings - (1) this Asoka garden will charm thee with its blossoms, (2) perhaps Rävana having the Puspaka chariot will carry thee off in the pleasure garden Thus it suggests the motive of the action, 1 e, the abduction of Sītā The verse uddamotkalıkam etc, in the Act II of the Ratnaval has been cited as an illustration of the fourth Patākāsthānaka ın the Srngāra-prakāsa, Bhāva prakāsana, Rasārnava-sudhakara and Sahitya-darpana19 All these works appear to be influenced by the Avaloka where the sad verse has been quoted as an illustration of the Tulyavisesana variety of Patākästhānaka,20 which is taken to be the same as the fourth one of the Natya-sastra, as pointed out before But Abhinavagupta clearly states21 that this verse cannot be taken as an illustration of the fourth Patāka- sthanaka, on the other hand it is an example of Vyāhāra an anga of the Vithi Dr S N Shastri says that the subsidiary portion of the plot ıs of three kınds the Patākā, Prakarī and the Patākā- sthanakas 22 This is the view of Saradatanaya alone23 and is not maintained by any other authority including the Nālya sāstra The Patākāsthānakas in no way can be con- sidered as constituting a sub-division of the Prāsangika- vrtta They are really decorations adding charm to the composition, as stated by Sagara 24 The Nātya-sāstra it- self states catuşpatākā paramam nātake kāryam isyate 25 Abhinavagupta also mamtans that they add beauty to the composition but refers to a view that takes them as dūsanas 26 The Natya darpana too emphasises this decorative aspect of the Patakasthanakas and enjoms that there should not

140 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

be any play devoid of it It also maintams that all the Patākāsthānakas are equally essential 27 Dr S N Shastri further maintains that Sāgara recom- mends the use of the four Patākāsthānakas "in succession in the first four junctures commencing with the Protasis in a drama "28 It is a fact that Sagara restricts their use in first four Sandhis only and clearly states that the last Sandhı should not have any Patākasthanaka 29 At the con clusion of the discussion on the topic Sāgara states asya prayogo mukhādi-sandht catustaye kvāps vidhatavyah 30 Here the pronoun asya may refer to the Patakāsthānaka mn general or only the fourth one In the first case the state- ment sımply means that a Patākāsthānaka may be used anywhere in the first four Sandhis, if the second alterna tive is accepted, then it means that the fourth Patākāsthā- naka may be used in the first four Sandhis In any case, the Nataka-laksana-ratna-kośa does not appear to have recom- mended the use of the four Patākasthanakas in succession. On the other hand, Sägara seems to maintain that they may be used without any restriction in the first four Sandhis That there was a confusion regarding the use of the Pata kāsthanakas in a play, is evident from the statement of Abhinavagupta The great commentator refers to and rejects the view as untenable that restricts the use of these four mn first four Sandhis in succession and takes the words prathama, dortya etc, before them as indicating their occu- rance in the Mukha Sandh1, Pratimukha-sandhi etc, res- pectviely 31 Viśvanātha also refers to the view as maintained by some, but he himself advocates the free and frequent use of the Patākasthanakas in all the Sandhis without any restriction, as they are very much admirable,32 evidently due to their power of enhancing the beauty of the composition There is another view referred to in the Abhmnava- bharati that establishes a relation between the Patāka-nāyaka and the Patakasthanaka This view upholds that in the first four Sandhis there should be as many as four Pataka-nāyakas and each should be indicated successively by the four

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 14

Patakasthanakas Abhinavagupta rightly criticises this view as asat 33 Another theory, referred to and rejected by Abhınavagupta as upahāsapātrıkrtah paksah, makes the number of the Patākāsthanakas as five 34 All these confusing views seem to have had their origin to the attempt of bringing the plot of a play into a mechanical framework of divisions The Sandhis are five in number, so also are the Avasthās, Arthaprakrtıs and Arthopakşepakas This fact might have tempted some later theorist to raise the number of the Patākāsthānakas to five We have also seen that some authors endeavoured to correlate the Sandhis, Avasthās and Arthaprakrtıs A sımılar attempt was also made to tag the Patakasthanakas with the Sandhis All these views are decidedly later but they were formed long before Abbina- vagupta and also the number of their adherents was not too negligible to be overlooked by the great commentator It has been shown that according to Sagara there should be no Patākāsthānaka in the Nirvahana-sandhi, they are to be used in the first four Sandhis only It may be argued that even at the beginning of the Nirvahana-sandh the final object comes very near to be accomplished and there remains practically no future event to be indıcated by a Patākāsthā- naka From a study of the Sandhis as has already been done, it appears that after the Vimarsa-sandhi the final result comes to be almost a determined fact and as such, there is but a very Itttle scope of a Patakasthanaka in the Nırvahaņa sandhı Sagara, however, is not the propounder of the above theory It is Mätrgupta, if Räghavabhatta is to be believed, who recommended that the four Patakasthanakas should be used in the first four Sandhis, but whether in succession or not, is not clear from the quotation found in the Arthadyota- nıkā Rāghavabhatța says esām sthānam upyuktam matrgūp- tacaryarh mukhe pratimukhe garbhe vimarse ca catursvapr/bhedah sandhışu kartavyāh patākāsthānakasya tu85// The verse seems to mean that dıfferent Patākāsthānakas are to be used in the first four Sandhis Among the authors of extant works on dramaturgy, Sagara is the most ardent follower of

142 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Mätrgupta and his standpoint, as discussed above, supports this view From the statement patakāsthanakasya bhedah sandhisu kartavyah, it does not definitely follow that the Patākāsthanakas are to be used in succession But this theory of the use of Patakasthanakas in succession in the first four Sandhis, also seems to be very old A definition of the first Patākāsthānaka, ascribed to Ādi-bharata by Räghavabhatta gives a hint to this theory Raghava- bhatta states tallaksanam adi-bharate-sahasar-vārtha sampa- ttr nāyakasyo pakārıkā/ patākā sthānakam sandhau prathame(?) tanmatam//36 Here it is said that this is the description of the Patākāsthänaka which is to be used in the first Sandhı, 1e, the first Patākasthanaka is restricted to the first Sandhı It can reasonably be surmised that the adherents of this view advocated the use of other three also in succession in the three following Sandhis Agamn the Nātya sāstra, enjoins that Patākā, the oyapı prasangika-vrtta, is to be closed at least in the Vimarsa-sandhi, after which there is no scope of a Patākāsthānaka according to the above two views ascribed to Mätrgupta and Ādi-bharata respectively From this perhaps the tendency to establish a relation between the Patākā and Patākāsthānaka had developed and ultimately gave rise to the view that estab- lished a correlation among the four Sandhıs, four Patākā- sthānakas and four Patākānāyakas The theory has rightly been exploded by Abhinavagupta, as shown before The view of Sāradātanaya that the Patākāsthānaka forms a subdivision of the Prasangika-vrtta is also based on the same tendency, as above The above theory ascribed to Ādı- bharata was further elaborated and the number of the Patākāsthänakas was raised to five to fit in with the five Sandhis and a theory of mechanical correlation was thus establıshed It is mnteresting to note that all these theories developed as early as to be refuted by Abhinavagupta It also shows to what extent the author of Indan drama- turgy have shown their extraordmnary genious for correlation and classfication

CHAPTER VIII

DIVISIONS OF A PLAY FOR REPRESENTATION

(1) ANKA (ACT)

Avasthäs, Arthaprakrtis and Sandh1 Sandhyanga-Sandhya- ntaras, we have seen, serve to analyse the plot of a well-knit play The readers and critics are mainly interested in them The playwright himself should possess a thorough knowledge of these divisions while constructing the plot For the sake of an artistic representation on the stage, the body of the play is divided into several sections and these sections, according to their nature and purpose are called Anka, V1s- kambhaka and Pravesaka, as the case may be This division entirely depends upon the consideration that how a play can be best represented on the stage maintaining an abiding interest of the audience Anka, says Sāgara, ıs the parscehedayrta of the akhyāna- grantha,1 1e, It divides the sections of the play Each of these sections, enjoins the Nataka laksana ratna-kosa, should contain various actings (prayogah) and should be pervaded (upagudha) with different types of Bhavas and Rasas 2 This ıs said as an exposition to nāna vrdhāna yukto bhāras rasaīsca gudho bhavet,3 taken evidently from the Natya sastra where the whole verse is read as anka its rūdhi-sabdo bhāvarsca rasıśca rohayatyarthān / nānā vidhāna-yukto yasmāt tasmad bhavedankah //4 The first half of Sagara's quotation occurs as the third foot of the verse from Natya Sastra, but the reading of the second half is not exactly the same as that of the second foot mn Natya-sastra Here Abhinavagupta informs us that some theorists headed by Lollata accept the readng gūdha The Abhinava-bharats here reads, anka atr rūdhssabda stt / bhavah rasarsca gūdhaschannah vyapto rtho nka-sabdena yādrcc hikenocyate ıtı bhatța-lollotadyāh gūdha ttı pātham vyācakşvre/

144 NATAKA-LAKSAN RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

anye rohayatyarthanstr pathant 5 Thus the reading of the second foot of the above verse from the Natya-sastra, according to Lollata seems to be bhavarh rasaisca gūdho bhavet exactly similar to that of the second half of the hemistisch quoted by Sagara, as given above Thus the reading of the first foot of the same verse according to Lollata, as appears from the above text of Abhinava-bharatz is anka str rūdhisabdo 1e, anla is a yādrcchika-sabda as Abhinavagupta puts it 6 According to this interpretation anka s a samňga-sabda 1e, anka, as used in dramatic literature is sımplv a name having no derivative meaning and is applied in its particular sense through traditional sanction The readıng, rohayatyarthan, implies that Anka is so called as it nourishes the theme as if on its lap 7 This is undoubtedly an instance of folk-etymology but authorities lıke Dhanıka, Šıngabhūpāla and Sāradātanaya adopt it 8 Abhinavagupta maintains that the word anka here in this context is purely a rūdhi sabda, but in another place he says that the section of a play is so named as it is marked by various Rasas 9 The poet, according to Sagara is to take into consideration the entire action while constructing the Ankas of a play He is to consider the Sandhyangas, Avasthas and the expansion of the Bindu etc, in dividing a play into Ankas 10 The Bindu, we know, serves to mamtam a connecting link and thereby a continuity in the development of the plot This implies that every succeeding Act should naturally follow the preceeding one as a direct continuation of the plot Indian theorists in general, maintain that the number of Ankas in a full-fledged Nataka or Prakarana may be from the minımum five to the maximum ten 11 Abhinavagupta opines that the Ankas should correlate to the Avasthas, an Anka should be closed with the end of an Avastha The Bindu, that acts like a linking thread, should at the close of each Anka, be so placed as to connect it with the following Anka Thus there should be at least five Ankas corresponding to five Avasthas in a Nataka,12 and the Bindu at the end of each Anka is to give a fresh impetus to the further development of the plot Abhmavagupta further maintatins that if the

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 145

tirst Avasthã demands a larger space it can take two Ankas and in this way due to the exigencies of other Avasthas the number of Ankas may be increased from six to ten but not more 13 Abhinavagupta holds, as has been shown before, that the five Sandhis rest on the five succcssive Avasthäs Now, it appears that according to Abhinava- gupta there should be at least five Ankas depicting five Sandhıs and Avasthas in a Pūrha-sandhi-rūpaka, 1e, Nātaka or Prakarana An Avasthā and its corresponding Sandhı may cover two Ankas and thus there may be upto ten Ankas in a Nātaka So, according to Abhinavagupta no Avastha or Sandhi can either be ended before the close of an Anka or be started from within an Anka A Sandhi or Avastha should be started at the beginning of an Anka and should also be concluded at the end of an Anka 14 From the above, it can also be inferred that no Sandhi and its corresponding Avastha can occupy more than two Ankas according to Abhinavagupta But this rigid theory of Abhinavagupta, as can be made out from the defective text, has found little recognition to the theorists and com- mentators Viśvanātha allots the entire portion from the beginning of the Act IV up to the situation prior to the recognition of Sakuntala in the Act VII of the Abhynana- sakuntala to Vimarśa sandhı 15 The Acts III, IV and V of the Veni-samhara comprise the Garbha-sandhi according to the Natya-darpana 16 Dhundi points out that the Act I of the Mudra-raksasa contams first two Sandhis and the last three Acts of the same Nätaka have been allotted to the Nirva- hana Sandhı by the same commentator 17 According to Raghava-bhatta the Mukha sandhi in the Abhynana-sakuntala ends within the Act II, wherefrom the Pratimukha sandhi begins, similarly the Garbha-sandhi closes within the Act V and from there the Vimarsa-sandh begins 18 The Nātya- darpana, a work of a dramatıst, follows Abhinava-bhāratı mainly, but in this respect it clearly states that a single Avastha, if required, can be delineated even throughout three Acts19 and gives an illustration from the Venī-samhāra as noted above It further informs us that according to I0

146 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

the traditional view (vrddhasampradaya) an Avastha should be ended with the end of an Act but there are some who maintain that it can be concluded even before the end of the Act concerned, 1e, within the Act The authors, however, appear to have supported both the views 20 Here by vrddhasampradaya the Natya-darpana refers to the view upheld by Abhinavagupta The Natya sastra nowhere clearly states that there exists any correlation between the Ankas and Avastha Sandhis of a drama The poet is given a free hand to exercise Sagar also keeps silent about the problems as where an Avastha is to be concluded and how many Ankas can be occupied by a single Avastha or Sandhi It should be noted here that Sagara accepts no parallelism between Avasthäs and Sandhis and the matter has been fully dıs- cussed before No hard and fast rule can be formulated regarding the relation between an Avastha and an Anka and this seems to be the implication of Sagara's silence here in this respect Regarding the general rule about the number of Acts in a Nātaka, A B Keith rightly observes, "the rule 1s generally obeyed, but late dramas styling themselves Nātakas are known of one (Ravidāsa's Mithyajnanavdambana), two (Vedāntavāgīša's Bhojacarita), three or four acts, and one comparatively early work exists in one version of fourteen acts, the Mahānātaka, the Adbhūtarnava of a Kavibhūsana has twelve acts "21 Some of Bhasa-dramas may be included in this list But most of the works named above may not be styled Nätaka proper Prof Sivaprasad Bhattacharya maintains that the Mahanataka is a hand book of the Kathakas who recite and explain the epics and the Puranas 22 For further exposition of the Anka Sagara quotes from the Natya sastra . yatrārthasya samāptıryatra ca byasya bhavatı samhārah / kımcıdavalagna-bınduh so'nka ıtı sadāvagantavyah //22a This verse according to Sagara's gloss enjoins that in an Anka a partıcular ıncident (arthasyānueangikasya) 1s to be fully delineated and a partial development of the main

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 147

theme is to be depicted (pradhanarthasyamsatah samharanam) while the Bindu is to maintain the link 23 Abhinavagupta interprets the verse according to the traditional view to mean that a certain Avastha and its corresponding Sandhı should be completed in an Anka, but himself admits that this has already been said in the verse, asyāvasthopetam etc 24 So, he opines, that the verse speaks of three types of Ankas and quotes the view of Kohala (and others?) that enumerates and defines those, viz , Cūdānka (Cūlikānka), Avatārānka and Ankamukha 25 This view of Kohala will be taken up in our discussion on the Arathopaksepakas At present it is to be noted that this view of Kohala finds no mention in any of the works lıke the Nataka-laksana, Daša rūpaka, Bhāva-prakāsana etc Following the Nātya-sāstra the Nātaka-laksana ratna kosa enjoins that there should be only four or fıve Nāyakas in a Nātaka and in Ankas their actions are to depicted along with different circumstances (nāna-dasa-yukto'nkah), but these actions should not be protracted leaving the main issue which is made to be served by them 26 Sagara takes the word nayaka to signify in this context both the chief hero and other leading characters like the herome, the secondary hero, the enemy of the hero even, who is to be kılled 27 The Nātya sastra says sannıhıtanayako'nkah Lartavyo nātake pralarane va 28 Sāgara in his gloss on this hemistisch says that in every Anka any one of the above Nāyakas must be present The examples of this principle are given from the Veni-samhara and the two Nātakas Māyāmadālasā and Nāgānanda are citeđ as having the principle hero in every Anka 29 To furnish an Anka with different Rasas, not only the actions of the leading eharacters but those of others like queens, their retinues, priests, ministers and merchants are to be presented 30

II What is and what is not permissible to be visibly represented in an Act

148 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Sagara quotes the Natya-sastia to show what is permissi ble to be visibly represented in an Act and what is not but to be referred to or to be summarily treated in Praveśaka etc The Natya-sastra enjoins (1) krodha-prasāda-sokāh sāpotsargo tha (NLRK ādı) vidravodvāhau / adbhuta sambhava (NLRK samsraya) darsanam anke pratyaksajānı syuh // (2) yuddham rjyabhramso maranam nagaroparodhanam caiva / pratyakşānı tu nānke pravesakazh samvidheyān // The NLRK reads the third foot as na pratyaksanı santı >1 According to Abhinavagupta, Bhoja and Sägara the first verse enumerates some items which are allowed to be visibly represented in an Act They, however, differ regarding the meanıng of sapotsarga Sāgara takes it to mean pronoun- cing of a curse,32 while Abhinavagupta interprets the word as the end of the mishap brought about by the influence of a curse 33 Thus, Abhinavagupta 1s not in favour of permitting the utterance of a curse to be visibly represented in an Act, while Sagara has got no objection to it Both, however, are in favour of the visible representation of feats of anger, favour, grief, a state of confusion, marriage and spectacles of miraculous events as enumerated in the above verse Abhinavagupta seems to mamtain that these are specially attractive items that can be visibly represented on the stage and as such, they have been enumerated in the Nātya-sastra separately 34 The Natya-darpana does not enu- merate the above items but seems to follow the line of Abhenava bhāratī when it says sapāvasāna vivāhādayo'm rañ- jakatvāt sāksāt-karyah 35 Sagara is of opinion that the show of incidents like battle, the loss of kingdom, death and the seize of a town, has been totally prohibited on the stage in the second verse as quoted above these are only to be reported (and not shown) in a Praveśaka, or the like 36 This list of forbidden items seems to be drawn up from a practical view point. Excepting death, a full scale stage-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 149

representation, as demanded in an Anka of Indian theorists, of above incident is a very difficult affair even on a modern stage Dr M M Ghosh maintains3, that both the above verses of the Natya-sastra enumerate items which are not permis- sible to be visibly represented on the stage He accepts the readıng, anka pratyaksajānı (anke apratyaksajam) instead of anke pratyaksa in the verse krodha-prasada etc This 1s the reading of the KSS edition of the Natya-sastra 38 Dr M M Ghosh, the KSS and KM editions of the Natya Šāstra read the verse, yuddham rajya etc, immediately after the verse krodha-prasada etc 39 But Sagara, Bhoja and Abhinavagupta do not support this reading and interpreta- tion They maintain that the Natya-sastra permits the visible representation of feats of anger, favour, grief etc, in an Anka This view seems to be practical Apparently, from common sense it may be said, there is no difficulty in representing feats of anger etc, on the stage without ham- pering the development of Rasa It may be added here that in practice also, Indian dramatists do not hesitate to depict krodha etc, in Ankas In the Veni-samhara the feats of anger may be said to be a regular feature in almost all the Acts Prasada and soka are not rare in our dramas Śāpot- sarga, in the sense in which it is taken by Abhinavagupta, is present in the Abhyñana-sakuntala Vadrava 1s itself a Sandhyanga40 and a scene of marriage is there in the Vaddhasālabhaňjkā of Rājasekhara Marriage is also the theme of the Pārvatıparınaya The introduction of death scenes in Sanskrit drama is a much discussed problem Scholars, both foreign and Indian, mostly are of opinion that ancient Indian dramatic conven- tion did not permit the mntroduction of death scenes on the stage 41 In the light of this opinion the much debated Bhasa problem has also been judged Bhäsa in depicting death scenes freely in the Ankas41a has either been alleged of breaking the rules of the Natya-sastra or has been placed before Bharata So, the matter deserves special attention

150 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Regarding the prohibition of the visible representation of death on the stage, later theorists are of one mind They do not permit death scenes on the stage Death is simply to be reported to or described in a summary way in the Pra- veśaka or the like Death of the main hero or heroine, how- ever, should not even be so described and if described or visibly represented for the sake of the plot he (or she) should be restored to life,42 as is the case in the Nagananda and the Mrechalatska Jimūtavahana and Vasantasena are both visibly restored to life on the stage Regarding the main hero, the Naiya-sastra also enjoins that in an Anka or Pravesaka of a Nātaka or Prakarana, there should be no death of the Nayaka, his flight, treaty or capture may, however, be depicted 43 This is quite in consonance with the happy ending of Sanskrit drama Sanskrit drama, as a rule, ends with the achievement of the desired object by the main hero Abhmavagupta also asserts that the death of the main hero should neither be represented visibly in an Anka nor even be reported to in Praveśaka etc 44 Abhinavagupta informs us that accord- ing to some even the Patākānāyaka etc, also are to enjoy this privilege, and some others prohibits the visible repre- sentation of even the striking of the main hero by some one 45 Sagara too mamntains that in an Anka, as a rule, neither the actual death of the main hero who is to prosper at the end, nor even that of the villamn should be depic- ted, but their flight, peace or capture only may be shown 4t This injunction, adds Sagara, is not absolute as the hero's enemies lıke Rāvana, Duryodhana and Kamsa etc, in Natakas are to be killed eventually But that killing should not be visibly represented 1 e, if necessary, may be reported in a Pravesaka or the like In a Prakarana, however, the poet is free mn the matter of the plot and there the hero may be represented as making peace with the enemy, if the occasion so deserves, as for example Cārudatta establıshes peace with Sakara in the Mrcchakanka 77 Thus Sägra is not in favour of presenting death scenes on the stage, where the death is unavoidable for the proper

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 151

delineation of the plot, it should be reported to in an Arthopoksepaka, but should never be visibly represented Abhinavagupta himself forbids death scenes on the stage, but refers to and criticises views which permit such scenes One such view draws a distinction between two types of deaths, one caused by others' activity, as the chopping up of the head of the demon with the disc (by Nārayana evidently), another happening independent of any such activity by diseases and hurts The view advocates that the second may be shown on the stage while the first one is prohibited 48 The reason seems to be the practical difficulty of representa tion and the intention of avoding gruesome scenes Abhinavagupta finds no reason behind the distinction drawn between the above two types of deaths Moreover, from a practical standpoint as he argues, death scenes cannot be allowed on the stage, because the dead character neither can exit from nor can remain on the stage and thus creates many difficulties to the presentation itself and obstructs the development of Rasa Abhinavagupta further adds that the anubhava marana may be represented in cases where the dead revives, as is the case of Jimutavahana. Thus, according to Abhinavagupta visible representation of any sort of death without revival is totally forbidden on the stage This is the opmnion of all the later theorists, as shown before But at the conclusion of the topic Abhinavagupta refers to another view that permits the visible representation of death on the stage in cases where death is due to the disease or hurts and where there is no necessity of revival or exit 49 This view, in the face of Abhinavagupta's arguments, seems to suggest that death can be represented visibly either at the close of a play or an Act where there is a scope of covering the dead bodies with the curtam It may be noted here that this principle appears to be generally followed in the plays ascribed to Bhāsa The deaths of Dasaratha (Pratıma, Act II), Valin (Abhrseka, Act II) and Arışta (Balacarita, Act III) are depicted almost at the close of the Acts concerned, while that of Duryodhana (Urubhanga) 1s shown at the close of the play itself, as we

152 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

have ıt Deaths of Cānūra, Mustika and Kamsa ( Bala- carsta) are depicted mn the last Act and after that the play itself continues for a short while It thus becomes certain that there were theorists and dramatists alike in ancient India who allowed death scenes on the stage The Natya sastra, as has already been shown, totally prohibits the death of the mamn hero and general death scenes in an Anka About death scenes it says pratyaksāns tu nanke pravesakarh samvrdheyang 30 From this Dr M M Ghosh seems to conclude that the Natya-sastra allows visible representation of death in an Arthopaksepaka, lıke the Pra- veśaka etc 51 Accepting this view it may be said that the Natya-sāstra prohibits a detailed representation of death scenes as an Anka demands, but not their representation in a summary way in the Pravesaka or Viskambhaka The stand- point of the Natya-sāstra requires further elucidation It draws up different lists of items prohibited on the stage While describing various activities of women of superior and middlıng types it says nāmbaragrahanam range na snānam na vilepanam | nāījanam nāngarāgasca ke a-samyamanam tathā // nāprāvrtā naıkavastrā na rāgamadharasya tu / uttamā madhyamā vāpı kurvīta pramadā kvacıt // Agamn in the same chapter Natya sastra gives another list na kāryam sayanam range nātyadharmam vyānatā / yadvā sayītārthavasād ekākī sahıto 'pı vā / cumbanālınganam caiva tathā guhyam ca yad bhavet // danta-cchedyam nakha cchedyan mvi bhramsanam eva ca | stanāntara-vımardam ca ranga-madhye na kārayet // bhojanam salıla krıdā tathā lajjā-karam ca yat / evam vıdham bhaved yad yat tat tat range na kārayet // pıtā putra-snusā-svasrū drsyam yasmāt,tu nātakam / tasmād etānı sarvānı varjamyānı yatnatah //53 A perusal of the above lists shows the high moral standard of the age and a keen practical sense of the sage Through these injunctions it transpires that there was an idealistic atmosphere in ancient Indian stage, decency and dccorum were highly valued Anything shameful or indecent was not

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 153

allowed on the stage Presentation of grim realism was also not the aim of Sanskrit drama In fact, grim realism has not been favoured m any form of ancient Indian art or lıterature The above list is certainly not comprehensive So, it is said in this connection that anything like these (evam urdham bhaved yad yat) and which are considered to be shameful (lagakaram ca yat) should be avoided on the stage 54 The taste of the people has been honoured as the best judge, the playwright and the Nātyācārya are to consider this fact in writing and producing a play This seems to be the implication of the above injunctions The Natya sastra also puts before us a very practical reason behind these injunctions in pitaputra-snusa etc, (quoted above), and no better one can be conceived of even in modern age A dramatic performance should avoid such representations as cannot be witnessed by a son with his father, mother and wife without any sense of shame due to some immodest acts on the stage In practice also, we can point out that Bhavabhūti in the Act I of his Uttara-ramacarta represents Sitā as sleeping and Rama as supporting and affectionately caressing her But none can allege that here the limit of modesty has been transgressed The wife of Carāyana in the Viddhasalabhamika sleeps on the stage, of course, alone The first list of injunctions in the chapter XXII (GOS), as quoted above, concerns with the acts of women of superior and mediocre types Some activities by these types of women are not to be represented on the stage so that their grace and dignity may be fully maintained, and this is the implication of this list It may be mentioned here that Kālidasa allows Sakuntala to be dressed and toilated at the eve of her journey to Hastinapura, by her friends in a serene and religious atmosphere prevailing on the stage There is an important dramatic utility of this dressing and toilating of Sakuntala which are to be witnessed by the audience for a proper comprehension of the repudiation scene ın the next Act Kālidasā takes all possible cares to veil the beauty and identity of the herome as known

154 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

to the hero and to save the latter from censure for which the curse of Durvasas also has been introduced Some may take objection to the wearing of the Lsaumayugala by Sakuntalā on the stage But there are several means to obstruct the sight of the spectators on the stage Moreover she can easily be dressed up with the silk cloths on the stage over her original bark garment In any case, it Is the business of the director (Satradhara) who is expected to be fully conversant with the taste and feeling of the audience, to look after how far and what is to be represented on the stage From what little has been said above, it is clear that the above two lists of prohibitions in the chapter XXII (GOS) of the Natya-sastra are purported to avoid in any type of rūpala the visible representation of such acts which may wound the feeling of the audience and may cause any obstruction to the intended atmosphere on the stage as well as the development of proper Rasa Such injunctions in the field of art depend upon socio cultural inhibitions and none can give a comprehensive list of such inhibitions, as the taste and culture of the people differ from age to age even in the same country The Natya-sastra also gives no compre hensive list Here it's injunctions appear to be words of caution addressed to the Sutradhära and the playwright con cerning all types of plays (rupakas). In the light of the above, the prohibitive verse in the chapter XVIII of the Natya-sastra (quoted before) appear to refer only to such acts, a full-scale visible representation of which is forbidden in the Anka of a full fledged drama, as the context shows Regarding the visible representation of fighting, it may be pomnted out, that Natya-sastra gives directions as to how the fighting is to be acted on the stage 55 Similarly, the Nātya sastra elaborately discusses how death should be visibly represented on the stage and describes various symptoms to be imitated by characters representing deaths due to different causes like disease, hurt by weapons, snake-bites etc.56 Abhinavagupta also refers to a school of thought that supports the visible representation of death

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 155

on the stage, as shown before. Thus neither the imitation of fighting nor that of death on the stage can be said to be totally forbidden in the Natya-sastra The Anka is to re present scenes vividly and elabroately The Nātya-sāstra seems to prohibit an elaborate and vivid representation of scenes depicting fights, death, loss of kingdom and seize of a city 57 The context also shows that visible representation of such incidents as death etc, is forbidden mainly in pūrna-sandhs rūpakas wherein also the Pravesakas may visibly represent fights etc, in a summary way But, Sagara 1s of opinion that such representation is totally forbidden, only the incidents are to be reported in the Pravesakas, as has been stated before Regarding death scenes it may be pointed out here that excepting the works of Bhasa, as noted before, not a single Sanskrit drama is known to us as depicting such a scene In the Act II of the Uttara- rama canta, Rama enters with his sword drawn and actually imitates striking Sambuka who is not on the stage, as the direction shows But immediately Sambuka appears as a dıvine being (divya purusa) Here even the visible representa- tion of a fatal blow on the victim has been avoided In practice then, visible representation of death scenes may be said to be avoided by Sanskrit dramatists Later theorists mostly seem to have confused these different lists of injunctions and in their works we get a single list In Ankas and Arthopaksepakas alıke, they totally prohibit the visible representation of all the scenes coming under the above injuctions of the Natya sastra, given in different chapters and in different contexts 58 The Sahitya-darpana include even vwvaha and sapotsarga in this list of prohibited items 59 All these according to them are to be reported, if required, in an Arthopaksepaka The narrow outlook of the latter works when compared with the Natya sastra becomes evident The variety of acts and incidents to be visıbly represented on the stage came to be curtailed more and more

156 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVF

III

Duration of Time Covered by an Anka

Regarding the duration of time that can be represented in an Act, the Nataka-laksana-ratna-kosa gives as many as three views The first one is taken from the Natya-sastra It says eka-dwvasa-pravrttah kāryo'nkah sa prayogam adhıkrtya 60 Sagara's gloss on it means to say that the entire plot should be so treated that an Anka can represent the matter of one day 61 Abhinavagupta also maintains that an Anka is to depict incidents that can take place in course of one day 62 This is the generally accepted view regard- ing the maximum duration of time that can be represented in an Anka 6% But the incidents are to be so arranged that they may not create any hindrance to the rontine duties(4 like sandhya-vandanad, This is mainly to serve the didactic purpose of dramatic performances The suitable time is indicated through picturesque description of the morning, the noon and the evening and in every Sanskrit drama we come across one or more of such descriptions Sagara refers to two other views Some opine that incidents covering half of a day can be represented in an Anka, others maintain that an Anka can treat what may occur mn a day and a night 35 The Bhava prakasana also refers to the first of these two views 66 Singabhupala maintains that the duration of the entire day or its half is to be represented in an Anka 67 The Natya darpana offers a maximum and a minımum limit of the duration of time suitable to be represented in an Anka as four Yamas and one Muhūrta respectively 68 The problem as to how the passing of a long time in plays, generally based on the stories of the Rāmāyana and the Mahabharata is to be distributed in Acts, has not been elaborately treated ın the Nataka laksana Sāgara sımply says that if the nature of the action involves a long passage of time in an Act It should be reported in a Pravesaka follow- ing that Act But in this way the maximum period of a

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAM & DRAMATURGY 157

year should be treated and not more Here Sagara quotes ın hıs support from the Nātya-sāstra varsād ūrdhvam na kadacıt In conclusion he says that this simply implies that events stretching over a very long period should not be represented in an Act 69 It appears that Sāgara does not give much stress on the maximum period of a year His opinion is simply that a long passage of time should not be represented in an Act 70 The above problem has been elaborately discussed by Abhinavagupta T1 According to Abhnavagupta, from the long life of an epic hero a few years are to be selected for representation in a drama Rama though passed fourteen years in exile, yet there were only three or four such years, as full of incidents Now the Natya-sastra enjoins that in an Anka incidents occuring in a single day can be repre- sented and if these incidents are such as cannot be accom- modated in the Anke, then the less important ones are to be summarıly treated in a Praveśaka following that Anka 72 In the same way incidents occuring in course of a month or year can be represented in an Anka, followed by a Pravesaka or the like, but more than a year should not be treated in this way in a single Anka 73 An Anka then in such cases, is to represent the most prominent incidents of the year as occuring in a single day of that year and the rest is to be dealt with in a short compass by the help of an Arthopaksepaka Thus the incidents of fourteen years of Räma's exile or the like, should be so selected as to occur in, say, three or four years and can easily be represented in three or four Ankas in the above method So, mn a drama consisting of five Ankas, there can be represented at best five days havıng ıncdents (kāryadınānt) Sımilarly in a drama of ten Ankas up to ten such days can be represented 74 Thus, theoretically an Anka in a Sanskrit drama consists of a day's, incidents which are required and at the same time permissible to be visibly represented This principle has also been followed by the dramatists of ancient India. An Act in a Sanskrit play never covers a duration of time exceeding a day. But it should be noted

158 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECIIVE

that there is no injunction against the representation of events of one day in more than an Act 75

IV Other Regulations Sagara conclude the topic with the remark that neither one should enter in nor exit from the stage during the Anka without any purpose 76 This may be taken to be a general principle for any play of any age The entrance and exit of characters in either Anka or Praveśaka etc, should always be in connection with something relevant Sāgara as has been shown, prohibits also the introduction of characters on the stage with an insignificant part to play, which purpose may very well be served by such devices as aerial voice, voice from behind the screen and lekha 77 While describing the Vışkambhaka, Sagara quotes from the Natya-sastra na mahājana-parıvāram kartavyam nātakam prakaranam vāļ ye tatra kāryoa purusāšcatvarah paňca vā te syuh|/78 It appears that Sagara takes this verse as containing a general injunction applicable to Nataka and Prakaraņa The import of his gloss on the verse is that all the prominent associates of the hero and his enemy should not be pre- sented on the stage with minor roles to play, only four or five from them should be made to involve directly in the man action and others are simply to be mentioned outside the main action 79 What exactly Sagara here drives at is not clear If he means to assert that only four or five amongst the associates of the hero or his enemy are to be preseented on the stage, then we can point out that in very few cases the principle has been followed 80 On the other hand, if it means that a small number of characters should be made to involve directly in the main action and others indirectly, then it should be pointed out that the expression bahrreva etc, is not a happy one Viśvanatha, however, enjoins that there should be only four or five leading characters directly related to the action.81 According to

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 159

Abhinavagupta the implication of the above verse of the Natya-sastra is that a crowd should not be allowed on the stage, and undertakings which require many persons to be performed, should not be visibly represented Abhinava- gupta maintains that at best there can be eight to ten haracters present on the stage at a time If the number exceeds much, then the scene will be no better than a crowd assembled to witness the yatra of a deity and the four kinds of abhinaya will not be clearly perceptible 82 Thus, the verse according to Abhinavagupta refers to an Act and the above prmciple upheld by him has also found a general approval 8 Like the presence of many characters on the stage at a time the representation of many incidents in a single Act has beeh normally prohibited for fear of shadowing the main topic If for the sake of the plot many events are to be represented in a single Act, they should be so treated as not to hamper the necessary routine duties 84 In describing the characterstics of Anka, Sagara has missed a very important pount which has been insisted upon by all other theorists of Indaan dramaturgy and invariably foll- owed by dramatists As a rule, all characters should exit from the stage at the end of an Act 83 During the Act according to Indian convention, the stage should never be left vacant and the exit of all characters and a temporary vacancy thus created on the stage, should mark the close of an Act Now, the problem is what was the device employed in ancient India to represent this exit of charac- ters Abhinavagupta says that at the close of an Act the exit of all Characters is to be shown by covering them with the yavanika and the sarme is the opinion of Ramacandra- Gunacandra 86 The existence of a screen in ancient Indian theatre is an undeniable fact but opinions vary as to the position of its setting If the front curtain is meant here in this connection, the exit through the yāvanıka means covering the stage with the front curtamn If on the other hand, the back curtain is mearat, then according to the above convention the actors and actresses at the end of an Act,

160 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

are to walk away of the stage behind the back screen 87 In any case, a temporary vacancy on the stage created by the exit of all characters marks the close of an Act in a Sanskrit play This convention is accepted both in theory and practice without any protest or violation

V

Division of plays into several Acts is a very ancient practice in India as the evidences of the Natya sastra and the plays of Aśvaghosa, Bhasa, Šudraka and Kālıdāsa show It may be surmised that this practice evolved in India be- fore the Europeans could divide their plays into Acts Early Greek plays, we know, are not divided into Acts But an Act in a Sanskrit drama is not further subdivided into scenes Though it in itself forms an unity, it is not also a well marked scene in the modern sense of the term On the other hand, an Act in most of our renowned dramas consists of a number of scenes, loosely connected but cannot be separated from one another due to its pecular technique of construction and representation In the Act III of the Abhyñana-sakuntala, the king enters and proceeds towards the bower on the bank of the Mälini where he reaches after going a few steps only Almost all the Acts of the Mrcchakatika consist of a number of scenes This salient featurc of Sanskrit drama can be noticed by any casual reader A peculiar technique of representation also evolved in India The stage was taken to be divided into several haksyass8 and with the help of the proper arrange- ment of miniature models (pusta),89 illusion of adjoining spots could be created and the characters were made to move from one spot to another according to necessity during acting Moreover, the peculiar construction of a Sanskrit drama teeming with poetic descriptions of time and place and their reactions on the minds of characters together with the skilled performances of four types of abhsnaya also con- tributed very much in the creation of dramatic illusion The passage of time and the shifting of scenes in an Act are simply described in Sanskrıt plays

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 16

Indian dramatic convention shows no trace of the three unities maintained in some of the Greek plays Sanskrit drama as a whole, maintains no unity of time, place or action, but adhers to uniformity Even in an Act the unity of place is ignored in most cases, as has been stated above But, an Act being an unit in itself should maintain some sort of unity It is also an aceepted fact that individual Acts were also played90 and which could not have been possible had there been no unity in an Act It has been shown before that the Natya sastra, as interpreted by Sagara and Abhinava, enjoins that a particular mcident requires to be fully delineated in an Act 91 This principle has been emphasısed again in the Nataka laksana-ratna kosa where Sagara enjoins that in an Act, the behaviour of a particular leading character should be visibly represented 92 From this it appears that a sort of unity of action is prescribed to be maintained Several views have been discussed regarding the duration of time to be represented in an Act and it has been shown that all the theorists are of opinion that a certain unit of time, generally a day, 1s to be covered by an Act Generally speaking then, according to Indian theorists, an Act is to represent fully a particular incident forming an important part of the whole plot and occurring in a particular unit of time There should not be any appreciable break within the Act, as the convention of the close of an Act through the exit of all characters shows The Dasa rupaka nicely puts this in a short compass, ekāhacarıtarkārtham 93 The untenability of the theory of the dependence of Acts on the Avastha-Sandhi, as advocated by Abhinava- gupta and others, has also been shown It has been shown above that an Anka maintains an unity of tme and action But no such unity is essential in an Avastha The first Avasthā of the Abhyñana-sakuntala according to Rāghava- bhatta as shown before, represents incidents occuring in different days No unity of action or time is tracable in the Acts IV, V, VI and part of VII of the Abhyňāna- sakuntala though they have been taken to be included in II

162 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

the Vimarsa Sandhi by Viśvanātha 94 It is useless to multiply instances It should be pointed out here that the plot of a full fledged drama can be analysed and dıvided for different purposes and from different standpoints but, a simplification of those into a clear cut mould is practically impossible Acts and Avasthas serve quite different purposes and are determined according to different standpoints The point has already been discussed One may correspond to the other, but not necessarily If Avasthas and Acts are so corrrelated, as taken by Abhinavagupta then it is difficult to find out the reason behind the two sets of terminology, while the ancient theorists are famous for their love of brevity in expressions It is interesting to note here that in Europe also there was a time when the principle of the five-fold natural divisions of a dramatic plot based on the normal division of a Greek Tragedy influenced playwrights so much that they divided their plays into five Acts But this wooden structure could not be maintaned for a long time

CHAPTER XIX

ARTHOPAKSEPAKAS 1 Praveśaka

The purpose served by the Pravesaka in a Sanskrit drama has been indicated in our foregoing discussion on the Anka Pravesaka is to epitomize the portions of the story which are not possible or permissible to be elaborately and visibly represented in an Act, but at the sametime should be conveyed to the audiencc for proper comprehension of the action Drama is always a representation of selections The entire history of a hero covering a long time can not be fully represented in a drama An Act also, according to Indian convention can cover only a day, as shown before So, the important and impressive events of a long period are so selected as occuring on some particular days, and are visibly represented in Acts But to maintain the link of the whole story, the scattered portions omitted in Acts, are drawn together and briefly dealt with in the Pravesaka This is the opmnion of the Natya- Sastra as understood by SagaraT and Abhinavagupta Later theorists also generally accept this view But the above function of the Praveśaka is thought to be commonly shared by all the Arthopaksepakas, specially by the Vis kambhaka Abhinavagupta, therefore, takes the word Praveśaka of the Nātya-sāstra in the above context to stand for all the Arthopakşepakas 2 In the form of a popular etymology, Sāgara gives hıs opinion regarding the function of the Pravesaka He says that the Pravesaka is so called because it introduces characters on the stage, pravesayatı patrani rangam itr prav esakah 3 He further states that the entrance of the immediately following character should be mentioned in the Pravesaka, and to justify this statement he quotes from an anonymous authority asūcrtasya pātrasya praveso narva Uadyate,4 1e, no character should enter the stage without being indicated The entire verse with slight difference in

164 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPCTIVE

reading is found in the Sangua-damodara, in Ranganātha's commentary on the Vikramorvasrya and also in the commentary on Anargha raghava by Rucipati who in two cases attribu- tes the verse to Bharata and in another to the Sangītakalpa- taru5 Ranganatha ascribes the verse to the commentary on the Dasa-rūpaka by Devapanı and says that the view is also shared by the Sahasankiya-trka6 The above half of the verse given by Sagara, is found in the commentary of Naraharı on the 4bhinana-sakuntala and also in the Arthadyotanıka of Räghava-bhatta with a different reading and under different context? Neither the Natya-sastra nor Abhinava gupta directly prohibits the entrance of a character without being indicated Standard works like the Dasa rūpaka, Bhāva prakāsana, Rasārnava sudhākara and Sāhitya darpana, also do not refer to this view Dramatists, however, generally follow this principle Some renowned commentators and a late work like the Sangita-damodara, as noted above, honour the principlc The Nataka laksana-ratna kosa, so far as the extant works are concerned, is the earliest one to refer to this view Sagara seems to have taken the line from some ancient source8, probably the work of Mātrgupta whom he honours so much Raghava-bhatta does not connect the view with the function of the Pravesaka, but Ranganatha, Rucipati, Naraharı and Subhankara refer to the view in connection with the Praveśaka or Vışkambhaka 9 They strongly assert that the main function of the Praveśaka (or Vışkambhaka) 1s to give prior indıcatıon to the entrance of a leading character TO It thus appears that this principle got a wide recognition and among the theorists Sägara is first to cite it as an ancient view To show other uses of the Praveśaka Sāgara quotes from the Nātya-sastra kālotthāna-gatı-rasa-vyudāsārambha-kārya-vişayānām / arthābhıdhānabhūtah pravésakah syād anekārthah //T1 According to the gloss of Sagara, this verse means that the Pravesaka serves many purposes it communicates the reckoning of time of a distant journey and causes the

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 165

change of Rasa and thus provides varety in the perfor mance 12 Abhinavagupta maintains that the above verse mentions five uses of the Pravesaka of which he gives examples and adds that there are other uses also 13 Regarding the characters to take part in a Praveśaka and the language to be used by them, Sagara quotes from the Nātya sāstra nottama-madhyama-purusairācarıto nāpyudātta-vacana krtah / prākrta-bhāsācārah prayogam āsādya kartavyah //14 Thus in a Pravesaka, (a) no superior or middling character but only low ones are to take part, (b) there should be no udatta-vacana and (c) only Prākrta is to be used Sāgara gives no meaning of the word udātta vacana but, for illustration refers to the Saktyanka where two monkeys take part in a Pravesaka, and then remarks tadeva nodātta vacanam tadeva prākrta bhaşacaram 15 It 1s evident that udātta-vacana has not been taken by Sāgara to mean Sanskrit language But Abhinava gupta distinctly says udattam samskrtam vacanam tasya nrsedhah 18 So, according to Abhinava-gupta only mca-patras should take part in a Prave- śaka and not Sanskrit but only Prākrta should be their language Dhanañjaya also seems to prohibit the use of Sans krıt in the Pravesaka when he uses anudattoktya in its defintion which has simply been copied by Viśvanatha 17 The Natya- darpana and Rasarnava-sudhakara also allow only nīca-patra in a Praveśaka and as such, Sanskrit becomes prohibited 18 Bhoja also maintains that Sauraseni etc, should be the language in a Praveśaka 19 Sagara maintains quite a different view From the Nātya sāstra he quotes paryanakathanubaddhah pravesako nāma vyñeyahzO, 1e, Praveśaka consists of dialogues of servants or retinue In his gloss Sagara includes in the term paryana such lower and middling characters as male and female slaves, chamberlains and the like F1 Thus the Kancukin (chamber lain), a Sanskrit-speakıng madhyama pātra, has been included among the characters to take part in a Pravesaka Abhinava- gupta, however, interprets the above hemistisch of the Natya-

166 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

sastra to refer to all the Arthopaksepakas and maintains that the Kancukin may appear in a Viskambhaka22, 1e the Kañcukin or any madhyama-pātra has been excluded from the Praveśaka 1n support of his above theory Sagara quotes the view of Matrgupta that permits parasites, (Vitas) asceties, Brahmins, sages and chamberlains etc, to take part in a Prav.Saka $% These are all Sanskrit speaking characters Agamn, at the conclusion of his gloss on the verse kalotthanagatt etc, of the Natya sastra (quoted before), Sägara means to state that the only additional characteristic is to be added to the vicw of the N at ya-sastra is the use of Sanskrit when ascetics etc, take part in a Praveśaka 24 Illustrations of Praveśakas with Sanskrit-speaking characters have been cited from third Acts of the Rawvatiparinaya, Sasılamadatta and the Abhynana- sakuntala 23 But, the interlude at the beginning of the Act III of the Abhyñana-sakuntala is noted as a Vışkambhaka and not Praveśaka in printed texts and that is also the opinion of Raghava-bhatta It is a Viskambhaka in the opinion of all the theorists who do not follow the above principle of Mätr gupta, as here the disciple of the sage Kanva performs the interlude in Sanskrit language The encyclopaedic Bhāva- prakasana records the above view of Mätrgupta though his name has not been mentioned, and heie we get the full verse,47 half of which is found in the Nātaka lalsana ratna-kosa Among the commentators, two from Mithilā, Sankara and Naraharı quote the entire verse in their commentaries on the Abhyñana-sakuntala38 and the readings there correspond exactly with that adopted by Sagara It is all the more interesting to note here that Sankara attributes the verse to one mahārāja Sankara, perhaps believed that Matrgupta of Kalhana's Rajatarangin, who was a king and poet,2 was also the author of a treatise on dramaturgy After all, it is evident that there was a theory according to which middling charac- ters like parasites, ascetics, chamberlains etc, all speaking Sanskrit, could take part in the Pravesaka Perhaps Matrgupta was the propounder of this theory, at least his name as the earliest supporter of the theory is recorded by Sägara

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 16

Sagara quotes the view of another anonymous authority according to which the Pravesaka should be subservient to what follows,30 and as an illustration of this charact- eristic, cites the Pravesaka in the Act III of the Ven-samhara The dialogues there between a raksasa couple though in Prākrta, has been mentioned as udatta-vacana by Sāgara 31 It has been shown before that following the Nātya-sastra Sāgara prohıbits udātta-vacana in a Praveśaka and also does not take it to mean Sanskrit language, as done by Abhinava But here, while recording the view of another authority, he permits udatta-vacana, though he maintains silence regarding the implication of the word Abhinava- gupta refers to a view that understands udātta vacana as svātmā-karya-vrsranta-vacana Thus, according to this view, in a Pravesaka such speeches as refer to the affarrs of those who take part in it, are prohibited 88, 1e, in a Pravesaka, the dialogues, of course in Prakrta, should be related to the affairs of the mamn characters, the hero, heromne etc In the above illustration of Pravesaka from the Veni-samhara Sagara cites the speech of the rāksasa "Out of his wrath against the son of Drupada, he (Aśvatthāman) may kill us also" as udatta vacana 34 The speech here gives a sequel of the main story (prakrama) by its reference to the wrath of Aśvatthaman who enters immediately with an unsheathed sword in his hand, and also is related to the safety of the characters present here Thus it appears that Sagara also takes udatta-vacana to mean speeches related to the affairs of characters themselves $5 The Pravesaka maintains Sagara, is to be used in between two Acts and there too, at the beginning of an Act and never in the middle or end 37 It thus follows that a Pravesaka should not occur at the beginning of the Act I of a play Dhanañjaya, Vıśvanātha and Šıngabhūpāla state this convention more explicitly 37 But the Natya-darpana maintains that this is the opinion of some theorists, some do not allow a Praveśaka at the beginning of the first Act 33 Śāradātanaya also says that generally the Praveśaka is prohibited at the beginning of the first Act 3 Abhinava-

168 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

gupta also mamntains that the Pravesaka is to be used in between two Acts 40 From the standpoint of Sagara it may be argued that as the Pravesaka is to introduce the pätra of the following Act, it should be used at the begin- ning of that Act, and because in the Act I of a drama the patra is introduced by the Sutradhāra (or Sthāpaka) in the Prastavana, the Pravesaka is of no use there As a brief re'sume' of the entire discussion the following may be stated (1) Indian theorists agree that the Praveśaka is to epit- omize the scattered portions of the story which are not possible or permissible to be elaborately repre sented in Ankas (2) The Nātya-sastra as we have it, prohibits udātta-vacana and higher characters in the Pravesaka and prescribes only Präkrta language there This is also the gene- rally accepted view (3) Mätrgupta admits Sanskrit language and such characters as Vita, Tapasa, Vipra, Kañcukin etc, in d Praveśaka Sāgara, Sāradātanaya and two commen- tators from Mithila accept this view (4) All the theorsts agree that the Praveśaka should not be used at the beginning of the first Act, but from the evidences of the Natya-darpana and Bhava prakasana it appears that there were some who had no objection against the use of Pravesaka at the beginning of the first Act (5) According to some, as recorded mn the Nātaka- laksana-ratna-kośa, even udātta-vacana 1s permissıble 1n a Praveśaka where ıt ıs prakramādhīna Sāgara takes the word in a sense which has been referred to by Abhinavagupta to be the opinion of some (6) No character should enter the stage without prior indication This is a generally accepted theory in practice, though not expressed by any one excepting Sāgara Subhankara and some commentators who also maintain that the Pravesaka serves to give the

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 169

prior indication of the entrance of a leading charac- ter in the immediately following Act In conclusion, it may be pomted out that neither any one of the nisedhas nor the udhe of the Natya-sastra regar- ding the Pravesaka as enumerated (in 2) above, is thought to be absolute by all the theorsts It may be added here that according to the Visnu dharmottara purana, two chara- cters are to take part in a Praveśaka 41 This purānc injunc- tion is but a general statement of facts, as Praveśakas are generally found to be performed by two characters, though instances of Pravesakas with only one character are not wanting The one at the beginning of the Act II of the Svapna-vasavadatta may be cited here, as an example

II Vışkambhaka (Vıskambha)

All the editions of the Nātya sästra describe the Vıskam- bhaka twice each The GOS edition of the Natya sastra in the chap XVIII, while describing the Prakarana says 1 (1) madhyama purusaırnıtyam yojyo viskambhako'tratat- tvajñarh/ samskrtavacanānugatah samksepārthah pra- vesakavat// (2) suddhah samkīrno vā dvrvdho vrskambkako 'pı Kar- tavyah/madhyama patrah suddhah samkīrno nīcamadhya- makrtah// The KSS and KM editions here read another verse 2 (3) ankāntare mukhe vā prakaranam āsrıtya nātake vāpı vrskambhakastu myatah kartavyo madhyamarradhamarh/ Again in the chapter XIX of the GOS edition, we get a sımılar description of the Viskambhaka 3 (1) madhyama-purusa-myojyo nataka-mukhasandhı-mātra- sañcārah/vrskambhakastu kāryah purohrtāmatya-kaňcu- krbhrh// (2) suddhah samkırno vā dvrvidho viskambhakastu vyne- vah/madhyama-pātrash suddhah samkirno mcama- dhyama-krtah//

170 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

The commentary of Abhmnava-gupta on these two verses of the chapter XIX is not available On the otherhand, the first one of these two verses is attributed to Kohala by Abhnavagupta4 and the second one is a copy of the second verse quoted above from the chapter XVIII Thus these two verses appear to be interpolations, as stated by the editor 3 The verse, attributed to Kohala by Abhinava- gupta is also not very unsimilar to the first verse quoted above from the chapter XVIII Thus, the authenticity of almost the entire definition of the Vışkambhaka becomes questionable However, according to the Natya-sastra as it stands now (a) Vışkambhaka serves the same purpose as the Pra- veśaka Like Praveśaka it is also used to convey to the audience in a summary way those events of the plot which are not represented in Act Vışkambhaka ıs samkşepartha lıke the Pravesaka (pravesalarat) (b) A Vışkambhaka may be either suddha or samkīrna In a Śuddha-vışkambhaka, only Sanskrıt is to be used by a madhyama character or characters, while ın a Samkirna-vişkambhaka, there should be both Sanskrit and Prakrit-speaking characters (nica- madhyama-pātra) Thus the use of Sanskrit is the only mark that distın guishes a Vişkambhaka from a Praveśaka where only Prakrıt 1s to be used 5a It is also clear from the above that the Nātya-sastra recognises Pravesaka along with the Anka, as the mam device of representation and Vışkambhaka 1s considered as nothing but Pravesaka with the use of Sanskrıt Abhinava gupta also takes the word Pravesaka of the Natya-sastra in several places, as shown before, to stand for the five Arthopakşepakas and also for Vışkambha- ka 6 But in other later works, excepting the Nātaka-lakşana- ratna-koša and Śrngāra-prakāsa", Vışkambhaka is found to be defined first and the definition of the Pravesaka comes as an atidesa These later authorities, however, follow the Natya- sastra closely, so far as the nature and function of the Vışkambhaka and Praveśaka are concerned 8

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 171

Following the Natya-sastra Sagara also admits that the Vışkambhaka does not differ materially from the Pravesaka, it is pravesakasthaniya9, and is of two kinds suddha and samkirna Only Sanskrit is to be used in the Suddha-vişkam- bhaka, if an inferior character, speaking Prakrit is also ınvolved, ıt ıs Sankirna-vışkambhaka 10 But it has been shown that Sagara following Matrgupta permits Sanskrit- speakıng madhyama characters to take part in a Pravešaka and as such, the use of Sanskrit or the participation of a madhyama character cannot be the mark to distinguish a Viskambhaka from a Praveśaka To show the distinction between the two, Sagara quotes from an anonymous source and adds his comment kuto 'pr averchaya praptah sambaddho nabhayorapr/ vịskambhakah viñeyah kathārthasyāpt sūcakah// kuto 'pt hetoh svayam evāgatah/sambaddho nobhayorapı nāyaka-tadvrpakşa- yorapı na pratibaddhah//1T The above verse occurs also in the Bhava prakasana and Sangīta-damodara 12 Among the commentators Rucipati and Jagadhara quote the verse and ascribe it to Bharata Sankara also quotes it but gives no name of the source T$ Rucipatı further says viskambhako nāma pātrabhedak This gives a clear hint to the implication of the above verse and Sagara's comment thereon A Viskambhaka is to be carried on by a character or characters who should not be directly connec- ted with the hero or his enemy The particular type of character thus involved, 1s to enter the stage out of his own accord and should indicate relevant matters of the plot Sagara tries to give an etymology of the word and says that a Viskambhaka is so called as it supports (the progress of the action) out of joy 14 Dr Raghavan remarks, "It is usual to interpret Viskambhaka on the basis of the meaning, the supporting thing, its relation to exhilaration mentioned by the NLRK is original, but not universally applicable "15 Sāgara also does not claim it to be so Abhinavagupta says, vrskambhayatyupastambhayatıtı vrskambhakah, and this sense has been made more clear in the Natya darpana when

172 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

it says that the Viskambhaka supports the action by linking (the scattered portions of the story) 16 From the above discussion, it appears that Sgara admits of no essential distinction between the Vıskambhaka and Pravesaka In common with other theorists he mam- tains that there should be at least one Sanskrit speaking madhyamapātra in a Vışkambhaka But neither Sanskrit speech nor madhyamapatra is prohibited mn a Pravesaka according to the Nataka-laksana-ratna-kośa A Praveśaka maintains Sagara, indicates the entrance of the next lead- ing character and this seems to be the only dtstinguishing feature of a Pravesaka over Vışkambhaka in hıs opinion It has been shown before that with other theorists Sāgara also do not admit the use of Pravesaka at the beginning of the first Act of a drama, though the Natya- darpana refers to the view as maintained by some As to the position of the Vışkambhaka, Sagara maintains silence and this may be explained as his consent to its use either between two Acts or at the beginning of the first Act Abhi- nava-gupta informs us that Kohala favours the use of the Vişkambhaka at the beginning of the first Act only and this is corroborated by Rāmacandra-Guņacandra, while Šāra- datanaya attributes the view to Bhoja 17 Abhinava-gupta hımself maintains that unlike the Pravesaka, the Vışkam- bhaka may be used at the beginning of the first Act, but this does not mean that it should not be used between two Acts, 1e, it may be used between two Acts and also between the Prastavana and the first Act 18 This 1s also the generally accepted convention 19 Dr M M Ghosh observes, "Fırst it (Vışkambhaka) related to the Nataka" and that perhaps in a later stage of the development of Indian drama, it came to be related to the Prakaraņa also 20 But the Nātya-sāstra (GOS XVIII) defines the Vışkambhaka while describing the Prakaraņa and the definition found in the chap XIX (GOS) has been suspected to be interpolation Bhoja clearly states that the Vışkambhaka, serving the purpose of the Praveśaka, is to be used here mn the Prakarana. and Sanskrit sneakmo

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY I73

madhyama-pātras are to take part in it 20a Abhinava gupta also maintains that the Viskambhaka is much more useful in a Prakarana which contains a large number of middling characters 21 This makes the very reverse of Dr M M Ghosh's above observation more probable The Nataka laksana ratna-kośa gives the view of Carayana who favours the use of Vışkambhaka ın Nāțaka and Prakarana alıke 22 But in another place while describing the Prakarana Sagara asserts that Viskambhaka is obligatory in Prakaraņa 22a The KM and KSS editions of the Nātya-sastra read a verse ankāntare mukheva etc as quoted above,23 that restricts the use of Viskambhaka in Nātaka and Prakarana only Another verse, that occurs in all the editions of the Natya- sāstra clearly states prakarana nātaka visaye pravesakah sam- vdhatavyah Abhinavagupta in his commentary on this verse says that the scope of the theme in rupakas other than the Nātaka and Prakarana is lımited, so, the Praveśaka is not a necessity there 24 Here Pravesaka undoubtedly stands also for the Vıskambhaka For the same reason the Natya- darpana restricts the use of the two in Nātaka, Prakaraņa, Nātıkā and Prakaraņī 25 the last two types of plays are later developments in the model of the first two respectively It thus appears that according to the established principle of dramaturgy, the use of Pravesaka and Vışkambhaka 1s recommended ın Nātaka and Prakarana alıke for the representation of complicated plots This principle, as shown above, is also supported by the canons of the Nātya-sāstra 26

III Ankāvatāra (Garbhānka)

There has been a longstanding confusion regarding the nature and utility of Ankāvatāra and Ankamukha The introduction of other two terms Garbhānka and Ankāsya by some theorsts has made the problem more complicated Sagara, however, takes no note of these two terms and explaıns only Ankāvatāra and Ankamukha

I74 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Ankavatara, says Sagara, is the transition of an Act, ankasyavataranam,1 and then quotes the following definition from an anonymous source, samāpyamāna ekasmınnanke hyanyasya sūcanam/ samāsato hı nātyoktarh (nāt vajnaıh or nātyoktyā 2) so'ankāvat- ara iyate 2// The confused text of the Bhava-prakasana gives, with a minor difference in reading, this definition of the Ankāvatāra" along with the other definition of the same from the Dasa-rūpaka Jagaddhara in his commentary on the Mālati- madhava quotes this definition of the Ankāvatāra 4 Dr Raghavan informs us that the above verse is quoted by Bahurupa Misra in his commentary of the Dasa rūpaka and is ascribed to the Dvadasasahasri 5 According to the above view, Ankavatara is the indication of the next Act by means of short (dramatic or cryptic) speech at the end of the preceding Act Sagara illustrates this Ankāvatara by the closing verse of the Act I of the Nagananda The hero of the drama here in this verse, describes the plight of an elephant due to the scorching heat of the mid day sun and Sāgara means to say that this indicates the representation of the longing of the hero for the heroie in the next Act 6 It may be noted here that the Act II depicts the longing of both the hero and heroine for each other It thus appears that Ankavatara, according to this view, is the dramatic fore-shadowing of the events of the next Act, at the end of the preceding Act Jagaddhara also takes it in this sense as appears from the context and his comment 7 It is important to note here that there is a Pravesaka between Acts I and II of the Nagananda Sımılarly a Vışkambhaka intervenes between the Acts VIII and IX of the Malati-madhava Thus it appears that the above view on Ankāvatāra admits the intervention of an interlude between the two Acts concerned But this is opposed by the Dasa rūpaka and its followers, as will be shown It 1s curious that Visvanatha practically follows the Dasa-rūpaka in defining the Ankāvatāra but, for illustration cites the transi- tion of the Act VI from the Act V of the Abhynana- sakuntala, and between these two Acts there is also

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 1 75

a Pravasaka, the fisherman scene 8 Dr K K Datta Sastri informs us "The Bengal recension of the drama, however, deems it (the Pravesaka) as a part and parcel of the ffth Act and gives it the designation Ankavatāra" The said scholar also shows reasons and justifies the standpoint of the Bengal recension in designating the fisherman scene itself as an Ankāvatāra instead of Pravesaka 9 But the theorists, as shown above, do not maintain that the inter- lude itself is the Ankavatära Thus, according to the school of thought followed by Sagara, Ankāvatāra consists in prior indication to the events of the next Act at the close of the preceding Act, and there may be the intervention of an iuterlude between the Acts concerned According to the Dasa rūpaka as interpreted by Dhanika, that is the case of Ankavatara when without any interven- tion of a Vışkambhaka and Praveśaka, the next Act com- mences as a continuation of the preceding one being just hinted at by some dramatic personae,10 evidently at the close of the preceding Act For illustration, Dhanika cites the passing of the first Act to the second in the Mālavska- gnimitra 11 This is the generally accepted view regarding the Ankavatara. The Bhava-Prakasana in its usual way, reproduces the above definition and illustration from the Dasa-rūpaka along with the other definition, as stated before 12 The Sahitya-darpana also gıves a sımılar defini tion of the Ankavatara,18 though the illustration cited goes to support the view of Sagara, as pointed out before Vidyānatha endorses the view of Dhanañjaya 14 Singa bhupala cites the same illustration as in the Avaloka and seems to follow the Dasa rūpaka when he defines the Anka vatāra as, where all the characters of the preceding Act enter the next Act to represent the contmnuation of the same event 15 Rūpa Gosvāmin reproduces this defnition of the Rasarnava sudhakara with a minor modification 16 Thus, according to this group of theorists headed by Dhanañjaya, Ankāvatāra is the device for passing from one Act to another without any intervention of an interlude.

176 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

From the Natya-sastra and Abhinava bharatr we get at least three more or less similar but confusing definitions of the Ankāvatāra The GOS version in chapter XIX defines it as ankānta eva cānka nıpatatı yasmın prayogam āsādya| byārtha-yuktı-yukto jñeyo hyankāvatāro 'sau//17 But the commentary of Abhinavagupta on this verse 1s not found In another place, however, Abhinava-gupta gives almost an identical definition of the Ankāvatāra and seems to regard the same as from the Nātya-sastra 18 According to this definition, when in practice an Act comes immediately after the close of another and is related to the central theme, it is Ankavatara The incident represented in the preceding Act, directly continues to the following Act, as Abhinavagupta seems to understand it 19 This is exactly what the Dasa rūpaka says about Ankavatāra more clearly The Natya darpana also gives a similar definition of the Anka vatāra and cited the same illustration as in the Avaloka 20 "That there was further confusion", regardıng the Ankā- vatāra is evident not from the Natya darpana alone, as informs Dr Raghavan,21 but from the Abhinava-bharate itself which the Nalya-darpana follows The name of the Śrngara- prakāsa also cannot be omitted as the source of the confusion noticed in the Natya darpana Abhinava-gupta informs us that Kohala defines Ankavatara, a kind of Anka as, ankasyānkantare yogastvavatārah prakirtitah22 1 e when one Act is directly connected with the other, it is Ankavatara This Ankāvatāra of Kohala appears to be the same as that of the Nātya-sastra, as discussed before Abhinava-gupta himself, on the other hand, says that when in an Act the central theme of all other Acts, 1 e., the Bija is introduced, it is called Avatā- ranka The illustration is cited from the Act II of the Ratnaval: where Susangata in appreciation of Sagarikā's love for the king remarks 'Such a bride should desire such a groom" 23 It is apparent that Abhinava gupta here gives practically a separate definition of the Avatāranka than that is given by Kohala whose view he himself quotes Now this Avatārānka of Abhinavagupta is nothing but Ankāvatāra and thus we get two definitions of the same from Abhinava-gupta himself

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 177

(1) Passing from one Act to another without any break, this is the most common view, supported by the Natya sastra and is held by Kohala, Dhan- añjaya and others (2) Introduction of the central theme of all other Acts in one Act,-first found in the Abhinava-bharati The encyclopaedic text of Bhoja's Srngara-prakāsa 1s much more confusing In one place in the chapter XI it describes Praveśaka, Viskambhaka, Anka-mukha, Garbhānka and Culıkā, but omits Ankāvatāra 24 Here the Garbhanka has been described as ankāntare parānko nıpatatı yasmın prayogam āsādya! byārtha-yuktı-yukto grabhānko nāma sa jñeyahļ/ This Garbhanka of Bhoja 1s the Ankāvatāra of the Natya-sastra and Abhinava-bharat 25 In antother place we find that the name of the Ankamukha 1s missing and Ankavatāra is included and thus the number five is not disturbed 26 Again in the same chapter we find another description of Garbhänka, where it has been stated to be a synonym of Ankāvatāra27 byjārtha-yuktı-mān anko yo'nkeşvekan prayujyate/ sa nātakesu garbhānko 'nkāvatāraśca kathyate|/ According to this view, among the Acts the one which ıs bījārthayukti-man (containing the introduction of the central theme, 1 e the Bija) 1s called the Garbhanka or Ankāvatāra This definition of Garbhanka Ankavatara is offered in another words by Abhinava gupta as that of Avatārānka 28 Bhoja, as it appears from the above, gives two separate definitions one of the Garbhanka and the other of the both Gar bhānka and Ankāvatāra The Ankāvatāra of the Nātya- sästra and others has been taken as the Garbhānka, and the Avatāranka of Abhinava gupta has been recognised as Garbhānka or Ankāvatāra Sāradātanaya also seems to understand Garbhanka as another name of the Ankāvatāra, but it has been pointed out before that he records both the views, one held by Sägara and the other found in the Nātya-sāstra, Dāsa-rūpaka etc We are not sure with what Ankāvatāra Sāradātanaya ındentifies the Garbhānka I2

178 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

The Natya-darpana first sets forth the most common view on Ankavatara30 and then practically in the words of Abhinava-gupta records his view on Avatārānka as being the definition of Ankavatara according to some The same illustration as found in the Abhinava-bharate has also been cited,31 and then is stated ayam ca garbhanko 'pyucyate/yadāhuh ankāntareva cānko, mpatatı yasmın prayogam āsādyal -

byārtha yukti yukto garbhānko nāma vyřeyah// it1/32 This verse is undoubtedly the same as found in the Natya sastra as the definition of the Ankavatara But the slight changes in readings of underlned words here have completely changed the meaning of the verse The verse, as it is, means that when an Anka comes within another, Anka, ıt is called Garbhānka But this does not appear to be the intended meaning of, the authors, as the verse has been cited to support the view that Garbhanka 1s Ankāvatāra, None of the two definitions of Ankāvatāra, given before by themselves can be taken as fully identical with this definition of Garbhanka It is not also clear which one of, two Ankavatāras according to two different Vews is intended to be referred to by the pronoun ayam Most probably the Ankavatara according to the common view Is meant here by ayam and Dr K K Datta 'Shastri rightly opanes that this form of Garbhanka is obviously based on a doutful version of the Natya-sastra, available to the authors of, the Natya-darpana 38 In practice also, we find that the introduction of 'some' sort of a stage performancc within the stage came to be a recognised dramatic device even from the time of Kālıdāsa In the Act II of the Malavikagnimitra, there is a solo performance of Chalitaka type of dance by Mālavkā, followed by songs Sriharsa, in the 7th century, made a further development of the idea In the Act III of his Priyadarsika that we actually find is almost 'an' embryo drama (to use Keith's terminology), a small"play' with bits of preliminary details withn a play, and in the text it is rightly named as Garbha-nataka Bhavabhuti in the last

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 179

Act of the Uttaracarta and Rajasekhara in the Act III of his Balaramayana adopt the same device In the realm of dramaturgy, as it appears from above discussion, Garbhanka, as a device of the representation of plot appears first in the Srngara prakasa of Bhoja in the 11th century, so far as extant texts are concerned But here and also in the Natya-darpana (12th cent ) and Bhava- prakāsana (13th cen ), it is treated as indentical with Ankāvatāra The Natya-darpana, however, records a new definition of Garbhänka according to which the above old practice of inserting a dramatic representation within the body of an Act seems to be first recognised in the theory The definition concerned, as quoted before, is apparently taken from the Natya-sastra but with significant changes in reading This definition with its basıs in the Natya sastra was most probably shaped by some theorist with an eye on the said old practice and was included in some version of the Natya-sastra, reasonably long before Rāmacandra- Gunacandra who without any question to its authenticity included it in their work Later in the 14th century, Viśvanātha and Śingabhūpāla took up Garbhänka but not as an Arthopaksepaka They treated it as topically related to Anka According to Viśvanātha, Garbhanka is a play with rangadvāra and āmukha within a play As an illustration Viśvanātha cites the S ta swoyam ara scene,34 called a Garbhanka by the poet himself in the Act III of the Balarāmayana 35 Sınga- bhūpala describes Garbhanka in the same light but more elaborately 36 and Rūpa Gosvamin follows him closely 37 This is in brief the history of Garbhanka in theory and practice 38

IV ANKA-MUKHA (Ankāsya)

The Nātaka laksana-ratna kośa defines Anka-mukha, as the Act where there is a rèsumè of the leading ideas of all the following Acts 1 The illustration is cited from the opening scene of the Malati-madhava where there is an introductory report of all the main events to follow in

180 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

succeeding Acts 2 In the text, however, the sence is called a Mıśra vışkambhaka The Bhāva-prakāsana, as usual, with other views gives the above definition and illustration of Anka-mukha Dr Raghavan informs us that Bahurupa wrongly ascribes the definition to Bharata (satsahasrīkāra) 4 As in the case of Ankāvatāra, Sāgara's view of Anka- mukha also is quite different from the more common conception According to Sagara Ankavatāra consists in the prior indication of the events of the next Act at the close of an Act, and Anka-mukha means a résumè of the events of all other Acts in a particular Act Thus, from this standpoint the difference between the two is clear But thıs Anka-mukha of Sāgara ıs the Avatārānka (Ankāva- tāra) of Abhinavagupta as explained before The definition of the Anka-mukha, as available in the Natya sastra but which has been ascribed to Kohala bv Abhinavagupta5, means that when the detached beginning of an Act is linked us by means of prior indication by some male or female character, evidently in the previous Act, it 1s called Anka mukha In principle, this definition of Anka-mukba is supported by Dhanañjaya, Rāmacandra and Šıngabhūpāla, but they use the term Ankāsya instead of Anka mukha, and in the Natya-darpana both the terms are clearly stated to be synonyms 6 Bhoja also gives the definition from the Nātya sāstra T Sāradātanaya while enum- erating the Arthopakşepakas uses the term Ankäsya,8 but in his usuai way gives all ihe variant defintions of Ankasya and Anka-mukha He quotes the definition and illustration of Ankāsya verbatım from the Dasa-rūpaka and Avaloka respectively9 and from the Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kosa he takes those of Anka-mukha To Again he gives another definition of Ankasya which is very similar in form to that found in the Rasarnava-sudhakara and in matter to that of the Dasa- rūpaka, and a second of Anka-mukha which appears to be similar to that found in the Natya-sastra 11 Thus Bhava- prakasana seems to give two definitions of each of the Anka mukha and Ankasya which appear to be recognised here as two separate devices But the number of the Arthopakse-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 181

pakas is five and Sāradātanaya seems to have no intention to distrub this fact recognised by all It may thus be supposed that Sāradātanaya takes Anka-mukha and Ankāsya as the two names of the same device but gives all the available definitions with the name Anka-mukha or Ankāsya as found in his sources Viśvanātha defines and illustrates Anka-mukha and his definition is quite in line with that of Sagara and the illustration is also the same as in the Nataka-laksana ratna-kosa 1e, from the beginning of the Malat-madhava 12 Then he simply quotes the definition and illustration of Ankasya from the Dasa rūpaka and Avaloka and also frankly admıts etacca dhanıka matānusā- renoktam 13 Lastly Visvanātha informs us that according to some this Ankāsya is covered by the definition of Ankā- vatāra 14 It is thus clear that he himself does not recognise Dhanıka's form of Ankāsya Rūpa Gosvāmin, though at the very beginnıng of hıs Nātaka-randrıkā despises the prakriyās of Viśvanātha,1a yet follows him closely in respect of Anka- mukha He first gives the definition of Anka mukha from the Sahitya-darpana with the word ankasya in place of anka-mukha in the source, but remarks that this Ankasya is identicai with the Anka-mukha according to some Then the definition of Ankasya is quoted, apparently from the Rasāranva-sudhākara with the remark that it is covered by Ankavatära accord- ing to some 16 Thus it appears that Rūpa Gosvāmin prefers to use the term Ankāsya but follows Viśvanātha, so far as the treatment of the topic is concerned It may be noted here that the definition of Ankasya as found in the Dasa-rūpaka and Rasārnara-sudhākara is sımilar to that of the Anka-mukha of the Natya-sastra and that again has been ascribed to Kohala by Abhinavagupta as stated before But we have seen that Sāgara defines Ankāvatāra as the indication of the following Act by means of a cryptic speech at the end of the preceding Act This is undoubtedly sımilar if not identical, to the definition of Anka-mukha, as available in the Nätya-sastra and ascribed to Kohala by Abhinava-gupta

182 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Regarding the term Ankasya it may be said that among the texts available to us, it is first found in the Dasa rūpaka The term itself signifies nothing new, only mukha of Anka- mukha of the Natya sastra is substituted by its synonym asya and this may be supposed to be due to metre causa, as it appears from the definttion of Ankasya in the Dasa- rūpaka Sāgara and Bhoja stick to the old term Other theorists who use the term Ankasya either directly follow the Dasa rūpaka or record its view as reference only We thus get two distinct views before us regarding the nature of Anka-mukha (1) It is the resume of the leading events of all other Acts This is the view of Sāgara Sāradātanaya records this definition of Sāgara and Bahurūpa ascribes the same to Satsahasrīkāra 1 e, to Bharata, but it is not found in the present Nātya sāstra Viśvanātha gives a sımilar definition of Anka-mukha and Rūpa Gosvamin follows him The definition of Anka mukha, as avaılable in the Nataka-laksana-ratna kosa 1s sımılar to that of Avatārānka (Ankāvatāra) of Abhınavagupta (2) According to the Nātya-sastra (or Kohala in the opinion of Abhinavagupta) Anka-mukha lınks up the detached beginning of an Act by means of prior indication This is the most common view and is supported by Boja, Dhanañjaya, Rāmacandra Guņacandra and Sıngabhūpāla Sāradātanaya also records the view But this definition of Anka-mukha is similar to that of Ankāvatāra as found in the Nātaka laksana ratna-kosa Viśvanătha and Rūpa Gosvāmin, perhaps due to the influence of Sāgara, maintain that this Anka mukha (Ankasya) is covered by Ankāvatāra of some It thus appears that there has been a long standing confusion regarding the nature of Ankāvatāra and Anka mukha with its root in the Nātya sastra and Abhinava- bharatr In the present state of our knowledge and also with the present Natya-sastra in our hand we cannot say

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 183

which one of the two vtews, stated above, is earlier The Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kosa maintains sılence regardıng the source of the definitions of both Ankavatara and Anka mukha, but the view upheld therein cannot be declared later at least in the face of Bahurtipa's opinion, as stated before The view had also enjoyed a wide recognition, and this is evident from the works of some commentators and theorists, as shown before Had it been a theory of obscure or later origin or of Sagara's own, it would not have been recognised by them : Who khows whether there was a version of the Natya-sastra or some similar renowned work available to Sāgara from which these views were derived

V Cūlıkā

Sagara says that Culika is the name conventionally used to denote the speeches uttered by persons from behind'the screen to serve some' dramatic purpose.1 In support of' this' statement Sagara quotes yatha patī-madhya-gataih sūta-magadha-vandibhih/ arthopaksepanam yatra krıyate sā hı 'cūliketi//2 Cūlka neither mdicates some future event necessarily, nor introduces 'a character on the stage always. When something related to the plot is hinted, indicated or reported from behind the curtain, it is called Culika, and this is the common ' view 8 Sagara' maintains that generally Sutas (charioteers), Māgadhas (panegyrists) and Vandmns do the job The word vandinah has been taken' to mean Nagnā- caryas,4 referring to minstrels (not to naked teachers) as has been shown by Dr Raghavan with evidences from lexicons 4a But the word m this sense is not of common use' and the readıng may be emended as, nāndyācāryah, meanıng mangala-pathakas 4b Sagara further maintains that others, even leading characters may also take part in a Calika and it is not intended that only the charac- ters, mentioned above should always perform it 5 This

184 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

contention is supported with the views of Bharata and Aśmakutta6 ata eva munirbharatācary | asmakuttasca/ antah patınıvıstaır yat krıyate'rtha-nıvedanam/ antar yamanıkā-samsthais-cūlıkārtha-prakāsanam/| It is evident that this is not a full werse, as is treated in the text of the Nātaka-laksana-ratna kosa, but two halves of two separate verses from two different sources and Sagara himself means to say so in ata eva etc, as above Both, however, mean the samething that Culika is the informatnin concerning the plot conveyed from behind the curtain by anyone Abhinavagupta informs us that Kohala defines Cūdā (cūlkā) as arthopaksepanam cūdā bahvarthah sūta-vandibhih 7 It is interesting to note that Kohala also assigns the task of performing the Cuda to such roles as Sūtas and Vandins etc The Natya-darpana gives two names of this device viz, Cūla and Cūlıka and then says 'sā cūdeva culika' 8 From all these it appears that Cuda, as given by Kohala, was the original name and the Cūla and Cūlika came from it Śngabhūpāla gives a detailed account of Cūlikāe and expressly states that it may occur at the beginning, middle or end of an Act and this has been taken up by Rūpa Gosvamin 10 In the Rasārnava-sudhākara a distinction has beeu drawn between Cūlıkā and Khandacūlıkā The former is the same as maintained by all other authorities But when at the beginning of an Act, one character on the stage and the other behind the curtain take part in con- versation and serve the purpose of Cūlikā, it is Khanda- cūlıkā Śingabhupala points out that others call it a case of Viskambhaka, but he himself does not perfer to call ıt so, enam vıshambham evānye prāhur nartan matam mama 11 The illustration of this Khaņda-cūllka has been cited from the Act I of the Bālarāmayana of Rājaśekhara 12 But this is not the common view of Cūlikā

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 185

VI A general review of the Arthopakşepakas The five Arthopaksepakas have been explamned with a comparative study of the theories advanced by different authorities There is a confusion regarding the term Arthopakşepaka itself The Nātya-sastra, as we have it, uses the term only once in the chapter XIX (GOS) where all the five have been defined 1 The two interludes, Praveśaka and Vışkambhaka, however, are elaborately treated in the previous chapter The verse that enumerates the five and contains the term Arthopaksepaka and also the verses which define the five in the chapter XIX of the Natya sāstra (GOS) are held to be spurious by the editor of the GOS edition2 on the grounds that (1) some of the manuscripts omit these verses, (11) Abhinava's commentary on them are not available, (111) some of these verses are mere repetitions as they are found in the previous chapter, and (1v) some of them are identical with the verses of Kohala, quoted by Abhinavagupta But Dr K K Datta Shastrı maintains that these verses of the Natya-sastra cannon be held spurious because, (1) omission of a passage in one or other manuscript does not necessarily imply its spuriousness, (11) Abhinavagupta does not explain each and every passage of Natya-sastra, (111) repetitions are not totally unknown to the Natya-sastra, (1v) verses attributed to Kohala by Abhinava may be considered as taken from the Natya-sastra verbatım by Kohala himself 3 Dr Shastrı has justified each and every one of these contentions with sufficient evidences from the Natya-sastra, Abhinava-bharatī and the Nataka laksana-ratna kosa, But he hımself admits that the text of the Natya-sastra 1s extremely uncertain in this portion 4 Moreover, what portions of the present Natya sāstra are pre-Bharatan, post-Bharatan, and Bharatan is yet to be finally settled Kohala 1s presented before us in the Natya-sastra as one of the most prominent pupil of the sage Bharata and he has been entrusted with the duty of treating all matters left out in the Natya-sastra 5 His "relation with the Natya Sastra 1s not quite clear" The time and extent of the supposed influence6 of hıs

186 NATAKA LAKSA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

work on the redactors of the Nūtya sastra has not yet been properly assessed It may also be supposed that manv verses of some earlier version of the Nātya-sāstra were taken verbatım by Kohala in his work and many verses from which, on the other hand, were included in the Nātya sastra long before Abhinavagupta So, if some verses appear as identical with quotations from Kohala, we are not fully Justified to call them spurious It is also a fact that Abhinavagupta himself regards Kohala in some places as coeval with Bharata' Moreover, the definition of Anka- vatara, as quoted in the Ablnava-bharat with the introduc tory remark yathoktam, shows that Abhinavagupta himself recognises it as taken from the Natya-sastra This defini- tion is almost identical with that found in the chap XIX of the (GOS) Natya sastra 7a In another place Abhinava gupta remarks 8 tathā ca kohalo 'arthopaksepa-pañrakan uktavān, 1 c, Kohala enumerated the five Arthopakşepakas If we are to believe on the evidence of this statement of Abhinavagupta that Kohala first defined each of the five Arthopaksepakas, then we are to accept that the above mentioned definition of Ankāvatāra was taken by Abhinava- gupta from the work of Kohala But Abhinavagupta himself does not appear to have meant that, as shown above We have seen that the Natya-sastra, elaborately treats Pravesaka and Viskambhaka in chapter XVIII (GOS) In chapter XIX (GOS) along with these two other three Arthopaksepakas are defined Of these three the definition of Ankävatāra appears to be genuie from the above evidence of the Abhinava-bharatr From all these it appears that the definitions of all the five were there and Kohala brought them under one general term Arthopaksepaka, enumerated the five as Abhinavagupta puts it, and systema tised the whole scheme Kohala thus, may be credited with the coiing of the term Arthopaksepaka More over, Abhinavagupta most reasonably points out that the Natya-sastra uses the term Pravesaka in several places instead of Arthopaksepaka, as a generic one to signify either all the five devices or the two mamn ones

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 187

Praveśaka and Viskambhaka 9 Had the term Arthopakse- paka been known originally, it could have been conveni ently used This term appears once in the Nātya sastra (GOS XIX 110) in the verse that enumerates the names of five devices and this verse may be said to be included in the Natya- sāstra after Kohala An Act in a Sanskrit drama, as has been shown before, may consist in itself of more than one scenes But Praveśaka and Vışkambhaka are clear cut scenes in the modern sense of the term The back-ground is never represented as changed in a Praveśaka or Viskambhaka, as is very often done in an Act But regarding other three Arthopaksepakas, it may be said that they are never treated, either tn theory or in practice, as separate scenes outside an Act Ankāvatāra and Anka-mukha are always included withmn jone or other of the Acts and are never treated as entities exterior to the Acts like Pravesaka or Vışkambhaka TO Culika consists of simply in the indication of something from behind the screen and nothing more 11 So, if it occurs even at the very beginning of an Act, it cannot be taken as a separate scene 12 Thus, generally speakıng Ankāvatāra and Anka-mukha signify the nature of the beginning of an Act or a particular relation between two Acts We have also seen that akasa-vacana and nepathya vacana are taken by Mātrgupta, Sāgara and others as Sandhyantaras Cūlikā (1e, utterance of something from behind the screen) in an Act is nothing but nepathya vacana 1e, a Sandhyantara and cannot be included in the Artho- pakşepakas Lıke the Ankāvatāra and Anka-mukha Cūlıkā, perhaps, was also used to denote a particular style of begin- ning of an Act Most probably it was taken to mean the starting of an Act with the indication of something from behind the screen through nepathya-vacana The Vışkam- bhaka at the beginning of the Act II and Acts III and V proper, of the Uttara-rama-carita start with Cūhka Thus these three Arthopaksepakas (vız , Anka mukha, Ankāvatāra and Culika) denote the modes of the beginning of Acts The above seems to be the view of Kohala who maintains

188 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

that there are three types af Acts marked by Ankāvatāra, Cūdā (Cūlıkā) and Anka mukha, as Abhinavagupta informs us 13 It thus appears that according to Kohala the Anka itself is the main Arthopaksepaka, because the three types of these Ankas have been included in the five Arthopak- sepakas by himself 14 Sagara also maintains that the Arthkpaksepakas are but artha pratipadakas, those which set forth or introduce the theme of the drama T5 In this sense also Anka may be taken as an Arthapratıpādaka From the view point of representation on the stage the Natya-sastra originally appears to have recommended the division of the plot into a number of acts (Ankas) and scenes (Praveśaka and Vıskambhaka) to maintain a lınk of of the theme The definitions of three types of Ankas, marked by Ankāvatāra, Anka-mukha and Cūlikā were there in the Natya sastra But perbaps, it was not clearly stated that they were the there varieties of Acts Kohala, as it appears from the above discussion, first brought all the devices of reprsentaton of the plot, under one general term Arthopaksepaka and enumerated the names of five Arthopakşepakas and clearly stated that Ankāvatāra, Anka-mukha and Culika are but three marks of Acts Being the modes of their beginning these three appear to have been taken as the marks of Acts by Kohala Sāgara seems to be conscious of this old conception He after fully describing the Anka, begins his discussion on the Arthopaksepakas with the remark sampratyanka- vrdhayā pravesakādaya ucyante,16 implying thereby that from the view point of representation on the stage before an audience, the Pravesaka etc do not differ materially from an Anka The nature and function of the two types of interludes, Pravesaka and Vişkambhaka, which are well marked scenes, have been elaborately discussed It has also been shown that Sagara, following the Natya sāstra maintams that there is no material difference between these two He says that the Vışkambhaka ıs pravesakasthāniya 17 Even later comm- entators also accept the above view Raghava-bhatta in hıs

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 189

Arthadyotanika informs us that the Pravesaka between the Acts Vand VI of the Abhynana-sakuntala is called the third Praveśaka by some as there are two Viskambhakas, one in the Act III and the other in the Act IV, thus this is the thrd Pravesaka 18 Sankara in his Rasa candrka commen tary on 'the same drama says pravesaka eva viskambhakah 19 Prof Jagirdar, on a study of the Pravesakas employed in the plays of Bhasa, arrives at the general conclusion that the Pravesakas in Sanskrit drama in general, simply introduce the following main scenes 20 This seems to be somewhat in conformity with the view held by Sagara that Pravesaka introduces the entrance of the following leading character 21 Prof Jagirdar further mamntams that Viskam- bhakas are "concerned with incidents unrepresented on the stage, or supposed to have happened during the interval and also incidents connected with the hero and the heroine or the central theme "22 According to the said scholar here lies the distinction between the two, Pravesaka and Vıskambhaka, and a parallelism can be established between Viskambhaka and Greek Chorus 23 But these arguments do not seem to hold good so far as the dramas of even Kaldāsa are concerned The Dhivara scene is a Pravesaka in the Abhyñana-sakuntala but it summarises the incidents unrepresented on the stage It appears that both Pravesaka and Viskambhaka help the introduction of the following main Act and summarise the events or incidents unrepre- sented on the stage Their difference lies elsewhere and that has already been discussed Later theorists, at least begining from Dhanañjaya, divided the plot from the view point of representation on the stage, into two , drsya sravya and sucya The first division is to include portions which are meant to be elaborately delineated in Acts, and the second includes events and incidents which are only to be mdicated through Arthopaksepakas, as being unfit or uninteresting for elabo- raton and visible representation 24 All the Arthopakse- pakas are thus limited as means for indication (sucanopaya) This sort of division of the plot is unknown in the Nātya-

190 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

sastra and Sagara also does not recognise this division The original conception of Arthopaksepaka, consisting of three types of Ankas (marked by Ankāvatāra, Anka mukha and Culika) and two types of scenes the Pravesaka and Vişkambhaka, was totally lost A strict line of demaraction came to be drawn between Ankas and Arthopaksepakas These later theorists missed the original implicanon of Ankāvatāra, Anka-mukha and Cūlikā and naturally a confu- sion arose This confusion was worse confounded by the introduction of two new terms Garbhānka and Ankāsya An attempt has been made to bring out the original sıgni- ficance of the deviccs which seems to be maintained, at least to a reasonable extent, ın the Nātaka-laksana-ratna kosa

CHAPTER X

(1) TITLE OF THE PLAY

It is an old practice that the titles of literary compost- ticns, not to speak of dramas only, are so selected that they either contain the designation of the hero or heroine or both, or simply the main theme is indicated in the title Very often the indication of the theme and the designation of the hero or heroine are combined to form the title The matter perhaps was considered to be so simple and obvious that neithe the Natya-sastra nor most of the later texts on dramaturgy give any direction regard- ing the naiming of dramatic compositions From the Natya-sastra we get titles of two plays, one 1s Amrta-man thana, a Samavakara and the other is Tripura daha, a Dima Both these titles are indicative of themes There is another reference to a dramatic representation in the Nātya-tastra where no title of the play is given but only the theme has been alluded to 1 The Mahabhasya also seems to contamn reference of subject matters of two plays 2 It thus appears that a brief statement of the subject matter served the pur pose of titles of plays in the primary stage of its develop ment But Asvaghosa names hıs play Sarrputraprakarana by mentioning the name of the leading character and this perhaps indicates the next stage Chronologically speaking, so far as the extant texts are concerned, Sägara first refers to a principle regarding the naming of plays The text of the Nataka laksana-ratna-kosa clearly shows that Sägara here quotes the view of some ancient authority, though the name of the source is not Siven It is enjoined that the title of the dramatic compo- sition is to refer either to the Pradhana (hero) or the Vastu (Plot) Tıtles of Nāțakas lıke Rāmānanda, Jānakı raghava and that of the Prakaraņa Mālatimadhava have been cited as referring to the Pradhana and those of the Nātaka Kundamala and the Prakarana Mrcchakatska have been taken as indicatıng the Vastu It appears from ths that by pradhana-nirddsa and

192 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

vastunirdesa Sāgara simply means that the title of a drama is to contain either the designation of the hero or those of both the hero and herome or a reference to the crucial incident of the plot Saradatanaya means the same when he says tannāma nātakādyantar (nāyakādyantar ?) garbhitārthopasucakam 4 The use of the word garbhitartha (crucial incident) is un- doubtedly an improvement upon Sāgara's vastu nu desa The views expressed by Viśvanatha and Amrtananda in the 14th century are more elaborate The latter says, samna tu nātakādınam nāyakenetarcna va/nāyıkānāyakavyākhyānāt samjñā prakaranādısu/nātıkā-sattakādınām nayıkabhir-vrsesa- nam/ 5 This view gives much stress on the designations of the hero and herome in naming a play but falls short to explain a title like Kunda mala, inasmuch as it omits the principle that the title of a play may be formed by referring to the main mcident of the plot Visvanātha makes an attempt to give a more clear-cut principle and states that the title of a Nātaka should be garbhitārtha- prakāsaka, the Prakaranas etc, are to be named after the names of the hero and heroine, whereas the name of the heroine alone may serve the purpose of namıng Nātıkā, Sattaka etc 9 This rıgıd principle of Visvanātba lacks corroboration to the titles of ancient dramas Neither the title of the Nātakas Mālavıkāgnımtra and Jānakı-raghava may be said to be garbhatārtha-prakasaka, nor the title Mrechkațīka or Sarputraprakarana 1s formed after the names of the hero and heroie The broad principle of the Natak-laksana- ratna kosa seems to be more suitabie to explain the titles of Sanskrıt plays It is interesting to note that Rucipati in this matter quotes, nātakasya ca yan-nāma garbha-nırdzsta laksanam, and ascribes it to Bharata 7 Sankara ın his Rasa-candrıkā commentary of the Abhyñana-sakuntala gives a better generalı- sation regarding the naming of a drama He says vastuna vastu-netrbhyām netrā nāyıkayāpı va/ dvābhyām vā vastu-nārībhyām kāryā samīja tu rūpake 8 The commentator is silent about the source of the verse but it is evident that this single verse can justify the title of any and every sanskrıt drama

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 193

(11) Title of the Anka

Excepting the Nātaka-lakşana-ratna-kosa, none of the exist- ing works on Sanskrıt dramaturgy including the Nātya sāstra, tries to formulate any principle regarding the naming of individual Acts of dramas Sagara maintains that the Acts of a drama may also be named according to the same principle stated in connection with the naming of the drama 1 Thus, according to this view individual Acts may be named by the designation of the character taking the leading part in the Act concerned, or by the main incident delmeated therein In the Nātaka-lakşana-ratna-kosa, there are citations from as many as fifty-three individual Acts with titles Abhınavagupta, Dhanıka, Rāmacandra-Gunacandra and Śingabhupala are not found to refer the Acts by their titles Śāradātanaya and Visvanātha in many cases have cited from different Acts with titles2 But it is interesting to note that all the names of Acts, referred to in the Bhava-prakāsana and in the chapter VI of the Sahitya-darpana are found in the Nataka-laksana-ratna-kosa Not only the names of Acts but the citations therefrom, as given by Saradatanaya and Vısvanātha, occur ın the Nātaka-lakşana-ratna-koša ın sımılar contexts in almost all cases $ In this matter the indebtedness of Śāradātanaya and Viśvanātha to Sāgara seems to be an undeniable fact Now, the naming of an Act becomes necessary only when its separate entity besides the part of a whole drama, 1s recognised for the representation on the stage, otherwise it appears to be quite useless to attach a title to an Act Indian tradition recognises different types of one Act plays lıke Bhana, Vyayoga, Vithi etc There was also the practice of staging individual Acts in India and this becomes evident when we take into consderation the reason behind the naming of Acts The title of a drama is required to be announced by the Sutradhara (or Sthapaka) in the prelude Sımilarly the name of an Act was also announced when it was staged 13

194 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Many of our extant dramas contain Acts with names It 1s very often argued, specially in connection with the one Act plays of Bhasa, that the hereditory actors of Kerala, the Cakyars, use to stage selected Acts from renowned Sanskrit dramas4 The Urubhanga of Bhasa is generally taken to be such an Act of some lost lengthy Mahabharata-drama 5 From our above discussion, it appears that the practice of staging selected Acts was not confined to Kerala only, more or less it was known to other parts of the country In Kerala it was a regular practice, but in other parts of the country the practice does not appear to be a regular feature of represen- tation The silence of authorities like Abhinavagupta, Dhanañjaya etc , in the matter of either the principie of nam- ing or referring to the names of mndividual Acts tends to support our contention In this connection it may also be pointed out that a well-known commentator like Jagaddhara fails to understand the implication of the name Vakula-vithr of the Act I of the Malati-madhava The grove itself and a garland of vakula flowers play an important part in the Act and as such it is named Vakula-vīthi But the commentator in explaining the name quotes a definition of the Vithi, an one Act minor rūpaka and wrongly ascribes the definition to Bharata 6 This shows a confusion regarding the name of an Act From a perusal of the foregoing chapters it appears that almost a separate literature had developed through ages on the dramatic plot and its analysis and division fiom different view points An allegation is very often levelled against Indian theorists in the field of literary criticism, that they are over zealous in classification and elaboration The valdity of this allegation cannot be challenged but the reasons behind, should not be overlooked The basically thoughtful and speculative Indian mind worked out through centuries an enormous philosophical literature The rapid and parallel development of different systems of philosophy exerted its influence on literary criticism, not to speak of dramaturgy

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 195

alone A philosophical precision and logical method of classi- fication of all details were deemed essential in every field of knowledge From the very beginning, literary criticism in India came to be recognised as a Sästra, giving injunctions regarding Vidhis and Nisedhas, and as a Sastra it was expected to follow the Sastric method of delineation Moreover, a deep regard for the works of ancient seers and contemporary demands compelled the authors to twist the ancient sayings for bringing out their own desired import and this gave rise to different interpretations of any single verse The present Natya sastra undoubtedly presupposes a long tradition, well developed stage convention and also a full- fledged dramatic literature of which no trace has come down to us Only a long process of observation, discrimination and experiment through centuries can give rise to such a comprehensive work as the Natya sastra 1s But the literature that formed the basis of this monumental work is sunk into oblivion After the Natya-sastra was codified it acquired a sanctity, almost religious in character for which the work itself was certainly well-deserving With this Natya sastra as the foundation, an enormous literature grew up in course of time In its development, it influenced and was also influenced by the prolific growth of dramatic literature, but with a fragment of which we are at present acquainted This is the reason behind the host of theories on particular topics of dramaturgy while all the theo- rists owe their unswerving allegiance to the Natya-sastra An attempt has been made in the preceding chapters to explain those controversial theories which come under our discussion and show that most of them had therr origmn in the sūtra- like composition of the Nātya-sāstra itself, amenable to several interpretations It has also been shown that a number of schools of thought developed long before Abhinavagupta and Sagara and that these Schools maintained divergent opinions regarding the

196 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

source, structure, analysis and division of the plot The theo- ries propounded by these schools in most cases, as has been shown, are undoubtedly very significant effort in dramatic criticism About Natya sastra there are problems like the traditions of Sat-sahasrı, Dvādasa-sahasrı, Ādı-bharata7 etc It is generally admitted that there are two recensions of the Natya-sastra But in the preface of the GOS edition Mr M R Kavi points out that no two out of forty manuscripts of the Nātya-sāstra, agree completely 8 The same is the position regarding the printed versions of the text The small portion of the text that comes under our subject of discourse, shows enumerable variations in readings which have been noted in proper places whenever thought to be necessary Moreover, in the works of commentators on dramas, lıke Rāghava-Bhatta Jagad- dhara, Rucipati, Śankara etc, some verses are found to be ascribed to Bharata which are not available in the present Nätya-sastra Much weight cannot be attached to the words of these later commentators But in cases where the ascrip- tions are supported by a text lıke the Nātaka-lakşana-ratna- kosa and are widely recognised, the quotations concerned can reasonably be taken as collected from some copy of the Nātya- sastra In the foregoing chapters some such cases have been discussed, the most important of which are, the three ways of bya-nyasa, appearance of a god at the end of a play, restric- tion to the entrance of a character without prior indication, and the verse kuto'pt svecchaya etc , distinguishing a Viskam- bhaka from a Praveśaka

CHAPTER XI

VRTTI

The term Vrtti is of special significance in almost all the branches of Sanskrit literature In philosophical works, it 1s generally used to denote function (vyāpāra), In grammar also it is used to signify the function of expressing a different meaning other than those the parts of a particular word- formation contain (pararthabhidhanam vritih), and denotes Krt, Taddhıta, Samāsa, Ekaśesa and the verb-forms with suffixes San etc (krt-taddhta-samāsaıkasesa-sanādyanta-dhāturūpāh paňca vrttayah1) In Alamkara-lıterature, the significative capacity of words is called Vrtti, and four varieties of it (Abhidha, Laksanā Vyāñjanā, Tātparya) have generally been recogni- sed The sense in which the term Vrtti is used in Sanskrit dramaturgy has variously been expressed in English as 'bear- ing of characters'2, 'manner or style'3, mode etc A perusal of the number and different types of Vrtti-s and their nature is essental for the understanding of the nature and function of Vrtti itself and the position of the Nataka-laksana-ratna-kosa in this respect It may be pointed out here that the Nātya- sāstra, Bhāva-prakāsana and Rasārnava-sudhākara give accounts of the mythical origin of the Vrtti-s of which Sagara-nandın ıs quite sılent He only says etā vrttayas-caturvedi-samāsrayāh This simply indicates the origin of Drama from the four Vedas

I Number of Vrtti-s

The Natya-sastra recognises four Vrtti-s, they are, Bharati, Sattvati, Kaisıkı and Arabhatī Sāgara accepts this view4 and does not refer to any other But there was a confusion and ıt ıs evident from the Abhinava-bhāratı, Bhāva-prakāsana,

198 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Dasa-rūpaka etc Abhinava-gupta caustically refers to the views which maintamn that the number of Vrtti-s are two, three or five 5 He neither explains these views nor mentions the names of their propounders He, however, dt als elabora- tely with the view of Udbhata and its criticism by Lollata Dr V Raghavan (then a Research Scholar), in the Journal of Oriental Research, Madras (Vol VI, pt 4 and Vol VII, pts 1 and 2, 1932-33) elaborately discussed the entire prob- lem concerning the Vrtti-s mn all their aspects There he suggested the reasons of holding the number of Vrtti s as two and three Any and every dramatic situation consists of Vak and Cesta, and each of these two may be either Lalita or Uddhata Bharatī, Sāttvatī, Kaısıkī and Ārabhatī are essen- tally the Vrttı-s of Vāk, Cestā, Lālıtya and Auddhatya res- pectively So, "The two Vrtti-s are either the Bharati and the Sattvati referring to Vak and Cesta or the Kaisiki and the Arabhati referring to Lalitya and Auddhatya" Dr Raghavan further presumes that the "vyapara or activity of Vak (speech), Kaya (body) and Manas (mind)" might have given rise to the view holding the number of Vrtti-s as three 6 But the activities of Vak and Kāya are not independent of the same of Manas There is nothing in the nātya-vyapara which may be conceived of as purely the activity of mind, though it is the basis of all the uyapara-s So, it is not convinc- ing that the actıvities of Vāk, Kāya and Manas in nātya- vyāpāra prompted some ancient scholar to propound the theory of three Vrttr-s This theory of three Vrtti s is the thesis of Udbhata, as will be discussed below In favour of the view maintaining the number of Vrtti-s as two, another reason may be aduced Among the four principal objects of human life Dharma, Artha, Kāma and Moksa, drama deals primarily with the second and third and taking these two mto considera tion two Vrtti-s only may be accepted Udbhata himself suggests this, of course as a counter argument,-kinca yadı tavat pumarthakamoddesena 1 aisıkyabhidhyate dharmam-artham coddisya yrttidvayam iaktamam ? Moreover, as will be shown, below,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 199

Udbhata divides the entire dramatic situation into two classes and this also may be taken to be the basis of the theory of two Vrtti-s Udbhata's theory of Vrtti has been the source of controversy and confusion among ancient theorists and modern scholars alike Dr S N Shastr8 remarks that apart from the four Vrtti-s of Bharata, "Udbhata believes in a fifth Vrttr which he calls Artha-vrtti" This is evidently based on the wrong observatıons of Dhanañjaya and Sāradātanaya Dhanañjaya asserts that beyond the three (viz, Sattvati, Karsıkı and Arabhati), there is no other Artha-vrtti (nārth-vrttir-atah parā) The fourth one, 1 e, the Bharati is a Sabda-vrtti Dhanañjaya goes on to say that the followers of Udbhata recognise these three Artha-vrtti-s, but takes into account a fifth one kaısıkım sāttvatım cārtha-vrttim-ārabhatim-itz | pathantah pancamım vrttım-audbhatāh pratyjānate //9 Dhanañjaya does not specifically state that the fifth Vrtti of Udbhata 1s Artha-vrtti That Dhanañjaya means so, has probably been surmised on the basis of his above assertion nartha-vrttr-etc It is Saradatanaya who specifically states that the followers of Udbhata recognise the fifth Vrtti, the Artha-vrttı, audbhatāh pancamīm-artha-vrttim ca pratyānate 10 Closely similar diction suggests that here in this case the source of Saradatanaya is the Dasa-rūpaka Now, the standpoint of Udbhata, so far as can be deci- phered from the text of the Abhinava-bharatr 1s quite diffe- rent from what Dhanañjaya and Saradatanaya seems to have understood Udbhata appears to have criticised Bharata's scheme of four Vrtti-s which are connected with epeech (Vak) and phvsical movements (Cesta) and as such, representations of death (marana), swoon (mūrcha) etc, become devoid of any Vrtti, as in these there is neither any Vak nor Cesta Thus, according to Udbhata, the four Vrtti-s of Bharata fail to comprehend the entire field of representation For this and other reasons, Udbhata gives up the old scheme of four Vrtt-s and proposes a new one He, for death and swoon

200 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

etc, establishes first the Phala-samvitti-vrtti which is but the realisation of the fruit of Vak and Cesta tasmāt phalasamvıttyākhya vrttih vak-cestayoh phalānubhava itr yasyā laksanam, sābhyupagantavyā / avašyam cartat, anyathā mūrchā-maranādau vāk-ceştayor-abhāve mırvrttikatarva syāt11 / Thus Udbhata first divides the natya-vyapara into two classes of situations where there are Vak-Cesta and where there is the realisation of Phala but no Vāk-Cestā Now, the situations related to Vak and Cesta may either be proper (nyāya) or improper (anyaya) So, only three Vrtti-s are to be recognised, vız, Nyāya-vrttı, Anyāya-vrttı and Phala-samvıttı-vrtti tasmāt (vāk) Cestātmıkā nyāya-vrttır-anyāya-vrttı-rūpā tat-phala- samvıttır-ıtı vrtti-trayam-eva yuktam its bhattodbhafo manyate 12 Thus, these observations of Udbhata, as found in the Abhinava bharati, uphold the theory of three Vrtti s Abhinava-gupta further quotes a verse, presumably from the text of Udbhata This verse means that through Vak and Cesta the Vrtti 15 of two kinds, and these two with reference to the four Puru sartha s become eight, which again through nyaya and anyaya become sixteen, and the Phala-vrtti is of many kinds due to the diversity of Rasa In fine, Udbhata propounds a new scheme of Vrtti which has got no relation with that of Bharata The standpoint of Udbhata was forgotten leaving behind the name of Phalasamvitti in the memory of some which again was termed Arthavrtti simply because artha in dramaturgy sometimes means phala This seems to be the background of mis statement found in the Dasa-rūpaka and Bhāva prakāsana, as pointed out before Abhinava gupta further refers to the view of the followers of Sakalīgarbha who accept the four Vrtti s of Bharata but take recourse to a fifth one Atma samvitti by name, for bring ing such situations as swoon etc, (where there is no Vak Cesta) under the fold of Vrtti This view actually, and not that of Udbhata, upholds the scheme of five Vrtti-s The Ātma samvitti Vrtti, as Abhinava gupta puts it, has been

OF ANCIENI INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 201

thought to be inferred from such dramatic situations where there ıs no movement (sakala kārya mıvrttyanumeyā) 13 The above two views, as Abhinava bharati informs us, have been bitterly criticised by Lollata and finally exploded by Abhinava gupta himself Their arguments are mainly a) Vrttı means vyāpāra But according to the followers of both Udbhata and Sakaligarbha the Phala samvitti and Ātma samvitti are not related to any vyāpāra Therefore, these two cannot be termed as Vrtt at all b) If everything related to nata is to come in the fold of a Vrtti, then to which Vrtti the ranga, musical Instruments etc , are to belong ? c) Representation of death or swoon is also the vyāpāra of mindat least and can be associated with the Sattvati Vrtt 14 So, there is no necessity of recognising any separate Vrtti for them Abhinava gupta thus, establishes the scheme of Bharata It may be pointed out that Udbhata and Sakalıgarbha appear to have overlooked the fact that death, swoon etc , are imita ted on the stage by the actors with conscious effort and as such, they cannot be treated as unrelated with cesta That there were other views on the number of Vrtti-s Is known from the Sarasvati-kanthabharana Bhoja here (II/66 68) recognises a scheme of six Vrtti-s that adds two new ones, Madhyama-kaısıkī and Madhyamārabhatı with the four of Bharata Again (II/83 87) he refers to and rejects a view that admits of twelve Vrtti-s characterised by three Guna-s This second scheme seems to be formulated keeping Kāvyas in view In his srngāra-prakāsa15 again, Bhoja admits of a Vimiśra-vrtt1 along with the four of Bharata This new one according to Bhoja, possesses the features of all the four old ones Sagara-nandin, however, does not enter into the controversy and accepts the scheme of Bharata without any reservation There are four Vrtti-s according to this scheme, they are Bharati, Sattvati, Kaisıki and Arabhatı, and in these four Vrtti-s respectively, says Sagara,16 speech (vāk), emotional

202 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

absorption (sattva), grace (lila) and physical action (vyāyāma) predominate In natya these four Vrtti-s cannot be located in different water-tight compaitments The characteristics of one are very often than not found to coexist with those of others Predommnance of one or other of the above factors determines the Vrtt in a particular dramatic situation This point will be discussed later

II Characteristics of Different Vrtti-s

The four Vrtti-s and their varieties (vrtyangas) have been described by Sagara-nandın mainly after the Nātya-sastra It may be pointed out here that vrtyangas are neither lımbs nor subdivisions of Vrtti-s as taken by some modern scholars 1 They are varieties, forms through which a particular Vrtti can be manifested This point has been made clear by Sāgara-nandın when about Bharatı Vrtti he says,-asya vrttes- catvāro bhedā angatvam agatāh2, 1 e , four forms of this Vrtti have come to be recognised as four angas In fact, the word anga in Sanskrit dramaturgy does not generally mean limb or sub- division It may iurther be pointed out that the names of various Vrtti-s and their angas have been accepted in the Nātya-sāstra itself as rudhisabdas An enquiry into their mean- ings as done by Abhinava-gupta and others, leads us nowhere so far as their characteristics are concerned Sāgara nandın makes no such attempt

A Bhāratı

Sagara-nandın quotes the definition of Bharati from the Nātya-sāstia 3 In Bharatī, speech of male characters speaking Sanskrıt predominates (vāk-pradhānā purusa-prajojyā sanskrta- patha-yukta) and females are excepted (stri-varnta) This is the Vrttr of actors (and not of actresses) who are known as the sons (disciples) of Bharata Four varieties of this Vrtti are

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 203

recognised, viz Prarocana, Amukha, Vithi and Prahasana Of these Vithi and Prahasana are two separate types of plays Neither the Nātya-sastra nor the Nātaka laksana-ratna-kosa has discussed the characteristics of these two varieties here in this connection 4 Prarocana also has not been defined in the Natya-sastra here in this context It is simply said that m the Pürvaranga the (performance of), auspicious Prarocana is conducive to success, prosperity and victory, it wards off the evil Sagara-nandin quotes this verse5 but adds no comment The Natya-sastra defines Prarocana in the fifth chapter (GOS ) as an element of the Purvaranga There it is said that the Prarocana is to induce the audience to the play to be staged through suggestion to its theme with cogent reasons and having reference to the siddhi6 In one manuscript, however, the verse is repeated in connection with the discussion on Vrtt1 7 Sagara nandm says that Prarocana is so called as it presents a well known idea (prasıddhār tha-pradarsam)8 deline- ated in a play He further informs us that according to some the mention of the theme of the drama to be staged through some well-established topic is Prarocana An illustration has been cited from an unknown drama Naraka-vadha 9 In conclu- sion, however, Sagara-nandin enjoins that to introduce the Mukha and other Sandhi-s, Prarocana should be done at the beginning, and there the Nandi which is the obligatory element of Purvaranga is to be performed 10 Thus, it appears that according to Sagara-nandın Prarocana is an element of the Pürvaranga The utility of Prarocana consists in rousing the interest of the audience about the theme of the play and it is an anga of the Purvaranga There are no two opinions regarding this view 11 Another anga of the Bharati is Amukha, 1e, Prasta- vana 12 Nandī, in actual practice, invariably occurs in the Prastavana Thus it appears that Amukha itself forms a part of the Pürvaranga But here there are different opinions Abhmnava-gupta appears to maintain that Prarocana and Ämukha as angas of the Bhirati are different from these of

204 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Purvaranga 13 Of course, neither in the Natya-sastra nor in the Abhinava-bharatr it has been clearly stated that Amukha s a part of the Pūrvaranga Sāgara-nandın discusses both Prarocana and Amukha in this chapter of Vrtt, particularly in connection with the Bharati He, however, does not lımit the Bharati in the Purvaranga only as done by some For the clarification of this point characteristics of other Vrtti-s are required to be explamned Pūrvaranga and Āmukha by themselves are two controversial topics and require separate chapters excepting, of course, their relation with the Vrtti, and that has been taken up here in this chapter Those two have been elaborately discussed by Dr Kalıkumar Datta Shastri in two illuminating papers, Prologues and Epilogues in Sanskrit Drama and Pürvaranga Bharatan and Post- Bharatan 14

B Sāttvatı

Sagara-nandin quotes the definition of Sattvati from the Nätya-sastra 1 The chief characteristic of this Vrtti is sattvata- guna which is explained as noble qualities like obedience to one's superiors guru-susrūşādı-sadvrttayah Abhinava-gupta takes the expression to mean mental affairs mānasa-vyāpārah 2 This is in conformity with the next verse of the Natya-sastra3 where it is said that this Vrttr is characterised by emotion and its expression through speech and gestures vāgangābhi- nayavatı / sattvādhıkārayukta // The Nātya-darpana makes the pomnt more clear 4 It says that Sattvati is the mental affair (manasam karma) connected with three types of acting, emotional, verbal and physıcal (sattvābhinaya-vāgābhinayā-ngābht- naya-yultam), and that the first type predominates Represen- tation of sacrifice and heroism (virtuous conduct, nyaya-yrtta, according to the reading of the Natya-sastra) 1s another charac teristic of Sattvati This Vrtti is full of exhilaration having the grief subdued It is further said that Sattvati abounds

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 205

in haughty characters exchanging insulting words uddhata- puruşa-prāya parasparādharsanakrta5 All these features of this Vrttı have been ıllustrated ın the Nātaka-lakşana-ratna kosa but most of which are not from dramatic compositions The four forms of this Vrttı are Utthapaka, Parivartaka, Samlāpa6 and Sānghātya

Utthāpaka

What comes out from the definition of the Utthapaka as quoted by Sagara-nandın (probably) from the Nātya-sāstra 1s that it consists in exchange of haughty words in attempts of exciting the opponent 7 In different words Dhananjaya, Šinga-bhūpāla and Viśvanātha also maintain the same 8

Parıvartaka

The word parwvartaka signifies a change and this has been taken to be the mam characteristic of Parivartaka in all the works on dramaturgy including the Natya-sastra Of the three definitions found ın the Nātaka-lakşana-ratna kosa9, the first one means that Parivartaka consists in one's taking up another course of action after giving up a profitable but unsuccessful undertaking The Natya sastra also means the same when it says utthna samārabdhān arthān utsrjya yo'rtha yoga vašāt | anyān-arthān bhajate //10 That Parıvartaka is the changing of one's own course of action, is also the opinion of Dhananjaya, Singa-bhupala, Viśvanātha etc 11 The second definition given by Sagara nandin, also states that it is called Parivartaka when one takes resort to force (dandam-āsthāya) finding intrigue (bheda), concilation (sama) and gift (dana) are of no avail Sāgara-nandın further informs us that according to some Parivartaka is the ripening of an action undertaken for some purpose in an unforeseen way

206 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

through fate,-prakrtasya kāryasya dawavasād anyathawva parı pakah There is one common factor mn all the above definitions of Parivartaka and that is a change, either calculated or unforseen

Samlāpa (NŚ Sallāpa)

Samlapa, as the name implies, is exchange of words with or without threats (sadharsajo nradharsajo dvividhah) and thus of two types This is the opinion of Sagara evidently following the Nātya sastra 12 The Dasa-rūpaka, however, defines Samlā paka as serious dialogue (gaviroktth) having diverse feelings and sentiments (nāna-bhava-rasā-mithah) Singa bhūpāla and Visvanātha follow Dhanañjaya 18

Sānghātya (NŠ Sānghātyaka)

Sānghatya in Sanskrit dramaturgy has been taken to imply such dramatic situations where the breaking up of an allance is represented It may be due to several reasons, deliberation, bribing, blunder or luck 14 According to Sagara nandın, Sanghatya is deception (kuta uchyate) He says that it 1s illustrated in the false rumour of Vasavadatta's death in the conflagration at Lavanaka and ın the drama Rāghavābhyudaya where Ravana to deceive Rāma, disguises the demoness Jālini as Sitā in connection with a false peace 15 It thus appears that intrigue o deception is the chief characteristic of Sanghatya according to Sagara-nandin From the above, it is evident that Sattvati Vrtti is connec ted with dramatic situations mainly of political nature and fight shows on the stage It may be pomnted out here that the Natya darpana sums up the above characteristics of different forms of Sättvati without mentioning the names of the forms 16

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 207

C Kaiśıki

Kaisikı 1s pre-eminently the Vrtti of dramatic situations depicting erotic sentiment The Nālya sastra gives practically two definitions of this Vrtti One of them is in Indravajra metre - yā slaksna nepathya visesa ctrā strī-samyutā yā bahu-nrtya- gitā / kāmopabhoga prabhavopacārā tām harsıkīm vrttim udāha- rantı //1 and the other in the Arya - bahuvādya nrtta grtā srngārābhınaya citra narpathyā | mālyālankāra yutā prasasta vesā ca kāntā ca || ctra pada vākya bandhaır alankrtā hasıta rudita rosādyarh | strı purusa-kāma-yuktā vyñeyā karsıkı vrttıh //2 The first one in Indravajra of these two definitions has been commented upon by Abhinava-gupta and has also been accepted by Visvanatha3 with a minor difference in reading The second definition in Arya speaks the same thing as in the first one, in different phraseology with a few added un- important details It is to be pomted out here that in the case of Arabhati, Abhinava-gupta comments upon the defini- tion in Arya and omits the other in Indravajra metre The definition of the Kaısıkı in the Nataka-laksana-ratna-kosa is not taken verbatım from the Natya-sastra, but does not differ from that of the Natya-sastra materially srngārābhınayod-bhāsı-pāthya-mālya-vıbhūsanā | nrtya-vādıtra-gıtādhyā kāmasambhoga-laksanā |/ sukumāra hāvya bandhām ujvala vastrābharana-vesām ca // kāmopacāra bahulām bhāşante karsıkım kavayah //4 Kasıki Vrtti is marked by the representation of love scenes Bright make up and dressing, love songs, amorous dances, graceful gestures and delicate poetic dialogues are the chief characteristics of this Vrtti This is the most charming Vrtti and excepting a few lıke the Mudrā-raksasa, all our ancient

208 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

plays are found to have given much scope to this Vrtti Similarly, the authors of dramaturgy also paid greater atten tion to the elaboration of this Vrtt giving rise to difference of opinions Narman may be said to be the soul of Kasiki as the names of its forms suggest The connotation of the term Narman Is also very wide It includes dallance, grace, pleasantry and the like The four varieties of this Vrtti are,-Narman, Narma sphota, Narma-garbha and Narma-sphañja

Narman

Sagara nandin draws no distinction between Narman the anga of Prati mukha sandhı and the same a variety of Kaiski Of the former he says that it will be discussed later, 1e, in the context of Kaısıki 5 The definition and illustration of Narman in the Nātaka- laksana ratna kośa present it as the expression of hidden emotion (antargatākūtam) under some pretext (chadma gar- bhakam) and is free from blaming others and coarse or obscene language (parāpavādah paruşaır aslılarsca vivarntam) 6 Sāgara- nandın refers evidently to the Nätya sastra when he says that the teachers describe Narman as abounding in merry words promoting love 7 The Nata sastra adds two more traits of Narman with the above, it is visuddha-karanam and nivrtta- virarasam The Natya sastra describes three types of Narman 8 In this connection Abhinava-gupta remarks that Narman 1s marked by the pre eminence of laughter (hasa pradhānata tadeti sāmānya lakşanam), and this laughter (comic) may be due to the expression of jealousy (tatra hāsa īrsyām vā sūcayitum), or to rebuke others (param vopalabdhum), or to attract other's mınd (para-hrdayam vākseptum) , and thus, it is of three types " Sāgara-nandın refers to a view and that also admits of three varieties of Narman but as itis distinguished by laughter, desire and fear hāsecchā bhayabhedena narmātra trividham bhavet /

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 209

The first variety is the joke (parihasa) with amorous gestures of man or woman inflaming love śrngāroddıpano yah syāt parıhāsa savıbhrmah / strı pumsayostu narmaitad-dhāsyabheda-vyavasthitam //10 It is interesting to note that this variety of Narman has been designated by Sagara-nandın himself as Samjoga-vihita-narma or Suddha Kaisiki in another place There a verse has been quoted of which the first half is srngaroddipano etc , and the second half is, haseccha-bhaya-bhedena etc , as quoted above 11 The second variety of Narman, 1e, the variety distingui- shed by desire, has been described as such situations where the heroine from a hiding place pelts her beloved with flowers and willingly comes within his sight,12 evidently urged by love The Narman with fear has not been defined but illus- trated, that describes a situation where a lady though angry, yet she embraces her beloved out of fear from thunder and lightning 13 It is clear that Sagara-nandin does not follow the Natya-sastra in describing the varieties of Narman Dhanañjaya, Śınga-bhūpāla, Vısvanātha and Rūpa-gosvā- min follow the Natya-sastra and maintamn that hasya is the main feature of Narman But they describe Narman as primarıly of three types, srngāra-hāsyaja, suddha hāsyaja and sabhaya hāsyaja Dhananjaya further dıvides Narman into eighteen types Others follow Dhanañjaya excepting Viśva- natha who makes the number nine 14

Narmasphota

Sāgara-nandın describes Narmasphota as a situation where an unmarried girl (kanya) in secret company with the hero being discovered by the herome is overcome with fear and shame, while the hero remains silent as if doing nothing 15 But according to the Nātya-sāstra as commented upon by Abhinava-gupta, Narmasphota is the partial manifestation (asamagrākșipta-rasa) of the emotion of love contributed by

210 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

the touches of dıfferent other feelings (vividhanām bhāvānām lavair lavair-bhūșito) like fear, laughter, alarm, anger etc (bhaya-hāsa-harsa-trāsa-roşādyāh) 16 The Dasa-rūpaka also speaks the same in different words bhāvanam sucito'-lpa raso lavarh 17 Singabhupala accepts this definition of Narma- sphota and adds another18 -anyais tvakande sambhoga-viccheda iti gryate This is similar to that of Nataka laksana-ratna-kosa Vısvanātha and Rūpa gosvāmin follow the Dasa-rūpaka 19 It is interesting to point out here that Sankara in his commentary on the Abhyñana sakuntalam quotes from an anonymous source a definition according to which Narmasphota consists in private conversation of the hero and heromne conducive to enjoyment 20 Jagaddhara, on the other hand, quotes from another unknown source that Narmasphota is the manifesta- tion of inner feelings 21 It is thus evident that there were several divergent opinions regarding the definition of Narma sphota

Narmagarbha

Sagara-nandın describes Narmagarbha22 as such situations where one waits in disguise for the fulfilment of purpose 1 e, love affair This is evidently the gst of the definition of Narmagarbha found in the Natya-sastra,23 where it is said that when the hero acts with his identity concealed through various means suitable to love affairs, t is Narmagarbha The Daśa- rūpaka also defines Narmagarbha as channa netrpraticāro narma garbho'rtha hetave 24 Viśvanātha also takes Narma- garbha in the same sense when he says narmagarbho vyava- hrtir netuh pracchanna vartinah 25 Jagaddhara gives from an anonymous source a definition that states that where the hero conceals himself for some purpose, it is Narmagarbha 26 It may be pointed out here that all the works discussed above, explamn Narmagarbha as the behaviour of the hero and are sıļent about the heroine. It is the Rasārnava sudhākara that

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 211

includes similar behaviour of the heroine also in the definition of Narmagarbha 27 The GOS edition of the Natya sastra records a pecular defintion of Narmagarbha as occuring in some manuscripts According to this definition, that is also Narmagarbha w here after the death of the former hero a second one takes his place 28 The commentary of Abhinava-gupta on this verse is not available But this view has been referred to by Singa bhūpala as that of Bharata 29 It appears that this view came to be recognised as one of Bharata at least before the 13th century A D Śinga bhūpāla further informs us that accor dıng to some, this ıs the samkşipta (samksiptaka) type of Ärabhatı

Narmasphañja

Sāgara nandın defines Narmasphañja after the Nātya sastra, as the enjoyment of the first union with a beautiful girl the consequence being troublesome 30 This is illustrated, says Sagara nandin, where the king in company of a girl is detected by the queen and thus both are in trouble The matter ends with difficulty 31 Abhinava gupta reads the name as Narmasphuñja and takes sphuñja to mean obstacle narmahsphuňja vighna ityar thah 32 Narmasphañja has been taken in the above sense in the Data rūpaka, Rasārnava sudhākara and Sāhıtya darpana But it is interesting to note that in the Dasa rūpaka the term is Narma sphiñja and in Sāhitya darpana it 1s Narma sphūrja 33 It is apparent that Sgara nandın fails to distinguish between Narmasphota and Narmasphañja Both of these varieties of Kaisıkī have been described by him as situation where the hero in dallance with a girl is detected by the heroine This is Narmasphañja according to the Nātya-sāstra and other works.

212 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

D. Arabhati

Ārabhatī ıs defined ın the Nātya-sāstra as ārabhata prāya gunā tatharva bahu-kapata-vaňcanopetā l dambhānrta vacanavatı tvārabhatī nāma vyňeyā //1 This verse is commented upon by Abhinava-gupta There 1s another verse in Indravajra metre on which the commentary of Abhinava-gupta is not available pustāvapāta-pluta-langhıtānı cchedyānı māyākrtam-ındrajālam | cıtrānı yuddhānı ca yatra nıtyam tām tādrsım ārabhatīm vadantı |/ This verse, informs the edtor of the GOS version, is a recog nised one of Bharata 2 Sāgara-nandın defines Ārabhatī as samuddhata-prāya-gunā vıra-raudr ādbhutātmıkā | kapatānrta dambheșu vaňcanāskandayoh sthıtā //3 It is apparent that this definition, though not a verbatim reproduction, yet it does not differ materially from the first one of the Nātya sāstra Ārabhatī is primarily the Vrtti of violence (auddhatya) as against grace (lalıtya) of Kaısıki The Ārabhati, as stated by Sāgara-nandın, is associated with heroic, terrible and marvellous feelings, and rests on deceit, falsehood, arrogance, treachery and assault It is doubtful whether Sagara-nandın means to assign the Vira and Adbhuta Rasas to rabhati Perhaps, only bhavas are meant here The point will be discussed Iater It is further stated in the Nātaka laksana-ratna-kosa that Arabhati is the Vrtti of such situations as war, combat, magic illusion, tearing, leaping etc, yuddha - nıyuddhendrajāla - māyā - chedana - plutādıbhır - ārabhatī jñeya 4 This appears to be based on the second definition of Ārabhati quoted above from the Nātya-sastra Four varieties of Ärabhatı have been recognised, vız , Samksıptaka, Avapāta, Vastūtthāpana and Sampheta

Samksıptaka The Nātya-sāstra defines Samksıptaka as

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 213

anvartha silpa-yukto bahu-pustotthāna-citra-nepathya | samkşıpta-vastu visayo jñeyo samksıptako nāma |/5 Sagara-nandın gives almost an identical definition samkşıpta-vastu vısayah prayogāšrıta-sılpavān / bahu-pustotthāna-krtaır-vesaıh samksıptako matah //6 Samksıptaka ıs samksipta-vastu visaya and this expression has variously been taken to mean by modern scholars as, consisting in brief arrangement of some matter,7 a matter summarıly dealt with,8 condensed matter 9 But all these yıeld no sense Arabhatı ıs not the Vrttı primarıly of sūcya portions of the plot So, the question of condensation or the like does not arise Sagara-nandin also gives no explanation But Abhinava-gupta rightly interprets the expression as samjňayā ksıptānı vastūnı visayo'syeti / He further states tānı vastūnı darsayatı (anvartheti) | prayojanenānugatāh sılpayuktāh kusala sılpı viracıtāh, arthā yatret /10 Thus Sam ksiptaka consists mainly in the presentation of symbolic objects (samjñaya ) which are artificially constructed for dramatic representations (prayogāsrita ) This presentation of sym- bolic objects includes many Pustas 1 e, scenic appliances like models of charriot etc shield, armours banners etc, as stated by Sagara-nandin 11 Vareties of dress also constitute another element of Samksıptaka The Nataka-laksana-ratna-kosa records that according to some theorists the appearance of the second hero after the fall of the first one (pūrva nāyaka nāsenā-para-nāyaka-sambha- vah) ıs Samksıptaka, as illustrated in the installation of Vibhisana to the throne after the death of Ravana 12 Dasa- rūpaka as interpreted by Dhanika, also state that Samksıptı (Samksıptaka) consısts both in (a) the replacement of one hero by another, and (b) in the change of the temperament of a character from one type to another, as illustrated in the change of Parasurāma's attitude from arrogance to quietude The use of Pusta, of course, has been accepted as a mark in another definition of Samksıptaka 13 Visvanatha simply quotes Dhanika's comment 14 The Natya darpana also accepts

214 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

the view as a variety of Arabhati 15 It has been pointed out before that the above is the characteristic of Narmagarbha according to Bharata, as informed by Singa-bhūpala To the same effect a verse is also found in the Natya-sasira, of course without the commentary of Abhinava-gupta It is practi cally impossible now to trace the origin of these conflicting views regarding the characteristics of Samksıptaka

Avapāta Accordıng to the Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kośa, Avapāta is the behaviour of one totally bewildered (sarvathā viklavasya cestitam) It is a stuation of commotion represented through the rapid entrance and exit of characters bewildered with fear or joy or panic or confusion 16 This is based on the defini- tion of Avapata as given in the Nātya-sastra 17 Other theorists also maintain this view 18

Vastūtthāpana Sagara-nandın gives no definition but describes Vastū- tthapana with illustrations and their exposition 19 Vastūttha- pana consists in situations where different characters express different sentiments in connection with a single issue (nānā- rasa-yuktam bandhūnām ceştitam) It has been illustrated by Sagara-nandin with reference to various behaviours expressive of different sentiments of those who were related to Madana and Rama when they were encountered by Sambara and Parasurama respectively This is the characteristic of Vastu- tthapana according to the Natya-sastra20 also, which, however, adds that there may or may not be the element of panic (savıdravā vıdravāsrayam vāpı) Dasa-rūpaka gives quite a new definition of Vastūtthāpana according to which it consists in the creation of objects by magıc (māyādyutthāpitam vastu) Viśvanātha and Śınga- bhūpala maintain the same view 21 This view, evidently rests

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 215

on the meaning of the word vastutthapana ie, creating of objects by magic, an element of Arabhatı-vrtti

Sampheta

Sāgara-nandın closely follows the Nātya-sāstia and des- cribes Sampheta as a tumultuous situation (sambhrama-mayah) where there may be much of fights, combats and intrigues (yuddha-nıyuddhabahulah kapata mayah) along wıth terrible clash of weapons 22 Dasa-rūpaka describes Sampheta simply as fighting of two angry persons, and this has been followed by Śınga bhūpāla and Vısvanātha 23 Preponderence of the heroic, terrible and marvellous sentiments is another mark of Sampheta according to the Nātaka laksana ratna kosa 24 From a perusal of the characteristics of Sattvati and Arabhatı as discussed above, it becomes clear that while the former is concerned with the delineation of such noble quali- ties as obedience to superiors, heroism etc, the latter is that of arrogance, treachery, deceit etc The movements and gestures of characters on the stage mn Sättvati should be res- trained and dignified, but in Arabhati those are required to be violent There may be a bit of softness, an element of Kaısıki, in Sattvatī, but Arabhatı is opposed to it

III. Vrtti and Rasa

That there has been a longstanding controversy regarding the distribution of Rasa s among the Vrtti s is evidenced by a number of divergent readings available in respect of the two verses concerned of the Nātya-sastra (GOS), as quoted below1 I) hāsya srngāra bahulā kaišıkı parıcaksıtā / sāttvatı cāpı vyňeyā vırādbhuta-samāsrayā / II) raudre bhayānake caıva vījřeyārabhatı budhaih / bībhatse karune cawa bhāratı samprakırtıtā |/

216 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Different readings in (I), first half hāsya-srngāra karunaır-vrttıh syāt kaısīkı rasaih | second half a) sāttvatı carva vijñeyā vıra-raudrādbhutāšrayā | b) vīre cāpyadbhute carva vrttıh syāt sāttvatī / Different readngs in (II), first half bhayānake ca bībhatse raudre cārabhatı bhavet | second half aj bhāratı cāpi vyňeyā karunādbhutarūpayoh / b) vıra hāsyādbhutāsrayā c) sarveşu rasa-bhāveşu bhāratı samprakırtıtā The following conflicting views emerge out of the above regarding the assignment of Rasa-s to each of the Vrtti-s mn the Nātya sāstra itself Rasas-s assigned to Bharatı (1) Bıbhatsa and Karuna (11) Karuna and Adbhuta (111) Vıra, Hasya and Adbhuta (1v) All Rasa-s to Sāttvatī (1) Vīra, Adbhuta and Śama 1 e Śānta (11) Vīra, Raudra and Adbhuta (111) Vira and Adbhuta to Kaıśıkı (1) Hāsya and Śrngāra (11) Hāsya, Śrngāra and Karuna to Ärabhatı (1) Raudra and Bhayānaka (11) Raudra, Bhayānaka and Bıbhatsa Sagara-nandin refers to a view that assigns Karuna and Adbhuta to Bhārat (bhāratī karunādbhute) and then quotes vırādbhuta-prahasanaıriha bhāratī syāt sāttvatyapıha gadıtādbhuta-vıra-raudrarh | srngāra hāsya karunaır apı kaısıkī syād dıstā bhayānaka-yutārabhatı saraudrā //2 According to this view Rasa s of the Bharati are Vira,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA &DRAMATURGY 217

Adbhuta and Hasya, to Sattvati are assigned Adbhuta, Vira and Raudra , to Kaisıkı belong Śrngāra, Hāsya and Karuna, and to Arabhati,-Bhayanaka and Raudra This is the view of the ācārya (ācārya-matam), as Sāgara nandın puts it He himself, however, maintains that Bharati pervades all the Rasa s (rasān sarvān ıyam vrttır bhāratı vyāpya tişthatı), and that though there are four Vrtti-s, it is in Bharati that the three others are united, ekibhāvastu sarvāsām bhāratyām eva drsyate 3 Now, by ācarya ın the Nātaka-laksana ratna kosa, invariably Bharata has been referred to But the verse quoted above as one of the acarya is actually of Kohala as informs the editor of the GOS edition of the Nātya-sastra4 Abhınava gupta also remarks yattu srngāra hāsya karunaır tha kaısıkı syād ıtı kohalenoktam tan-muni mata-vırodhād-upeksyam eva,5 1e, the view of Kohala that assıgns Srngāra, Hāsya and Karuna to Kaisiki is opposed to the view of the sage Bharata and as such, it is to be discarded It is interesting to note that nowhere in the Nātaka-laksana ratna-kośa the name of Kohala has been mentioned Mm P V Kane remarks, "It appears that Kohala's work influenced the redactors of the Nātya sastra" It may be suggested that the above verse of Kohala found access to some version of the Natya sastra from which Sagara-nandin picked it up as the view of the ācārya, 1 e , Bharata It has been shown above that according to Sagara-nandın, Bharati 1s the Vrtti of all Rasa-s, and that this is supported by a manuscript of the Nātya sāstra, (cf above IV under Rasa s assigned to Bharati) So, the charge of limiting Bhārati to particular Rasa s cannot be levelled against Bharata as has been done by Dr V Raghavan,7 simply because the correct reading of the verse concerned is yet to be determined Of the four views about the ascription of Rasa s to Bharati noted above as available from the different readings of a verse of the Natya-sastra, Kohala agrees with the third one, Sagara-nandin refers to the second and third views but himself supports the fourth one that speaks of Bharati as the

218 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Vrtti of all Rasas Dhananjaya also maintains that Bharati is the all-pervading Vrtti and Visvanatha simply repeats what is said by Dhanañjaya 8 Singa bhūpala too, maintains the same view and says, bhāratyāh sarva-rasa sādhāranyam upa pannam-eva 9 Now, in the Natya vyāpāra Bhāratı has been recognised as the vāg vyāpara by all theorists Without Bharati then, nātya can be comprehended as nothing more than the dumb show So, Bharati should be recognised as the Vrtti of any and every Rasa The Natya-darpana rightly observes sarva- rūpaka-bhāvıtvād rasānām ca vāgjanyatvāt sarvarasatmakatvam10 (bhāratyah), 1e, Bharati consists of all the Rasa-s, because it pervades the entire play and the Rasa s are due to speech Broadly speaking, two distinct views are available in the Nātya sāstra regarding the ascription of Rasa-s to Sāttvati The divergent readings, however, give three views as shown above But they all agree in assigning the Vira and Adbhuta to Sattvati Abhinava gupta appears to accept the first view that recognises Sattvati as the Vrtti of Vira, Adbhuta and Santa The second view omits Santa and includes Raudra in its place This is the opinion of Kohala and Sagara- nandın It is to be noted here that neither Kohala nor Sagara nandın recognises the Santa rasa Like Sāgara- nandın, Singa bhūpāla also ascribes this view to Bharata 10a It is also to be noted that in the definition of the Sattvati, as dıscussed before, the Nātya-sāstra (GOS) also says that Sattvatī ıs, -viraddhuta-raudra-rasa The protagonists of the third view appear to have avoided the controversy and accepted Sättvati as the Vrtti of Vira and Adbhuta Abhi- nava gupta himself recognises this difference of opinions Whıle commentıng on sāttvatı cāpi samāśrayā (quoted above), he remarks that those who recognise Santa-rasa read śamāsrayā, but those who do not, they replace $ by S1l, 1e, they read samāsrayā It is to be remembered in this connection that Sama, according to some theorists is the Sthayi bhava of the Sānta rasa

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 219

In the definition of the Sattvati, as noted above, Sagara nandın further states that this Vrtti is svalpa-karuna śrngāra,12 1 e Sāttvati comprises Karuna and Śrngāra to a lesser degree The KM edition of the Natya sastra accepts this reading and Dr M M Ghosh also supports 18 These two features of the Sattvati have been illustrated in the Nataka-laksana-ratna- kośa as quoted below

alpa karuna yathā vıvrddhātmāpyagādho'pı duranto'pı mahānapı l vādaveneha jaladhıh sokah krodhena pij ate /l

svalpa srngāro yuthā prıye tāvanna netrābhyām pāsyāmyadya tavānanam na drso yāvadasrūnı vamantı rıpu-yosıtām //14 It is apparent that neither Karuna nor Srngara is manifested in the above, it is Krodha that dominates over the both Śoka and Śrngära in cases like the above can be said to attamn nothing more than the status of the Vyabhicarmn-s The defintion of Sattvati as accepted in the GOS edition of the Nātya-sāstra, specifically prohıbıts Śrngāra, Karuna and Nırveda ın Sāttvatī (nırasta srngāra-karuna nırveda) In this context Abhinava gupta remarks that there may be cases where ın Sattvatı Śrngāra, Karuna and Nırveda may occur but never in a manifested state lıke Krodha, Vismaya and Utsāha 15 The expressions alpa-karuna and svalpa srngāra together with the above two illustrations also suggest the same From the descriptions of the Kaisiki by different theorists, as observed before, it appears that there is no difference of opinions so far as the ascription of Srngara and Hasya to this Vrtti A version of the Nātya sāstra, as shown above, mcludes Karuna also as the Rasa of Kaisik, and this is the view of Kohala and Sāgara nandın Śinga bhūpāla informs us that this is also the opinion of Rudrata, but he himself does not favour the idea of ascribing Karuna to Kaisıki 15a Abhınava

220 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

gupta seems to maintain that Karuna having wailing as its feature, is to be ascribed to Bhärati and that the view of Kohala in this respect is opposed to that of Bharata, and as such, is to be dicarded 16 The second argument of Abhinava gupta is a bit dogmatic Śrngara is undoubtedly the Rasa of Kaisıki, and Hāsya a derived Rasa from Srngara as the Nātya sāstra maintains,17 certainly belongs to Kaısıkı Karuna with Soka as its sthāyr bhāva cannot be said to be compatible with Kaisıki But Karuna-vipralambha is a subdivision of the Srngara itself and is fit to be ascribed to Kaisıki Thus Karuna cannot be taken as totally incongruous with Kaisıki It has been shown before that two views are available regarding the Rasa-s of Arabhati from the readings of the Natya-sastra The first view that ascribes Raudra and Bhayānaka to Ārabhatī is shared by Kohala and Sāgara- nandın The second view adds Bibhatsa with Raudra and Bhayānaka Sagara-nandın seems to lack consistency in his observa tions on the topic of the Rasa-s of Arabhati So far as the general principle of ascription of Rasa-s to different Vrtti-s are concerned, he follows Kohala but defines Arabhatı as,- vīra-raudrādbhutātmikā, and Sampheta a form of Ārabhatī as,- vīra-raudrādbhutaprāyaır Again, in a third occassion he points out that the dıpta-rasas lke Raudra, Bhayanaka and Bībhatsa belong to Bharati and Arabhati18 Bharati is the Vrtt1 of all Rasa-s Raudra, Bhayanaka and Bibhatsa also fit in well with the characteristics of Arabhati But Vira and Adbhuta are said to be the Rasa-s of Sattvati These two Rasa s cannot be taken as compatible with Arabhati that consists much of deceit, treachery, etc, which are opposed to Vira and Adbhuta Most of the later theorists appear to have avoided the above controversial points in pointing out only the undisputed main Rasa-s of each Vrtti Thus Dhananjaya assigns Srngara te Kaisıki, Vira to Sāttvatı, Raudra to Ārabhatı and all Rasa s to Bhäratı Visvanatha simply repeats what is said by

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 221

Dhanañjaya 19 Śnga-bhupala informs us that some scholars explain the Bharatan verse that distributes Rasa-s to the Vrttis as simply a general rule and that they accept no binding regulation in this matter - kecittu tām ımam slokam bhāratīyam nıyāmakam / prāyıkābhıprāyatayā vyācaksānā vıcakşanāh |/ āsām rase tu vrttınām nīyāmakam nānuma (nya ? nva)-te20 The Vişnudharmottara also maintains that the Bharati is vāk- pradhāna, Sāttvatı ıs vīra-rasa-prāyā, Ārabhatī is raudra-pracārā and Kaıśıkı ıs śrngārahāsya bahulā 21

IV Vrtti and Riti

The Nataka-laksana-ratna-kosa recognises only three Riti s, Gaudi, Vaidarbhi and Pancali and distributes the Vrtti s to these three It assigns Bharati to all the Rīti-s, Sattvatı to Pāñcālı, Kaısıkī to Vaidarbhī and Ārabhatī to Gaudī 1 The work avoids the exposition of Rıtis Sagara-nandin remarks in this connection that the exposition of Riti s is to be done ın the kavyamimamsa and that here it is avoidedfor fear of the work becoming too long 2 From the manner of put ting, it appears that Sagara nandin himself intended to discuss Rıti in a separate work entitled Kāvya mīmāmsa or in a section on the science of poetics But neither any such work or section nor any reference there to is known to us The above statement may, however, be taken to mean sımply that the present work deals with dramaturgy and it is fit to treat Riti in a separate work There is no reference to the theory of regional distribution of Rıtı-s ın the Nātaka lakşana ratna-kosa It may be noted here that the concept of Riti is absent in the Nātya-sastra Probably, the concept developed later and in its origin it was associated with regional literary manners The concept of Riti is mainly concerned with language, more properly with diction and as such, has got very little

222 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

to do with drama or representation (abhinaya) in general Of the four Vrtti s, Bharati is the speech So, Bharati alone is primarily related to the Ritis This is exactly what Sagara nandin means when he assigns all the Riti s to Bha- ratı It has been shown before that Sāgara nandın assigns all the Rasa s also to Bharati and asserts that all other Vrtti s are united to Bharati This is significant Bharati is the speech and drama wthout speech is a mere dumb show Three other Vrtti s are certainly to depend on the Bharati for re presentation Now, Vaidarbhi according to the rhetoricians is the Riti per excellence So, it may reasonably be connected with Bharati qualified by Kaisıki In excellence, Pañcalı comes next to Vaidarbhi and can be linked up with Bharati cum Sattvati Similarly, when Bharati is qualified by the forceful Arabhati, it can be taken as associated with the vigorous Riti Gaudi This appears to be the opinion of Sagara nandın He divides Rasa s into three groups3, viz, delicate or tender (mrdu), inflamed (dipta) and moderate (madhyama), and shows the co relation of these three with Vrtti s and Riti-s in the following way 1) The Rasa-s of the mrdu group are Śrngāra, Hāsya and Karuna, and they belong to Bhāratī cum Kaišıkī and come under the Vaidarbha-rīti (raseşu srngāra kārunya hāsa mrdavah bhāratī kaısıkī-vrtti-vişayāh vaıdarbha rītibhājah) n) The Raudra, Bibhatsa and Bhayanaka are dipta Rasa-s (dıptāh raudra bībhatsa-bhayānakāh) They have been assigned to Bharati cum Ārabhatı (bhāratyārabhatī-vışayāh) and Gaudı ıs their Rıtı (gauda rītı-bhājah) 111) The third group, 1e, madhyama consisting of Vira and Adbhuta (madhyamau vīrādbhutau) has been ascribed to Bhāratī cum Sāttvatı (bhāratī-sāttvatī- vzşayau) The Rīti of this group is Pāñcālī (pāňcāla- rītı-bhājāviti).

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 223

V Nature and Mutual Relation of the Vrtti-s

The Natya-sastra says that the Vrtti s are the nātya matarah, and that the ten types of plays (dasa rupa) have been evolved out of them through production (prayoga) 1 Sagara nandın describes Vrtti as nepathye (a?) gita vādita rasa bhāvābhınava (ya?) nrtta jātīnām kvāpı viseşe vartanam iti vrttth kathita / 1a According to this description, Vrtti in dramaturgy signifies a distinctive way of using the elements of nätya which are costume and make up, both vocal and instrumental music, dance and expression of different emotions and feelings through acting (abhınaya) Dress, make up, dance, music, etc, in drama are used in a distinctive way Sımilarly, in our day to day life a particular feeling or senti ment is expressed in certain ways, but in nātya it should be expressed in a dramatic way This description of Vrtti has been taken up by Subhankara in hıs Sangita dāmodara2 Sāgara-nandın further says athavā vilāsa-vınyāsa-kramo vrttir-iti, 1e, Vrtti is the manner of arrangement of vilāsa This definition of Vrtti is exactly the same as is found in the Kāvya mīmamsa of Rajasekhara 3 It is obvious that the word vilāsa 1s not used here in its technical sense to denote either an anga of the second Sandhi or a mahāguna of the nyaka or a ceștālamkara of the nayika The context shows that the word is to be taken here to mean action in general Bhoja- raja also means the same when he says that Vrtti is cestã vıseşa-vınyāsa-kramah 4 Abhınava gupta defines Vrttı-s as mental, physical and verbal actions arranged in a suitable manner (kāya vān-manasām ceștā eva sahavaicitryena vrttayah) 5 In a drama actions are to be arranged dramatically so that æsthetic pleasure can be evoked in the mind of the audience The Nātya darpana defines Vrttı as puruşārtha sādhako vicitra-vyaparo vrttih 6 Purusartha signifies the ultimate goal of the plot of the play concerned According to Indian tradition drama ends with the realisation of the fruit (phala- yoga) and religious merit (dharma), material gamn (artha)

224 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE and success in love affairs (kāma) are regarded as fruits m this context The said work further elucidates the pomnt and says that all the dramatıc actions (nātya vyāpara) are always related with acting which is expressive of Rasa s and Bhava-s 6 This is what Abhinava gupta means to say as stated above The Dasa rūpaka, as interpreted by Dhanıka, defines Vrttı as the actions of the hero 7 This definition is undoubtedly a narrow one, of course the actions of / for the hero in a play preponderate Viśvanātha includes the actions of all charac ters when he defines Vrtti as the vyapara visesa of the heroine and others (nāyıkādi) 8 Drama is the imitation of human actions The playwright delineates these actions in a particular form and manner in hıs work The actors and actresses also represent these actions in a particular way and this s called acting (abhinaya) Indian theorists divide this abhmnaya into four forms, viz, speech (vācika), gestures and postures etc (āngika), certaın emotional expression (sāttvika) and dress, make up and accessories (āhārya) Drama or abhinaya consists of actions both verbal (vāg-vyāpāra) and physıcal (kāya vyāpara) with both of which the mental action (manasa-vyapara) 1s related to as the giding factor Now, the all-pervading Bharati 1s speech, 1e, verbal action which is called vācikābhinaya In the context of Vrtti physical actions may conveniently be grouped into the following categories according to the situa- tions represented There are subtle physical actions which represent certain emotions and are known mn Indian dramaturgy as sāttvi- kābhinaya This form of abhinaya comes under Sāttvatī Vrtt1 Some physical actions in abhinaya are vigorous and force- ful and it is the Ärabhati-Vrtti that stands for this aspect of abhınaya The mild Kaisıki vrtti includes all sorts of graceful and gay physical actions The last two groups of physical actions in Sanskrıt drama

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 225

turgy are known as āngıkābhinaya, and this abhinaya consists of clearly perceptible gestures and postures Broadly speaking, sattvikabhinaya also consists of physical actions, and a question may be raised here why in Indian dramaturgy it is differen- tiated from the angikabhinaya and is brought under a separate head A counter argument may also be poised here Why then vācikabhinaya 1s a separate form ? It is also physical action in a sense Sāttvikābhinaya as the term imphes signify mental action It is true that there is no such action in drama or abhinaya that may be called mental from the view point of the experience of the audience They hear dialogues and see gestures and postures, dress, make up etc But any one who has got some experience in abhinaya, knows well that no action, physical or verbal, is possible without conscious mental ones, 1e, excluding those which in psychology are known as voluntary and reflex actions Every action in abhinaya must be clearly determined In a word, mental actions guide the physical ones in theatre In abhinaya we see and also hear, 1e we experience physical and verbal actions (kāya vyāpāra, vāg vyāpāra) But in abhinaya there are very subtle physical actions too which are neither gross enough to be clearly viewed, nor so easy to be represented But this is real abhinaya This aspect of abhinaya represents subtle emotions, and this is why in Indian dramaturgy it is classed under a separate name sattvikābhinaya This is more connected with mental action (mānaso-vyapārah) than gross physical actions Abhinava-gupta has given a hint to the point in explaining sattva of the Sattvati as mental affair and this has already been noted above mn connection with the exposition of Sattvati-Vrtt: Now, the fourth form of abhinaya, 1e, the aharya consists of costume, make-up and accessories It is a matter of common sense that this aspect of abhmnaya 1s related to all the four Vrtti-s and also to other forms of abhinaya Thus the entire field of abhinaya is covered by the four Vrtti-s and that is why the Natya-sastra calls them the mothers of nātya 15

226 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

In natya the four Vrtti-s are interdependent They are mutually associated, mndependent existence of a particular Vrtt in natya is not feasible Thus, without verbal action, 1e, Bharati no drama or its representation can be conceived of, of course if it is not a dumb show Similarly, without physical and emotional actions verbal action is nothing but recitation In drama, the verbal action pervades all other actions When any one of these interdependent actions get prominence we call it the scope of a particular Vrtti The point has been hinted at by Sagara-nandın when he remarks that in four Vrttı-s Bharati, Sattvati, Kaiıkī and Ārabhat the speech, emotion, grace and physical action respectively predominate (yathā-kramam ca vāk-sattva-līlā-vyāyāma- pradhanah) 9 But when in elucidation of this remark he says ahāryam kaišıkyām,10 1e, āhārya predominates in Kaiśıkī, 11 sounds inconsistent Dress, make-up and accessories ar meant by aharya which we know are related to all the Vrtti-s Special importance of aharya in a particular Vrtti cannot b conceded to Abhinava-gupta has made the whole poin clear He says anyonyam samvalıtā vrttayah kevalam kvacı kımcıd adhıkam ıtı prādhānyena vyapadesah parivartate 11 Th Natya-darvana also recognises that the Vrtti-s are mutuall associated in drama and that the prominence of one abov others in a particular portion of a play is the reason behin the ascription of that portion to that particular Vrttr 12 Bharati, as we have seen, is the vag-vyapara and is relate to all the Rasas and Riti-s It pervades the entire play an it is only with the assistance of this vag-vyapara that all othe vyāpāra s, 1e, Vrtti-s get scope of representation But t some later authorities beginning from Dhanıka, this charac teristic of Bharati has been lost sight of They restrict th scope of Bharati to the prologue (Prastavana) only Dhanık admits that Bharati is speech (sabda vrtti), but curiousl enough he maintans that it is concerned to prologue and : to be discussed in that context (āmukhasangatvāt tatran vācyā) 13 Śınga-bhūpāla more emphatically' asserts tha

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 227

Bhāratī ıs prastāvanopayogitvāt sāngam tatraiva laksyate 14 Accordıng to the Dasa rūpaka, the Sthāpaka sūtradhāra after Pürva ranga enters the stage to perform Prastāvana and recites a verse containing hints to the plot of the play concern- ed He may also describe a season and adopts the Bharati 15 Prastavana thus, 1s not included m the Pürva ranga and it begins with the Bharati From this Dhanika arrives at the conclusion that Bharati is restricted to Prastavanā The root of the above misconception is not easy to be found out The Natya-astra nowhere specifically says whether the Prastavana 18 included in Purva-ranga or not But Prarocana, an anga of the Bharati is recognised as the same of the Purva-ranga 16 Other three anga-s of the Bharati are Amukha, Vithi and Prahasana Amukha is another name of Prastāvana 17 Vithi and Prahasana are two separate types of play (rūpaka) of mınor type (apūrnānga) The anga-s of Vithi can be employed in Prahasana also, so says the Nātya śastra 18 It is Mātrgupta who, as reported by Räghava- bhatta, recommends svair-angaır-cāpı vīthyangath prakuryād amukham budhah, ie, some of the anga s of the Vithi can be employed in the Amukha too Sagara-nandmn quotes the entire verse without, however, mentioning the name of the source Dhananjaya also maintains the same opinion 19 Of the five anga s of Prastavana, two (Udghatyaka and Avalogita) are anga-s of the Vithi also Sagara-nandin further recom mends, certainly on the authority of the above view of Mätrgupta, the employment of Nālıka (another anga of Vithi) in Amukha 20 Thus it appears that all the anga-s of Bha rati are connected with Pürva-ranga and Amukha, mainly with the latter Dr Raghavan rightly suggests that this tempted some later theorists to restrict Bhārati to Prastāvanā only 21 He offers another explanation In the primary stage of the development of drama, there were dumb-shows having three Vrtti-s of physical action only Bharati was used in those shows in the form of prayers and introductory speeches by Sutradharas, This, Dr Raghavan maintains, explains

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 229

The standpoint of the Natya-sastra regarding the scope of Bharati has been clearly explained by Abhinava gupta He means to say that as speech the Bharati pervades the entire drama (trailokya-vyāpınyā lu bhāratyāh), Prarocanā and Āmukha are parts of it (kascıd amsah prarocanā rūpah, evam āmukha svabhāva ıtyādi) 22 Moreover, as has been noted be fore, according to Abhinava-gupta chief characteristics only have been mentioned in Bharata's definitions of Vrtti-s There Bhāratı ıs defined as strī-varjıtā samskrta-pātha yuktā This 1s sımply to give scope to the chief characteristics of Kaisıkı, as Abhınava-gupta puts it stri varjteti kaiski-prādhānyāvakāsam gamayatı In Kaısıkı female characters predominate The gracefulness of their Prakrıt speeches (prākrta-pāthya-lālıtyāt) also ıdıcate Kaısıkī (kaisıkım avasyam āksıpet) 23 The Nāļya- darpana makes the point more clear It says that Bharati begins from Prarocana and Amukha where generally Sanskrit is found to predominate, but it pervades the entire drama even in cases of Prakrit speeches 24 Sāgara-nandın also admits of this all-pervading character of Bharati as has already been dıscussed

NOTES AND REFERENCES

Chapter I

1 DR I 7 2 NLRK 11 8-11 The NŚ (GOS XV 126, XVI 5) uses Kāvya and Nātya as synonyms 3 NLRK l1 266, 11 2283-2284. 4 NLRK ll 267 268 The verse, as it is, does not occur in any of the present versions of the NS The first half 1 undoubtedly the same as that of V No 142 of 19th chap of the NS (GOS) and the second half seems to be sımılar to that of V No 144 of the same chapter Ruci pat in his com on the An rã (p 9) attributes the verse to Bharata and reads tadīyānukrtih in place of tasyāstva- bhinayah 5 DR I 7 avasthā nukrtır-nātyam 6 NLRK 1 269 and ll 2282-2285 7 NŚ GOS I 15 8 NŚ GOS I 17, NLRK 11 17 18 9 NŚ GOS I 116, XIX 143 10 NLRK Il 25 26 The verse 1s also found in the Bha- pra (p 222, ll 16 17) where the reading of the first half ıs apı sıdhyeta vıduşām etc Šankara in hıs Ra ca (Abhı-śaku p 116) attributes the verse to Prajāpat Another verse on the eulogy of Nataka and attributed to Pıtāmaha by Sagara (NLRK Il 15-16) is also found in the said work and also in the Tippan of Narahar in the same context as belonging to Prajāpatı (Abhi-śaku, p 116 and p 296) This verse also, is found in the Bha- pra p 238 ll 2-3 Dr Raghavan informs that Bahu- rupa Misra in his gloss on the DR reproduces the entire portion of the NLRK Il 14-26 NLRK Eng Tra, p 60.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 231

The NS itself and Abhi-bha refer to Brahma m several places 11 NLRK 1 2173 12 NŚ GOS XIX 1, ıtıvrttam tu nāiyasya sarīram parıkīr- ttitam 13 DR I 15-16, Bhā-pra p 203, ll 13 15, RS III, 5-6 14 NC p 3 15 NŚ GOS vol II P 411 upādhāyā ıttham ahuhļiha trıvı- dhayā prasıddhyā prasıddhatvam bhavatı, amuka evamkārī amutra desa iti cf, ND p 24 16 NLRK I1 32-33 prakhyāta vastuvişayam prakhyātodātta- nāyakam/ rājarşı-vamsa carıtam tathā dıvyāsrayotthitamļļ The NS (GOS XVIII 10) reads dıvyāsrayopetam ins- tead of dıvyāśrayotthitam of the NLRK , divyāsrayopetam according to Abhinavagupta means, "having divine helpers" Cf, Abhi bha NS GOS Vol II P 412 Full gloss on the expression divyasrayotthitam in the NLRK is missıng The NLRK only says, dıvyānam maheśvara jımūtavāhanādinām caritam (ll 45 46) and then that there is a gap in the ms as suspected by Edgerton, informs Dr Raghavan NLRK Eng Tra p 71 17 NLRK I1 44-45, 1 2189 18 NLRK 11 39 44 19 NLRK Il 47-50 Sankara in his Ra ca on the Abhi śaku (p 162) seems to have quoted from the NLRK when he remarks upāttam pratisamskrtam ceti vrttadva- yam Here Sankara quotes pañca pañca catuh-sastis- catuh paňcaıka vımsatı/ sadvımsa-navatıryatı a tadāhur nātakam budhāh//sadvimsa is obviously a currupt reading It should be sat-trimsat, as in the exposition of the verse Sankara himself states The verse occurs in the NLRK (11 1858 1859) Here the readıng ıs aştaika-vımsatı Bhā-pra (p 222, ll 8-9) gives the verse with the reading found in the Ra-ca The verse concerned is not Sgn 's own, as he introduces it (1 1857) sayıng ata evocyate At the conclusion of his exposition on the verse Sankara

232 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

says, etacca vistarena ratnakose kathıtam This ratnakosa is undoubtedly the NLRK Other instances of Sankara's borrowing from the NLRK will be shown in due course 20 The Social play in Sanskrit by Dr Raghavan, p 2 21 Bhā pra p 234, ll 21 22 pūrva-vrtta śrayam apı kīñcid utpādya-vastu ca vıdheyam nātakam-ıtı mātrguptena bhāsitam // 22 NLRK Eng Tra p 60 23 Abhı saku p 9 It is apparent that Mg's description of Nataka does not vary materially from that of the NS First three lines of the above description appear to have been taken directly from the NŚ (GOS, XVIII 10,11) Ninth line carries the same sense as is contained in v no 12 in the said chap of the NS The NS does not specifically state anything regarding the main Rasa of a Nataka while Matrgupta enjoins that either Śrngara or Vira should be the main Rasa (14 mn above quotation) Later authorities perhaps, are influenced by this dictum of Matrgupta (Cf, Bha pra p 233 13, RS III 131, SD VI 10) Fifth and sixth lines of above quotation are found mn the RS III 132 24 RS III 161 25 DR III 24 25 and Avaloka, ND I 18, Bhā pra p 233 1 22 p 234 11, SD VI 50 and below 26 ND p 25 27 NLRK 134 NŚ GOS XVIII 11 nānā vıbhūtıbhır jutamrddhı vilāsādırgunaisca 28 NLRK Eng Tra p 60 29 Bhã pra p 200, 1 18 30 NLRK 11 51 53 31 NŚ GOS I 19 ıtthāsa mayā srstah etc Abhı bhā on it says, ıtıhāso dasa-rūpakam 32 NŚ GOS I 57 yathā daıtyāh surau jitāh 33 NŚ GOS vol I P 27 prabhu-parıtoşāya prabhu caritam kadācınnātye varnanīyam ıti yathā daıtyāh suraır-jıtā ityetas-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 233

māl labhyata ıtı kecidāhuh| tadasat| na ca vartamāna-carıtā- nukāro yuktah| vıneyānām tatra rāga-dveşa madhyasthatādınā tanmayī bhāvābhāve prīterabhāvena vyutpatter -apyabhāvāt | 34 NŚ GOS Vol II P 413 tena vartamāna rāja-caritam ca avarnanīyam eva, tatra viparıta-prasıddhı bādhayā adhyā- ropasya akiñcitkaratvāt Įetadarthameva prakhyāta gra- hanam prakarşa dyotakam punah punarupāttam / 35 NŚ GOS Vol II P 412 naca sar vathā deva-cartam tathā avarnanīyam/ prakarī patākā nayakādı rūpena angı karanam yadı tu mukhyatvenaıva deva-carıtam varnıyate tat-tāvadvı- pralambha-karunādbhuta bhayānaka rasocitam cen nıbadhya te tan mānusa caritam-eva sampadyate| nāyıkā tu dıvyāpyavırodhını / 36 ND (p 25) takes king to mean one belonging to the Ksatriya class and not an actually coronated king, as princes are very often found to be depicted as heroes ın Nātakas 37 HSL Cal Uni P 739 38 Cf PHAI Dr H Roy Choudhury, 5th ed, p 391, "Pushyamitra died in or About 151 B C and was succeeded by his son Agnimitra" 39 NŚ GOS XVIII 45 46, and also Abhı bhā (p 430) anārşam ıtı purānādı vyatırıkta brhatkathā dyupanibaddham mūladeva carıtadı | āhāryam itı pūrvakavıkāvyād vā āharanī- yam samudradatta ceştıtādı | 40 NŚ GOS Vol II p 410 It is to be noted here that Ag, as it appears from the above, is reluctant to admit the Brhat katha as an arsa source This lost work, perhaps, was not the source of the plot of the Mudra- rākşasa, as we have it (See HSL Cal Uni p 265, the remark of Dr De) Dhanika, however, says (DR below I 68 p 34), brhatkathā-mūlam mudrā-rākșasam, and quotes two verses which are obviously interpolated from Ksemendras Brhatkatha mañjari (II 216, 217) (HSL p 265 fn 2) The story of the defeat of the Nandas through the stratagem of Canakya and the installation

234 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

of Candragupta, however, find mentions in the Vişnu purāna (IV 24), Parisistaparvan (VIII 253 54) and some other minor works cf PHAI Pp 265 270 41 Traditional accounts of the fall of the Nandas and the rise of the Mauryas are preserved in the arsa source like the Puranas and also in the Buddhist and Jaina works (See Dr H C Raychoudhury, PHAI P 269) But strictly speaking, neither the fall of the Nandas nor the rise of the Mauryas 1s the subject matter of the drama The entire plot may in a sense, be said to be invented by Visākhadatta Moreover, according to Ag Brhatkathā is an anarsa source, as pointed out before How then Ag himself calls it a Nātaka cannot be explained 42 Keith, The Skt Dr P 254 43 NŚ GOS Vol II P 436 ghantakādayastvāhuh nāyako nrpatırıtyetāvan-mātram nātakādāvupajıvıtah na tu prakhyā- tatvamapı / 44 NLRK 11 51 52 45 NŚ GOS I 114 115 46 Sāgarıkā, lst yr, 2nd issue, P 170 47 NŚ GOS XVIII 12, NLRK 11 37-38 48 NŚ GOS XIX 1, NLRK 1 216 ıtıvrttam hı nātyasya sarīram parıkīrtitam 49 NŚ GOS VI below verse 31 na hi rasadrte kascıdarthah- pravarttate 50 NSRK 11 1732-1733 ato'nyathāvrttısu pandıteşu na dandamākarşutı sāstrakārah / 51 NLRK 11 27 30 NS GOS XIX 145 also mss readings given there The Tippani of Naraharı on the Abhı-saku (P 295) reads natya Sankara in his commentary on the same (P 162) reads the verse as it is found in the NLRK The Visnudharmottara-Purāna (Khanda III, Adhyāya 17, V No 7) also says, carıtam trıdasānām vā nāțakam tatra kırttıtam/ 52 NŚ GOS XVIII 10

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 235

53 Cf Supra fn 15 54 NS GOS Vol II Pp 411 412 prakhyāte bhāratādau yad-vastu tadvışayo'sya, tatrāpı kıñcıd aprasıddham bhavatı, tan-nırākaranāya prakhyāto- dātteti srīsankukah| upādhyāyā itthamāhuh evam tavad- dve prasıddhe ukte, prakhyātodāttetyanena trtıyā prasıddhır- uktāļudātta ıtı vıra rasa yagya uktah| | tena dhıralalıta-dhīra- prasānta dhiroddhata dhīrodāttāh catvāro' pi grhyante ! 55 LPSD Vol I Pp 4-5 56 NŚ GOS XXIV 18-19 57 NLRK I1 260-262 58 NLRK 11 262-264 The printed text reads pādacāreșu boddhavyah tatra ta itt Dr Raghavan rightly suggests that padacāresu is a curruption for upacāreșu NLRK Eng Tra P 72 59 NŚ GOS Vol II, P 414 60 NŚ GOS Vol II P 414 yat-tu pathitam tatra dhīra lālıtatvam rājňa eva varnanıyam nānyasya, senāpatya- mātyayor-dhīrodāttatvam-eva, devānām dhuroddhatatvam- eva, dvyātīnām dhıra-prasāntatvam eveti, evam param draştavyamata eva prakhyāto dāttetyatra catvāro' pi nāyakāh svīkrtā ıtī vyākhyeyam / 61 ND I 7, cf also the commentary on p 26 eva varnanīya ı sva yogavyavasthāpakatvenaıvāvadhāryate nānyayoga- vyavacchedena| 62 DR III 22, SD VI 9, RS III 130 63 LPSD P 4 64 DR Avaloka P 37 65 DR Avaloka P 38, ato jımūtavāhanāder dhırodātttavam ıti/ 66 ND P 26 ye tu nāțakasya netāram dhīrodāttam eva pratyānate, na te munisamayādhyavagāhınah, nāțakeşu dhīra-lalıtādınām-apı nāyakānām darsanāt kavı samaya- bahyasca This criticism is solely based on the tradı- tional interpretation of the term Dhirodatta and the writers seem to have turned a deaf ear to the new inter- pretation of the term given by Dhanıka 67 Cf. SD VI 9, NC. P. 2

236 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Chapter II

1 A B Keith The Skt Dr P 297 2 NLRK 11 54 58 NŚ GOS XIX, 7,8 3 NLRK 1 102 4 NLRK 11 103 108 5 NLRK 1 109, for Rāghavābhyudaya see infra fn 8 under Bindu, chap III 6 NLRK 1 59 This is after the NS GOS XIX 9 autsukyamātra bandhastu yadbyasya nıbadhyate|mahatah phala yogasya sa phalarambha isyate // It is interesting to note that RB (Abhı saku P 15) attributes this verse to Ādıbharata Bhā-pra (P 206 ll 5-6) gives the same definition 7 NLRK 1l 59-65 The llustration is evidently from a lost Rama-play and there are two more citations from this anka in the NLRK below ll 3094 and 3132 8 Bhā-pra p 206 ll 17-18 sakuntalāyāh ksatrena parıgrāhya- kşmatvatah ārambho' samsayam ksatretyādı duyanta bhāșıteļ/ 9 RS P 214 III 23, NC P 10 10 DR I 20, SD VI 71 11 S D P 354, below VI 71 12 NŚ GOS Vol III P 6 piadhānabhūtasya phalasya tat tannāyakocıtasya yadbyam upāyasampat tasya yadautsu kyamātram tadvısaya smaranotkanthānurūpam tasya bandho hrdaye nırudhıh prārambhah, sa ca nāyakasyāmātyasya nāyıkāyāh pı atınāyakasya daivasya vā / 13 ND P 44 phalam mukhyam sādhyam tadartham autsukyam upāyavişayam anenopayenaitat sıdhyatītı smaronotkanthādıkarma tadanuguno vyāpārascobhayam ārambhah / 14 NLRK 1 66 NŚ GOS XIX 10 RB attributes (Abhı śaku P 69) this verse to Ãdı bharata 15 NLRK 11 67 68 There are six more citations from this Act in the NLRK below ll 205, 942, 1752, 1817,

OF ANGIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 237

3076, 3112 Dr Raghavan informs us (NLRK Eng Tra P 61) that Kulapatyanka 1s the Act of the lost Rāma play Udatta-rāghava of Amoghavarsa Māyurāja, of which a manuscrip+ has been luckily discovered by hım (SOLRP Intro P XIII) It is curious that the name of the drama itself has not been mentioned by Sgn The Bha pra cites this Anka twice (P 202 1 1, p 279 1 10) which occur also in the NLRK in the same contexts, (1l 205-207 ll 3110 respec- tively) Śdt also does not mention the name of the drama Visvanatha also cites from the Kulapatyanka in two cases and both these citations occur in the NLRK in sımilar contexts (SD p 353 and NLRK 11 205 207 SD p 420, NLRK 1 1752) In other two cases where the name of the drama Udātta raghava has been men- tioned the SD seems to have followed Dhanıka (SD p 331, DR p 63 SD p 398, DR p 60) Dhanıka cites the drama in five cases (pp 60, 63, 70, 81, 83) The ND cites the drama twice (pp 102, 173) 16 NŚ GOS Vol III p 7 upāya-vişaya-smaranecchāsan- tāna-svabhāvah / ND p 45 autsukyamātramārambhah, paramautsukyam prayatna ityarthah | 17 Avaloka, DR p 5 phalasyāprāptāvupāya-yojanādırūpa- scestā višeşah prayatnah | yathā ratnāvalyām-ālekhyābhī- lekhanādır vatsa-tāja-samāgamopāyah / 18 SD p 354 VI 72 19 RS p 214, III 24, NC p 10 20 Bha pra p 206, ll 7-8 and 19-20 21 NLRK 11 69-70 NŚ GOS XIX II īşatprāptır-yadā kācıt phalasya parıkalpyate | bhāvamātrena tam prāhurvi- dhyñāh prāptı sambhavam // 22 Bha-pra p 206, ll 9-10 23 NLRK Il 70-75 Dr Raghavan informs us that this 1s the Act IV of the Udatta-raghava(NLRK Eng Tra p 61) This Act has been referred to in the NLRK below

238 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

1 388 and 1 964, part of a verse from this Act has been cited below 1 1607 24 RS p 206, III 24 prāptyāsā tu mahārthasya sıddhı- sadbhāva-bhāvanā / 25 NC Pp 10 11 26 NŚ GOS Vol III p 7 bhāvah upāyah, tasya saha- kāryantarayogah pratibandhaka-vāranam ca mātra- padenāvadhāritam sambhāvanā yogyatvamasambhā vanā- visıştatvam nāma trtīyā karturavasthā 27 Gf Supra, below Fıve Avasthās 28 ND p 45 29 DR I 21 Avaloka p 6, SD VI 72 30 NŚ GOS XIX 12 nıyatām tu phala-prāptım yadā bhavena pašyatı | nıyatām tām phala prāptım sagunām parcak şate // RB in his Arthadyotanika (Abhi-saku Pp 168 169) attributes the verse to Adibharata The Bha pra (p 206 11 11 12) also seems to have adopted this description of Nıyatapti but the reading there is currupt 31 NŚ GOS Vol III p 7 sāmagrım yadā mukhyopayena nıyantrıtam phalāvyabhıcārınīm pasyatı ND p 46 32 NLRK 176 This is evidently from the NS excepting the portion "yadabhavena" etc , as quoted above 33 NLRK 11 78-81 34 NLRK 1 83 The NS counts one Asmakutta among hun dred sons of Bharata (NS GOS I 33) Like some other Bharataputras Aśmakutta was perhaps an ancient ācārya on dramaturgy The NLRK refers to his views in connection with ımportant topics lıke Nıyatāpti as men- tioned above and also Culika and Totaka below 11 437 ; 2766, 2775 35 NRLK 1 106 36 NLRK 11, 84 88 On at least twenty four occasions Sgn refers to the play Janaki-raghava The drama appears to have depicted the Rama story beginning from hıs forest life up to the recovery of Sita From the number of citations from this drama in the NLRK Dr Raghavan (SOLRP p 60) suggests that Sagara might have had "Some special relation to or interest in this play". Only

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 239

from the number of citations this sort of supposition seems to be unjustified as there are as many as fifty-three citations in the NLRK itselffrom the V-sam But there are other good reasons in favour of Dr Raghavan's suggestion The drama in question, has been cited only once in the SD below VI 98, p 375 But this also seems to be due to the influence of the NLRK on the SD The last half of the whole verse, cited with the name of the source by Visvanatha, occurs in the NLRK (11 747- 748) in the same context as in SD as an illustration of Anumana, an anga of the Garbha sandhi Now, the Jānakı raghava, referred to so many times bySgn finds no mention in the Abh-bha DR ND Bha-pra and RS Dr Raghavan's above suggestion can very well explain this fact, 37 DR I 21 Avaloka p 6 38 RS III 25, p 215, SD VI 73 NC p 11 39 NLRK 1 89 NS GOS XIX 13, abhıpretam samagram ca pratırūpam kriyaphalam [ itivrtte bhavedyasmın phalayogah prakirttitah // It ıs interesting to note that RB attributes (Abhi-śaku, p 230) this verse to Mātr- gupta The Bha pra (p 206 1l 13-14) reads the third foot of the verse differen tly 40 NLRK 11 90 100 41 NŚ GOS Vol III p 8,ND p 46 42 DR I 22, SD VI 73, NC p 11 43 Bha-pra p 159 ll 11 12 abhiştārthaparīpāko netrā- der athavā kaveh | drzmādıphalavad-yatra svādyate tat phalam bhavet /| 44 NS GOS XIX, 5 Abhi bha NS GOS Vol III p 4 kavıryat phalam utkar şere vıvakşatı tat pradhānaphalamļ 45 JOI Vol. V No 4 p 374.

240 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Chapter III

1 NLRK 11 218 219, NS GOS XIX 2 2 NLRK II 222-224 , 228-229, NS GOS XIX 3,5 3 NLRK 11 225-226 4 NLRK 1 227 anyastvāha | kathāyām eva kathāntaram upakārakrd ānusangıkam iti / 5 NŚ GOS Vol III p 12 arthah phalam tasya prakt- tayah upayāh phalahetava ityarthah / tadetaih pañcha- bhırupāyaıh pūrnaphalam nışpādyate / For an exposı- tion of Abhinavas division of Arthaprakrtis into two groups viz , Inanimate and Anmate, the first comprising the Bija and Karya while the second comprising other three, see H K Trivedi's learned paper on the topic in ABORI, Vol XLIV Pts I-IV, pp 143-146 6 DR p 5, SD p 351, ND 37 7 NŚ GOS Vol, III p 12, RS p 209 8 Bhā pra p 204 1 22, p 205 1 1 9 Kumarsvāmin in his com on the PRYB (p 104) says arthaprakrtayah prayojanasıddhı hetava ıtı kecıt | kathā- śarīrasya kāranānītı bhoja-rājādayah / Śr pra Vol II Chap XII p 48 kathā šarīropādāna-kāranabhūtāh pañcārthaprakrtayo bhavantı | arthaprakrtayah paňca kathādehasya hetavah / This definition of Bhojadeva also supports our suggestion regarding the reading of the above line of the Bha-pra 10 NLRK 11 131-13 Śankara ıs hıs Rasa-candrıkā (p 162) seems to have followed the NLRK when he says arthasya prakrtayah svabhāvāh 11 NLRK ll 132 133 naitān parıtyajya nāțakārthāh sambhavantı/ 12 NC p 9 13 NŚ GOS XIX 20 ıtwrtte yathāvasthāh pañcārambhā- dıkāh smrtāh | arthaprakttayah pañca tathā bījādıkā apı // 14 NŚ GOS III p 12 15 NŚ GOS Vol III p 12 fn 1 idamardham ta-pa-da- da-na-ba-ya māttkāsu na vartate /

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 241

16 See Infra (D) Relation among the three pentads

Bya (Germ)

1 NLRK 1 136 also 1 538 byam nātakasya phalabhūtasya hetuh 2 NLRK II 137 138 kıncınmātram samuddıştam bahudhā yad- vısarpatı/yāvat phalāvasānam ca tad-bījam ıtı kirtitam // NŚ GOS XIX 22 RB attributes (Abhı saku p 15) this definition of Bija to Adı bharata Bhoja also (Śr pra Chap XII p 482) defines the Bija as,-alpa-mātram upakşıptam bahudhā yad vısarpatı | phalāvasānam yacca syāt tad bījam iti sañjitam // 3 DR I 17, ND p 37 I 29, Bhā-pra p 2 4 ll 45, SD VI 65 66, RS III 8-9, NC p 9 4 NLRK 11 139 140 kımcıt stokam śleşa-chāyopakşepapra bhttıvırangaıh samuddıstam kathıtam / NLRK 11 144-145 6 NLRK 11 548-550 7 V-sam Ed Jivananda, Calcutta 1934, p 8 B NLRK 11 145-147 9 Dr Sukumar Sen (Bāngālā Sāhıtyera Itthāsa, Ed III, Pt I p 33) and Dr Nıharranjan Roy (Bāngālira Itıhāsa, p 745) maintain that Sagaranandın's homeland was Bengal 10 Cf Dr Raghavan, NLRK Eng Tra p 61 11 NLRK 11 148-152 12 NLRK ll 154-158 arthopasthapana is not the giving rise to an idea as taken by M Dillon in his translation of the NLRK artha is plot and arthopasthapana is the act of introducing the plot 13 NŚ GOS Vol III p 13 14 NLRK 1l 141 143 anyastvāha|ıstārtha sādhanam bījam uptam utpatram uddhatam|anvıştam phalıtam pañcasandhistham darsayet kramāt | The printed text reads utpātam and panca sandhistam which may be amended as utpatram and 16

242 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

pancasandhistham respectively, as suggested by Dr Ragha- van 15 Bhã pra p 204 1l 9 10, RS p 210 III 9 10 Dhanıka (DR p 5) also says byavad byam Bhoja expands this metaphor (Śr Pra Chap XII p 482) yathā byam uptamankura mūla - prakānda patra-skandha sākhā-praroha- pallava puspādınā prakārena bahudhā visarpadante phalāya kalpate tathā yo mahāvākyārtho nāyakopanāyaka sahāyādı vyāpārabhedād bahudhā vısarpannante phalāya jāyate sa bījam ityucyate / 16 RB Abhi-śakau p 15 kvacıt kāranamātram tu kvacicca phaladarsanam | kvacıdārambharnātram tu phalam uktvā krıyā kvacıt // vyāpārasca všeşoktah kvacıdvā phalasādha kah / bahudhā rūpakesvevam bījarupena drsyate |/ phale yasya hı samhārah phalabījam tu tad bhavet | vastu-byam kathā jñeyā artha bījam tu nāyakah // Dr Raghavan points out (NLRK Eng Tra p 7) that Ranganatha in his commentary on the Vik-u has quoted Mg 's observa- tion on Bija But the same is found in the RB's commen tary, as given above, and not in the commentary of Ranganatha on the Vik u 17 Bhima is the hero of the V-Sam, though arguments in favour of Yudhisthira may also be adduced Sarada- tanaya supports the case of Bhima Cf Bha-pra p 207 1 2 bhımasya venīsamhāre phalayogo'tra darsıtah / 18 Cf Abhı-bha NŚ GOS Vol III p 13 tatra cakra- varttıputralābho munyjanāsīrvacana dvārena phalasvabhava syarvābhıjňāna-śakuntale / 19 It is not, however, intended to suggest that Mg actually formulated his theory after a close study of the dramas referred to above Only the cogency of his thesis has been discussed with reference to the dramas known to us Mg might have gone through dramas of sımilar

20 Abhı-bha NŚ GOS Vol III p 13, ND pp 37-38 type

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 243

Bindu (Sign of continuity)

1 NLRK 11 162-163 prayojanānām vicchede yad avıccheda- kāranam / yāvat samāptım kāryasya sa bındur-ıtı kathyate |/ NŚ GOS XIX 23, reads the second half as yavat samāptır bandhasya . The verse is quoted in the commentary on the An-ra (p 11) by Rucipati, there the reading differs from that of the both above RB arrtibutes (Abhı saku p 69) this verse to Ādı bharata 2 NLRK 11 164-165 3 NLRK 11 166-172 4 Bha-pra p 204 1l 13-14, RS p 210 III 11, gives almost a smilar definition of Bindu The DR alco means the same in (I 17), aväntarärtha-vicchede bındur-accheda- karanam / The SD (VI 66) follows the DR 5 Bha pra p 204 1. 17 6 NLRK 11 173-174 7 NLRK Eng Tra Dr Raghavan's introduction p 7 Dr S N Shastri seems to have confused this view with that of Kohola in the statement "Kohola makes the idea very clear when he says that Bindu is that occasio nal reference to the main motif of action etc" Cf LPSD p 86 8 NLRK 11 174 182 Rāghavābhyudaya 1s a lost Rāma- play from which there are as many as fourteen citations in the NLRK The SD contains one citation and that also seems to be taken from the NLRK Cf NLRK 1 1796 and SD (below VI 210), the illustration of the alankāra Nivedana For details of the drama see SOLRP p 74 ff Rucipati (An rā p 11) also points out that lākşāgrhānala of the V-sam is Manalaksano Bındu M Dillon (NLRK p 69 fn 2) mnforms us that a verse, stated by Sāgara (ll 1660-1663) as taken from the Rāghavābhyudaya, 1s found to be attributed to Vısākhadatta ın the Sadukti- karnāmrta (1 46 5) This may sımply be taken to be a case of error and from this the drama cannot be assıgned to Viśākhadatta

244 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Bha-pra p 204 ll 15-16 10 NLRK 11 183-185 11 NŚ GOS Vol III p 13 prayujyate phalam yaırupāyā nuşthānaıh tesām ıtıvrtta vašād avašyakartavyatādıbhir vıcchede 'pı satı yadanu-sandhānātmakam pradhāna-nāyaka- gatam sandhı-dravyajnanam binduh / The reading pra dhāna-nāyaka gatam seems to be questionable Abhinava himself says that the connection may be established by the efforts of the ministers of the hero, as will be shown forthwith 12 Abhı bhā NŚ GOS Vol III p 14, Cf ND p 41 13 Cf supra, fn 4 14 Abhinava also seems to have partially supported this view when regarding the Bindu (NS GOS Vol III p 14) he says tathā hı tāpasa vatsarāje vāsavadattā premā- nusandhānam rājamukhena pratyankam darsitam / 15 NŚ GOS Vol II p 423 pratyankāntam yo bınduh anu sandhānābhıdhāyı-vākyam / Cf ND p 31, purvottara- yorankayor-asumbaddhārthatvam mā bhūd iti pūrvānkasyānte bındur nıbandhanıyah / DR III. 37 bındur-ante tu byjavat This also seems to be the view of Kohala Sdt (Bha pra p 236 1 18) records that Kohala prescribes the use of Bındu at the close of an Anka (bindurante ca) 16 Cf Ma ag Bombay Sanskrıt series no 6 1889 17 NLRK 11 159-161 Bhoja maintains a sımilar idea, Śr pra (Vol II), p 482 18 NŚ GOS Vol III p 14, tailabınduvat sarvavyāpakatvāt / Dhanıka, (DR p 5) bındurjale taulabınduvat prasārıtvāt | 19 An-rā p 11, taılabınduryathā toye svašaktyā vyāpya tışthatı | kāvyāngānı tathā bınduh samdarśya mukhyatā (am ?) vrajet // 20 RS p. 210. III 12

Patākā (Episode)

1 Dhamıka DR p 4, Bhā-pra (p 201. ll 11-12) includes Patākā-sthānaka also as a subdivision of the Prāsangika

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 245

vrtta The matter will be taken up in connection with our discussion on the Patākāsthānakas 2 NLRK 11 186 188 3 Abhı bha NŚ GOS Vol III p 15 patākāvad upayogi- tvādıyam patāketi cirantanāh / 4 Avaioka DR p 4, RS pp 210-211 5 NLRK 189 190 yad-vrttam h parārtham syāt pradhā- nasyopakārakam | pradhāna-vacca kalpeta patākā sābhı- dhiyate // NS GOS XIX 24 6 NLRK 11 193-194 7 NLRK ll 195-198 According to Mg (NLRK 1465) mitra-sampat 1s Patākā, but this mitra-sampat belongs to whom has not been stated 8 Bha-pra p 201 ll 14, 16, RS p 211 9 Abhı-bha NS GOS Vol III p 15, Avaloka DR p 4 Cf also DR II 8, and Avaloka p 40 10 SD below VI 67, yathā rāmacarıte sugrivādeh, venyām bhımādeh, sākuntale vıdūşakasya caritam / Bhīma may be called the hero of the drama according to modern taste Šāradātanaya actually calls him so as has already been

11 NŚ GOS Vol III p 15, parasya prayojana-sampattaye pointed out

bhavadapı sva prayojanam sampādayatı / 12 Bha-pra p 201 1 15, ND p 39, RS p. 210, NC p 9 13 DR I 13 prāsangıkam parārthasya svārtho yasya prasan- gatah / 14 SD VI 67 pp 352-353 15 LPSD pp 74-75 16 NŚ GOS XIX 29 17 NŚ GOS Vol III p 18 ā garbhād āvımarsād vetī pratımukhe garbhe yadı vā | yam artham vyāpya nivartate patāketivrttam tāvatyeva patākā-nāyakasya svaphala-sıddhır upa nıbandhanīyā, sıddha phalastvasau pradhāna phala eva vyāprıyamāna āsīno'pı bhūta pūrva gatyā patākā-sabda vācyo na mukhyatvena | vinipāta pratıkāra pradhāna-(Text reads pratikarah pradhāna vimarsa etc, which seems to

246 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

be currupt) vimarsa-sandhau prastutopayogah patākāyāh | It is evident that Abhinava attaches much importance to the Svārtha lābha of the Patākā nāyaka The correctness of the portion pratımukhe garbhe yadı va of the text is questionable Abhinava further says that an in agarbhad etc, of the above is to be taken in the sense of abhwvidht and criticises the view that takes it in the sense of maryāda as untenable Cf (p 18) abhıvidāvān | ye tu maryādāyām tām vyācakșate te na samyagamamsata | But in that case the phala-lābha of the Patākā-nāyaka cannot be restricted in the second and third Sandhis only The view of the ND as given below, seems to be more reasonable

18 SD p 353, yattu munınoktam-āgarbhād-vā vimarsād-vā patākā vznıvartate | ıti tatra patāketi patākā nāyaka-phalam, nır- vahana-paryantam apı putākāyāh pravrtti-darsanāt, ıti vyā khyātam abhınavagupta-pādarh /

19 ND p 39, yadā maryādāyām-ān tadā āmukha-pratımukha garbhān, yadā punarabhıvıdhau tadā vımarsam abhıvyāpya vıramatı | tāvatyeva patākā nāyakasya svaphala-sıddhır-nıba- dhyate | nırvahana-sandhāvapı tat phale nıbadhyamāne tulya- kālayor upakāryopa kārakatvābhāvāt na tena pradhānasyo- pakārah syāt /

20 NLRK 11 194 195

21 M Dillon translates the above statement of Sgn as,- "And it is completed in the garbha juncture or in the avamarsa juncture This is not to be carried through to the very end Of NLRK Eng Tra p 11 But syntacti- cally the pronoun sa in Sagara's statement undoubtedly refers to Patāka, and etat through iti refers to saca mivartata The sentence thus means,-(The statement) that Pataka comes to an end in the Garbha or Vimarsa, should not be taken as ātyantıka, universal rule to be observed

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 247

Prakarı (Incıdent)

1 NLRK 1l 201-205 NŚ GOS XIX 25, Bhā pra p 201 11 19-20 2 NŚ GOS Vol III p 15 prakarşena svārthānapckşayā karotıtı / 3 ND p 41 patākāvad-anavasyambhāvıtvam | 4 SD VI 69, RS p 210 III 14, NC p 9 5 NLRK 1 199 6 Bhā-pra p 202 Il 4-5 sobhāyaı vaidıkādınām yathā puspā- kşatādayah|tathātra varnanādıstu prabandhe prakarer-bhavet// The RS (p 211) quotes the above from the Bha pra but reads the second half as tathā tu varnanādıstu prasangau prakarī bhavet | RB also quotes from the Bha-pra the same passage with a different reading of the second half of the verse yielding a new meanıng Abhı-saku p 168,-athartu varnanādıstu prasange prakarī bhavet On the authority of this reading RB calls the description of the spring season in the Act VI of the Abhi saku as Prakari The contention that the description of a season in a relevant place is Prakarī is quite a new idea But how a sımple description can be taken to be an Arthaprakrti is not known to us 7 NLRK I1 205-207, SD p 353, Bhā pra p 202 1 1 8 ND p 41 9 NŚ GOS Vol III p 15

Kārya (Denouement, Object, Purpose to be achieved)

1 NLRK Il 209 210 yadarthe kāvya ārambhah (kāvyāram- bhah ?) sıddhe yasmın samāpanam | ānusangıka sampannam tat kāryam ıtı kathyate /| The SD (VI 69-70, p 353) gives a very sımılar des- crıption of Kārya, āpekşıtam yat sādhyam ārambho yannı-

248 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

bandhanah / samāpanam tu yat sıddhyaı tat kāryam ıtı sammatam / It may be pointed out here that according to this definition, the Kārya cannot be called a prayojana siddht hetu, as maintaned by Visvanatha himself (Cf SD p 353) In that case the purpose and the means become the same thing 2 NLRK 11 211-215 yadāha bharatah yadādhıkārıkam kāryam pūrvameva prakırtıtam / tadartho yah samārambha stat kāryam itt kīrtitam// NŚ GOS XIX 26, the reading here differs from that of the NLRK, mainly in the first half of the verse The GOS text reads vastu instead of karyam of the NLRK But the reading of the NLRK is supported by one ms (ya) RB quotes the verse ın hıs Arthadyotanıkā (Abhi śaku p 230) and attributes it to Matrgupta RB's read- ing tallies with that of the GOS text 3 NŚ GOS XIX 2 quoted in the NLRK 11 218-219 4 NLRK 11 257-261 5 NŚ GOS Vol III pp 15 16 cetanaıh kāryate phalam ıtı vyutpatyā (kāryam) / tena janapada-kosa-durgādıka- vyāpāra-varcıtryam sāmādyupāya-varga ıtyetat sarvam kārye antarbhavati | tatra param prathama-parıgrhītah pradhāna- bhūto'bhyupāya bījatvenoktah / 6 ND p 42 7 JOI Vol V No 4 p 373 Cf Abhı-bha NS GOS Vol III p 55 bya-kāryopagamanam ādānam-ıtı bya phalasya- samipatā-bhavanam, p 57 atra ratnāvalı-lābha rūpa- kāryasyopaksepād grathanam / 8 DR I 16 and Avaloka on it 9 RS p 213, NC p 9 10 Bhā-pra p 203 1 20, p 204 1 3, p 205 1 3 11 JOI Vol V No 4 p 372 12 JOI Vol V No 4 p 372 Cf the definition "karyam nırvāhakrt phale" PRYB p 107 13 NLRK 1 234

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 249

14 NLRK 11 235-236 NŚ GOS XIX 27 esām tu yasya yenārtho yataśca guna ışyate | tat pradhānam tu kartavyam gunabhūtānyatah param |/ 15 NŚ GOS Vol III p 16 na sarvatra prārambhādıvat sarva arthapra krtayo'pı | apı tu yasya nāyakasya yenārtha prakrtı-višeşena prayojana-sampattır-adhıkā tadeva pradhā nam, anyattu bhavadapı guna-bhutam asatkalpam, bīja- bındu-kāryānı tu sarvatrānapāyīnı | tatrāpica guna-pradhāna- bhāvah / 16 ND pp 27-28, 42 43 17 RS III 20 21, angam syāt nāyaketara-ceştıtam | nıtyam patākā prakarī cāngam bījādayah kvacit // Cf NC p 10

Chapter IV

1 NLRK 11 456-457 samdhıh parasparam kathārthānām sam ghatanam / 2 NLRK 11 457-458 yathoktam samdhiyante arthah paras param ebhır-ıtı samdhayah / 3 NŚ GOS Vol III p. 23 tenārthāvayavāh sandhīyamānāh parasparam angaisca sandhaya ıtı samākhyā nıruktāļ tadeşām sāmānya-lakşanam | 4 ND I 37 p 48 mukhyasya svatantrasya mahā-vākyāitha sya amsā bhāgāh parasparam svarūpena cāngaih sandhī yanta ıti sandhayah | 5 DR p 6, I 23 antaraıkārtha sambandhah sandhır ekānvaye satı / Avaloka,-ekena prayojanenānvtānām kathāmšānām avāntaraika prayojana-sambandhah sandhıh / 6 Bhā pra p 207 ll 11-15, SD p 355, VI 75 7 Abhı saku Ed Godbole p 15, Mu ra Ed Telang 1893, pp 52, 62 8 DR III 26 9 Śr pra Vol II p 484, athaitad upādheh kathā šarıra- bhāgānām mukhādayah paňca vyapadesā bhavantı / 10 RS III 28 p 215 NC (p 11) sımply quotes this defini- tion of the RS 11 Mu ra Ed Deshpande Act VI, p 179.

250 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

12 NLRK 1 458, NŚ GOS Vol III p 23, XIX 37, ND p 48, Bhā pra p 207 1 17 13 NLRK 11 440-446, NŚ GOS XIX 17 14 NLRK 11 447-451, NS GOS XIX 18 15 Gf Abhı-bha NS GOS Vol III p 11 tatr opakramo pasamhārau tāvat sar vatrāvasyambhāvinau / 16 NLRK Il 451-453 prāsangihasyādhıkārıhasyārthe varta mānasya yadı vıstarāt samdhayo vıdhātum pañcāpı sakyante tadayam nıyamo navasya-kartavyatayā ablıyupagantavyah | 17 NLRK I1 454-455, NS GOS XIX 19 18 NLRK Il 456 vrttam yat tadavırodhatah samdhınām prayoktavyam / 19 NŚ GOS Vol III p 11 nıyamo ya ukto nıyamāt pūrna sandhı syād ıtyādı sa tatra na bhavet | . yad vrttam ıt tatrādhıkārıke yad avıruddham tadeva prāsangıke yojanār ham it | The verse (NS GOS XIX 19) prāsangike parārthatvat etc has been taken to refer v no 17, pūrna- sandhı ca kartavyam' etc , by Abhinava 20 NŚ GOS Vol III p 10 upādhyāyāstvāhuh - sarvatre- tıvrttam paňca sandhyeva, na hi kascıdapı vyāpāro prāram bhādyavasthā paňcakam vınā sıddhet | avasthāpaňca- kānuyāyınā sandhıpaňcakenāpı bhāvyameva, tena sarvam nıyamāt paňcasandhı, hīnasandhıtvam tu kāranād-apūrnān- gatva lakşanāducyate 21 Abhi-bha NS GOS Vol III p 11 22 NŚ GOS XIX pp 44 47 23 DSL p 119 24 JOI Vol V No 4 p 378 25 JOI Vol V No 4 p 378 Cf Dr K C Pandey, Com- parative Aesthetics Vol I p 431 26 The Skt Dr p 299 27 The Skt Dr p 298

Vew of Matrgupta on Sandhis

1 NLRK Eng Tra Introduction p 7 2 NLRK preface VIII, IX

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 251

3 San da p 97 For the date of Subhankara Cf introduction 4 NLRK 11 460-61 San dã (p 97) reads - prārthanā vsayaut | mukha-sandhavitiritam // The text of the NLRK reads,- prārthanāvişayotsukyam etc Cf Dr Raghavan's correction, NLRK Eng Tra p 72 Dr Raghavan suggests "prarthana ıs vişayautsukyam," ıs the meanıng 5 NLRK I1 474, 480, 481 6 NLRK Il 472 481 tatra yathā māyā madālase nātake prathame anke gālavasya maharşeh tālaketu-vadham icchatah prārthanāyām kuvalayāśvasya rājñah tapovana gamanautsu kyam ārambhah | tasyaıva samyāde ete kșama etc a speech of the sage Galava in verse) After that Sagara adds - atra rāja-dharmasyākhyānād-yāgasya nıspanna saştāmsasca (Dr Raghavan suggest the readıng as yāgasya nıspattih saştāmsasca or yāgasca mispannah Cf NLRK Eng Tra p 72) me bhaviteti gamana-hetucintanam | hijam tatrarva | devarāter etc, (a verse) Many of the dandas have been remove from the above text according to Dr Raghavan's suggestion He, how- ever, proposes to remove the danda after ärambha and to place one before it, but nothing is said regarding the underlining of the word. Cf NLRK Eng Tra Dr Raghavan's corrections and emendations p 72 Cf also Bhär Ko, p 316 where Ärambha has been taken to be the name of the aspect 7 According to Dr Raghavan's suggestion,-Eagerness (Prarthana) 1 e, the yearning for the object, the Arambha 1e, the reflection upon the means etc Cf NLRK Eng Tra Il 460 461 8 NLRK 11 472 488 The name of the Nātaka Māyāma- dalasa, based on a Puranic story is first heard of from the NLRK The drama has not been referred to in any of the reputed works lıke Abhi bha, DR, ND, Bhā- pra, SD and RS All the illustrations of Sandhis and their phases, as described by Matrgupta have been

252 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

illustrated by Sigara with citations from this drama There are two more citations from the drama in the NLRK (1 276 and 1 324) The entire portion of atra rajadharmasya bhaviteti (quoted above) followed by itl, does not appear to be the speech of the king as suggested by Dr Raghavan (Cf NLRK Eng Tra p 72) The reference to rajadharma in Galava's speech is the cause of king's thought and not a part of the speech It appears that the thought of the king has been referred to here without giving the exact speech At best the portion yāgasca bhavita may be taken to be the speech of the kıng 9 NLRK 11 462-463 The printed text reads citta in place of binduh, the San da (p 97) however, reads binduh In illustration (1 501) Sagara also reads bınduh Other varıants ın the San-dā are prasrtikriyā in place of prasrtā- krıyā, and matam instead of trayam 10 NLRK Il 489-490 lābho madālasāyās-tasyā dvıtıye anke yat pānigrahanam sa eva sādhana-sampattıh 11 497-498 prasarah krıyāyā vaira-prabhavāyāh prasarāt / 11 501-502 punarapı haranasyodghāto bınduh | sa eva sādhana-samban- dhah / The text reads haranasyotkhyato, corrected by Dr Raghavan (NLRK Eng Tra p 62) as above 11 NLRK 11 489-494 12 NLRK II 495 498 13 NLRK 11 498-506 14 Cf supra Bındu 15 NLRK 1l 464-465 Śubhankara (San dā p 97) reads bhadra in place of tatra in the first foot and the second as -udbheda sandhi-darsanam, the ms reading being sannidarsanam, both yielding no sense 16 NLRK 1l 539-512 A verse kanthe varoru etc, here the hero expresses his desire for amorous play 1 513 itt rājah suratecchā sambhogah | tatra ca yogyatā / 11 515- 516 anıstasya viyogasya udghāta udbhedah (Text reads utkhyāta, Dr Raghavan suggests udghāta Cf NLRK

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 255

Eng Tra p 62) / tat pratighatah sıddhı darsanam / I1 517- 519 arcışī patıtām madālasām na dahatā dahanena mattri darsıteti mıtrasampanmıtralābhah ! iti triyuto garbhah / 17 NLRK 1 514 18 NLRK 11 515-516 19 NLRK 1 466 467 Subhankara (San-dā p 97) reads the verse as nāsah kārana-mādhuryam kıñcit śreyası vıghnatā | etānyavamarsa sandhau kathıtānı manīşbhıh // 20 NLRK 11 519-523 The text in the portion savighnatayā tālaketu seems to be currupt Tālaketu has been des cribed as killed in the Act II The ms reads (NLRK p 22) pātālaketu The Nāgarı ya ıs very sımilar to pa, correct readıng should be pātālaketu A danda after savighrata also is necessary to make the sense clear The text, as trarslated by M Dillon, seems to yield no clear meaning The discussion above, is according to the emendation proposed here 21 NLRK Il 468-469 Subhankara gives almost a separate description of this Sandhı San da (p 97) reads punar-byasya sampattır-nānābhūtārtha sambhavā | nırvahana-sandhau kathıtā surıbhır-bharatādıbhıh // It is apparent that Subhankara collected this description from a currupt source The first pada of this verse 1s the third pada of the verse describing Vimarsa-sandhi in the NLRK (1 467) Morcover Bharata nowhere describes the Nirvahana sandhi in the manner stated in the above verse of San-da 22 NLRK 11 523-529 23 NLRK Eng Tra Introduction p 7 (quoted above) Dr S N Shastrı (LPSD pp 96-97) maintains that "Mätr- gupta follows the co-ambulation theory of juncture" It is a wrong judgement, as is evident from the above 24 San-dā p 1 sangītacūdāmanı ratnakosa etc 25 See supra Introduction, age of Sagaranandın

254 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

26 NLRK 1 472 māyāmadālasā nātake 11 276-277 māyā- madālase paňcasvapyankeșu kuvalāyasvah / 27 NLRK 1 493 28 NLRK 1 324 29 NLRK I1 470-471 sādhakah sādhanam sādhyam sıddhıh sambhoga eva ca | ıtyāhuh ke' pı nātyajñāh santah sādhyādı-paňcakam |/ 30 NLRK 11 530 533 It is from the NLRK first that we come to know the name of a drama Bhimavyaya of an unknown author, like the Māyāmadālasā, Bhīma-vyaya, perhaps was written in a region where Sagara lived Dr Raghavan maintains (NLRK Eng Tra p 70) that Bhīmavyaya may refer only to a theme and not to an actual play 31 LPSD p 96 32 Sagara himself seems to have confused the issue He mn his gloss, first explains the verses describing Sandhis according to Matrgupta and then illustrates the pentad of Sädhya etc, and at last remarks idam mātrguptena samkşepāt (NLRK 1 534) etc It appears from this that Matrgupta according to Sagara is the propounder of the Sadhyadipancaka theory But the verse quoted above, which enumerates the pentad, clearly shows that this s an older view of some other theorists Perhaps Sagara took the verse from the text of Matrgupta, but overlooks the expression kecit and ascribes the view to Matrgupta The view has not been mentioned anywhere else 33 NLRK 1 535 34 Abhı-saku p 9 The full description is quoted, Supra, Chap 1 under Qualıtatıve Analysıs 35 P V Kane (HSP) p 55, Dr S K De (HSP) p 34, Dr V Raghavan (NLRK Eng Tra) p 7

Mukha Sandhı

1 TSS p. 6

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 255

2 NLRK 1 536 537, yatra bya samutpattır-nānā-bhūtārtha- sambhavā | kāvya-sarrānugata tanmukham parıkırttitam | NŚ GOS XIX 39 Here the first half of the verse is read as yatra byā samutpattır nānārtharasasambhavā | The difference of readings in the underlined portions of the two is significant. 3 NLRK II 538 540 3a Cf supra fn 2 NS GOS Vol III p 23 nānābhūto 'rthavasāt prasangāyāto rasa-sambhavo yah syāt 4 ND p 48 5 SD VI 76 77 The reading here tallies with that of the NS (GOS) Bhā-pra p 207 1 18, p 208 1 7 6 DR p 7 (I 24) Dhanañjaya sımply takes up the first half of the verse from the NS describing Mukha sandhi as the definition of the same The NC (p 11) also does the same RS III 29 30 p 215 Here Dhanıka's state ment has simply been versified 7 NŚ GOS Vol III p 24, ND p 48, Bhā pra p 207 1 19, SD p 356 8 Cf Supra under Mukha sandhi according to Matrgupta 9 Bha pra p 207 1l 20-21 byotpattırna hetuh syād rāsānām mukha sandhıbhāk | teşām trivarga-sam bandhah prāyo yasmān na drsyate | 10 Bhā-pra p 207 1 21, p 208 11 1-6 11 NLRK 11 545 546 sāhacaryena byasya mukha eva hı kecana | bınduna ādau prakurvantı nāțakārthavıdo janāh // 12 NLRK 11 547-548 13 Cf supra Bındu 14 NLRK 11 548-550 15 Cf supra under Bīja

Pratımukha sandhı

1 NLRK 11 634-635 NŚ GOS XIX 40 2 NLRK Il 636 631 Tārānātha Tarkavācaspatı, ın hıs commentary on the V sam quotes the following verse

256 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

and attributes it to Bharata (V sam Ed Jivananda p 19) ānusangıka kāryena krıyate yat prakāšanam / naştasyeveha byasya sandhıh pratımukham bhavet // The verse may be construed as ānuşangıkakāryena naştasya ıva bījasya ıha prakāsanam etc, and can be taken as supporting the view of Sagara The source of the above verse is unknown but it is evident that the view held by Sagara was known in Bengal as that of Bharata through some lost source in Bengal even before a century 3 Cf V-sam Ed Jivananda Act I p 19 4 NLRK 11 639-642 Cf V-sam Ed Jivananda p 56 Here in the NLRK the reading of the quotation from the V-sam differs from that of the printed text of the drama 5 NLRK 11 145-147 6 NŚ GOS Vol III p 24 It may be pointed out here that the first view above states exactly the opposite of what has been said by Sagara (NLRK 1 636 drstam kāranarūpena kāryarūpena nastam) But the approach of the both to the problem is sımilar The criticism of Abhinava however, can be applied with equal force against the above observation of Sagara Abhinava criti- cises the above views as -na cartat samañjasam|ekavışyam antarena sandhānājogāt, nāsasyāpica drstatayaiva samgraha-sampatteh / 7 NŚ GOS Vol III p 24 bījasyodghātanam tāvat phalānuguno dasāvıseşah taddrştam apı vırodhisamnı- dher-naştamıva, pāmsunā pıhıtasyeva byasyānkura-rūpam udghāțanam / 8 Cf V Sam Ed Jivananda p 34 Act II V No 2 9 NŚ GOS Vol III p 24 atra pāndavābhyudayasya mukhopakşıptasyodghāțanam bhīşmavadhād dtştam abhi- manyuvadhān-naştam atrāpıvedıtam ıtı kecitļtadā cārtho na samgamitah syāt | The reading corrected by Prof S Bhattacharyya (JOI Vol V No 3 p 321) has

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 257

been accepted The text puts a danda after 'nastam' and then reads 'atrapi' etc 10 NŚ GOS Vol III p 24 11 NŚ GOS Vol III p 24 12 NŚ GOS Vol III p 25 udghātıtatvād byasya stoka- mātram tu sankukādıbhı-rudāhrtam yat tad eka draştavyam | 13 NŚ GOS Vol III pp 24 25 drstam naştamıva krtvā tāvanmukhe nyastam bhūmāvva byam tadācchādakamapı bhūmırıva pratyudbodhakam|tasya drştanaştatulyam krtvā nyastasya ata eva kunkuma-byasya yad udghātanam tat- kalpam yatrodghātanam sarvatrawa kathābhāgasamūhe tat pratımukham pratırābhı / 14 NŚ GOS Vol III pp 24 25 15 ND p 49 16 DR p 11 SD VI 77-78 RS p 220 NC p 15 Bha-pra p 208 ll 21-22 17 Bha-pra p 209 ll 1-3

Garbha-sandh1

1 NLRK 1 709 2 NLRK I1 710-711 udbhedastasya byasya prāptır-aprāptır- eva ca | punscān-veșanam yatra sa garbha iti samsmrtah |I NŚ (GOS XIX 41) reads va instead of ca as the last word of the first half of the verse Raghava-bhatta (Abhi-śaku p 115) attributes this definition to Adhı-bharata Śr pra (Vol II Chap XII p 485) reads kāryabijasya instead of tasya byasya mn the first half, and the second half as anvisyate tu yastatra sa vai garbha itiritah / 3 NLRK 1 712 4 NŚ GOS Vol III p 25, ND p 49 5 SD VI 78-79 p 357 Abhinava also refers to a view which seems to give this explanation. Cf NS GOS Vol. 17a

258 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

III p 25 phalasya garbhībhāvāt / Cf also ND p 49 phalaprāptı-sambhāvanā-rūpo garbha-sandhirucyate / 6 NŚ GOS Vol III p 25 prāptır nāyaka-vısaya, aprāptıh pı atınāyaka carıte punašcānvesanam ıtyubhaya sādharanam | 7 NŚ GOS Vol III p 25 anye tu vira raudra vışaya evatasyārthasya bhāvād avyāpıtvād evam āhuh | prāptıh, apraptu-anvesanam ityevam bhutabhir-avasthabhih punah punar-bhavantıbhır-yukto garbha sandhık, prāptı sambhavā khyayāvasthayā yuktatvena phalasya garbhībhāvāt | 8 ND p 49 9 NS GOS Vol III pp 25 26 The Avaloka and SD also cite the same illustration Cf DR p 16, SD p 357 The SD almost quotes the Abhi-bha and uses udbheda and hrāsa ınstead of prāpti and aprāpti 10 DR p 16 I 36, Bhā pra p 209 1 22, p 210, 1l 1-4, SD p 357 VI 78-79, RS p 225 III 49, NC p 20, Śr pra Vol II p 485 yatra krıyāphalasyodbhedalābha nāsānvesanādayo jāyante tatra garbhah | 11 NŚ GOS Vol III p 26 avamarse tvaprāptereva pradhā natā pıāptyamsasya ca nyūnateti vıseşah | The text 1s undoubtedly currupt and has been rightly amended by the editor as avamarse tu praptereva pradhānatā aprāp- tyamsasya ca nyūnatā / The ND supports this reading Cf ND p 49 12 NLRK 1l 716 719 nāțakādau vastudvayam bhavatı | vıdhırvā nışedho vā | tatra prāptırūpo vıdhıh | aprāpti-rūpo nışedhah | prāptırūpo yathā bījam-ārabdham rākşasām kşayah | nītam sītāpahārena rāmasyāvašya-kāryatāmıtı // The word nitam is to be replaced by nitah The verse seems to be taken from some old source, probably from the text of Mg For note on such verses, see infra, chapter V, under Angas of the Mukha-sandhı, f n 40 13 NLRK 11 713 715 14 NLRK 11 720-723 The drama Tāpasa-vatsarāja of Anangaharsa Matraraja, son of king Narendravardl ana has been cited once more in the NLRK (1 792) and

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 259

that also without mentioning the name of the drama or its author References to and citations from this drama occur in the printed text of the Abhi bha as many as ten times and eight times in the ND Ananda vardhana, Kuntaka, Hemachandra, Bhoja and Mammata also knew the drama The drama, according to Dr S K De, "belongs to a period earlier than the middle of the 9th century" Being edited by His Holiness Srı Yadugiri yatıraja Sampath Kumara and Ramanuja Muni from the Berlin manuscript of the play, it was published in 1928 from Bangalore 15 Cf supra Garbha-sandhi according to Mātrgupta

Vimarsa or Avamarsa

1 NLRK II 772-774 yadāha bharata-munih | garbha-nırbhi- nna-byārtho vilobhana-krto 'pivā | tasya vāšleşa-samyuktah sa vimarsah tti smrtah // The NS (GOS XIX 42) reads athava in the place of apiva at the end of the first half, and krodha vyasanajo vapi as the first part of the second half A ms however reads kıncid-āsleşa-samyukta, and thus supports the reading of the NLRK mainly [Cf NS GOS Vol III p 26 ms reading 4 (bha)] But none of the expositions given by Abhinavagupta including his own, mentions aslesa He seems to support the reading apiva at the end of the first half of the verse Cf NŚ GOS Vol III p 27 apı sabdād vighnanımıttān- tarānām etc The text of Sankuka, as presented in the Abhı-bhā (Vol III p 28) seems to support the GOS reading so far as the first part of the second half of the verse is concerned Śr pra (Vol II chap XII p 485) gives the definition as, garbha nirbhinna-bījarthah krodhavyasanajo 'pı vā | vıpralambhakrto vāpı vımarsa iti sañjitah |/ A ms of the NS (Pa) reads vipralambhakrto pi va in place of vilobhana etc of the GOS version 2 NLRK 11 770 772 nanu vimarsa iti ko'rthah | ucyate

260 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

garbhena samdhınā udbhınnasya bījārthasya lobhakārınā aślesanasamyukto (yo) bhavatı sa vimarsak | 3 NS GOS Vol III p 27 anye tvavamarso vighna itı vıdantz! sa ca (?) vyākhyāne bīja-sabđena tad bija-phalam artha. sabdena nıvrttirucyate / nıvrttıh nıspratyūhaprānatayā phalaprasūtıh | 4 NŚ GOS Vol III p 27 5 SD VI 79-80 6 SD p 358 7 NŚ GOS Vol III pp 27 28 8 NLRK 11 775 777 anyastvāha | prakīrnasyārtha-jātasya vımarśād yatra samvrtıh | satrorapacayo bhūyān vimarsa sa ca kathyate // Dr Raghavan suggests that satror upa cayah should be the reading in place of satrorapacayah of the printed text NLRK Eng Tra p 72 But it has been shown (Cf supra under Garbha-Sandhi) that according to Abhinavagupta the Vimarsa-sandhi gives prominence to the gain over the loss of the hero How this principle can be maintained if the increasing strength of the enemy (satror upacayah) is depicted in this Sandhi, is not known Moreover, according to Mätrgupta also, nourishment of the Bya (bijena sampatti) is an aspect of this Sandhi This has been illustrated by Sagara in the death of Pātālaketu (Cf supra View of Mtrgupta on Sandhis) which is undoubtedly a heavy loss to the enemy of the hero So loss of the enemy seems to be a charac- teristic of this Sandhi and as such, the reading of the text seems to be preferable 9 Cf supra under Patākā 10 NŚ GOS Vol III p 28 phalavyāpattı-vışayo yah kartur-vıcārah sa krodha-vyasanaje vımarsa ityevam vımar- sana-svabhāva eva vimarsah / ıtt śrī-sankukah / 11 NŚ GOS Vol III p 28 12 NŚ GOS Vol III p 28 13 DR I 43 p 21 Dhanıka says avamarsanam avamarsah paryālocanamļtacca krodhena vā vyasanād vā vilobhanena

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 261

va bhavitavyam / Bhoja (Sr pra Vol II p 485) says - krıyāphalāvāptaye vıcāranırnayo vimarsah | It, however, includes vipralambha as a cause of deliberation Cf supra fn 1 of this topic 14 Bha pra p 211 Il 10 11 and ll 12-13 15 RS p 229 III 57-58, NC p 23 16 NLRK l1 778-780 anyastvāha | sampannarūpam yat kāryam prastāveneha kimcana | manasyāyātı sandeham (sandehah ?) vımarsam ke'pı tam viduh // 17 NLRK 11 783-790 18 NLRK 1l 791-792 This perhaps, refers to the fifth Act of the Tāpasa-vatsarāja where Kuñjaraka describes how Rumanvan and Yaugandharayana etc inflict a defeat upon the enemy 19 NLRK 11 793-797 20 NŚ GOS Vol III p 26 tatra sandehātmako vımarsah | 21 NŚ GOS Vol III pp 26-27 22 Of Abhı-bha NS GOS Vol III p 27 . phalam yadā valavatā pratyūhyate kāranāni ca valavantı bhavanti tadā katham na sandehah / 23 ND p 50

Nırvahana-sandhı

1 NLRK I1 854 855 NS GOS XIX 43 Here the first half of the verse (following the commentary of Ag ) 1s read as samānayanam arthānām mukhādyānām sabyınām / But Ag in his commentary on this refers to a view that reads, mahaujasām phalopasangatānām ca One ms also (Pa) reads the last word of the first half as, mahaujasam Cf Abhı-bha Vol III p 29 Sr pra (Vol II XII p 485) reads the verse as, yatrānayanam arthānām mukhādyā- nām mahaujasām / phalopabrmhıtānām etc // 2 NLRK 11 856-857

262 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

3 Of supra under Arthaprakrti 4 Cf supra under Nirvahana-sandhi according to Mātrgupta 5 NŚ GOS III p 29 mukhādyānām caturnām sanahınām ye' arthāh prārambhādyāh tesām sahabıjıbhıh byavıkāraıh kıamenā vasthācatustayena bhavadbhıh vartamānānām nānāvidharh bhāvaih uttarānām camatkāraspadatve jatot karşānām yat samānayanam yasmınnar tharāsau samāniyante phala-nıspattau yojyante tan-nirvahanam phalayogā vasthayā vyptam | 6 NŚ GOS Vol III p 29 7 ND p 51 8 DR I 48-49 byavanto mukhādyar thā vipr akırnā yathāya tham|aıkārtham upaniyante yatra nırvahanam hi tat // It is interesting to note that Sarvānanda in hıs Tıkāsarvasva attributes this verse to Dattila Nāma lıngānusāsanam with the com of Sarvananda Ed T Ganapatı Sastrı Pt I p 144 Bha-pra p 212 ll 89, SD VI 80-81, p 359, RS p 233 III 67, NC p 29 10 Śr pra Vol II p 485 11 NLRK 11 920 922 12 NŚ GOS Vol III p 29 13 ND pp 51-52 14 NLRK 11 918-919 vıpadantara-nırmānam kecidicchantı sūrayah | jānakyā jvalana Jvālā pravesena vipat punah 15 Notes of Dr Raghavan NLRK Eng Tra p: 63 16 NLRK 11 918-919 17 NLRK 1 389 devatā darsanāntam ca bhavatı hı nātakam nāma 18 NLRK II 390 392 devar şayo 'pı kvacıt|te'pi devatulyā eva / 19 Anrā p 320 devatā daranāntam ca kartavyam nātakam budhaıh | rājarşı-darsanāntam vā te'pi devarh samā matāh ıtī bharatānurodhād vasısthu darsanāntam idam | 20 San dā. p 81

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 263

21 Cf supra fn 17 22 NLRK 11 915-917 NŚ GOS XVIII 43 Cf Śr pra XI p 466, Bhā-pra p 236 1 4, SD VI 10 p 321, cf also the Sandhyanga Upaguhana infra 23 NLRK 11 913 914 NŚ XVIII 42 Cf SD VI 11 p 322, ND I 17 Śr pra (XI p 466) reads, kāvyam gopucchāgı am kartavyam nātıkādışu prājñaıh| nāțıkādısu here seems to be a wrong readıng for nātakādisu According to lexicons one meaning of the word gopuccha is a kind of necklace having forty or thirtytwo strings Cf the com of Ksırasvāmın on Amarakosa, Kānda II V No 106 (Poona Oriental Series No 43 p 156) Abhidhãna cintamanı Kānda III V No 325 24 NLRK 11 910 911 25 Cf W H Hudson An Introduction to the study of Literature, pp 200ff 26 NŚ GOS Vol II p 428 krama-sūksmāngam iti kecit| The reading of the SD (below VI 11 p 323) kramenānkah sūk şmāh kartavyāh iti kecit is decidedly more explcit 27 NŚ GOS Vol II pp 428-29, cf ND p 30, SD p 323

Relation among the three Pentads, the Avasthas, Sandhis and Arthaprakrtis

1 NŚ GOS XIX 14 sarvasyaıva hı ķāryasya prārabdhasya phalārthibhih|etāstvanukramenarva paňcavasthā bhavantı hi // Techniques of Sanskrit Drama, Chap IV (In press) 3 NŚ GOS Vol III p 10 avasthā-pañcakānuyāyınā sandhı- pařcakenāpı bhāvyam eva / Cf also p 23, p 62, sandhayo hyavasthā paratantrāh | 4 ND I 37 p 48 5 ND p 44 6 SD VI 74 p 355 7 The TSS p 13 8 NŚ GOS Vol III p 10 Cf supra under Sandhıs, fn 20

264 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

9 The TSS p 14 Here Dr Mainkar further states that the DR is responsible to correlate the Avasthas with the Sandhis But, it has been shown above that the respon- sibilıty may be pushed back to at least the preceptor of Abhinava 10 NŚ GOS XIX 21 11 NŚ GOS Vol III p 12 jātva yojya yatha-vidhı iti tāsām auddesıkoktıvad upanıbandha krama-nıyama ityarthah/ This is Ag 's gloss on the NS (XIX 21) arthaprakrtayah etc, as quoted above This statement of the NS seems to imply that the five Arthaprakrtis are to be used in a proper manner From this it is hard to deduce that they are to be used in a particular order The Bija originates in the Mukha-sandhi and the Karya occurs in the last Sandhi, but no restriction can reasonably be imposed upon other three, as has been made clear in our discus- sions on their nature above Abhinava further mamtains (NŚ GOS Vol III p 16) that all the Arthaprakrtis are notessential everywhere Moreover, the mechanical theory of correlation among the Avasthas, Arthaprakrtis and the Sandhis, resting primarily on the occurrence of their members in the same order in which they have been enumerated in the NS, has been bitterly criticised by Abhinava, as will be shown The ND (p 37) follow- ing closely the Abhi-bha in other relevant matters, opposes the view that the Arthaprakrtis occur in a drama in a particular order Thus, the above reading of the Abhı-bha seems to be unjustified Perhaps a 'na' has been dropped All problems become solved if the above text is amended as,-kramanıyamo netyarthah 12 ND p 37 byam patākā prakarī bınduh kāryam yathārucı | (I 28) yathārucītı naışām auddesiko mıbandhakramaḥ sarveşām avašyambhāvıtvam vā / 13 Dr Mainkar The TSS p 13, Dr Kulkarnı JOI Vol V No 4 The conception of Sandhıs ın Sanskrıt Drama p 375

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 265

14 DR p 6 I 22-23 arthaprakrtayah panca pañcāvasthā- samanvıtah // yathā samkhyena jāyante mukhādyāh paca sandhayah / Cf also Avaloka on this verse 15 DR I 25 Regarding the angas of the Mukha-sandhi ıt ıs saıd angānı dvādaśaıtasya bījārambha-samanvayāt |, sımılarly about Pratımukha-sandhı is said (I 30) bındu piayatnānugamād angānyasya trayodasa / The DR does not maintain that the angas of other three Sandhis should be determined in the similar way 16 Bha-pra p 207 ll 3-10 Regarding the angas of the Mukha and Pratımukha, Sāradātanaya quotes from the DR Cf Bhã pra p 208 1 7, p 209 1 6 and DR, quoted in fn 15, RS III 22 26 pp 214-215, NC (p 11 15) follows the RS verbatım Śr pra Vol II p 484 te (Sandhıs) ca bya-bındvādınām arthaprakrtınām sandhānāt sandhāya (sandhaya?) ucyante / It is a novel explanation of the word Sandhi, though based on an unsound theory 17 Cf Supra fn 11 18 NŚ GOS Vol III p 16 Abhinava following hıs preceptor, accept a coambulation between the Avasthās and Sandhis, as discussed above 19 ND p 37 20 DR I 36 patākā syānnavā syāt prāptısambhavah | Cf Dhanıka (p 16) tatra cautsargıkatvena prāptāyāh patākāya anıyamam darsayatı / 21 Bhā pra p 210 1l 1(-12 abhavāstu patākāyā yathā mālavıkādısu || sadbhāvo drsyate tasya mālatımādhavādışu | tasmāt patākā syān-neti vıkalpam prāha kohalah // Cf also 1 5 22 Bhā-pra p 210, ll 6-8 tathāpyasyā nıvešah syāt prāptyā sāyā nıyogatah // apatāke nīvesah syād bındor bījasya vā kvacıt |/ 23 RS III 27 p 215 Śingabhūpāla supports the use of the Bindu only in the Garbha sandhi in absence of a Patākā there, patākāyā vıhine tu bındum vā vinivesayet / 17b

266 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

24 RS III 49 (p 225) āprāptyāsā-patākānurodhād angānı kalpayet / III 58 (p 229) prakarī nıyatāptyānugunyād atrāngakalpanam / 25 RS III 27 p 215 patākāyāstvavasthānam kvacıdastı na vā kvacıt / 26 NC p 29 atrāngakalpanā kārya phalāgama-samāgamāt / 27 Cf supra Arthaprakrtı 28 RB Abhı-saku (Ed Godbole) p 115, p 168 29 RB Abhı-saku (Ed Godbole) p 168 30 Mā ag p 60 31 Mā ag p 98

Anusandhı

1 NŚ GOS XIX 28 2 NŚ GOS Vol III p 17 tathā lollatādyāstu manyante parārthe sādhayıtavye patākā nāyakasyetivrttabhāgā anusan- dhayah / 3 NŚ GOS Vol III p 17 patākāyām hı pūrna varnane patākāntaram syād ıtyanavasthā / 4 NS GOS Vol III p 17 5ND pp 43-44 6 DR III/27 patākā-vrttam apyūnam ekādyaır anusandhıbhıhļ angānyatra yathālābham asandhım prakarım nyaset // Cf also Avaloka, p 70

Chapter V

1 NLRK 11 556-557, NS GOS XIX 69 2 NLRK 11 559 562 3 NLRK 1 558 yathā venisamhāre prathamānke / 4 NŚ GOS Vol III p 37, ND p 37 5 NŚ GOS Vol III p 37 6 SD below VI 82 p 360 The N (GOS V 168) while

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 267

descrıbıng the Prastāvanā enjoins nānā vidhair upakse- pah kāvyopaksepanam bhavet , this in practice is generally done through indirect hints to the central theme of the play In the Abh saku, the forgetfulness of the Sūtra dhara serves this purpose So, the first Sandhyanga may be included in the prelude 7 V-sam Ed Jivananda pp 9 10 8 NLRK 11 568 569, NS GOS XIX 70 9 NLRK 11 571 574 10 NLRK 1l 575-581, Abhi bhã NŚ GOS Vol III p 31,ND p 54 11 DR p 9 12 NLRK 11 583 585 athavā| samsuddhārtha bhāşanam yat tat parınyāsah | samsuddham tattvabhūtam yad bhāşanam sa eva parınyāsah | nānānurodhād iti / 13 DR I 27, ND pp 53-54, Bhā-pra p 208 ll 12 13, RS pp 216 217, NC pp 11 12 14 NLRK 11 586-587, NŚ GOS XIX 71 15 NLRK ll 589-592 Cf V-sam Act I p 26 16 ND p 56, NŚ GOS Vol III p 38 Cf also SD p 362 Cf V-sam Act I p 25 17 RS III 34 p 217 18 NŚ GOS Vol III p 38 19 ND p 56 20 NLRK 11 593-594, NŚ GOS XIX 71, DR I 28, ND I 45,SD VI 84 21 NLRK 11 596-597 22 NŚ GOS Vol III p 39 asyāh prayojanam prakāsya- prakāsanam / 23 NLRK 11 598 599 mukhārthasyopagamana (m ?) prāpti- rityabhidhryate / One ms of the NS (GOS Vol III p 39, 6 bha) reads mukhyarthasyopa / The ms of the NLRK reads khysy (Cf NLRK p 26, fn 1) Thus mukhyasyārthasyopagamana might have been the reading of Sagara's source 24 NLRK I1 601-604 Cf V sam Act I p 19

268 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

25 NŚ GOS XIX 72 sukhārthasyabhıgamanam prāpti- rıtyabhısamjñitā / Abhinava supports this reading Cf Abhi-bha NS GOS Vol III p 39 Dr M Ghosh pre fers the reading mukhartha Cf NS Eng Tra p 390 26 DR I 28 p 8, ND I 45 p 57, SD VI 84 27 NLRK 11 605-606, NŚ GOS XIX 72 28 NLRK 1 608 This verse of Bhima has been taken to be an example of Bheda by Abhinava Dhanıka and Rāma candra-Gunacandra Cf NS GOS Vol III p 42, DR p 11,ND p 57 29 NŚ GOS Vol III p 40 30 NLRK Il 609-610 sukha duhkha-yukto yo artha-stad vıdhānam yadāha sukha-duhkhanvito yo arthah/ etc The NŚ (GOS XIX 73) reads sukhaduhkha ktto yo'rthah | The SD (VI 85) supports this reading 31 NLRK 1l 612-616 There are two other verses in the NLRK (11 751 753, 755-757) said to be taken from the Bālacarita and one (ll 540-542) from the Bālacarita Ramayana, which are neither from any known drama nor from the Ramayana itself These verses may be surmised to be taken from some text of dramaturgy lıke the work of Matrgupta or some lost play See fn 40 infra Balacanta, in contrast to the Uttaracarita may be taken to refer simply to the first part of Rama story ending with the coronation of Rama Cf the title Bāla- rāmāyana of Rajasekhara There are two verses mn the U ca (Belvalkar's edition Act VI VS 31-32) which said to be taken from the Balacarita and actually occur in the Bālakānda of the Rāmāyana (Lahore, N W recen- sion, chap 72 VS 13-14) This also shows that the first part of the Rama story was traditionally called Balacarita 32 SD p 364 33 DR p 9 34 NŚ GOS Vol III p 41, ND p 55 35 NLRK 1 617, NŚ GOS XIX 73 reads kutūhalotta

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 269

ravego / The KM edition of the NS (XIX 72) reads kutūhalottarāveso / 36 NŚ GOS Vol III p 40 37 NLRK 1 619 nādha kım eso khane khane etc 38 NŚ GOS Vol III pp 40-41, DR p 10, SD p 364 39 NLRK 1 620, NS GOS XIX 74 40 NLRK 11 621 622 Dr Raghavan in his notes on this verse remarks (NLRK Eng Tra p 62), "In the quota tions made in the NLRK there are some printed in small type, which occur frequently in the text, they seem to be taken from some text on dramaturgy in Anustubhas, like the work of Matrgupta, in whch the principles and illustrations from the themes of well known plays are given together in the text For such verses embodying both laksya and laksana, see below (11 ) 707-708, 767 768, 792, 1210-1211, 1239 1240, 1242-1243, 1294-1296, pp 84 89, the Anustubhas under Vyābhicārins and Sāttvikas with illustrations of themes from Rāmāyana and Mahābhā rata" The suggestion that the verses containing both lakşya and laksana are taken from the work of Mātrgupta seems to be very much tenable due to the fact that three such Anustubhas (l1 103 108), printed in bold type and referring to the Rama story, have been attributed to Mātrgupta by Sāgara himself (l 102) Three other Anustubhas (ll 225-226, 718 719, 918 919) printed in bold type, refer to the Rama story and may be said to' contain principles and illustrations Anothcr verse (1276- 1277) in the same metre printed in small type, may also be included in the group of Anustubhas containing both lak sya and lakşana 41 NLRK Eng Tra. p 72 42 NLRK 1 624, NS GOS XIX 74 43 NLRK lI 623 624 44 ND p 56 45 NŚ GOS XIX 75 sanghäta-bhedanārtho yah sa bhedah | 46 NLRK 1 626 sanghātena mılıtasyārthasya bhango bhedah /

270 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

47 NLRK 11 628-631 48 NŚ GOS Vol III p 41 49 ND pp 56-57 (I 44) bhedanam pātranırgamah 50 DR I 29 Cf Avaloka p 11 This view of the DR has been referred to as the opinion of some in the ND (p 57) and in the SD (p 365) 51 SD VI 87 p 365 52 ND p 57 53 DR p 11 The ND (p 52) also maintains the same view It further opines that Vilobhana etc, may be used, if required in other Sandhis also, the Bheda on the other hand should be used (avasayam mıbandhamyah) at the close of each Act, Pravesaka and Viskambhaka

Angas of the Pratimukha-sandhı

1 NLRK Il 650-651 samīhā ratı-sambhogārthā vilāsah/ sambhogo vā suratotpanno vilāsah /NŚ GOS XIX 76 There 1s a ms reading sambhogo rati-sampanno/ Cf NS (KM) XIX 74 and GOS Vol III p 42 ms bha 2 NLRK 11 651 656 3 NŚ GOS Vol III p 42 4 NŚ GOS Vol III p 42 5 ND p 62 6 NLRK 1 657, NŚ GOS XIX 76, DR I 32, SD VI 90 6a NLRK 11 659-662 7 ND p 72 While enumerating the angas the ND (I 47) read Upasarpa 8 Bhā-pra p 209 1 11 byasya dr şta-nasțānusarpanam / 9 NLRK 1 663 ādāvanunayasya krtasyāparıgraho / NŚ GOS XIX 77, SD VI 90 ND (p 62) names the anga as Dhunana and defines it as samnyanadara and takes anādara to mean manāganādrtı 10 NŚ GOS Vol III p 43 pascāt punarangikaranam itt / 11 NLRK 11 663-668

)F ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 271

12 DR p 12 I 33 SD (p 367) refers to this definition as the opiion of some A ms of the NS also gives this definition of the anga Vidhūta Cf NŚ GOS Vol III p 43, fn 2 13 ND p 62 14 NLRK 1 669, NŚ GOS XIX 77, ND (p 67) reads Tāpa 15 NLRK 11 669-671 16 NŚ GOS Vol III p 44 17 SD VI 91 upājādarsanam yattu etc p 638 18 DR I 33 p 13 The ND (p 68) refers to this view One ms of the NS reads Sama instead of Tapana and defines it as the dispelling ot that (arati) created in Vidhūta Cf NS GOS Vol III p 43 fn 2 and 3 19 NLRK 11 1312-1313 - 20 NŚ GOS XIX 78, ND I 49 21 DR I 33 p 13 22 SD VI 91 p 368 23 NLRK 1 672 krıdā vılobhanārtham hāsyam / 24 NLRK 11 674-675 25 NŚ GOS XIX 78 doşapracchādanārtham tu hāsyam nar madyutth / ND I 49 p 67 26 ND p 67 ete ca narma-narmadyutī ange kāma pradhāne- şveva rūpakeşu nıbandha marhatah, kaišıkī-prādhānyena teşām hāsyocıtatvād itt / 27 DR I 33 p 13, SD VI 91 p 369 28 NŚ GOS Vol III p 45 29 Hall's edition reads Pragayana The Sr pra reads Pra śamana (Sr pra XII p 512) 30 NLRK 1 676 uttarottaram pragamanam / NŚ GOS XIX 79 uttarottaravākyam / SD VI 92 The defini- tion, pragamah prati-vak-srenth found in the ND (I 50 p 69) also means the same thing 31 NLRK. Il 676-682 The drama has been cited but once in the NLRK Neither any citation from this drama nor its name is found to occur in renowned works like

272 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

the Abhı-bha, DR, Bha pra, ND, RS, SD etc Dr Raghavan maintains that the Nātaka Rāma-vikrama deals with the earlier Ramayana story Cf SOLRP pp 96 97 32 DR I 34 p 14 anyonya vacanenottarottarānurāgabı- jodghātanāt / 33 Bhã pra p 209 1 15 34 NLRK 1 683, NŚ GOS XIX 79, SD VI 92 p 369 35 NLRK 11 684 686 36 DR I 34, ND p 62 37 NŚ GOS XIX 80, NLRK 11 687-690 The illustra tions of the three angas, Virodha, Paryupasana and Puspa have been cited with quotations in the NLRK from different phases of the Parasurama episode of the Rama story The first and the last are said to be taken from the drama Janakī-Raghava (Of NLRK 1 684 and 1 692) The verse alam bhārgava etc, (ll 689-690) quoted as an illustration of the Paryupasana seems to be taken from the same drma 38 DR I 34 p 14, ND I 48 p 63, SD VI 92-93

39 NLRK. 1 691, NŚ GOS XIX 80, Cf DR I 34 p p 370

14, SD VI 93 p 370, ND I 49 p 68 40 NLRK 1l 691 692 anyatra krıyāyāmıtara krıyādhıkyam viseșa vacanam / 41 NLRK I1 692 696 42 NŚ GOS Vol III p 46 premu-vkāsı puspam / 43 ND p 68 44 NLRK 697 The NŚ (GOS XIX 81) defines Vajra as a harsh speech uttered to one's face, pratyakşa-rukşam yad vākyam, but the readıng rukşaprāyam of the NLRK is supported by one ms Cf NS GOS Vol III p 46 ms bha, Śr pra (XII p 513) and the SD (VI 63) follow the reading of Abhinava as adopted in the GOS version The DR (I 35) and the ND (I 50) also follow this reading and keep the word pratyaksa, replacing only ruksa by nışthura and karkaa respectively

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 273

45 NLRK 11 697 699 Another reference of the Act called Pumsavana, occur in the NLRK (1l 2820-2821) and the Bha-pra (p 250 ll 20-21) also contains the same in the same context, 1 e, as an illustration of the third variety of Kapata Dr Raghavan informs us (NLRK Eng Tra pp 62, 63 SOLRP. p 55) that it is the opening Act of the lost Rama play Chalita-rama The name of the author is unknown to us In the NLRK (11 974-976, 1824 1825) there are two more references to another Act, named Anutāpa of this drama Sāgara does not mention the name of the drama itself which, however, has been refer- red to once in the Abhi-bhā (NS GOS Vol I p 39) Citations from the Chalita-rama are found in the Avaloka (DR pp 22, 66, 68), ND (pp 86, 92, 132, 133, 137), SD (p 445) The verse āsādıta-prakata-nırmala- candra-hasah etc, anonymously quoted by Dhanıka (DR pp 63, 65) Visvanātha (SD p 332) and Bhoja (Śr pra vol II p 497), 1s from the Prastāvanā of this drama, as informs the ND (p 137) From the citations in above mentioned works it appears that like the Uttara rama carıta and the Kundamālā, the Chalita-rāma also takes up the Uttara kānda of the Rāmāyana as its subject matter and there are striking deviations from the story of Valmiki Keith seems to be in favour of placing this drama mn 1000 A D (Sanskrıt Drama p 223), while Dr K K Datta Sastrı (Ku mā pt I p 181) places it in the 9th century AD The said scholar also remarks, "The Uttara-rama carita and the Chalita rama seem to have some influence of the Kundamala on them' (Ku mā pt I p 184) Cf also SOLRP pp 50-59 46 NLRK 1 700, NŚ GOS XIX 81 upapattıkrto yo'rthah/ RB ın hıs Arthadyotanıka (Abhi śaku p 108) ascribes this definition to Adı-bharata 47 NLRK 11 700-703 48 ND p 71 The RS (p 224) follows this definition 49 NŚ GOS Vol III p 46 fn 2 (bha) sopāya vacanam yattu sa upanyāsa ucyate/ DR I 35 p 15. 18a

274 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

50 DR p 15 fn 2 prasādanam upanyāsah/ SD VI 93 p 370, Bhā pra p 209 1 17 51 Śr pra Vol II p 504 pratimukha-sandhāvapı dvāda- sāngānı / 52 Abhı saku p 107 Upanyasa as prasādana, p 108, Upanyāsa as upapattikrto yo'r thah 53 NLRK 1 704 varnıtasyārthasya tıraskāro varna samhārah| The Śr pra (vol II p 513) also describes the anga as varnıtārthatıraskāro varnasamhāra ucyateļ 54 NLRK 11 704-705 55 NLRK 1 706 caturnām varnānām sammilanam apı ke pi varnayantı / 56 NŚ GOS XIX 82 cāturvarnyopagamanam varna samhāra işyate | Cf the ms readıdg (pa) varnıtārthatıraskāro ucyate / This definition is found in the Śr pra, as quoted above 57 NŚ GOS Vol III p 47 58 ND p 65 59 DR I 35 p 15, Bhā pra p 209 1 18, SD VI 94 p 391 The SD, however records the view of Abhinava 60 DR p 16, ND I 46-47, pp 60 61 Pragamana and Upasarpana (p 72, Anusarpana) of the ND are Prasama and Parisarpa respectively of Dhanıka

Angas of the Garbha-sandhı

1 NŚ GOS XIX 82, NLRK 1 727, DR I 38 p 16, ND I 55 p 80, SD VI 95 p 372 2 NLRK 11 728-729 The SD (p 372) cites the same illustration, so also does the Sr pra (vol II p 514) 3 NŚ GOS XIX 83, NLRK 1 730, DR I 38 p 16, ND I 55 p 79, SD VI 95, Śr pra vol II p 514 4 NLRK 11 730-734 5 NLRK 1 735 cıtrārtha-samāyukto vitarko rūpam / NŚ GOS XIX 83 cıtrārtha-samavāye tu vitarko rūpam- işyate /

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 275

6 NLRK 11 736, 737 7 Śr pra Vol II 515, SD p 373 8 NŚ GOS Vol III p 48, ND p 75 9 NŚ GOS Vol III p 48 vicıtrārthānām samavāye sam- bhāvane sarva vişaya eva vruddhastarkah / yuktıstu nıyata-pratıpattı-paryanteti visesah / Thus according to Abhinava's interpretation Rupa does not differ from the Sandehālamkāra 10 NŚ GOS Vol III p 48, DR p 14 11 DR I 39 12 ND pp 73-74 13 NŚ GOS XIX 84 yat sātıšayavad vākyam / 14 NLRK 1 738 sātısayam vacanam udahāranam / Thıs 18 supported by two ms readings of the NS (GOS Vol III p 48) 15 NLRK 1 739 16 Śr pra Vol II p 515, SD p 373 17 NS GOS XIX 84 bhāvatattvopalabdhıstu krama ıtyabhı dhīyate / Abhi-bhā (Vol III p 49) says, bhāvasya bhāvyamānasya vastunah ya paramarthopalabdhıh / 18 NLRK 1 740 19 NLRK 1I 741 743 The Śr pra (Vol II p 516) cites this illustration but defines Krama as bhāvatattvopa- labdhıh (p 515) 20 ND p 76 21 DR I 39 p 17, ND p 76, Bhā-pra p 211.1 3 22 DR I 39 p 18 23 ND I 54 p 76 24 SD VI 97 p 374 25 NS GOS XIX 85, NLRK 1 744, DR I 40 p 18 26 NLRK. 1 745 27 NŚ GOS XIX 85, NLRK 1 746, DR I 40 p 18, ND I 53 p 74, SD VI 98 p 375 28 NLRK 11 747-748 The SD as an illustration of Anumana (below VI 98 p 375) quotes the whole verse and ınforms yathā jānakı-rāghava-nātake rāmah / The

276 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

first half of the verse as quoted there is, lilāgatairapi tarangayato dharıtrım ālokanaırnamayato jagatām sırāmsı | Here Sugriva is described 29 DR I 36 p 16, Bha-pra p 210 1 16, RS III 51 p 225, Visvanātha also (SD p 376 VI 99) records the view 30 NŚ GOS Vol III p 50 bha-mātrkāyam prārthanā- lakşanam nopalabhyate / 31 ND p 75 32 NS GOS XIX 86 33 NLRK 11 749-750 There are three more citations (NLRK 11 758-760, 761 765, 1666-1670) from the Act called after Sampati, the brother of Jatayus This 1s an Act from a lost Rama-play, not referred to in any other work- From a study of the above four citations (SOLRP pp 102 103) Dr Raghavan shows the power of the poet in innovating ideas, such as an attempt of the Raksasas to dupe the monkeys, and a female character, a Rāksasī named Māyavatī, trying her wits on Angada, Hanumat and others 34 Abhinava reads Äksipti, three ms readings are recorded in the NS (GOS Vol III p 50) viz, Aksepa, Aksıpta and Upaksıpta DR (I 42) reads Āksepa and this reading is found in the ND (I 54), Bha-pra (p 211 1 8), RS (III 51) The SD (VI 99) reads Ksıpti 35 NŚ GOS XIX 86 Abhmava comments hrdayāntah sthtam (tasya) kutascınnımıttād udbhedanam 36 ND I 54 p 78 ākşepo byaprakāśanam | It takes byasya to mean mukhakryopāyasya and also hrdaya-bhūm-nıgū- dhatvād abhıprāyasya, as an alternative 37 SD VI 99 rahasyārthasya tudbhedah kşıptıh syāt | 38 NLRK 1 751 39 NLRK 11 751-753 40 NLRK 1 754 41 DR 1 42 p 20 42 ND p 78

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 277

43 NLRK 1 755, NS GOS XIX 87 44 NLRK 11 755-757 45 NŚ GOS Vol III p 51 āvega-garbham yad vacanam tattotakam|sa cāvego harşāt, krodhāt, anyato 'pıvā| bhınattı yato hrdayam tatastotakam / 46 ND p 81 47 NŚ GOS 87 kapatenātısandhānam bruvate 'dhıvalam budah/ Cf also Abhı-bhã (Vol III p 51) 48 DR I 40 p 18, ND I 55 pp 78-79, Bhā pra p 211 1 5,SD VI 99 pp 376-377 49 NŚ GOS Vol III p 51 fn 2 ms 'pa' 50 NLRK 1 758 kapatasya anyathākaranam adhıbalam | Śr pra Vol II p 517 kapatasyānyathābhāvam 51 NLRK 11 758-760 52 ND p 79 53 DR I 40 p 19 54 ND p 79 55 NS GOS XIX 88 56 NŚ GOS Vol III p 51 arısabdannācı (yı ?) kādı / 57 DR I 42. Avaloka p 20 58 ND p 77 59 NLRK 1 761 60 NŚ GOS Vol III p 51 fn 3 ms ta SD VI 100 nrpadyanitabhītih etc Śr pra Vol II p 518 bhayam ntpādyanitam etc 61 NLRK 11 761-765 62 NLRK 1 766, NS GOS XIX 88 63 NLRK I1 767-768 64 SD VI 100 65 NŚ GOS Vol III p 52 anye tu sankā-bhaya-trāsaıh krto yah sa vıdrava ıtıļtatra ca vısesya padam anveşyam, samudāya eva višeşya iti śrī sankukah / 66 NLRK 1 769 67 NŚ GOS Vol III p 52 68 Śr pra Vol II p 518, ND p 77 The ND names the anga Drava

278 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

69 DR I 42 p 20, Bhā pra p 211 1 7 70 SD p 376 71 DR p 21, ND I 51-52

Angas of the Vimarsa-sandhı 1 NŚ GOS XIX 89, NLRK 1 801, DR I 45, SD VI 102 2 ND p 83 3 NLRK Il 801-806 There is one more citation in the NLRK (II 1703 1707) from the Māyā laksmana Act of the Janakr raghava In the present case, the NLRK says yathā-Jānakī-rāghave Māyā lakşa-(ksma ?)ne ravanah and the last line of the verse runs karsyante ghoram vyasanam adhunā rāksasapateh / It 1s evident that the verse cannot be put in the month of Ravana (as is done in the NLRK ) who is referred to in the last line in the third person ravanam prati, or ravanasya, might have been the correct reading From these two citations, as noted above, nothing can be guessed as to the nature of the innovation of a Maya or its relation with Laksamana or the dramatic purpose achieved through it (Cf SOLRP pp 68-70) 4 NŚ GOS XIX 89, NLRK 1 807, DR I 45, ND I 58,SD VI 102 5 NLRK 11 808-812 6 NŚ GOS Vol III p 53 7 NLRK 1 813, NS GOS XIX 90 8 NLRK 11 813-814 NLRK 11 815 818 10 NŚ GOS Vol III p 53 bhartr-samnıdhāne 'pi vıdūşaka- sya sāgarıkā yāsca vāsavadattayā bandhanam | dravanam calanam mārgād itt dravah / 11 DR I 45, Śr pra vol II p 520, ND I 57 12 SD VI 103 13 NŚ GOS XIX 90, NLRK 1 819, DR I 46 p 23, SD p 380

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 279

14 NŚ GOS Vol III p 53 Cf also the illustration, taken from the Rv (Act IV) where the king says that the queen has been pacified 15 NLRK 11 819 823 16 ND I 60 p 88 17 ND p 89 18 NLRK 1 824, NŚ GOS XIX 91 vyavasāyasca vyñeyah pratyjňā hetu-sambhavah / 19 NLRK 11 824 825 20 NŚ GOS Vol III p 54 pratyātasyāngıkrtasyārthasya hetavo ye teşām sambhavah prāptırvyavasāyah | Cf ND I 60, SD VI 103, Śr pra Vol II p 521 21 DR I 47 p 24 vyavasāyah svasaktyuktıh / )2 Bha-pra p 212 1 I, RS III 65, ND p 91 The Bhā-pra (p 212 1 2) gives also the definition of Vyava- sāya as accepted by Sāgara 23 NLRK 1 824 aprastutārtha khyāpanam / )4 NLRK I1 826 828 ¥5 NŚ GOS Vol III p 54 ms pa aprastutārtha-vacanam prasangah parıkirttitah / )6 Bha-pra p 211 1 22, ND p 82 ›7 NŚ GOS XIX 91 gurūnām parıkīrtanam / DR 1 46. p 24, ND 1 58 p 82, SD VI 104 pp 380-381 8 NŚ GOS XIX 92 NLRK 1 829 830 10 NLRK I1 830 831 II DR I 46 pp 23-24 tarjanodvejane dyutih, SD p 379 12 ND p 85 33 NS GOS Vol III p 55 34 NLRK 1 832 manasceştā samutpannah śramah khedah | The GOS version of the NS (XIX-92) reads,-'manas- ceștāvinișpanna etc ND I 59 p 85, SD VI 105 p 381 15 NLRK 11 832-837 6 ND I 59 p 86 But it reads Nirodha (I 56) in enume rating the angas.

280 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

37 NŚ GOS XIX 93, NLRK 838, SD VI 105 p 382 38 NLRK 11 838 839 39 NŚ GOS XIX 93, NLRK 1 840 40 Śr pra Vol II p 523, SD VI 106 p 382 41 NLRK I1 840-843 The Śr pra (vol II p 524) also refers to the same situation as an illustration of the anga 42 DR p 25 In the light of Dhanika's illustration the ms readıng samrambhokti seems to be better 43 Bhā pra p 212 Il 3-4 samrabdhānāmavajna and paraspara sya samgrāmah samrambhena / 44 RS III 65 45 NS GOS Vol III p 55 fn 2 (bha) uttarottaravākyam, (da) samrambhād uttarottara-bhāşanam, (na ya) uttarottara-

46 NLRK 1 844 byja kāryopagamanam , NŚ GOS XIX 94, vākyam /

the reading, Atana here 1s undoubtedly an instance of printing mistake Cf also Śr pra Vol II p 524 47 NLRK I1 844-847 Act IV of the R V has been referred to by Palıtyanka in the NLRK Śr pra (vol II p 524) also refers to the same situation as illustration of Ādāna 48 ND p 91 49 DR I 48 p 26 ādānam kāryasamgraha Cf Bhā pra p 212,1 6, RS III 66 p 232 50 NLRK 1 848 NS GOS XIX 94 51 NLRK 11 848-849 52 NŚ GOS Vol III p 56 apamāna kalankāpavāranācchā- danamit / In this sense the name chadana suits well 53 ND p 84 54 DR I 46 p 24, chalanam cāvamānanam , Bhā-pra p 212 1 1, ND p 84 anye tvasya sthāne chalanam avamāna- narūpam āhuh / 55 RS III 64 p 231 56 SD VI 107 p 384 kāryārtham apamānādeh sahanam. 57 NŚ KM XIX 93 and fn 9 58 ND p 84 59 NLRK 1 850.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 281

60 NLRK 11 851 852 The whole verse is given in ll 85 88 61 NŚ GOS XIX 95 Abhı-bhã (Vol I1I) p 56 62 Śr pra Vol II p 524, SD VI 106 p 383 In the light of the readings found in the NS, Śr pra and SD, the reading of the NLRK may be amended as samhārā- rtha 63 ND p 90 64 DR I 47 sıddhāmantranato bhāvıdarsıkā syāt prarocanā| Bhā-pra p 212 1 5, RS III 66 p 232 65 DR GOS XIX 95 96 66 DR I 45 p 22, I 48 p 26 67 Bhā pra p 211 1 20, p 212 1 6, RS III 61 p 230 III 66 p 232, NC p 24, p 27 It reads Vivalana instead of Vicalana 68 NŚ GOS Vol III p 56 69 ND p 91 70 DR p 27 71 ND I 56 57

Angas of the Nirvahana-sandhı

1 NLRK 1 861 pradhānārthopaksepah arthah / Perhaps the name Sandhi has been omitted to avoid a confusion with Sandhi, the divison of the plot 2 NS GOS XIX 97 3 Cf DR I 51 p 27, ND I 62 p 92, SD VI 110 p 385 4 NLRK l1 861-863 There is in the NLRK only one citation from this lost Rāma-play Saradātanaya refers to it twice , Bha-pra p 217 1 14, p 223 1 2 from the first reference we know that it was a Nātaka (mārica vañcite nātake krtah) and the second pañcānkametan mārica-vañcitam) informs us that it was of five Acts Cf SOLRP p 96 5 NŚ GOS XIX 98 upakşepastu kāryānām grathanam - The NLRK 1 864 kāryānām bahūnāmupaksepo grathanam; 18b

282 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Śr Pra (Vol II p 525) quotes the NS verbatım SD VI 110 p 386 upanyāsastu kāryānām grathanam / 6 DR I 51 p 28, Bhā pra p 212 1 19, ND I. 63 pp 92-93, RS III 70 Illustrations of Grathana cited in these works also show that a reference to the mamn purpose is intended to 7 NŚ GOS Vol III p 57, SD p 383 B NLRK I1 864 869 9 NLRK 1 210 10 Cf supra, dscussion on Karya 11 NŚ GOS XIX 99, NLRK 1 870, DR I 51,ND I 63, SD p 386 12 NŚ GOS Vol III p 57, NLRK 11 870-872 13 NŚ GOS XIX 99 14 NLRK 1 873, Śr pra Vol II p 526, ND I 63, SD

15 NŚ GOS. Vol III p 58 anyonyāparādhodghattanam p 387

vacanam etc ND 1 63 parıbhāsā svanindanam / 16 NLRK 11 873 875 17 Śr pra Vol II pp 526 527 8 DR I 52 p 28 19 ND p 94 20 Bhā pra p 212 11 21 22 21 NLRK 1 876 irsyā kleso pasamanam dyutıh / 22 Śr pra Vol II p 527 ırşyā kopaprasamanam dyutım Cf NŚ GOS Vol III p 58 fn 3 ms pa 23 NLRK 11 876-878 The name Kāmadattā-pūrti is htherto unheard The RS refers to a Prakarna Kāmadattā (RS III 216 ganıkānāyıkam dhūrtam kāmadattāhvayādi- kam) Dr S N Das Gupta (Hist of Sans Lit, Cal Un, p 762) informs us that Kāmadattā, a work referred to in the Bhana Padma-prabhrtaka was probably a Prakarana written by Sudraka himself A Bhanika with the title Kāmadattā has been referred to in the NLRK (1 3161) and in the SD (p 458) In both the cases the name has been cited as an example of Bhanıka However,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 28

It is evident that there were a Prakarana (from which Sagara cites here) and a Bhanika bearing the same title Kāmadattā 24 ND pp 95-96 apare tu krodhādeh prāptasya samanam dyutım amanant / After the illustration it is remarked, anena ī syā kopasya samanam | 25 NŚ GOS XIX 100 labdhasyārthasya samanam - Abhınava says, sāmarthyāt prasamanıyasya krodhāderar thasya prāptasyāpı yat prasamanam sa dyutıh / 26 NS GOS Vol III p 58 fn 5 ms bha' The reading 'krti' seems to be better, as there is another Dyuti in the Vimarsa sandhi also 27 DR I 53 28 DR Avaloka p 30 ıtyanena prāptarājyasyābhışeha mangalaıh sthırīkaranam krtıh | 29 Bhā pra p 213 1 2 krtırlabdhārthasamanam tat sthırī- karanam tu vā | 30 SD VI III p 387 31 ND p 95 labdhasya parıpālanam kşemah | 32 ND p 95 33 NŚ GOS XIX 101 susrūsādvupasa npanrah prasādah prītirucyate / NLRK 1 879 susrūsādyupapannāi thah prasādah / Śr pra Vol II p 527 sušrūşādyupasampannah prasādah ıtı kīrttitah / 4 34 NS GOS Vol III p 59, NLRK 11 879-880 35 NŚ GOS Vol III p 59 36 ND I 64 p 94 37 DR I 52 p 29, Bhā pra p 212 1 22, SD p 287 38 NŚ GOS XIX 100, NLRK 1 881, DR I 52 p 29, ND p 96, Śr pra Vol II p 527, SD p 387 39 NŚ GOS Vol III p 58 40 NLRK 11 881-882 41 NŚ GOS XIX 101, Śr pra Vol II p 528, DR I 52, ND I 64, Bha-pra p 213 1 1, SD VI 112 p 387 42 NLRK 1l 883 885, Abhinavagupta (NS GOS Vol III p 59) also cites the same illustration

284 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

43 NLRK 1 886 yukta kāryānveşanam anuy ogah / 44 NLRK 11 886-888 45 NŚ GOS XIX 98 kāryasyānveşanam yuktyā nirodha iti kurtıtah / The reading in the Śr pra (Vol II p 525) as anyasyānveşanam yuktyā etc, is evidently currupt 46 ND I 63 p 92 47 DR I 51 p 27, SD VI 110 p 385, Bhā-pra p 212 1 18 48 NŚ GOS XIX 102, NLRK 1 889, DR I 53, ND I 64, SD VI 112 p 388 49 NLRK 11 889-890 50 NLRK 1 891 51 NŚ GOS XIX 102 sāma-dānādı sampannam bhāşanam samudāhttam / 52 DR I 53, SD VI p 388, ND I 65, Bhī-pra p 213 13 53 NŚ GOS Vol III p 59, NLRK I1 891-892 The read- ing visvabhuti in the NLRK is evidently currupt and vasubhuti 1s the correct reading 54 NŚ GOS Vol III p 59 55 ND p 99 56 NŚ GOS XIX 103 yathokta kārya pradarsanam / Śr pra (Vol II p 529) reads yathoktākşepadarsanam and this reading is supported by the ms pa as recorded by the editor of the NS GOS Vol III p 60 57 NLRK 1 893 byodghāțanam / 58 NLRK 11 893-894 59 Dr Mainkar, The TSS p 132 60 DR I 53,ND I 65 p 99, Bhā-pra p 213 1 4 The ND, however, uses the term Pragbhava instead of Pūrvavākya 61 SD VI 113 p 388 62 ND p 99 63 NŚ GOS XIX 103, NLRK 1 895 64 DR I 64, ND I 65, Bhā-pra p 213 1 5, SD VI 114 65 NLRK I1 895 896

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 285

66 NLRK 11 897-398, NŚ XIX 104 Cf DR I 54, ND I 6>, SD VI 114, Bhã pra p 213 1 6 67 NLRK 11 899-902 Cf 11 3145-3146 68 ND p 101 69 Cf N D p 91 viseşānupādānāt sarvānyevaitāni pradnānānı 70 ND p 101 102 71 Mrccha Ed V R Nerurkar 72 For details on Bharata-vakya see, A Note on Bharala- vākya (IHQ, Vol V 1929 pp 549-52) and A Furthet Note on Bharata-vakya (IHQ Vol VII pp 190-91) of Prof Chintaharan Chakrabartty, and Prologues and Eplogues in Sanskrit Drama (OH Vol V Pt I) by Dr Kalıkumar Datta Shastrı 73 Abhı saku p 263 bharata-vākyam nata-vākyam | nātakā- bhınayasamāptau sāmajıkebhyo natenāsu dıyata ityarthah |

Number, name and definitions of the Sandhyangas

1 NLRK 1 903 2 Both Sägara and Abhinava accept the numbers of the five successive Sandhis as 12, 13, 13, 13, 14, thus the total 1s 65 3 NŚ GOS XIX 67 4 NS GOS XIX 95 96 Cf supra, concluding portion of the angas of Vimarsa sandhi 5 Śr pra (Vol II p 504) maintains that the number of the Pratimukha sandbi is twelve 6 NŚ GOS. Vol III p 34 7 NŚ GOS Vol III p 56 8 ND p 91 In this case the total number becomes 63 9 Cf supra discussion or Prärthana (no 8) of the Garbha- sandhı 10 NS GOS Vol III p 56 The text is currupt here It reads nırvahanasandhāvapı prasakteritivrttāntarbhūtatvena gananamanyāyyam itt / The correct reading seems to be, - praśasteritivrttānantar bhūta

286 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

11 SD (p 376) below VI 98 12 See DSL of R V Jagirdar pp 27 31 13 Ct Prasanga and Vidrava, supra It may be noted that the definition of Krama in the NLRK finds no support from above sources

Application of the Sandhyangas

1 Cf V-sam Ed Jıvananda Vıdyasagara, Calcutta, 1934 According to Sagara's citations from the Act I of the drama, Prāpti (p 19) eccurs before Parınyāsa (p 25), Vidhana is used before Samādhana (p 31), while Parl- bhāvanā (p 29) and Karana (p 30) are located before Samādhana and Vidhana (p 31) Thus the order of enumeration (NLRK Il 553-555) 1s not maintained while locating the angas 2 NŚ GOS Vol III p 36 lakşana evāyam kramo na nıban- dhana ıti yāvat | tena yadudbhataprabhrtayo' ngānām sandhau krame ca nıyamam āhustad yuktyāgamaviruddhameva | 3 NŚ GOS Vol III p 62 Ag unequivocally states sammısrāntı sandhyantaroktam sandhyantare'prtyarthah | Cf ND p 102 amīşām ca svasandhau sandhyantare ca yogytayā nıbandhah / 4 NS GOS Vol III p 37 5 Bha-pra p 208 1 20, p 209 1 19, p 211 1 9, RS III 76 p 238 6 DR p 8 According to Dhanıka's citations Prāpti and Samadhana occur before Vilobhana in the Act I of the V-sam 7 Abhı śaku p 33 nanvangoddesa-vākye upakşepa parkara ıtyuddıştam | udāharane ca katham vyatyaya ıtı cet | naışa doşah / p 114 atra pratımukhasandhau angānı noktāni / kānıcıt vyatyayenāpyuktānı tat kathamıtı na vācyam| bharatā dıbhıreva tathokteh / 8 Ma ag Vilobhana is in p 32 whereas Yukti 1s located in p 27

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 28

9 NŚ GOS Vol III pp 36 37 kānıcıdangānı svarūpabalā deva nıyamabhāňjı yathopak şepo mukhasandhāveva l 10 NLRK 11 904-905 11 NLRK 11 905-909 NŚ GOS XIX 104 105, 105-106 1) yathāsamdhı tu kartavyānyangānyetānı nātake / 2) kavıbhıh kāvyakusalaı rasabhāvam apekșya ca |/ 3) sammıšrānı kadācıt syurdvı-trı samkhyā pramānatah / 4) jñātvā kāryam avasthām ca samdhısvangānı nāțake // The GOS text reads the third line as sammiśrāni kadā- cıttu dvitriyogena vā punah / RB (Abhi śaku p 114) quotes second and third lines and attributes them to Ādıbharata He reads the third lıne as sarvāngāni kadā- cittu dvitrihīnāni vā punah / He also quotes a part of another verse as vyutkramenāpı kāryan in the same context and this is not found in the NS 12 NŚ GOS Vol III p 62 tenaıkam apı sandhyangam tatraıva sandhau dvıstru vā kartyavyam / The ND. main- tains the same opinion Cf ND p 102 tenaikamapyangam rasapoşakatvād ekasmīnnapı sandhau dvıstrırvā nıbadhyate / 13 NŚ GOS Vol III p 63 tathā dvayoryogo dvābhyām angābhyām sampādyam tadekenaiva ced ghatate tat kım aparena|evam triyogah / Cf ND p 102 tathāngadvayena sādhyam yadekenaıva sıdhyatı, tadekameva nıbadhyate | 14 ND p 102 15 NLRK 1 903 16 Seefn 11 supra 17 NŚ GOS Vol III p 37 sambhavamātram eşāmuktam na tu nıyamah | 18 Bhã pra p 214 1 1 Śdt here (ll 2-3) informs us that according to Bhoja all the angas should be used by the experts But the Śr pra (Vol II p 505) says samvi- dhāna vasācca nyūnādhıkabhāvena vyutkramena ca prayogah| 19 RS III 78

Necessity and Nature of the Sandhyangas 1 Dr Kulkarnı. The conception of Sandhıs in Sanskrit

288 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

drama, JOI Vol V No 4 p 379, Dr Mainkar The TSS p 18 2 See discussion of Sandhis and application of the Sandhyangas 3 See the view of Ag discussed supra 4 The Vrttis JOR Vol VII part I p 45 NŚ GOS XIX 51-52 Cf DR I 55, SD VI 116-117 6 NS GOS Vol III pp 32-33 7 ND p 102 sarvasandhınām cāngānītıvrttāvicchedārtham upādıyate itivrttasyāvicchedaśca rasapuştyarthah, vicchede hı sthāyyādestrutitatvāt kutastyo rasāsvādah ? tato rasa- vıdhānaikatāna cetasah kaveh prayatnāntarānapekşam yudangam ujjrmbhate tadevopanıbaddham sahrdayānām hrdayam ānandayatı | 8 NŚ GOS XIX 105, NLRK 1 907 9 Dh a III 12, also quoted by Ag (NS GOS Vol III p 42) sandhısandhyangaghatanam rosābhıvyaktyapek sayā (Abhı bhā reads rasabandhavyapekayā) | na tu kevalayā sāstrasthıtısampādanecchayā (Abhı bhā na tu kevalasāstrār- tha etc ) // Cf also SD VI 120 10 NŚ GOS Vol III p 42 11 Keith The Skt Dr pp 299-300 12 Bha-pra pp 238 241 13 Bhā-pra p 239 1 1 14 RS III 213-214 nātakasya tu pūrnādıbhedāh kecana kalpıtāh | teşām nātıva ramyatvādaparīk şākşamatvatah // muninānādrtatvācca tānuddestumudāsmahe / The San dā (p 96 last two lines) also refers to the view But Subhan- kara wrongly understands the names of above five types as those of five Sandhis He reads samagram iti vijñeyā nātake pañca sandhayah mnstead of Śdt 's (Bhā-pra p 238 1 17) nātake paňca jātayah | 15 NŚ GOS Vol III pp 34 36 16 See next Chap for the Theory of Sandhyantaras 17 NŚ GOS Vol II pp 295-296 anye manyante-itivrtta- khandalakānyeva sandhyangakānı lak şanāmti ca vyapadiśyante/

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 289

18 Kā a II 367 yacca sandhyanga vrttyanga lakşanādyā- gamāntare | vyāvarnıtam ıdam cestam alankāratayaiva nah // 19 Dr Raghavan SCAS p 25

Chapter VI

1 NŚ GOS XIX 107 109 p 63 fn 3 2 Śr pra Vol II pp 498-503 3 ND p 102 4 Bha-pra p 214 11 7-11 5 RS pp 238-243, NC pp 34-40 6 San da p 98, NLRK 1 923 Cf NLRK (1 934) where they are called Sandhyantara-pradesas 7 NLRK 1 923 eteşām eva samdhīnām ekavımšatı pradesā arthavasād bhavantı | 1l 930-931 prayojanavasādyāvanta ete pradeștum śakyante tāvantah samdhışu pradaršayıtavyāh/ 8 RS III 92-94 p 247 9 NŚ GOS XIX 106 eteşāmeva cāngānām sambaddhānyar- thayuktıtah | sandhyantarāni etc // 10 RS III 79 mukhādı sandhışvangānām asaıthılyam pratı- yate / NC (p 34) reads angānām asaıthılyāya sarvatah | 11 NS GOS Vol III p 63 tena sandhyangacchidravartıtvāt sandhyantarānı, ata eva cāngānām sambaddhānı | 12 NŚ GOS Vol III p 63 anye manyante ya evopakşe- pādyāh sāmānyā uktāh tesām evaitadvıseşā avāntarabhedāh | This view seems to be referred to in the RS (III 95) when the author says sandhyantarānām angesu nān- tarbhāvo mato mama / 13 NŚ GOS Vol III pp 63-64 14 NŚ GOS Vol III p 64 ete ca vıbhāvānubhāva-vyabhi cāri rūpa eva | prayogojjvalatvopayogāya tūpalakşna- tvenaıka-vımsatırıtyuktam - 15 NŚ GOS Vol III p 64 16 DR IV 84 cf also Avaloka on the verse 17 ND p 102 18 NLRK 1l 994-996 samdhīnām antare cākāśā puruşa 19a

290 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

vacanāmı lekhyoktyā (ms reads, -- lekhoktayā) vıdhātavyāh | yadāha | lekhyoktirākāsa-vacanam antarā samdhışviti | Śubhankara also records this view and probably fiom the NLRK The San da (p 99) reads, lekhoktirākāsa vacanam antarā sandhisu smrtam Dr Raghavan (NLRK Eng Tra p 63) takes the ākāsa-purușa-vacanān as the definition of the lekhyokti and prefers the reading lekhyo- ktayah (NLRK Eng Tr p 72) The reading lekhyo- ktayah, however, seems to be the currect one but it may be taken to mean reading of lctters Cf RS III 91 In the list of twenty-one Sandhyantaras Sigara omits Lekha and here he seems to have included it 19 NLRK 1 1039 The text reads svapnodbhūtam Dr Raghavan (NLRK Eng Tra p 72) suggests svapnodūtah and this seems to be a better reading A further improvement may be suggested as duto In another place (1 2280) Sigara enjo ns that the entrance of minor characters, having a little to perform on the stage, should be avoided with the help of the devices Akasavak, Nepathyokti and Lekha 20 NLRK Eng Tra p 63 21 Abhı śaku p 20 22 NŚ GOS Vol III p 63 fn 5 na 23 RS III 80 24 ND p 102 25 NLRK Eng Tra p 63 Dr Raghavan on the basis of the statements of the ND and DR supposes that they are post-Bharatan But the expression Post Bharatan itself requires elucidation in the face of the still unsettled problem relating to the identity of Bharata or Adı- bharata Moreover it is yet to be finally decided what portion of the present NS is pre-Bharatan, what is Bharatan and what is post Bharatan 26 Cf NLRK Il 935 bhedah prthag-bhāvah | 940 damanam dandah | 942 vadho vyāpādah | 949 gotra-skhalitam nāriān tara grahanam | 957. bhayam bhutth | 965 krodhah kopah |

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 291

977 bhrāntir bhramah | 983 dūtah sandesa harah / 984 upadhıschalanam | 27 NLRK 1 937 28 NLRK 11 963-964 29 NLRK 11 967 970 As an illustration of Ruja, Sagara quotes (ll 971-972) a verse that seems to be apparently taken from the Mrcchakat kam (Act IX II) The read- ing differs very much from that of the printed text of the drama 30 Cf Abhı-saku Ed Godbole pp 37 Danda, 83 Samvrti, 105 Sama, 102 Lekha, 174 Hetvavadhārana, 216 Bhranti , 217 Citra , 223 Bhaya , 225 Ojas, Krodha

Chapter VII

1 NLRK 11 1000-1001 2 NŚ GOS XIX 30 p 18 fn 5 3 NLRK 11 1003-1005 The Dasarathanka 1s referred to once more in the NLRK II 1782 1785 Nothing more is known either about the play or its author The two citations in the NLRK indicate that the play begins with the exile of Rama 4 NŚ GOS Vol III p 19 5 DR 1 14 6 DR Avaloka p 4 tacca tulyetıvrttatayā tulya vıšesanatayā ca dviprakāram, anyoktı samāsoktı bhedāt | 7 Bha-pra p 203 ll 34, RS p 211 III 16, 17, NC pp 55-57 8 ND pp 40 41 9 NLRK 1I 1008-1000 This is Sagara's gloss on the definition taken from the NS (GOS XIX 31), 1 1007 Sagara reads nispatti m place of sampatti in the NS 10 NLRK II 1010-1013, NŚ GOS Vol III p 20 Cf also ND p 40 11 NLRK I1 1015-1017, N$ GOS XIX 32 The SD (VI

292 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

47. reads nānābandhasamāsrayam in place of kāvyabandha samasrayam of the NS and the NLRK 12 NLRK 1 1020, Cf SD below VI 47 Tārānātha Tarka- vācaspatı (V-sam Ed Jivananda p 10) takes the verse to be an illustration of Ślesa-ganda 13 NLRK 11 1021 1024, NŚ GOS XIX 33 savınayam mn the definition has been taken by Sagara to mean auddha- tyam apāsya but Abhınava interprets it as višeşa nıscaya prāptyā sahitam Viśvanātha (SD below VI 48) follows Abhınava 14 NLRK 11 1026 1029 15 Cf Ahı bhã NŚ GOS Vol III p 21, Śr pra (Vol II) p 504 16 Abhı-śaku p 151 tallakşanam uktam mātrguptācāryaıh- arthopkşepanam yattu gūdham savınayam bhavet | slışta- pratyuttaropetam trtīyam tanmatam tathā // RB quotes the same verse and ascribes it to Mätrgupta in another place of his commentary on the Abhi saku (p 123) but here the reading is a bit currupt 17 NLRK 11 1033-1035, NŚ GOS XIX 34 The NŚ reads the third foot as upanyāsa-sujuktasca instead of upapatya samprayuktah of the NLRK A ms of the NS (GOS Vol III p 21 na) reads upapatyā yutam yacca The readıng ın the SD (VI 49) ıs pradhānārthāntarākşepi 18 NLRK 11 1036-1037 19 Śr pra (Vol II) p 504, Bhā pra p 203 1l 5-6, RS p 213, SD below VI 49 20 DR Avaloka p 4 21 NŚ GOS Vol III pp 21-22 22 NPSD p 72 23 Bha-pra p 201 ll 11-12 The Bha-pra however, (p 202 1 9) rıghtly says that the Patākāsthānakas are sūcano- payas 24 NLRK 1 997 kāvyasyālamkārabhūtānı / 1 998 patākā- sthānān sobhāhetūm / 25 NS GOS XIX 36

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 293

26 NS GOS Vol III p 19 anyābhısandhāne anyasıddhiscet bhūşanabhūtāpı kaıscid dūşanatvena grhitā / 27 ND pp 39, 41 28 LPSD p 80 fn 4 29 NLRK 1 998 nırvahanasandhı varjam kāryāni / 30 NLRK 1 1038 31 NŚ GOS Vol III p 20 anye tu catuşpatākā-paramam ıtı bhāvisandhı catustayābhıprāyena manyamānāh prathama- dvitiyādı-sabdān mukhādısandhı-vısaya prayogābhi-prāyena vyācaksateļatra ca yuhtır na lakşyate, na vā camatkāram bhajatityasadeva | 32 SD p 344 etānı sarvasandhışu bhavantı | kāvya-karturı- cchāvasād bhūyo bhūyo'pi bhavanti / p 345 yat punah kenacıd uktam mukha sandhım ārabhya sandhi-catuştaye kramena bhavantıtı tadanye na manyante, eşām atyantam upādeyānām anıyamena sarvatrāpı sarveşāmapı bhavitum yuktatvāt / 33 NŚ. GOS Vol III p 22 caturşu sandhışu catvārah patākā- nāyakāh, teşām yathākramam sūcakānı patākāsthānānı / prathamam mukhasandhau yāvaccaturtham avamarsa- sandhāviti, taccāsat | 34 NŚ GOS Vol III p 20 35 Abhi saku p 110 36 Abhı saku pp 40-41 The definition is very sımilar to that of the NS

Chapter VIII

1 NLRK 1 237 2 NLRK 11 242 244 3 NLRK 1 241 4 NŚ GOS XVIII 14 Two mss read gūdha-sabdo and cınhayatyar thān for rūdlu-sabdo and rohayatyarthān respec- tively It is interesting to note here that Räghava bhatta attrıbutes this verse ın hıs Arthadyotanıka (Abh-saku p 54) to the same context

294 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

5 NŚ GOS Vol II p 415 6 Mm P V Kane (HSP p 50) and Dr Raghavan (NLRK Eng Tra p 61) maintain that the reading of the hemistieh according to Lollata is anka uti gūdha-sabdo bhāvath rasaisca rohayatyarthan But Abhinava distinctly says, anye rohayatyarthan iti pathanti, as quoted above Moreover according to Lollata, as mnformed by Abhinava anka is a yadrcchikasabda which meaning comes trom rūdhi sabda 7 Cf Abhi-bha Vol II p 415 utsangavadar ohanam ( na?) sambandhādanka ityucyate | 8 DR p 70 utsanga ivānkah, RS III 197 p 233, Bhā- pra p 235 1 11 NS GOS Vol II p 415, p 418 aneka rasānkitatvādapı anka iti nāmetyarthah / 10 NLRK Il 238-239 sa ca sandhyangavasād asyaıva nātaka- syāvasthām prasamīksya bındvādınām vistarād vā kartavyah / This is based on NS GOS XVIII 13 11 NLRK 11 239-240, NŚ GOS XVIII 29 prakarana- nātakavışaye pañcādyā dušaparā bhavantyankāh / 12 NŚ GOS Vol II p 415 ıtıvrttasya bındu sūtra syūtasya prārambhadyāvasthā-paňcaka cārıno yadā prārambhāvasthā pūrnatvam eti tadānkacchedo bındudvārānusandhīyamāna- dvıtīyānkābhıdheyarūpo vıdheyah / evam prayatnādyavas thācatuștaye'pi vācyam ıtı paňcatāvıd ankā itı mukhyah kalpah / Kohala also, as informs Śdt (Bhā pra p 236 1 18) enjoins the use of Bindu at the close of an Anka 13 NŚ GOS Vol II p 415 yadā prārambhāvadhipradhānam bhavatıt tadā tasyā evopakramopasamhārāvasthādvayāpe kşayā dvāvankau, anyāsām ekaıkānkateti yāvat sarvāsām avasthādvayayogena sampādanam ıtı şadankatvāt prabhrtı saptajātapı āptau (?) dasānkatvam / 14 NŚ GOS Vol II p 416 prārambhādyavasthālaksano' rtho yatra samapyate son'kah / Cf also pp 421-422 sandhyavasthānaparıpūrnopanıbaddha evānka etc 15 SD below VI 80 p 358

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 295

16 ND pp 32,49 17 Mu ra Ed Telang pp 62, 72, 107 108, 219 18 Abhı śaku p 15 atra tatah pravisatı ıtyārabhya dvitīyānke ubhau parıkramyopavıstau ıtyantena sārdhānkena mukha- sandhıh / p 115 atha caturthānkādıpañcama madhye yatho- ktam karotı ityantena garbha sandhıruktah / 19 ND p 32 20 ND I 19 p 31 asamāptāyām apyuvasthāyām kāryavašena yo va chedah khandanam so'nkah | But again (pp 31-32) ıt says amunā vrddhasampradāyāyā-tenānkalaksanena vaksyamāna-nītyā anka-samkhyā parımānam upapādyate / ye tu vrddha sampradāyam avadhūyānkamadhye'pyavasthām samāpavanti / etc 21 The Skt Dr p 345 Keith here in the foot note (2) points out "Ghanasyama's Navagrahacarıta has three acts, Madhusudana's Fanakiparinaya has four" The Bombay recension of the Mahānātaka has fourteen Ankas Viśva- nātha (SD VI 223 224) maıntaıns that a Mahānātaka should contain ten Ankas 22 The Mahanataka Problem, IHQ, Vol X 1934 pp 493- 508 22a NLRK 11 245 246, NS GOS XVIII 16 The verse is also quoted in the Bha pra p 235 ll 12 13 Naraharı in his commentary on the Abhi-śaku (p 310) quotes from the Kavi kantha hara prakrtārthasya nırvāhah tathā bījarya samgatıh | kımcıt samlagnabınduh syād yatra so'nka iti smrtah |/ This is very similar to the above verse from the NŚ 23 NLRK 11 247-248 24 NŚ GOS Vol II p 416 prārambhādyavastha-lakşano'r- tho yatra samapyate so'nkah | evam anka svarūpam anena nırūpitam iti cirantarāh | taccaitat punaruktam, "asyāvasthopetam kār yam " (XVIII 13) ıtyanena hı kıya- nnoktam yadanena lakşanenābhıdhīyate / 25 NŚ GOS Vol. II pp 416 417

293 NATAK 1 LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

26 NLRK Il 249 250 (taken from the NS GOS XVIII 17) 251-254, SD VI 11 27 NLRK Il 271 272 Abhinava (NŚ GOS Vol II p 418) also in the same context takes the word nāyaka to sıgnıfy both the main hero and leading characters Visvanatha (SD VI 11 p 322) uses the word kāryavyāprta puruşāh to mean the leading characters as distinguished from the Nāyaka, the main hero 28 NŚ GOS XVIII 28 The NLRK (ll 269 270) shortens the hemistisch as sannıhıtanāyako'nkasca kāryah / 29 NLRK I1 273-278 The names of the Ankas of the V sam are given here as Pratiñabhima (Act I), Bhanumati (Act II), Aśvathāmā (Act III), Sundara (Act IV), Dhrtarastra (Act V) and Samhāra (Act VI) 30 NLRK 11 254 256 nāyaka dev paryjana-purohıtāmātya sārthavāhānām naıka rasāntara-vihitascarıta-sambhogo'pya- nkah sa ve litavyah / This is almost the same as NS GOS XVIII 18 The first half of the Arya ends with sartha- vāhānām and the portion carita-sambhoga from the second half 1s to be deleted Sāradātanaya (Bhā pra p 235 ll 7-8) also quotes this verse with a minor difference in reading in the second half Abhinava (NS GOS Vol II p 418) takes sārthāvaha of the vesre to mean both commander and merchant 31 NLRK 11 279-280, 285-286, NŚ GOS XVIII 20, 38 One ms (Pa) reads the first verse as soka prasada-vidra- vašāpotsarga-prasādhana krodhāh | utsāho'dbhuta-darśana- mankaih pratyakşajānı syuh // This is the reading adopted by Bhoja (Sr pra Vol II p 462) with a bit difference in the second half as, udvaho'dbhuta-darsanam anke 32 NLRK 1 282 sāpotsargah śāpapradānam ! 33 NŚ GOS Vol II 419 sāpotsargah sāpakrtasyānarthasya nāsah / It may be noted here that Durvasas in the Abht saku does not enter the stage but pronounces his curse from behind the screen and that also happens mn a Vıskambhaka The ND (p 31) also follows Abhı bhā

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 29

34 NS GOS Vol II pp 418-419 na kevalam caritasam bhogāveva pratyaksam kıntvanyadapı yatra raňjanāt sayo stīti darsayannāha krodhaprasāda-soka iti | 35 ND p 31 36 NLRK 1 287 yuddhādıkam nānke pratyakşam kartavyam | pravesakaıreva vaktavyam / After this Sāgara (NLRK ll 288 290) refers to the Kumbhanka where fighting with the seize of a town, Prāvrdānka where death, and a hitherto unknown play Nalavijaya where the loss of kingdom, have been reported mn Pravesakas Kumbhānka Is the Act V of the Udattaragnova (cf notes of Dr Ragha- van, NLRK Eng Tra p 61) The SD refers to this Act once below VI 200 which occurs in the NLRK (1 1807) in the same context as an illustration of Udyama, a Natyalankara There are two more citations from the Pravrdanka in the NLRK (11 3046-3052) The play Nalavyaya has been referred to only in the NLRK once 37 NS Eng Tra Vol I p 358 38 NŚ KSS XX 20 cf also NŚ GOS Vol II p 419. ms readıng 5 (bha) 9 NŚ KS XX 20, 21, KM XVIII 20, 21 Rucipatı (An- ra p 53) also supports this reading and interpretation 40 Vidrava is an anga of the Garbhasandhı Cf the defini- tion of the Vidrava in the NLRK 11 283, 766 Abhinava (NŚ GOS Vol III p 52) gives the same difinition of Vidrava and illustrates it 41 Haas, DR p 93, Keith, The Skt Dr pp 292, 300, C B Gupta, Ind Thea, p 130 41a The deaths of Daśaratha (Pratımā), Vālın (Abhışeka) Arısta, Cānura, Mustıka and Kamasa (Bālacarita) are all depicted in Acts for visible representation 42 DR III 34, 36, Avaloka p 71, Bhā-pra pp 236 1l 7- 13, 217 l1 10-11 ; ND pp 33 131, SD VI 16, 63 43 NŚ GOS XVIII 39-40 44 NŚ GOS Vol II p 427. 19b

298 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

45 NŚ GOS Vol II p 427 anye tu khyātam nāyakam patākānāyakādıkam ıcchantı | yastu nāyakastasya khyā- tasya na ghātanādı pradaršanīyam / 46 NLRK ll 290 291 This is based on the NS GOS XVIIJ 39 40 47 NLRK Il 291 295 etattu nātake nātyantıkam / yatc rāvana-duryodhanakamsādīnām vadha eva sa tu na sākşā. tkartavya ıtyarthah | prakarane punah kaveh svātantrantryā. sandhyādıh sakrdvışayah | yathā cārudatta ( dattasya rāştriyena saha samdhireva darśıtah / The NS (GOS XVIII 82) while describing the Ihamrg: also says yatra tu vadhepsitanam vadho hyudagro bhaved dhı puruşānām | kıcıd vyājam krtvā teşām yuddhan samayıtavyam // 48 NŚ GOS Vol II p 426 ıha kecidāhuh maranam dvıvı dham, kicıdanyasambandlunyā krıyayā sampādyam yath cakrena daıtyasya sıraśchedam, kımcıdanyasambandhıkrıyā naırapekşyenaıva vyādhyabhıghātādı prabhavam, tatrādyas yaıva nışedhah krıyate / 49 NŚ GOS Vol II p 426 ıdam maranam prayojyan Idamaprayojyam ıtı na tāvadatra vişaya-vıbhāge nıdānar utpasyāmah | mrtasya katham nışkramanam katham vāvas thānam, tato nātyopayogı prakriyāvilopah sāmājıkānār. virasatā pratipattiriti tu sarvatra maranam samānan tasmād range maranam aprayojyam eva | p 427 kiñc yatra pratyāpattisūnyam maranam tat prakrıyāvilopa katvānna prayojyam | yattu kvacıt pratyāpattıh yathā jīmū tavāhanasya tadeva maranānubhāva-sāk şātkaranasya vişa yah | anye tvāhuh vyādhyjam abhghātajam ca maranan range prayogyam, apunarjanı-nışkrāntı-raluta-prakrtır vidhe yetı 50 NŚ GOS XVIII 38 Sāgara (NLRK 1 287) takes sam vidheyām to mean 'to be reported' (vaktavyam) but th word may also be taken to mean 'to be performed' 51 NŚ Eng Tra Vol I p 358 fn 20, 21 52 NŚ GOS XXII 240 241 The KSS (XXIV 232) an

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 299

the KM (XXII 232) editions read the first foot of the fiast verse as nasvara grahanam range and ths may be taken to mean the prohibition of croaking or indistinct voice The GOS reading, however, gives a better sense 53 NŚ GOS XXII 295 299 54 The same criterion seems to be taken up in describing the Aslilatva dosa by rhetoricians also Cf SD p 472 aślılatvam vrīdajugupsāmangalavyaňjakatvāt trividham / 54 NŚ GOS X 86-88 56 NŚ GOS VII 86 88 and prose portions (pp 372-373) , XXV 100 110 The conclndıng lıne says evam hi nātya- dharme maranānı budhaıh prayojyānı / 57 NŚ GOS XVIII 38 (quoted befoae) Sägara while illus- trating Vidrava due to pur opar odha says mrcchakatıkāyam aryakanusarane puroparodhah (NLRK 1l 2815 2816) This may aefer to the commotion mndicated from nepathya in Act IV when Sarvilaka is leaving the house af Vasanta- sena with Madanika, or more suitably the situation depicted in the Act VI beginning from the entrance of Äryaka But even the second one cannot be taken as a visible representation of actual nagaroparodha The whole effect of a serous cammotion, of course very successfully, has been produced by mainly two characters (Vıraka and Candanaka) on the stage with other two (Vardhamānaka and Äryaka), playıng here minor roles and others remaining behind the screen 58 DR III 34 35 dūrādhvānam vadham yuddham rājya-deśā- dıbıplavam || samrodham bhojanam snānam suratam cānulepa- nam | ambara-grahanādīnı pratyakşāni na nudiset // The Avoloka here says pravesakādıbhıreva sūcayet / Bhā-pra p 236 ll 7-9 quotes the DR verbatım 59 SD VI 36 38 60 NLRK 1 296 The text reads anke samprayo Dr Raghavan's emendation (NLRK Eng Tra p 72) 1s accepted above NŚ (GOS XVIII 21) reads ekadıvasa- pravtttam kāryastvanka'rtha-byam adhıkrtya / 61 NLRK 1 297

300 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

62 NŚ GOS Vol II p 420 ckadıvasa sampādıtamupayogi ceştıtamanke badhmyāt ! 63 DR III 36, Bhā-pra p 236 1 14, p 237 1 15, 64 NŚ GOS XVIII 21-22, SD VI 14, Bhā-pra p 233 1 11 65 NLRK 11 298-299 66 Bhā-pra p 237 1 16 anka syād vāsarārdhena 67 RS III 205, p 234 dınārdha dınayor yogyam anke vastu pravartayet / 68 ND p 31 muhūrtad ārabhya yāma-catuştayam yāvat / yama or Prahara is one eighth part of a dayie, a period of three hours Muhūrta corresponds to a period of about 48 minutes This view of the ND is also found in the NS (GOS XIII 25) kşano muhūrto yāmo vā dıvaso vāpı nātake | ekānke samvıdhātavyo byasyārtha- vasānugah // This verse, however, has not been taken into account by Abhinava 69 NLRK Il 299 302 Cf NŚ GOS XVIII 31 also XIII 26 70 Cf SD VI 15 nāneka-dına nıvartya kathayā samprayo- Jitah 71 NŚ GOS Vol II pp 422-423 72 NŚ GOS XVIII 21, 26 Ag (NŚ GOS Vol II pp 421, 422) points out rightly, that here Pravesaka means any one of the five Arthopaksepakas Cf SD VI 53 73 NŚ GOS XVIII 31 ankacchedam krtvā māsa krtam varşasamcıtam vāpı tat sarvam kartavyam varşād ūrdham na tu kedācit // The SD (VI 51 52) quotes this verse below VI 52, but reads ankacchede kāryam as the fiast foot 74 Abhi-bha NS GOS Vol II p 423 tena pancānke nātake pañca kāryadınānıtı samksepah dasānke tu daseti vistarah / 75 Bhavabhuti in his U ca depicts the mcidents of a single day in five Acts (Acts II to VI), each Act (excepting Act V) havıng a Vıskambhaka prefixed to it 76 NLRK II 403 204 nāhetukah praveso'nke kasyāpı jāyate

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 301

tvapı / nışkrāntırapı tatah syād vyālamvārtham prasangam ca // The verse seems to be Sagara's own as there is no introductory expressihn like yaducyate etc , before it 77 NLRK Il 2279 2280, supra Sandhyantaras 78 NLRK 11 374-375, NS GOS XVIII 41 79 NLRK Il 376-379 nāyakasya tadvıpakşasya ca ye ye mahājınāh pradhānabhūtāh | na te sarve nātaka prakaranayoh parıcārakatvena vyāpārayıtavyāh | tesām madhye kāryāva lambınaścatvārah pařca vā kartavyāh | apare bahır eva kāryatah kırtanıyāh | anke'pyeka eva nırvāhayıtā 80 Not to speak of works like the Mu ra or the Mrccha even U-Ca and Abhı-śaku also present a greater number of characters on the stage 81 SD VI 11 82 NŚ GOS Vol II p 428 etad uktam bhavatı bahutara- puruşasādhyam yat kımcıd tadyathā samudre setubandhanam ıtyādı, tat sarvam pratyakşena na pradarsanıyam | yadı prakarşastadā dašāstau vā range pravıştā bhavanti | tato'dhi- keşu tvabhınayacatuştayam samyag avıbhāvanīyam syāt devayātrāparıdtsyamāna-jana samajavat | Abhinava, by twisting the language of the verse also makes out another meaning that all the indecent activit es and those sus- ceptible to offend the feeling of the audience are to be strictly avoided on the stage But the Nātya-sāstra includes this injunction in other places, as has been shown 83 DR III 37, Bhã pra p 236 1 16, ND p 32 The ND undoubtedly olarifies the matter best, of course, following the Abhi bhã 84 NS GOS XVIII 22, 24, DR III 36, Avaloka p 71 85 NŚ GOS XVIII 23, DR III 37, ND I 20, Bhã pra. p 236 1 17, SD 19 86 NŚ GOS Vol II p 420 tat parısamāptau yavaıkayā tırodhānarūpam nışkramanam darsanīyam / ND p 30 nışkramo yavanıkayā tırodhānam | 87 The NS (GOS V 11-12) divides the features of the

30 NATAKA LAKSANA-R ITNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Pürvaranga into two sets one is to be done behind the screen and the other vighātya vai yavanıkām nrtta- pāthya-krtān tu / This along with the above remarks of the Abhi bha and the ND go to prove the existence of the front screen in ancient Indian stage The problem has bee elaboratcly discussed in Two Anomymous Pre- cepts of Sanskrit Dramaturgy of the present writer mn the Vishevsharanand Indolocical Jaurnal, Vol IX, II 88 NS GOS XIII The word is also spelt as Kakşā 89 NŚ GOS XXI 90 See inffra Naming of an Anka 91 Cf supra Ańka 92 NLRK I1 379-382 anke'apyeka eva nırvāhayıtā kar tavyah / tasyaıkasya krodha sokādayah pratyakşabhuvo darsayıtavyāh| For illustratian Sagara cites the Asvathāmanka 93 DR III 36 The RS also says the same (p 284) in, ankacchedasca kartavyah kālāvasthānurodhatah | 94 SD below VI 80 p 358

Chapter XIX

1 NLRK I1 308-309, (NŚ GOS XVIII 33, repeated in XIX 114), 1 344 (NŚ GOS XVIII 36, Bhā-pra p 216 1 15) 1l 357-358, (NS GOS XVIII 37) Sāgara's own comments, Il 325 329, 359 361 2 NŚ GOS Vol II pp 421, 422, 425 Below v no 36 (ot the NS XVIII p 425) Abhınava says ankarthasannıvesa- nımıttam ye pravesakāh paňcapyuktāh / 3 NLRK 1 307 Abhinava (GOS Vol II p 421) also says "adrştam apyartham hrdı pıavesayantıtı pravesakāh Here the word pravesaka is used to denote all the Arthopakse- pakas Cf also ND (p 35) apratyakşānarthān sāmāji- kahtdaye pravesayatıtı praveśakah | NLRK 11 330 331 5 San-dā p 72 asūcıtasya pātrasya praveso naiva drsyate / atah pradhāna-pātrānām sūcakah syāt pravesakah |/

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 303

Ruciparı quotes (An rā pp 21 108) asūcitasya pātrasya praveso naiva yujyate and attributes it to Bharata The full verse is quoted in p 70, the second half 1s tato vışkambhakenāsya sūcanam racayed budah, here ıt is ascribed to the Sangītakalpataru 6 Vik u with the com of Ranganatha, p 31 tatha ca devapānı vıracıta-dasarūpaka tıkāyām sāhasānkīya tīkā sammatu apı,-na sūcitasya pātrasya pravesah kvacıd işyate | praveśam sūcayet tasmād amukhyānke pruvešakāt / We know nothing about these two sources of Ranganatha 7 Abhı-saku with the com of Naraharı, p 329, Abhi saku with the com of RB pp 123, 192 nāsūcitasya pātrasya praveso nirgamo'pica RB eites the view to explain the apatıkşepena pravesa of Anasūyā (Act IV) and that of Kañcukın (Act VI) 8 NLRK 1 330 yadāha asūcitasya etc 9 Ranganitha in Vik u Com (p 31) says adhamapā- trena pātrābhyām vā prāktta-bhāşıbhyām sūcyetivrttasūcanam pravesakah View of Rucipatı has been quoted in f n 5 supra 10 Naraharı in his com on the Abhi-saku (p 318) says ankeşu pradhāna-pātra pravesam sūcayannadhama-pātrapra vesah pravesakah | 11 NLRK 11 336 337 We find no reason to amend the readmng, Vyudasa into Vyatysa as done by Dillon Sāgara's gloss on rasa vyudāsārambha (1 341) 1s quite clear The expression means the cessation, end ( vyudāsa ) of one Rasa and the beginning (arambha) of the other 1e, a change of Rasa (rasānām anyathākarana) The NŚ (GOS XVIII 35) reads the verse kālatthāna-gati- rasau vyāklıā samrambha-kārya visayānām | arthābhıdhāna- yuktah etc // Some mass, however read vyatyāsa Cf ms readings 6 (bha) and 7 (na) The Bha pra. (p 216 1 11) reads the first half of the verse as kālotthāpana- nagara-vyatyāsārambhakāma-vsayānām / Śr pra (vol II p 462) reads. rasa vatyāsārambhakāma vışayānam /

304 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

12 NLRK 11 340-342 13 NŚ GOS Vol II pp 424-425 Five uses are - (1) kālo- dayasūcana, (2) vyākhyārthābhıdhāna, (3) samrambhār- thābhıdhāna, (4) kāryārthābhıdhāna, (5) and vısayārthābhi- dhana Abhinava concludes with the comment anyanyapı pravešakasya prayojyān santı / 14 NLRK 11 334-335, NŚ GOS XVIII 34, Bha-pra p 216 11 5-6, Śr pra (Vol II) p 462 1) NLRK I1 338 339 Saktyanka is an "Act of a Rama play which may be Krtya ravana", suggests Dr Raghavan (NLRK Eng Tra p 62) Sagara refers to this Act in three other places, ll 388, 967, 1749 Dr Raghavan (SOLRP p 101) notes "A fuller citation comprising two verses of Rama's lament in this situation is given by Allarāja ın hıs Rasaratnapradīpıkā (p 32) " and also quotes these two verses The Act, as its name suggests, is related to the battle of Lanka, in which Laksmana 1s hit down by Ravana's Sakti weapon. 16 NŚ GOS Vol II p 424 17 DR I 60, SD VI 57 18 ND I 25, RS III 194 19 Śr pra Vol II p 477 pravesakasca vyñeyah saurasenyā dıbhāşaya | 20 NLRK 1 310, NŚ GOS XVIII 28, reads kathānu bandhh 21 NLRK II 311 313 paryanah dāsī-kaňcuki prabhrtayah ye nīca madhamāste pravešakāh kartavyāh // 22 NS GOS Vol II p 421 23 NLRK 1l 314 316 mātrguptah-vita tāpasa-viprādyaır- munıkañcukıbhıh / ıt pravesakam varnayatı / 24 NLRK I1 342-343 yadā ca tāpasādayah pravešakāh santı tatra samskrtapātha eva vıseşah / 25 NLRK. Il 318-319 raıvatıparıaye trtıye'nke tāpasah abhıjnāne trtıye vıprah | sasıkāmadatte trtiye vițah / of the first and the third dramas we known northing and in the NLRK also, they are referred to only here in this context

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 305

26 Cf Abhı saku p 84 But Naraharı seems to follow the view of Sagara when he designates this scene as a Pra veśaka (Abhı-saku p 318) 27 Bha-pra p 216 1l 9-10 vıta tāpasa-vrddhādyaır-munt Kañcukı bhıstathā| praveśakam apīcchantı santah samskr tabhasibhih// Cf also Il 7 8, containing the same idea Śdt reads yrddha in place of NLRK's vipra 28 Abhı śaku pp 233, 318 29 Cf RT chap III It is not unlkely that Sankara means to attribute the view to Nänyadeva, the founder of the Karnataka dynasty in Mithila, the homeland of Sankara Nanyadeva 1s known to be the author of a work called Bharata bhasya In the colophon of the ms of the work (for details see RSP by Mm P V Kane, pp 61-64) Nānyadeva ıs styled Mahā-sāmantadhipati and not Mahārāja 30 NLRK 11 316 317 anyastu prakramādhīnah praveśako nāma | 31 NLRK 11 320 323 prakramādhīnastu aśvatthāmānke yuddha prastāvam adhıkrtya rāksasau| tayor udāttam apı vacanam! 32 Supra p 243 33 NŚ GOS Vol II p 424 anye tvāhuh -udāttam svātma- kārya-vısrāntam vacanam nışıdhyate, 'ānattammı bhattı- dāriāe' ıtyādīnā svakrtyam pradhānopayogyeva drsyate / Cf also ND pp 34 35 mukhya nāyakādı-kārya nısthair na punah sva-krtyaıka-tatparath|yatha 'anatta' etc, as above 34 NLRK I1 321-323 35 Dr Raghavan (NLRK Eng Tra pp 61-62) takes udātta- vacana to mean elevated speech and observes, "If the Pravesaha is of the kind that gives in brief the sequel of the main story (prakrama), it has naturally to be eleva- ted, if, however, it were to present the inferior characters in their own reaction to certamn happenings, then the tone could not be elevated But the speech cited by Sāgara, as udātta-vacana goes to support the above inter- 20a

306 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

pretation referred to as according to the opinion of others by Abhinava 36 NLRK 1l 332 333 sa cānkāntara-sandhışu kartavyah/ tatrānkasyādau na tu madhyāntayorityarthah / This 1s evidently based on ankāntara-sandhişu ca pravesakasteşu tävantah, of the NS (GOS XVIII 29) 37 DR I 61, Avaloka, p 32 anka dvayasyānte itı pratha- mānke pratisedha iti / SD p 348, RS III 194 p 283. 38 ND p 35 kecit praveśakam prathamānkasyādau necchantı ļ 39 Bhā-pra p 215 ll 6, 21 40 NŚ GOS Vol II p 423 ankāntarānu sārītı anka-(anka- yor ?) madhye bhávatīti yāvat / ankāntaram pūrvānkāntaram anusaratı 41 VDP XII 13 (p 314) pātra-dvayena kartavyam tathā nıtyam pravesakam

II Viskambhaka (Vıskambha)

1 NŚ GOS XVIII 54-55, KSS XX 37-38, KM XVIII 89-90 2 NŚ KSS XX 39, KM XVIII 91 3 NŚ GOS XIX 111-112, KSS XXI 109-110, KM XIX 109 110 4 NŚ GOS Vol II p 434 nanu kohalena mukhāńkasya cāyam antarāntare vihitah | madhyama etc The reading of the second half ıs gıven here viskambhako hı kāryo nātakayoge pravešakavat | 5 NS GOS Vol III p 64 The problem will be discuss- ed in our General review of the Arthopaksepakas 5a It is curious that the interlude at the beginning of the Act IV of Abhi-saku has been taken to be a Śuddha Vışkambhaka by Rāghava-bhatta, who says (Abhı śaku p 121) ayamapı śuddha-vışkambhah kevalam prākrtena krtatvāt / Anusūyā and Prıyamvadā, both speaking Prakrit, take part in this scene Rāghava- bhatta perhaps, understands Suddha-vışkambhaka as one where only one language, either Sanskrit or Prakrit, 18 used The two female characters here cannot be,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

according to Raghava bhatta designated as nica-pātra Naraharı (p 329) and Abhırama (p 152) take this scene as a Praveśaka 6 NS GOS Vol II pp 421, 422 (com on XVIII 29) pravesaka-śabdasca maha-sāmānya-vacanah paňcaşu vrttah, ıha tu madhyama-sāmānye pravesaka vışkambhakadvaye vartate | 7 Śr Pra (Vol II pp 462 463) simply quotes from the NŚ 8 DR I 59-61, SD VI 55 57, ND I 23 25, RS III 178- 181, 194 196 The Bha pra (pp 215-216) includes all the divergent views But it defines the Viskambhaka first 9 NLRK 1 364 Cf Ra-ca (Abhı-śaku p 70) praveśaka eva vişkambhakah / 10 NLRK I1 371 372 Sagara (Il 372 373) cites the illustra- tion of Suddha viskambhaka trom the Ma-ma (Act IX) and Sankīrna viskambhaka from the Ramananda where a Ksapanaka and a Kāpālıka take part The SD (below VI 56) also cites the same illustration, but the name of the drama is stated there as Ramabhinanda NLRK refers to the name Ramananda again in 1 385 From the Act kşapanaka kāpālika there are two more citations below ll 3113 and 3117 Citations from the drama also occur in the RS, Sr pra and the Bha-pra where a Śrigadita Rāmānanda 1s also referred to For details see SOLRP pp 82 87 11 NLRK 11 365 368 12 Bha-pra p 215 1l 15-16 In the first half Śdt reads sambandho in place of sambaddho of above The second half there, ıs read as vişkambhārthah sa vijñeyah kathām sasyāpı sūcakah // Šubhankara's readıng (San dā p 72) tallies exactly with that of Sagara excepting in sangato instead of sambaddho 13 Jagaddhara's readıng (Mã ma p 37) of the fourth foot 1s yastu (samyak) kāvyārtha sūcakah / Rucipatı (An rā p 70) gives the verse with Sagara's reading Śankara (Abhı saku p 208) reads the verse as yatah kutaścıd āyātah sambandhı nobhayorapı | vışkambhakah sa vyjeyah

308 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

kathāmātrasya sūcakah // 14 NLRK 1 368 Here a citation is given from the Nāga- varmänka of an unknown drama 15 NLRK Eng Tra p 62 16 NŚ GOS Vol II p 433, ND p 34 vşl abhnātyanu sandhānena vrttam upastambhayatıtı viskambhakah / 17 NŚ GOS Vol II 434 The verse attubuted to Kohala has been quoted before Bha-pra p 215 1 22 nivesah prathamānke'pi vışkambhasyāvadhāryate / p 216 1 1 ādau vıskambhakam kuryād iti bhojena darsıtam / ND p 34 kohalah punar etam prathamānkādā vevecchatı / 18 NŚ GOS Vol II p 434 tathāhi bījam bindusca pratha- mam upaksipeyte, tatra ca prthag janasyālabdha-nıvesatvāt sacıvādı-gocaratvācca tadupakşepe vişkambhakasyaı vāvasara ıtı yad ucyate tadankāntareşvapı mantraguptatāyām tulyam itı tatrāpyanıvārıto vışkambhaka-pravesah / prastāvanānka madhyavartıtāpyuktarva / Cf Bhā-pra p 234 11 11 15 19 DR III 28-30, ND p 34, SD VI 62 20 NŚ Eng Tra Vol I p 397 fn on XXI 107 20a Śr pra Vol II p 463 21 NŚ GOS Vol II p 433 prakarane nāyakāpekşayā pıā yasah upayogıno'pı madhyamā eva sambhavantıtı tatra vış- kambhakasya bāhulyena sambhāvanam itī 22 NLRK Il 362-363 Caryana, as an authority on the Kāmasāstra has been twice referred to in the Kāma-sūtra, 1 1 12 and I 5 22 22a NLRK 11 2789-2790 23 Supra, definition of Vıskambhaka 24 NŚ GOS XVIII 33 (KSS XX 32, KM XVIII 35) Abhinava (Vol II p 424) says mıta-kāryopadesāt na tathā pravesakopayoga iti anyatra rūpake parı

25 ND p 35 26 We cannot accept the observation of Dr S N Shastri (LPSD p. 66) that the above statement of the ND "does not amount to an established principle of dramaturgy, nor has it any support in Bharata's canons", for the reasons stated above

OF ANCILNT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 509

III Aňkāvatāra (Garbhānka)

1 NLRK 1 397 2 NLRK 11 398-399 3 Bhā-pra (p 218 1l 16-17) reads samāpyamāna ekasmı- nnıtarānkasya / and nātyajñaih ın place nātyoktaih of the NLRK in the second half 4 Ma ma p 369 reading differs from that of the NLRK ın ekasmınnanke'nyasyaca /, the second half is found as in the Bha pra 5 NLRK Eng Tra p 62 Bahurūpa ın hıs Rūpadīpıkā reads the verse samāpyamānam ekasmınnanke'nyārthatva- sūcanam| samāpyatı hı nātyajaır ankāvatāra isyate // (on DR 1 62) (Taken fram Garbhānka its genesis and deve- lopment by Dr K K Datta Shastri, OH Vol VII pt I p 48) Śdt (Bhā-pra p 287 ll 7-9) speaks of two recensions of the NS consisting of 12000 and 6000 verses respectively The present NS however, consists near- about 5000 verses 6 NLRK 11 400-406 7 Mã ma p 369 At the end of the Act VIII Makaranda says astyetat, kıntu bhagavatı pādamūla gamanamapyā sankate. Jagaddhara comments tadıha bhagavati-pāda mūleti sādhārana padollekhena mālatyā bhavışyat saudāmını- pārśva-gamanasya sūcanena navamānkāvatāro'pi sūcitah | Then the above definition is quoted In the same work (p 79) Jagaddhara quotes another definition of the same 8 SD VI 58-59 ankānte sūcıtah pātraıstad ankasyāvıbhā- gatah || yatrānko'vataratyeşo'nkāvatāra iti smrtah / After this Visvanātha remarks yathā-abhyñāne paňcamānke pātraıh sūcıtah şaştānkastad ankasyānga-višeşa ıvāvatırnah / 9 The Vıkram, Kalıdas special number, 1960 The fisher man episode n the Abhi-śaku pp 51, 63 10 DR I 62 ankāvatārastvankānte pāto'nkasyāvibhāgatah / Dhanka specifically says pravesaka-vışkambhakādı- sūnyam /

310 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KSOSA IN THE PERSPECIIVE

11 DR (Avaloka), p 33 12 Bha pra p 218 ll 13, 18-20, 22 13 SD VI 58-59 14 PRYB p 116 15 RS III 191-192 ankāvatār ah pātrānām pūr vakāryānuvartı nām | avıbhāgena sarveşām bhāvinyanke pravesanam // 16 NC p 58 The second foot ıs read pūrvānkārthānu- vartınām / 17 NS GOS XIX 115, KSS XXI 115, KM XIX 115 18 NŚ GOS Vol II p 421 yathoktam ankāntara evānko nıpatatı yasmın prayogam āsādya|nātyārtha kathā yogād vijřeyo'nkā vatāro'sau / Here the word ankantare is mis- leading, the use of the seventh case ending may be taken to signify in an anka But the introductory sentence kathayaıva' etc, as given below, and also the reading of the NS (given above) suggest that the word antara here signifies proximity The whole word may also be gram matıcally explaıned as anyah akah ankāntaram and then the adhıkarana ıs to be taken as aupaśleşıka lıke vate gavah suserate Cf also the view of the ND below 19 NŚ GOS Vol II p 421 kathayawa paraspara-ślıştayā nubaddho'nkāvatārah | 20 ND I 27 p 36 so'nkāvatāro yat pātraırankāntaram asucanam / In the gloss it is said avcchinnārthatayā sūcanīyārthasyābhāvāt | pravesaka-vışkambhaka-sūcana rahıtam ankāntaram bhavatı | 21 NLRK Eng Tra p 62 22 NŚ GOS Vol II p 417 Here also the use of the seventh case ending creates confusion, but the word yogah supports our interpretation 23 NŚ GOS Vol II p 417 yatra tvanke sarveşām ankānām yo'artho byalakşanastasya samhārah sammılıtatvena prāptır bhavati so'vatārankah / This is a part of Abhnava's gloss on yatrarthasya etc, of the NS (GOS) XVIII 16 The full verse has been quoted before Abhinava does not accept the traditional interpretation of the verse as

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 311

describing an Anka (Cf supra Chap VIII, Anka) In his opinion it describes three types of Ankas, as according to the view of Kohala The above illustration has also been cited in the Bha-pra p 219 ll 1-2 24 Śr pra (Vol II), pp 462-463 25 Cf supra fn 18 26 Śr pra (Vol II) p 471 garbhānka cūlıkā nkāvatāra- vıskambhaka-pravesaka-vıdhānam 27 Śr pra (Vol II) p 477 28 Supra, second view of Abhinava 29 Bhã pra p 219 1 9 30 ND I 27, p 36 31 ND p 36 anye tu yatrānke anyānkānām byalakşano'artho'- avatāryate tam ankāvatāram āmananti| yathā ratnāvalyām / 32 ND pp 36-37 33 OH Vol VIF pt I Garbhanka p 50 34 SD VI 20 and below 35 Bāl rā Ed Jivananda Calcutta 1884 36 R$ III 206 211 37 NC p 60 38 For fuller treatment of the topic vide Dr K K Datta Shastrı's article "Garbhanka Its genesis and develop- ment in Sanskrit" in the OH Vol VII pt I pp 37-58

IV Anka-mukha (Ankāsya)

1 NLRK 1 408 sūtranam sakalānkānām jñeyam anka mukham budhaır ıti/ 2 NLRK 11 410-412 3 Bha-pra p 218 ll 7-10 4 NLRK Eng Tra p 62 5 NŚ GOS XIX 116 višlışta mukham ankasya strıyā vā puruşena vālyad upaksıpyate pūrvam tad-anka mukham usyate// Abhınava (Vol II p 417) ascribes the verse to Kohala 6 DR I 62 ankānta-pātraır ankāsyam chınnānkasyārtha-

312 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

sūcanāt| Avaloka (p 32) ankānta eva pātram ankānta pātram/ tena vıslıştasyottarānka mukhasya sūcanam tadvašenottarā- nkāvatāro'nkāsyam it / ND 1 26, p 35, RS III 188- 189 7 Śr pra Vol II p 463, Śr pra (Vol II p 477) gives the same illustration as NLRK 8 Bha-pra 214 1 22 9 Bha-pra p 218 ll 1-2 10 Bhã pra p 218 ll 7 10 11 Bha-pra p 217 ll 21-22, p 218 1l 11 12 12 SD VI 59 60 yatra syād anke ekasmınnankānām sūcanā- khılā|tad ankamukham ıtyāhur bījārtha khyāpakam ca yat |/ yatha mālatimādhave etc 13 SD VI 60 and below, pp 349-350 It is interesting to note that Visvanatha here seems to identify Dhanañjaya and Dhanıka 14 SD below VI 60 p 350 anye tu ankāvatārenaıvedam gatārtham ıtyāhuh | 15 NC p l 16 NC p 58

V Cūlıkā

1 NLRK I1 412-413 cūlıkā samjñā-sabdo'yam nepathya- sthanasthitanam (Dr Raghavan's enendation accepted NLRK Eng Tra p 72) (The text reads nepathye) kārya- vaśād vıhıtānām ālapanam / NLRK 11 414-415 The second quarter of the verse Is 2 found in the Bha-pra (p 217 1 18) Bhoja (Śr pra Vol II p 463) also read mägadha-sütādıbhıh 3 DR I 62, Avaloka p 32, ND I 26, p 35, SD VI 58, NC p 58 These texts maintaın that Cülika is the sūcana (indication) of the artha But Sagara by arthopa- kşepana means arthaprakāsana (1 417) 4 NLRK 1 416-417 4a Journal of the University of Gauhati, Vol III p 18.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 313

4b Cf Bha pra p 294 1 6 Here in a list of sadasyas Śdt mentions one nāndı mangala-pāthoka 5 NLRK 1 426 The illustrations of Culika, performed by Suta and Vandin are cited from the th rd Acts of the V sam and Mu ra (ll 418 425) and of those where leading characters take part are cited from the Act VI of the V sam and Act I of the Janakı-raghava where Bhima and Ravana respectively, do the job of artha prakāsana This contention of Sāgara that even major characters take part mn Cūlka is supported by a readirg found in the KSS edition of the NS (XXI, III) Here the second quarter of the verse is read as uttamādhama- madhyamarh 6 NLRK 11 437 439 The GOS ed of the NS defines Cūlıkā as antaryavanıkāsamsthaıh sūtādıbhır anekadhā | ai thopaksepanam yattu krıvate sā hı cūlıkā // Abhinava's commentary on this verse is not available Sagara's yatha patı , as given above, is not from the Nātya-sāstra None of the above two definitions (ascribe to Bharata and Asmakutta) also is exactly similar to that of the NS 7 NŚ GOS Vol II p 417 8 ND p 35 9 RS III 182-188 10 NC p 58 11 RS III 187 12 RS p 281 282

VI A general review of the Arthopaksepakas

1 NŚ GOS XIX 110-116, KM XIX 108-116, KSS XXI 108-116 2 NŚ GOS Vol III p 64, Dr Raghavan also maintains (NLRK Eng Tra p 62, note on 1 437) that these verses of the NS are later additions from Kohala or some post-Bharata writer 3 OH Vol VII pt I pp 41-45 Garbhãnka 20b

314 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

4 OH Vol VII pt I p 41 5 NŚ GOS XXXVII 18 seşam uttaratantrena kohalah kathayısyatı / 6 Mm P V Kane HSP p 24 7 Mm P V Kane HSP p 24 7a Cf Ankavatāra, supra, f n 18, and the definition quoted above that 8 NŚ GOS Vol II p 421 9 NŚ GOS Vol II pp 421, 422, 427 10 Dr K K Datta Shastrı, Garbhänka, OH Vol VII pt 1 p 46 It may be noted that the Garbkinka itself is a scene in an Act but came to be recognised later, as shown before 11 Rucipatı (An rā p 77) takes Cūlıkā as a decoratıve device , ayam eva cūdıkā nāmālankārah 12 Cf U ca Act II The Act begins with a Cūlıkā 13 NS GOS Vol II pp 416-417 tatl a coktam kohalādau (Kohalena ?) trıdhāňko 'nkāvatārena cūdayānka-mukhena vā / arthopakşepanam cūdā bahvarthath sūta-vandıbluh // ankasyānkāntare yagastvavatārah prakīrtitah / vślışta-mukham ankasya strıyā vā puruşena vā // yadupakşıpyate pūrvam tadanka mukham işyate | 14 Cf f n 8 supra 15 NLRK 1 396 16 NLRK 1 306 17 NLRK 1 364 18 Abhı-śaku p 188 kvacıt pustake trtīyah pravetakah iti pāthah|tatra vışkambhadvayam trtīya-catūrthayor-ankayoh saşthe trttyah pravesakah ityarthah | 19 Abhı-śaku p 70 20 DSL p 54 21 NLRK 1 307 (explained before) 22 DSL p 55 23 DSL p 54.

JY ANGIENI INDIAN URAMA & DRAMATURGY

24 DR I 56 58, Bhã pra p 214 11 15 22, ND I 23, SD VI 51 52

Chapter X

1 NŚ GOS IV 23, 10 The NŚ altogether refers to three dramatic representations The title of the first one is not given, it is referred to (I 57) as, yathā daityāh suraırjıtāh Abhinava (Vol I p 26) says of it, dımasama- vakār ehāmrgādınām anyatamah prayogah / Maha-bhasya on Paninı's III I 26 pratyakşam kamsam 2 ghātayantı pratyak şam balım bandhayantı 3 NLRK Il 383-387 pradhāna-vastu nırdesād bhavatı hi nātakādınām nāmeti | pradhānasya nırdesād vastu mırdesād vā nātakadınām nāma kartavyam| yathā jānakī rāghavam nāma nātakamļr āmānandam| vastu-nırdesāt kunda mālā nāma nātakam| prakaranam apı mālatī mādhavam nāma|vastu nırdesan mrcchakatıkā nāma prakaranam/ It may be noted that the title Ramananda neither refers purely to the pradhana nor indicates the theme only Here the name of the pradhana is associated with an mndication to the plot 4 Bhā-pra p 300 1 3 nāyakādı seems to be the intended readıng as the tıtle Rāmābhyudaya has been cited (1 4) for illustration which contains both the name of the hero and the chief motif of the theme 5 Al Sa IX 30 31 6 SD VI 142-143 7 An ra p 15 8 Abhi-śaku p 163

(11) Title of the Anka

1 NLRK 387 388 2 Vidyanatha also gives names to the Acts of his udaharana- nātaka PRYB 3 Bha-pra - NLRK

316 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECIIVE

Gaurīgrha (Act I of Nāgā) p 219 1 1 1 400 Cıtrasalānka (?) p 250 1 16 Il 2818-2819 Pumsavanānka (from Chalıtarāma) p 250 1 20- 11 2820 2821 Kulapatyanka (Act II of Udātta-rāghava) p 279 1 10 - ll 3111 3112 Names of two other Acts, Aśvatthamanka (Act III of V sam) and Caitravali (Act I of R V ) referred to in the Bha-pra (pp 217, 237 ll 17, 15) are also found in the NLRK in different contexts than the former SD (with Laksmī tīkā) NLRK Asvatthāmānka, pp 348, 372-373 ll 321, 728-729, 739 respectively Grhavrksavātıkā (Act I of Puspadūsitaka) p 419 - 11 1714-1715 Kumbhānka (Act V of Udātta rāghava) p 421 - 1 1806 Vıbhīsana-nırbhartsanānka, p 421 1 1810 Anutapanka (Act ? of Chalitarāma) p 422 1 1825 Sundaranka (Act IV of V Sam) p 425 - 11 1798 1799 (For identification of Acts referred to in the NLRK Cf Dr Raghavan's notes, NLRK Eng Tra p 71) 4 Dr G Sastrı CHCSL p 97 5 D. S N Dasgupta HSL p 717, Sukthankar JBRAS. 1925 p 141 KR Pisharoti, Nāndı-A note, BSOS Vol VI 1930 32 pp 819 20 6 Mã ma (with the Com of Jagaddhara) p 81 7 Bhā pra p 287 Il 7-9, for the problem of Ādı bharata see the Paper on the topic by Dr S K De, Our Heritage Vol I Pt II 8 NS GOS Vol I (Second edition), p 59 0 Supra Byja (pp 45 47) Nirvahana-sandhi (p 118), Pravesaka (p 240), Vışkambhaka (p 253)

Chapter XI

1 Maha bhasya as quoted in the Sıddhanta kaumudt.

OF ANGIENI INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 317

2 LPSD p 319 3 Skt Dr p 326 4 NLRK 11 1045, 1052 5 Abhı-bha Vol III p 88 tena pañca vrttayo dve vrtti ıtyādayo'samvıdıta-bharatābhıprāya-pandıta sahrdayammanya par ıkalpıtasadbhāvāh pravādā nırastā bhavantı / Vol I p 269 dve tısrah pañcet nırākaranāya catsra ityuktam / 6 JOR Vol II pt 2 p 91 7 Abhı-bhã Vol II p 451 8 LPSD p 325 9 DR II 60-61 and also the Avaloka on the verse 10 Bhā-pra p 12 1 6 11 & 12 Abhı-bha Vol II p 451 The portion tasmāt rūpa (1n 12) in the text is read as tasmāc ceștātmikā nyāya vrttır-anyāya vrttır-vāgrupā This 1s evidently currupt The reading offered by Dr Raghavan (JOR Vol VII pt 2 p 42) from Madras manuscript as tasmāc ceştātmikā nyāya-vrttır-anyāya vrttır vā, does not appear satısfactory as it omits vāk 13 Abhı-bhã Vol II p 452 14 Abhi-bhã Vol II pp 451 2 phala vrttau ca vrtti samā nya-lakşanam vyāpāra rūpatvam yadı nāstı tat katham vrttitvam | yatkıñcıd ıha nātye samastı tacced vrttişvan tarbhāvyam tadā bhaved etat| na caıvam| rango hı nāma kā vrtth / na hı kımcıd vyāpāra-šūnyam varnanīyam astıļ mada-mūrchadı varnanāyām apı mano-vyāpārasya sambha- vāt| na hı sarvam nātyam vrttı brahmatayā samarthamyam / 15 Śr-pra Vol II p 485 nāyakopanāyakādınām mano-vāk- kāya-krama nıbandhanāh paňca vrttayo bhavantı| bhāratī vımısrā ceti 16 NLRK I1 1048 49

II Characteristics of Different Vrtti-s

1 LPSD Chap VII 2 NLRK 1 1068

918 NAIARA.LARSANA KAINA-KOSA IN LLE PLRSPLUIIVL

A Bhāratı

3 NŚ (GOS) XX 26, NLRK 1 1054 57 4 Cf NS GOS XX 32 and 39 lakşanam purvam u' tam tu vithyāh prahasanasya ca / 5 NŚ GOS XX 28, NLRK 11 1070 71 6 NŚ GOS V 59 upak sepena kāvyasya hetu yuktı samāstuyā/ sıddhenāmantranam yā tu vijeyā sā prarocanā // Ct also V 135 7 NŚ GOS XX 29 see fn thereon 8 NLRK 1 1073 9 NLRK I1 1080-86 10 NLRK II 1087-91 11 DR III 6, Bha-pra p 197, ND p 138, SD VI 30 12 NŚ GOS XX 31, NLRK 1 176 13 Abh1-bhã Vol I pp 249-50 14 OH Vol V pt I and Vol IX pt I

B Sāttvatī

1 NLRK 11 1234 38, NS GOS XX 41 yā sāttvateneha gunena yuktā nyāyena vrttena samanvtā ca| harşotkatā samhrta šoka-bhāvā sā sāttvatī nāma bhavettu vrttth // The second foot in the NLRK reads tyagena sauryena and in the third foot, harsottard instead of harsothala of the NS Sagara's reading is supported by those of mss of the NS Cf tn 10, 12 below the above 2 Abhi-bha Vol III p 96 3 NŚ GOS XX 42 4 ND p 139 5 NLRK 1 1273, NS GOS XX 43 6 NŚ XX 44 reads Sallapa. 7 NLRK I1 1276 78 utthāsyāmyam ahamtvam(tāvat) daršayāt- manaļ saktim | arere pruharasva paśyāmaste šaktım ityādı / samgharşāśrāyad vāpi prajnair-utthāpako matah / The first line is from the NS. (XX 45) where it reads:

F ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 319

aham-apyutthasyami tvam etc The second one may be taken as an illustration The third line is similar to the second half of the above verse of the NS where the readıng is, iti samghar sa-samutthas tajjair . / 8 DR II 54, RS I 265, SD VI 130 9 NLRK I1 1279 82 and 1285-86 0 NŚ GOS XX 46 1 DR IF 55, RS I 267, SD VI 132 2 NLRK 1 1288, NS GOS XX 48 3 DR II 54, RS I 264-65, SD VI 132 4 NŚ GOS XX 50, NLRK 11 1298-99, DR II 55, SD VI 131, RS I 266 5 NLRK I1 1300 02 6 ND p 139 ıdam ca mānasam karma vıcıtrābhır-gambhīro- ktıbhıh prārabdha-kāryā-parıtyāgāt kāryāntara parigrahena samgrāmāya parotsāhena sāmādı-prayoga-daivādınā arı- sanghāta bhed : jananenānyaısca bahubhıh' prakāraır lakşyata itt /

C Kaısıkı

1 N GOS XX 53 2 NŚ GOS XX 54-55 3 SD VI 124 4 NLRK II 1304 07 5 NLRK 1 672 6 NIRK I1 1310 11 7 NLRK 1 1312 upasthāpıta srngāram hāsyapravacana prāyam narma varnayanty ācār yah | 8 NŚ GOS XX 57-58 9 Abhı bhã Vol III 100 101 0 NLRK 1I 1327-30 11 NLRK 11 2828-32 12 NLRK I1 1331-32 13 NLRK 11 1334 35 14 DR II 48 50, RS I 270-76, SD VI 125-26, NC pp 68 69

320 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

15 NLRK 11 1336-38 The situation referred to may be from the third act of the Mālavikāgnimitram 16 N GOS XX 60 and Abhı bhã thereon 17 DR II 51 18 RS I 277 78 19 SD VI 127, NC p 69 20 Abhı-śaku wıth Ra-ca p 225 nāyıkāyāśca netuśca yade- kante parasparam| sambhogānumatam vākyam narma- sphotah sa ucyate // 21 Mā-mā p 273 narmasphotastu bhāvānām dehasthānām prakāsanam / 22 NLRK II 1338-40 23 NŚ GOS XX 61 vyñānarūpasobhādhanādıbhır nāyako gunaır yatra| pracchannam vyavaharate kāryavasān-narma- garbho'sau // 24 DR II 52 25 SD VI 127 26 Mā-mā p 290 kārya-kāranato yatra nāyako gopayet tanum | narmagarbhah sa kathito 27 RS I 279 28 NŚ GOS XX 62 pūrvasthıtau vıpadyeta nāyako yatra cāparas-tışthet | tamapıha narmagarbham vidyān nātya- poryogeşu !/ 29 RS I 279-80 pūrvasthıto vıpadyeta nāyako yatra vā parastışthet tamapīha narmagarbham pravadatı bharato hı nātyaveda-guruh // 30 NLRK ll 1342-43 navasangama-sambhogo yatra jāyeta subhruvah | narmasphaňjo hyasau jřeyastvavasāna-bhayā- nakah // NŚ GOS XX 59 31 NLRK 11 1344 45 32 Abhı-bhã Vol III p 100 33 DR II 51, SD VI 127

D Ārabhatī

1 NŚ. GOS XX. 64

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 321

2 NŚ (GOS) XX 65 There is a third one (66) which according to the editor interpolated 3 NLRK I1 1348-49 4 NLRK 1 1350 5 NŚ GOS XX 68 6 NLRK 11 1358-59 7 LPSD p 323 8 NLRK Eng tra p 31 9 Dr M Ghosh NS p 409 10 Ah-bha Vol III p 103 11 See "Pusta in Sanskrit Drama and Dramaturgy" (OH Vol IX pt 11) of the present writer 12 NLRK 11 1364 67 13 DR II 57-58 and Avaloka thereon 14 SD VI 135 36 15 ND p 140-41 16 NLRK 1 1371 and 11 1368 69 17 NŚ GOS XX 69 18 DR II 59, SD VI 136, RS I 284 19 NLRK 11 1372-79 20 NŚ GOS XX 70 21 DR II 59, SD VI 136, RS I 284 22 NLRK 11 1380 84, NŚ GOS XX 71 23 DR II 58, RS I 285, SD VI 135 24 NLRK 1 1380, vıra raudrādbhuta prāyaır yuktah /

III Vrtti and Rasa

1 NS GOS XX 73-74 and footnotes thereon 2 NLRK I1 1358-62 3 NLRK I1 1063-67 4 Abhı-bhã Vol III p 105 5 Abhı bhã Vol III p 452 6 HSP p 24 7 JOR Vol VII Pt 2 pp 45-46 8 DR II 62, SD VI 122 21a

322 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

9 RS p 87 10 ND p 130 10a RS p 87 11 Abhı bhã Vol III p 105 atra sama-sabdah (sabdena?) sānta rasa parıgraha itı tadvādıno manyanta | samāsretyanye pathantı / 12 NLRK 1 1272 13 NŚ KM XX 39, NS (Eng tra) Dr M M Ghosh XXI 40 14 NLRK Il 1258 63, cf Abhi-bha Vol I p 273 where the first verse is quoted 15 NS XX 43 and Abhı bha which runs as śrngāre vişaya- - nımagnam manah na sātısayam parısphuratīti 15a RS p 83 16 Abhı-bhā, Vol II 452 karuna-pradhānā bhāratī vrttth parıdevitabāhulyāt / yattu śrngāra utt kohalenoktam tan muni-matavırodhā upekşyam eva / 17 NŚ GOS VI 39 18 NLRK Il 1972-73 raudra-bıbhatsa-bhayānakāh bhāratyā- rabhati-vışayāh / 19 DR II 62, SD VI 122 20 RS p 87 21 NŚ GOS Vol II Introduction p XX

IV Vrttı and Rīti

1 NLRK I1 1232-33, 1302, 1346, 1385 respectively, cf also 11 1971 74 2 NLRK I1 1389 90 3 NLRK 11 1971-74.

V Nature and Mutual Relation of the Vrtti s

1 NLRK 1 1386, NŚ GOS XVIII 4 sarvesāmeva kāvyānām (nātyānām) mātrkā vrttayah smittāh / abhyo vinisrtam hyetaddašarūpam prayogatah //

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 323

la NLRK 11 1046 47 2 San-dā, p 73 3 NLRK 1 1046, Kāvya-mimāmsā (GOS), 3rd ed p 9 4 Śr-pra Vol II p 486 5 Abhi bha Vol III p 83 6 ND p 135 7 DR p 57 SD p 392 89 NLRK 1 1048 10 NLRK 1 1050 11 Abhı-bhã Vol III p 91 12 ND p 135 catasra iti caturbhedatvam anyatama-cestāmsa- prādhānya vıvaksayā, aparathāneka vyāpāra-samvalıtam ekam eva vrtti tattvam / 13 DR p 61 14 SR p 71 15 DR III 2,4 pūr varangam vıdhāyādau sūtradhāre vinirgate / praviśya tadvadaparah kāvyam āsthāpayen natah // rangam prasādya madhuraıh slokaıh kāvyārthasūcakarh / rtum kañcıt samādāya bhāratīm vrttım āsrayet // It is interesting to note that Jagaddhara attributes the second verse to Bharata (Mā-mā p 6) and Rāghava- bhatta to Dhanıka (Abhı-saku p 8) 16 NS GOS XX 28 17 NS GOS XX 31 18 NS GOS XVIII 107 vıthyangaıh samyuktam kartavyam prahasanam yathā yogam | 19 Abhı-saku 13, NLRK ll 1185-86, DR III 9 20 NLRK 1 1228 21 JOR Vol VI Pt IV 22 Abhı-bha Vol III p 91 23 Abhı bha Vol III p 91 24 ND p 36 prarocanāmukhayor anytrāpı ca rūpakaikadese prākrtādıpāthena bhāratī darsanāt prāyo grahanam arthavat | sarva rūpakabhāvıtvāt rasānām ca vāgjanyatvāt sarvarasā tmakatva |

BOOKS AND JOURNALS ETC CONSULTED

I Ancient Texts and Gommentaries Abhidhana cintamanı of Hemacandra-Ed Bothlingk & Riew, 1847 Abhyjñana sakuntalam of Kalıdāsa-(With Raghava-bhatta's commentary Arthadyotamka) Ed N B Godbole, tenth edition, Bombay, 1933 (With the commentary of Abhi- rāma) Śr Vānīvilas Sanskrit Series, 13, Srirangam, Ed J K Balasubrahamanyam (With the commentaries Rasa candrıkā and Tıppani of Sankara and Naraharı) Ed Ramanatha Jha, Mithila Institute of P G Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning, Darbhanga Agnı purana (with Bengali Translation) Bangabashi, Calcutta Alankara samgraha of Amrtananda yogin, Ed V Krıshna macarıya Anargha raghava of Murari (With the commentary of Ruci- patı) Ed Durgaprasada and K P Paraba, NSP, 1887 Avi-māraka of Bhāsa (Bhāsanā takacakra) Ed C R Devadhar (2nd ed ), Poona, 1951 Abhıseka of Bhasa (Bhāsanatakacakra) Ed C R Devadhar (2nd ed ), Poona, 1951 Āscarya cūdamani of Saktibha dra-Ed Bālamanoramā Series, IX, Madras, 1926 Bala carita of Bhasa Ed C R Devadhar, 1951 Bala Bhārata (Pracanda pandava) of Rājasekhara, Ed Kāvyamālā, 17, Bombay 1889 Bala-rāmayana of Rajasekhara-Jıvananda Vıdyasagara, Calcutta, 1884 Bhagavadajjukiyam of Bodhayana Kavi-Ed P Anujan Achan, Trichur, 1925 Bhavaprakasana of Saradātanaya-GOS, XLV, 1930 Brhat-katha-mañjar of Kscrnendra-Ed Kāvyamālā, 69, Bombay, 1901

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 32)

Candrakala of Visvanatha, Ed S N Rajguru and Sarvesavar Das, Bhubaneswar, 1958 Caturbhani, Ed M R Kavi & S K Ramanatha Sastri, Sıvapuri, 1922 Carudatta of Bhasa, Ed C R Devadhar, 1951 Dasarupaka of Dhanañjaya (with Avaloka of Dhanıka)-Ed K P Parab, Fifth Edition, NSP, 1941, Ed C Haas New York, 1922, Ed Dr Bholasankara Vyasa, Chow- khamba, 1962 Duta ghatotkaca of Bhasa-Ed T Ganapatı Sastrı, TSS, XXII, 1912 Dutavakya of Bhasa-Ed T Ganapati Sastri, TSS , XXII, 1912 Dutangada of Subhata-Ed Durgaprasad & K P Parab, Kāvyamālā 28, Bombay, 1891 Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana (with Locana)-Ed Acarya Jagannatha Pathaka, 1965 ; Ed NSP, Bombay, 1911 Harı vamsa, Ed Pratapcandra Roy, Calcutta Kalyāna saugandhikā of Nilakantha, Ed Laksmanasvarupa, Lahore Karnabhāra of Bhasa Ed C. R Devadhar, 1951 Karpūra-mañjari (with the commentary of Vasudeva), Ed NSP, 1927 ; Ed Dr Manomohan Ghosh, C U, 1939 Kāma-sūtra of Vātsyāyana, Ed Pancanana Tarkaratna, Cal- cutta, 1334 (Bengali San) Kavyadarsa of Dandın, Ed Jivananda Vidyasagar, Calcutta, 1934 Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammata, Ed Anandāśrama-Samskrta granthāvalı, No 66, 1929 Kāvya mīmamsa of Rajasekhara-Ed GOS 1934 Kāvyanusāsana of Hemacandra-Ed Kāvyamālā, 71, 1901 Kundamāla of Dinnāga, Ed Dr K K Dutta Sastrı, Calcutta Sanskrit College Research Series XXVIII, 1964 Kuttanimata of Damodaragupta, Ed Tridibnath Roy, Calcutta Madhyama vyayoga of Bhasa-Ed C R Devadhar, 1951 Mahānātaka (Dāmodara's version, styled Hanuman nātaka), Ed Bapu Hara Sett, Develekar, 1863

326 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPLCTIVE

Mahānātaka (Madhusūdana's version), Ed Jıvananda Vıdya- sagar, Calcutta, 1939 Mahaviracarita of Bhavabhuti, Ed Anundoram Borooha, Calcutta, 1877 Mahābhāsya, Ed NSP 1917 Mālatımādhava of Bnavabhūtı, Ed Kunjabeharı Tarkasıd dhanta, Calcutta 1919 (with the com of Jagaddhara), Ed R G Bhandarkar, 1905 Mālavıkāgnimitra of Kalidasa (with the commentary of Katayavema), Ed S P Pandıt, Bombay, 1389 Mrcchakatıka of Sudraka (with the commentaries of Lalla Dīksita & Prthvidhara), Ed N B Godbole, Bombay, 1896 Ed V R Nerurkar, 1937, Ed Mm Harıdas Sıddhantavagish, 1922 Mudrāraksasa (With the commentary of Dhundirāja), Ed K T Telang, Bombay, 1893, Ed K H Dhruva, 2nd Ed, Poona, 1923, Ed R R Deshpande, (2nd Ed ), 1948 Nagara-sarvasava of Padmasri (With Jagajjyoti-malla's commentary), Ed Bombay, 1921 Nagananda of Sriharsa, Ed Nabinchandra Vidyaratna, Calcutta, 1887 (With Abhirama's commentary), Ed T Ganapatı Sastrı, TSS, LIX, 1917 Nātaka-candrıkā of Rūpagosvāmın, Ed Purīdāsa Mahāsaya, Maimansıng, 1948 Nataka-laksana-ratnakosa of Sāgaranandın, Ed Myles Dillon, London, 1937 Natya-darpana of Ramacandra-Gunacandra Ed GOS, XLVIII, 1959 (Revised Second Ed ) Natya-sastra of Bharata (With Abhinava bharati), Vol I GOS, XXXVI, 1956 (Second Ed), Vol II GOS, LXVIII 1934, Vol III GOS, CXXIV, 1954, Ed Kashı Sanskrıt Series, 60, 1929 , Ed Kāvya mālā, Bombay, 1943 Pañca ratra of Bhasa, Ed C R Devadhar, 1951 Pārtha-parākrama-vyāyoga of Prahladana, Ed Chimanlal D Dalal, GOS, 1917

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 327

Parvati-parinaya of Bana-Ed M R Telang, Bombay, 1916 Prabodha candrodaya of Krsnamiśra-Ed Mahesh Pal, Calcutta, 1887 Prataparudra-yasobhūsaņa of Vidyanātha (With the commen- tary of Kumarasvāmın)-Ed K P Trived1, Bombay, 1909 Pratijñayaugandharayana of Bhasa-Ed C R Devadhar, 1951 Pratima-nataka of Bhasa Ed -C R Devadhar, 1951-Ed S M Paranjape, Poona, 1930 Prıyadarsıkā of Śrıharşa-Ed Jvananda Vıdyasagara, Cal- cutta, 1874 Rasarnava sudhakara of Singabhupāla-Ed T Ganapatı - Sastrı, TSS, 1916 Ratnavalı of Sriharsa-Ed S Roy, Calcutta, 1919 Raja tarangini of Kahlana-Ed Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 1835 Ed Calcutta Sanskrit Series, Calcutta, 1933 Ramayana of Valmiki (N W Recension)-Ed Bhagavad Datta, Lahore, 1931 Sarasvatı kanthabharana of Bhoja-Ed A Barooah, Calcutta, 1883 Sāhıtya-darpana of Viśvanātha-(With Laksmuuīka)-Ed Kāśı Samskrta granthamāta 145 (Second editon) 1955 Śrngara prakasa of Bhoja (Vol II)-Ed G R Josyer, Mysore 1963 Samkalpa-sūryodaya of Venkatanātha Vedāntadeśıka Kavı tārkıkasımha, Ed K Srinivasacharya, Conjeevaram, 1914 Sangita Damodara of Subhankara-Ed Dr Gourinath Sastri and Dr Govindagopal Mukhopadhyaya, Calcutta Sans- krit College Research Series No XI, 1960 Svapna vāsavadattā (Svapna-nātaka) of Bhāsa-Ed C R Devadhar, 1951 Tāpasa vatsaraja carita of Anangaharsa-Ed Jadugirı Jatı raja, Bangalore, 1928 Tika sarvasva of Sarvananda-Ed T Ganapati Sastrı, TSS 38, Trıvandrum, 1938 Orubhanga of Bhasa-Ed C R Devadhar, 1951

328 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Uttara rāma carita of Bhavabhūti (With Virarāghava's Commentary)-Ed Narayana Rama Acarya, NSP 1949, Ed Gurunath Vıdyanıdhı, Calcutta, 1328 (Bengalı San), Ed S K Belvalkar, 1921 Vakroktı-jıvita of Kuntaka-Ed S K De, Calcutta, 1928 Vıddha-śālabhañjıkā of Rājaśckhara, Ed B R Arte, Poona, 1886 Vıkramorvasıya of Kālıdāsa (With Ranganātha's commen- tary) Ed K P Parab (Second edition) NSP, Bombay, 1897 (The Koneśvari Tıka only) Ed H D Velankar, ABORI Vol 38, pts 3 4, pp 256-294 Visnudharmottara-purāna-Ed CXXX 1958 Veni-samhara of Bhattanarayana (With the commentary of Tārānātha Tarkavācaspatı) Ed Jivananda Vıdyasagar, (5th edition) 1934 Ed Tārānātha Tarkavācaspatı, Cal- cutta, 1868

Modern Books

A Concise History of Classıcal Sanskrıt Literature-Dr Gauri- nath Sastri, Calcutta, 1960 A History of Sanskrit Literature-A B Keith, 1941 A History of Sanskrit Literature, Vol I (classical period), Calcutta University, 1947 Aspects of Sanskrit Literature-Dr S K De, Calcutta, 1959 Bangala Sāhıtyera Itıhāsa-Dr Sukumar Sen, 3id ed, Calcutta Bangalira Itihasa-Dr Nıhar Ranjan Roy, Calcutta Bharata Kośa-M R Kavi, Tırupatı, 1951 Bhasa-A study-A D Pusalker, Lahore, 1940. Bhasa-A S P Ayyar, Madras, Indian Men of Letters Series, 1957 Bhoja's Śrngāra-Prakāsa-Dr V Raghavan, 1963 Comparative Acsthetics (Vol I)-Dr K C Pandey, 1951 Contribution to the History of the Hındu Drama-Dr Mano mohan Ghosh, Calcutta, 1958.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 329

Drama in Sanskrit Literature-R V Jagirdar, 1947 History of Classıcal Sanskrit Literature-M Krshnama chariar, Madras, 1937 History of Sanskrit Poetics-Mm P V Kane (Latest edition) History of Sanskrit Poetics-Dr S K De, Calcutta, 1960 Indian Theatre-Dr C B Gupta, 1954 Kāvya Vicāra-Dr S N Dasgupta (second print), Calcutta Natya-sastra (Eng Tra )-Dr M Ghosh, Biblotheca Indica, No 272, Calcutta Nataka laksana-ratna-losa (Eng Tra)-Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series-Volume 50, pt 9, Philadelphia, 1960 Philosophy of Poetry-Dr N N Chowdhury, 1959 Political History of Ancient India-Dr H Roychoudhury, Calcutta University, 5th ed, 1950 Some Concepts of Alankara-sastra-Dr V Raghavan, Adyar, 1942 Some old Lost Rama Plays-Dr V Raghavan, Annamalai University, 1961 Some Problems of Indian Literature-M Winternitz, Calcutta Unıversity, 1925 Some Problems of Sanskrit Poctics-Dr S K De, Calcutta, 1959 Sanskrit Drama Its Origin and Decline-Dr I Shekhar, Leiden, 1960 Technique of Sanskrit Drama-Dr K K Datta Sastri (shortly to be published) The Laws and Practice of Sanskrit Drama-Dr S N Sastri, 1961 The number of Rasas-Dr V Raghavan, Madras, 1940 The Sanskrit Drama-A B Keith, 1959 The Social Play in Sanskrıt-Dr V Raghavan, The Indian Institute of Culture, Bangalore, 1952 The Theory of the Sandhis and Sandhyangas-Dr T G. Mainkar, 1960 21b

330 NATAKA LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPFCTIVE The Theatre of the Hindus-H H Wilson. Ed Dr V Raghavan and others

II Journals etc

Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Vol XV 1933-34, pp 89-96 Adibharata and the Natyasarvasvadıpıkā, Manomohan Ghosh XVI Pts 3-4, p 313f Subhuticandra's Com on Amarakośa, P K, Gode XIX 1938, pt 3, pp 280-288, Date of the Nataka- laksana ratna kosa, P K Gode XXXV 1954, pp 122 128 The Dramatic terms A Praveśaka and Vnkambhaka, B Janān- tıka and Apavārıtaka, R D Karmarkar XLV 1964, pts 1-4, Ancient Drama and Music, R B Athavale 1964, pts 1-4, Abhmnava gupta's division of Arthaprakrtis An Interpretation, H K Trıvedi Brahma-Vıdya, Adyar Lıbrary Bulletmn Vol XVIII, Some corrections to the Abhinava bharati, Dr V Raghavan Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, London Institute Vol VI, 1930-32, P 819f Nändi, A Note, K R Pısharoti Indian Historical quarterly Vol V 1929, pp 549-552, A Note on the Bharata Vakya, Chıntaharan Chakrabartı. VI 1930, pp 485 486, Bharata-vakya, Manomohan Ghosh Vol VII, 1931, pp. 190-191, A further note on Bharata- vākya, Chıntaharan Chakrabartı

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 331

Vol VII, 1931 The Problem of the Mahānātaka, Dr S K De X 1934, pp 493-508 The Mahānātaka problem Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya Journal Asiatıque, Parıs Vol XCIII, Octobre Decembre, 1923, Le Nātaka laksana ratna-kosa, Sylvaın Levi Journal of the Department of Letters, Calcutta Vol XXV 1934, pp 1-52, Date of Bharata-Nātyasasta, Manomohan Ghosh Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol 27, Second Half, pp 418 454, Notes on the Mrccha katıka-A W Ryder V8ls 20 & 21, pp 341 359 & 88 108 Time Analysis of Sanskrıt Plays-A V Williams Jackson Journal of the Oriental Research, Institute, Madras Vol II pp 118 128 Fragments of Mātrgupta, T R Chintaman1 VI pt IV & Vol VII pts 1-2, The Vrttis, V Raghavan VII pp 277 290, Dasarūpaka, V Raghavan VIII pp 372-380, Subhuticandra's Commentary on the Amarakośa, T R Cıntamanı VIII. p 329f Bahurupa miśra's commentary on the Daśarūpaka, V Raghavan XV pp 69-73, Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kosa of Sāgara- nandın, Dr V Raghavan Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda Vol V No 4, The Conception of Sandhis in the Sanskrıt Drama, Dr V M Kulkarnı V No 3, p 321f On Abhınava bhārati, Sıvapra sad Bhattacharyya XI No 4, A New Play of Aśvaghosa - K Krıshna moorthy XIII Nos 24, Abhinava-bharati restored Dr V. M. Kulkarmı

NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA-KOSA IN THE PLRSPECIIVI

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Bombay Branch No I, 1925, pp 126 143, Bhäsa Riddle A proposed Solution, V S Sukthankar Journal of the University of Gauhatı Vol III, 1952, pp 17 33, The Nataka laksanaratna kosa of Sagaranandın, Dr V Raghavan Our Heritage, Calcutta Sanskrıt College Vol I, pt II Problems of Bharata and Adı-bharata, Dr S K De III, pt II Humour and Satue in Indian Literature, Dr S K De. V, pt I Sakāra in Sanskrit Drama, Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya Prologues and Epilogues in Sanskrit Drama, Dr K K Datta Sastrı VII, pt I Garbhānka - Dr K K Datta Sastrı IX, pt I Pūrvaranga - Dr K K Datta Sastu Oriental Thought, Nasık Vol,I No I Problems of Nandi and Pürvaranga - R C Athavale Proccedings of the All India Oriental Conference , Session VIII Mysore, 1935, Sec. IV, pp 264-273 The Date of Rasārnava-sudhākara - A N Krı- shna Aiyanger Sāgarıkā (Sagar Univerșity) Vol I, No.I. Natakiyam Itivrttam Visvanath Bhatta charyya , II, No IV, Nayaka vimarsalı Visvanath Bhattacharyya Sainskrta-Sahıtya-Parisat, Calcutta Octo-Nov, 1960, Ankāvatāra carcā, Dr K K Datta Sastrı The Vikram, Journal of the Vikram University, Uyain Kaldasa Special Number, 1960 The hisherman Lpisode in the Abhijnanasakuntalam, Dr K K Datta Sastrı A Voluma of Indian and Iranian Studies presented to Sir E Denison Ross, 1939 Date of Sagaranandın M R Kavı

OI ANCIENI INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMAIURGY

B C Law Volume, pt I, Calcutta Viśākhadatta - Dr S K De Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume, Poona, 1917 On Mıcchakatıka - K C Mehendale Jha Commemoration Volume, 1937 Aesthetic Satkāryavāda - K A Subrahmania Iyer Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol II, Bombay, 1945 Studies ın Bhāsa - V S Sukthankar

INDEX

(1) Works and Authors The following works and or authors have been referred to almost in every page Nātya-sāstra (NŚ) of Bharata Abhınava bhāratı (Abhı bhā) of Abhinava gupta (Ag ) Vātaka laksana ratna-kosa (NLRK) of Sāgara nandın (Sgn ) Dasa-rūpaka (DR ) with Avaloka of Dhanañjaya and Dhanka Nātya-darpana (ND ) of Ramacandra-Gunacandra Bhāva-prakāsana (Bhā-pra ) of Šāradātanaya Sāhıtya darpana (SD ) of Viśvanātha Rasārnava-sudhākara (RS ) of Sınga-bhūpāla Nātaka candrıkā (NC ) of Rūpa-gosvāmın Abhıdhāna-cıntāmanī, 263 Anutāpānka (an Act of Chalita- Abhıjñāna-takuntalam (Abhı rāma), 273 saku ), 4, 18, 34, 74, 81, Artha-dyotanıkā (Ar-dyo ), 4, 145, 149, 153, 160, 164, 164, 189, 273, 286, 293 166, 174, 189, 210, 266, Aśmakutta, 22, 36, 184, 238, 267,296, 314 313 Abhırāma, 307 Abhışeka, 297 Asvaghosa, 9, 160, 191

ABORI, XXXIV, 240 Aśvatthāmanka (Act III of V- sam ), 103, 104, 302, 305 Alamkāra-sarvasva, 315 Ācarya, XXVIII, 30, 66, 99, Allarāja, 304 126, 319 Amarakosa, 263 Ādı Bharata, 142, 236, 238, Amoghavarsa Māyurāja, 233 241, 257, 273, 278 Amrta-manthana, 191 Ānanda vardhana, 259 Amrtānanda, 192 Anangaharşa Matraraja, 258 Bahurūpa-mısra, 174, 180, Anargha-räghava (An-ra ), 82, 182, 230, 309 164,-244, 262 Balu carta, 106, 266, 297

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 335

Bāla rāmāyana, (Bāl-rā), 127, Dhruva H K, 47 179, 268 Dhundirāja, 49, 89, 127, 145 Bānālu a Itıhāsa, 241 Dhvanyāloka, 128, 288 Bāmlā-sāh'tyera Itıhāsa, 241 Dillon Prof M XXVII, 55 Bharata bhāsya, 305 Drauhinı, 128 Bharata kosa (Bhar-ko ), 251 Dvādasa-sahasrı, 196 Bhattacharyya Prof Sıvapra- sad, 146, 256 Freytag, G, 83 Bhānumatyanka (Act II of V- sam ), 99 Ghanasyāma, 295 Bhăsa, 10, 149, 160, 189 Ghantaka, 10 Bluma vyaya, 62, 254 Ghosh Dr M M, 149 152, 172 Bhoja-carita, 146 Gode P K XXVII Bhoja-raja ( deva), 28, 29, 71, 75, 87, 102, 114, 116, 117, Hemacandra, 259 131, 133, 137, 148, 149, HSL 282 165, 172, 177, 180, 182, 201, 223, 240, 242, 244, Jagaddhara, 171, 171, 194, 259, 261, 273, 287, 312 210, 307, 309 Brhat katha 9, 233, 231 Jagırdar Prof R V 4, 189 Brhat katha mañjart, 233 Jānakı-parınaya, 295 Jānakı-rāghava, 22, 23, 32, 35, Cārāyana, 173, 308 72, 98, 101, 102, 103, 105, Chalita rāma, 273 108, 112, 114, 116, 118, Cintamam T R XXXII 139, 192, 238, 272, 275, Cudāmanı samhāra, (Act V of 278, 313, 315 Nāga), 110 Journal Asiatique, XXVII, XXXIV Dandın, 129 JOI, XXXIII, 239, 248, 250, Dasarathūnka 136, 291 264 Datta Shastn Dr K K XX- JOR XXXIII, 319 XIII, 85, 122, 175, 178, Journal, University of Gau- 185, 204, 273, 285, 309, hatı, XXXIV, 312 311,314 Dattıla, 262 Kadalı-gtha (Act II of Rv), Deva-păni, 164 99, 102

336 NATAKA LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVF

Kuvı kantha-hāra, 295 Mahānāțaka, 146, 295 Kālıdāsa, 8, 10, 100 Mahārāja (Mg ?), 166 Kane Mm P V XXVIII, 249 Mainkar Dr T G, 64, 86,264, Kāma-sūtra, 308 284 Kāmadattā pūrtı, 117, 282 Mālavıkāgnımitra (Mā-ag ), 9, Katyavema, 37, 87, 89, 125 37, 88, 125, 175, 178, 192, Kāvya-mımāmsā, 221 265,320 Kāvyādarsa, 289 Mālatī-mādhava (Mā mā), 19, Keith A B, 54, 146, 178 39, 43, 88, 174, 179, 181, Knhala, XXVIII, 35, 37, 88 191, 194, 315, 302 147, 170, 172, 176, 180, Mammata, 259 181, 184, 185f, 217f, 243, Mārīca-vancitaka, 115, 281 244, 265, 294, 306, 308, Mātrgupta (Mg ), XXIXf 311, 313, 314 4f, 11, 16f, 19, 21, 22, 23, Konesvarı tikā, XXXIV 24, 25, 29, 33, 34, 54f, 63, Kosalānka, 17, 236 65, 70, 72, 78, 79, 129, Kulapatyanka, 19, 44, 237 133, 134, 135, 138, 141, Kulkarnı Dr V M 24, 47, 164, 166, 171, 187, 227, 54,264 232, 239, 242, 245, 240 Kumāra-svāmın, 240 250, 251, 254, 258, 260, Kumbhānka, 297 262, 266, 268, 269, 292, Kundamālā, 32, 33, 191, 192, 304 273, 315 Māyā-laksmanānka, 108, 278 Kuppuswamı Com Vol Māyā-madālasā, 55f, 147, XXXV 251,254 Kuntaka, 259 Mıthyājāna-vidamvanam, 146 Krtyā rāvana, 304 Moharāja parājaya, 9 Ksirasvāmın, 263 Mrcchakatıkam (Mrccha ), 81, 82, 150, 160, 192, 291, Levi Prof Sylvamn, XXVII, 299, 315 xxx Lollata, 91, 129, 143f, 198, Mudrā rākşasam (Mu-ra ), 9, 81, 90, 127, 138, 207, 233, 200, 266, 294 313 LPSD Nāga-varmānka, 308

Madhusūdana, 295 Nāgānanda (Nāgā ), 35, 82,

Mahthhtsya, 191, 315 112, 122, 138, 147, 150, 174

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 337

Nalavijaya, 297 Nānya-deva, 305 Rāghavābhudaya, 16, 35, 76, 121, 206, 236, 243 Naraharı, 164, 166, 230, 234, Raivati-parinaya, 166, 304 295, 303, 305, 307 Rājasekhara, 223, 268 Naraku vadha, 203 Rāja taranginī (R-t ), 166, Navagraha-carita, 308 Rāmābhınanda, 307

OH XXXIII, 309, 313 Rāmābhyudya, 132 Ramakrıshna Kavı, XXXI Rāmānanda, 191, 307, 315 Padma-prābhrtaka, 282 Rama-vikrama, 100, 272 Palıtyanka (Act IV of RV )280 Ranganatha, XXIX 164, 242, Pārvatı-Parinaya, 149 303 Pısharoti K R 316 Rasa candrıkā (Ra ca ), 189, Pıtāmaha, 7, 230 192, 307, 320 PHAI 233, 234 Rasaratna-pradıpıkā, 304 Prabodha-candrodaya, 9 Ratnakosa, 232 Prajāpatī, 2, 230 Ratnāvalī (R v ), 34, 65, 69, Pratāparudra yaso-bhūsaņa 80, 100, 104, 107, 113, 118, (PRYB ), 127 119, 126, 139, 176, 279 Pratımā-nāțakam, 297 Ravidasa, 146 Pratımāniruddha, 132 Rucipati, 38, 164, 171, 192, Prāvrdanka, 297 230, 243, 297, 303, 307, Prıyadarvıkā, 178 314 Pumsavanānka (Act I of Cha- Rudrata, 219 lita-rāma), 101, 273 Sampātyanka, 105, 107, 276 Rāghava-bhatta (RB ), XXIX Sangita-kalpataru, 164, 303 5, 33, 49, 87, 89, 102, 121, Sangita-dāmodara (san dã ), 125, 133, 135, 138, 141, XXXf, 55, 60, 82, 131, 145, 164, 188, 227, 236, 164, 171, 223, 253, 262, 238, 242, 243, 247, 248, 289, 302 257, 287, 295, 303, 306 Sankalpa sūryodaya, 9 Raghavan Dr V'XXVII, 6, Samketānka (Act III of R-v), 54, 96, 127, 129, 133, 166, 103, 109 171, 174, 176, 198, 227, SOLRP. 272, 276, 304 260, 269 290, 319 Sarvānanda, XXXI, 262 22

330 NATAKA-LAKSANA RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECIIVE

Satya-hariscandra, 80 Tripura daha, 191 Sarasvatı-kantābharan, 201 The Skt Dra 295 Sagarıkā, 11 Theory of Sandhı and San Sāhasānkıya-tıkā (on DR ), 164 dhyaāga (TSS ) 264 SCAS 289 Subandhu, 128, 129 Udātta rāghava, 132, 237, 297 Sugriānka, 20, 134 Udbhata, 75, 78, 125, 198f, Svopna-vāsavadattā, 9 200, 286 Śat sahasrı (NS), 196 Upādhvāya (Tauta), 231, 250 Śakaligarbha, 200f Urubhanga, 194 Śaktyaaka, 165, 304 Śankara, 2, 166, 171, 189, 192, Uttara-rāma-caritam (U ca ), 33, 83, 153, 155, 179, 187, 210, 230, 231, 234 268, 273, 300, 314 Śankuka, 68, 75, 78, 108, 257, 259, 260, 277, 305 Vakula-vıthı, 194 Sası-kāmadattā, 166, 304 Vāsudeva, XXIX Śariputra-prakarana, 9, 10, 191, Velankar Dr H D XXXIV 192 Vıdyānātha, 126, 175, 315 Sastrı Dr S N, 13, 14, 139, Vıkramovvašıya (Vık u), 82, 140, 199, 308 164 Śivarāma, 122 Śubhankara, XXXf 164, 168, Vıddha-sālabhañjıkā, 149, 153 Vıśākhadatta, 10, 27, 51, 234 288, 290, 307 Śriharsa, 178 Vişnudharmottara -purāna (VDP), 169, 221, 234, 306 Šragāra-prakāsa (Śr-pra), 27, Vişnu-purāna, 234 139, 170, 177, 179, 249, Vedānta-vāgīśa, 146 257, 259, 265, 271, 272, Vent-samhāra (V-sam), 22, 275, 277, 280, 281, 284, 30f, 34, 35, 39, 40, 44, 66, 289, 303, 307, 319 67, 68, 76, 82, 93, 94, 98, 104, 105, 109, 110, 111, Tarkavācaspatı Tarānātha, 112, 113, 117, 119, 120, 308, 255, 292 124, 126, 128, 132, 138, Tāpasa-vatsarāja,72,244,258,261 145, 147, 149, 167, 242, Tıka-sarvasva(Tı sar ) XXIX 245, 256, 266, 267, 286, 262 296

INDEX

(11) Di amaturgical Terms & Expressions (Aranged in Sanskrıt alphabetical order)

Anka, 143f Ātma-samvıttı vrttı, 200 Anka-mukha (Ankāsya), 147, Ātīna, 280 179f Ādāna, 113 Ankāvatāra, 147, 173f, Ädhıkārıka-vrtta, 26, 38 175f Ānanda, 118 Adhıbala, 106 Āmukha, 203 Anumãna, 105, 275 Ārabhatī vrtt1, 212f Anuyoga, 118 Ārambha, 17f Anu sandhı, 91t, 129, 266 Ārsa, 6, 9, 10 Anu-sarpana, 274 Anyāya-vrttı, 200 Ihāmrga, 298 Apavāda, 108 Abhınaya, 1, 224f Utksıpta (Āksıptı), 106 Abhūtodāharana, 104 Utthāpaka, 205 Artha, 29, 33, 64, 78, 115 Udātta, 12f, 15 Artha-prakrtı, 7, 26f, 84 Udātta-vacana, 165, 167, 305 Artha-bija, 33f Udbheda, 96 Artha vrtt1, 199 Udvega, 107 Arthopaksepaka, 163f 188 Udāharana, 104 Arthopasthäpana, 241 Upaksepa, 30f, 93 Avapāta, 214 Upakşepa (Sandhyanga), 132 * Avamarśa (Vimarśa), 73f Upagūhana (Parıgühana, Avastha, 16f, 84 Upagūdha), 119 Upacāra, 14 Ākāśa-vacana, 133, 135, 290 Upa-nāyaka, 39f Āksıptı, 276 Upanyāsa, 101 Ākșepa, 123 Upasarpa, 270, 274 Āgantuka-bhāva, 136 Upātta, 5f.

340 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPEGTIVE

Autsukya, 18 Totaka, 106 Trivarga, 65 Kaısıkı-vrttl, 99, 207f Kaksyā, 160 Dasā (theory), 129 Kathā-bhāga, 300 Dıma, 315 Karuna, 216 Drava, 109 Kalpya, 2 Drsta-nasta, 66f Kārya, 44f , 247 Drsyādrsya, 69 Kārya-dına, 167, 300 Drsya-śravya, 189 Kāryāvasthā, 7, 48 Dyutı, 111 Kāvya-samhāra, 120, 122 Dhīra-lalıta, 13f Krama, 104, 275 Dhira-prasānta, 13f Krodhaja-vımarsa, 76 Dīrodātta, 13f Krtı (Dyuts), 117 Dhiroddhata, 13f Dhūnana, 270 Khanda cūlıkā, 184 Kheda, 111 Narma, 99, 127, 208 Khyatetivrtta, 5 Narma garbha, 210, 214 Narma-dyutı, 100, 127 Garbha- nātaka, 178 Narma-sphunja (-sphañjas Garbhānka, 173f Nsphiñja, sphūrja), 211 Garbha sandhi (acc to Mg), Narma-sphota, 209 58f Nāțaka, 1, 2, 3f Garbha-sandhı (acc to the Nātakiya-vastu-svabhāva, 30 NŚ ), 70f, 86, 257, 274f Natya, 1, 2f Gopucchāgra, 83f Nātya-vyapāra, 198 Grathana, 115, 282 Nändi' 203 Nāyaka, 147, 296 Cūdānka, 147 Nırnaya, 611 Cūlıkā (Cūdā, Cūlā), 183f 312f Nirodha, 118 Chãyā, 30f Nıyatī Phalaprāptı (Nıyatā- pti), 21f, 36 Täpa, 271 Nirvahana sandhı (acc to Tāpana, 99, 271 Mg ), 60, 78f Tulya-vıścsanaka, 137 Nirvahana-sandhı (acc to the Tulya-samvıdhānaka, 137 NŚ ), 86, 281f

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 341

Nepathya-vacana, 133, 135, Mg ) 57f 290 Pratimukha-sandhı (acc to Nyāya-vrtt1, 200 NŚ ), 66, 86, 97, 255, 270f Pratı-nāyaka, 39f Patākā-nāyaka, 39f, 46, 75, Pratisamskrta, 4, 5, 6f 91,150 Pratsedha, 112 Patākā vrtta, 38f, 244 Prarocanā, 114, 203 Patākā-sthānaka, 36f Pravesaka, 163f, 300 Parıkara, 94 Prahasana, 203 Parijana, 165 Prasamana, 271, 274 Parıbhāvana, 96 Prasastı, 221f Parıbhāsana, 116 Praśānta, 129 Parınyāsa, 94 Prasanga, 110 Parıvartak, 205 Prasāda (Upastı), 117 Parısarpa, 98 Prastāvanā, 203, 227, 267 Paryupāsana, 101 Prāgbhāva, 284 Pusta, 160, 213 Prāptı, 95 Pușpa, 101 Prāptı-sambhava (Prāptyāsā), Pūrna, 129 20f Pūrna-vrttı, 4 Prāthanā, 105, 123 Pürna-sandhı, 4 Prāsangıka (ānusangıka) vrtta, Pūrnānga-rūpaka, 53 26, 38, 52 Pūrva-ranga, 203, 227, 302 Phala, 24, 32, 34, 45 Pūrva-vākya, 120, 284 Phala bija, 33f Prakarana, 2 Phala yoga, 16, 23f 44 Prakarī-nāyaka, 46 Phala-hetavah, 29, 32, 46 Prakarī-vrita, 38, 41, 44, 247 Phala-samvıttı-vrtt1, 200 Prakhyāta, 2f, 8, 10 Phalāgama, 47 Prakhyāta-vastu, 13 Pragamana, 100, 274 Bya, 17, 29f, 241 Pragayana, 217 Bya nyāsa, 32 Pradhāna, 40 Byārtha, 73 Pradhāna-phala, 65 Bındu, 34f, 66, 243, 294 Pradhanartha, 115 Bibhatsa, 216 Prayatna, 19 Pratimukha-sandhı (acc to Bharata-vākya, 121, 285

342 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVL

Bhāratī-vrtt1, 202f, 218 Vıdrava, 107, 109, 126, 297, Bhasana, 119 299 Bhāsvara, 129 Vidhāna, 96 Bhāva-mātrena, 20 Vıdhūta, 99, 271 Bhāvena, 21 Vımarśa, 259 Bhayānaka, 216 Vımarsa sandhı (acc to Mq ) Bheda, 97 59 Vimarsa-sandhı (acc to th Mārga, 103 NŚ ), 86, 78f Mıśra, 2f Vıpadantaranırmāna, 80f Mukha sandhı (acc to Mg ), Vibodha, 119 55 Vıvalana, 281 Mukha-sandhı (acc to the NŚ ), 64f 86, 254, 266f Vyavasāya, 110 Vyahara, 114, 139 Virodha, 100, 119 Yavanıkā, 159 Virodhana, 112 Yukt1, 95, 104, 114 Vilāsa, 98, 223 Vilobhana, 94, 270 Rıtı, 221 Vithī, 139, 203 Rūpa, 103, 275 Vira, 216 Raudra, 216 Viskambhaka, 69f, 306t Vrtt,197f 316t Laksyālaksya, 69 Vrtyanga, 2021 Laksya-laksana (verses), 269 Lalıta, 129 Hasya, 216 Lāsyānga, 125 Hina-sandhı, 85 Lekha, 133, 290 Lekhyokt, 133, 290 Śakti, 109 Śabda-vrtti, 14u Vajra, 101 Śānta, 216 Vandm, 183 Śuddhā-kaiśiki, 209 Varna-samhāra, 102 Śrňgara, 216 Vastu, 33 Śleşa, 30f Vastu-bīja, 33f. Vastūtthāpana, 214 Sadasya, 313 Vicalana, 114 Sandehalankāra, 275

UI ANCILNI INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY 343

Sındh1, 7, 49f, 84, 281 Samyogavıhıta narma, 209 Sandhyanga, 93f Samlapa (Sallāpa), 206 Sandhyantara (Pradesa), 125, Samadhana, 95 129, 131f 187 Sānghātya (Sanghātyaka), 206 Samagra, 129 Sādana (Chādana, Chalana), Samavakāra, 315 113 Samaya, 118 Sādhyādı-pañcaka, 62f Samksıptaka, 212 Sättvatī-vrtt1, 204f Samgraha, 104, 119 Sücya, 189 Sampheța, 109, 126, 215