1. Nataka Laksana Ratana Kosha In The Perspective of Ancient Indian Drama and Dramaturgy Siddheswar Chattopadhyaya

SIDDHESWAR CHATTOPADHYAYA, M.A. D.PHIL.

nataka-laksana ratna-kosa

In the perspective of

Ancient Indian Drama and Dramaturgy

PUNTHI PUSTAK

CALCUTTA-4. INDIA

NĀṬAKA-LAKṢAṆA-RATNA-KOŚA

In the perspective of

Ancient Indian Drama & Dramaturgy

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA

In the perspective of

Ancient Indian Drama and Dramaturgy

SIDDHESWAR CHATTOPADHYAYA, M.A., D.Phil.,

Kāvyatīrtha

Reader in Sanskrit,

The University of Burdwan,

Burdwan.

PUNTHI PUSTAKA

Calcutta

1974

Published by

S. K. Bhattacharya

© Punthi Pustak

34 Mohan Bagan Lane

Calcutta-700004

First published 1974

Printed in India

by Santosh K. Bhattacharya at Sri Ramkrishna Printing Works,

19, S. 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 Nātyaśāstra

of Bharata is looked upon as the fountain source of matters

relating to literature, 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 is, therefore

that the present work of Dr. Siddheswar Chattopadhyaya

will be read by scholars who have a genuine interest in Sanskrit

drama and various problems concerned with it ;—its source,

analysis, 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 work of Sāgara-

nandin to his advantage.

I recommend the present book to all lovers of Sanskrit

dramas.

Calcutta

August 1, 1973

GAURINATH SASTRI

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 him. I am specially indebted to my esteemed friend Dr Kalikumar Datta Sastri, Research Professor, Calcutta Sanskrit College. It was he who drew my attention to the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa 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 Sanskrit Sahitya Parishad; 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 bringing 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 Radharani 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

Mahalaya, 1973.

SIDDHESWAR CHATTOPADHYAYA

ABBREVIATIONS

Abhi. bhā. = Abhinava-bhārati

Abhi-śaku. = Abhijñāna-śakuntalam of Kālidāsa.

ABORI = Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Ag. = Abhinavagupta.

Al. sa. = Alaṅkāra-samgraha of Amṛtānanda-yogin.

Ar. dyo. = Artha-dyotanikā of Rāghavabhaṭṭa.

An. rā. = Anargha-rāghava of Murāri.

Bāl. rā. = Bāla-rāmāyaṇa of Rājaśekhara.

Bhā. pra. = Bhāva-prakāśana of Śāradātanaya.

Bhar. ko. = Bharata Kośa.

BSOS. = Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies.

CHCSL. = A concise History of Classical Sanskrit Literature of Dr. G. Sastri.

Com. = Commentary/commentator.

Dh. ā. = Dhvanyāloka of Ānanda-vardhana.

DR. = Daśa-rūpaka of Dhananjaya.

DSL. = Drama in Sanskrit Literature of R.V. Jagirdar

Ed. = Edited by/Editor/Edition.

Eng. Tra. = English Translation.

f. = Following.

f.n. = 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.

J.A. = Journal Asiatique, Paris.

JOI. = Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda.

JOR. = Journal of the Oriental Research Institute, Madras.

xlii NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Kā-ā. = Kāvyādarśa of Danḍin.

KM. = Kāvyamālā Series.

KSS. = Kashi Sanskrit Series

Ku. mā = Kundamālā of Diṅnāga.

l./ll. = Line/Lines.

LPSD. = The Lawas and Practice of Sanskrit Drama of

S. N. Shastri.

Mā.ag. = Mālavikāgnimitra of Kālidāsa.

Mā.mā. = Mālatī-mādhava of Bhavabhūti.

Mu-rā = Mudrā-rākṣasa of Viśākhadatta.

Mṛ/Mṛccha. = Mṛcchakaṭikā of Śūdraka.

Mg. = Mātrgupta.

Nāgā. = Nāgānanda of Śrīharṣa.

NC. = Nāṭaka-candrikā of Rūpa-gasvāmin.

ND. = Nāṭya-darpaṇa of Rāmacandra-Guṇacandra.

NLRK. = Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa of Sāgaranandin,

Ed. M. Dillon.

NŚ. = Nāṭya-śāstra.

NSP. = Nirnaya-sagara press.

OH. = Our Heritage.

PHAI. = Political History of Ancient India of Dr. H.

Roychoudhury.

PRYB = Pratāpa-rudra-yaśo-bhūṣaṇa of Vidyānātha.

Ra.ca. = Rasa-candrikā, commentary of Śaṅakara on

Abhi-śaku.

RB. = Rāghava-bhaṭṭa.

RS. = Rasārṇava-sudhākara of Śiṅga-bhūpāla.

R. t. = Rāja-taraṅgiṇī of Kahlana.

R. V. = Ratnā-valī of Śrīharṣa.

Saṅ-dā = Saṅgīta-dāmodara of Śubhaṅkara.

SCAS. = Some concepts of the Alaṅkāra Śāstra of V.

Raghavan.

SD. = Sāhitya-darpana of Viśvanātha.

Śdt. = Śāradātanaya.

Sgn. = Sāgaranandin.

SOLRP. = Some Old Lost Rama Plays of V. Raghavan.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

Śr. pra. = Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa of Bhoja.

SSP. = Sanskrit-sāhitya-Pariṣat.

The Skt. Dr. = The Sanskrit Drama of A.B. Keith.

Ṭi-sar. = Ṭikā-sarvasva of Sarvānanda.

The TSS. = The Theory of Sandhis and Sandhyāṅgas of T. G. Mainkar.

TSS. = Trivandrum Sanskrit Series.

U. ca. = Uttara-rāma-carita of Bhavabhūti.

VDP. = Viṣṇu-dharmottara-purāṇa.

Vik. u. = Vikramorvaśīya of Kālidāsa.

V. sam. = Veṇī-saṃhāra of Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa.

Chronological position of some important writers and works

on Indian dramaturgy, and commentators of dramas, accepted

in the present work :-

Nātya-śāstra of Bharata ... C. 300 B.C.-300 A.D.

Abhinava-bhāratī of Abhinava-gupta ... 980-1030

Daśa-rūpaka of Dhananjaya ... 975-995

Avaloka of Dhanika ... C. 1000

Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa of Bhoja ... 1005-1054

Nāṭya-darpaṇa of Rāmacandra-

Guṇacandra ... 1093-1175

Bhāva-prakāśana of Śāradātanaya ... 1175-1250

Pratāpa-rudra-yaśo-bhūṣaṇa of

Vidyānātha ... 1275-1325

Sāhitya-darpaṇa of Viśvanātha ... 1300-1340

Rasārṇava-sudhākara of Śiṅgabhūpāla ... 1340-1360

Nāṭaka-candrikā of Rūpa-Gosvāmin ... 1470-1554

Jagaddhara (Com. Mālatī-mādhava) ... 14th cen.

Kāṭayavema (Com. on

Mālavikāgnimitra) ... 1381-1416

Rāghava-bhaṭṭa (Com. on Abhi-śaku) ... 1475-1500

Śaṅkara and Narahari (Coms. on

Abhi-śaku) ... C. 1500

Raṅganātha (Com. on

Vikramorvaśīya) ... C. 1600

Dhundhirāja (Com. on Mudrā-rākṣasa) ... 1713-14

Rucipati (Com. on Anargha-rāghava) ... C. 1600

CONTENTS

Foreword

...

VII

Acknowledgements

...

IX

Abbreviations

...

XI-XIII

Chronological position of works and authors accepted

...

XIV

Introduction

...

XXIII-XXXV

CHAPTER I

Plot of the Sanskrit Drama : Qualitative Analysis ... 1—15

Nāṭya and its eulogy—division of the Vastu—Prakhyātā, Utpādya and Miśra—view of the Nāṭya-śāstra—Mātrgupta's opinion—contemporary king as hero—views of Sāgara, Abhinava etc.—the view of Ghaṇṭaka and others—Udātta—four types of the hero.

CHAPTER II

Five Avasthā-s ... ... ... ... 16—25

Mātrgupta's analysis—that according to the Nāṭya-śāstra—Ārambha—Prāyatna—Praptyāśā—Niyatāpti—Phalāgama.

CHAPTER III

Arthaprakṛti

Formal division of the plot—Ādhikārika, Prāsaṅgika—three different views on the nature of Arthaprakṛti-s—critical analysis of the views.

Bija

...

29—34

Meaning of Bija—its indication—view of an Ācārya and its implication—three types of the Bija according to Mātrgupta—exposition of the view—ways of the beginning of a Play.

Bindu

...

...

34—38

Definition of Bindu - opinion of Kohala - other views - Bindu as pivotal idea - view of Abhinava - significance of the term.

xvi NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Patākā ... ... ... 38—43

Significance and definition of Patākā - Patākā nāyaka - ally of the enemy - Upanāyaka - achievement of the Patākā-nāyaka - extent of the Patākā in a play.

Prakarī ... ... ... 44

Definition, extent and achievement of Prakarī - significance of the term.

Kārya ... ... ... 44—48

Kārya as the end from different standpoints - as main purpose - two kārya-s - Kārya and Phalā - Kārya as Phala-hetu - Kārya and Phalāgama - are all the Arthaprakṛti-s essential ?

CHAPTER IV

Sandhī ... ... ... 49—92

Nature of Sandhī - want of the idea of three unities - unity of impressione - lision of Sandhī or Sandhī-s - reason - number of Sandhī-s in different types of play - essential Sandhī-s.

Mātṛgupta's theory ... ... ... 54—64

Exposition of the text is difficult - each Sandhī has got three aspects - Mukha-sandhī - Pratimukha-sandhī - Garbha-sandhī - Vimarsa-sandhī Nirvahana-sandhī - originality of the theory - plot of the drama Māyāmadālasā - the Sādhyādipañcaka theory - its connection with Sandhī - wrongly attributed to Mātṛgupta - utility of the methods.

Mukha-sandhī ... ... ... 64—66

Definition - different views - origination of the Bīja as the source of Rasa - Bindu with Bīja - view of an Ācārya regarding the indication of Bīja.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

Pratimukha-sandhi 66—70

Definition - dr̥ṣṭa-naṣṭa characteristic of the

Bija in this Sandhi - opinion of Sāgara - six

views referred to by Abhinava and that of his

own - other views.

Garbha-sandhi 70—73

Definition - significance of the term Garbha -

controversy over the meaning of the words

prāpti, aprāpti and anveṣaṇa in Bharata's defini-

tion - different views.

Vimarśa-sandhi 73—78

Bharata's definition - significance of Vimarśa -

different views referred to by Abhinava and

Sāgara - other views - development of views -

explanation of sandeha, vimarśana and vighna.

Nirvahana-sandhi 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

Sāgaras 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 - inconsis-

tency of Abhinava - absurdity of the view of

Dhanañjaya and his followers - opinions of the

commentators of plays - views of Bharata and

other ancient writers - conclusion.

Anu-sandhi 91—92

xviii NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-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 definitions of Sandhyanga-s ... 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 Sandhyanga-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

Sandhyantara-s (Pradesa-s) ... ... 131-135

Only names of twentyone Sandhyantara-s in the Natya-sastra - later authorities give little importance - Sāgara first defines and illustrates each - their purpose - discrepency in names - Mātrgupta's view - Bharatan or post-Bharatan - evolution of their definitions.

CHAPTER VII

Patākā-sthānaka-s ... ... 136-142

A dramatic artifice - definition - their number - two schools - a synthesis - exposition of the four Patākāsthānaka-s - they do not form the subsidiary portion of the plot - order in their use.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

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

CHAPTER VIII

Division of the play for representation ... 143—162

Aṅka (Act) ... 143-147

Meaning of the term - reading of Bharata's definition - opinions of Lollaṭa and Sāgara - number of Acts in a Nāṭaka - relation of Acts with Avasthā-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 Nāṭya-śāstra - different interpretations - death-scene and Bhāsa plays - opinions of Sāgara and Abhinava - an old view supporting death-scene in an Act - death of the hero - some other items prohibited on stage - some items prohibited in theory but accepted in practice - standpoint of the Nāṭya-śāstra.

Duration of time covered by an Aṅka ... 156-158

Different views - passing of a long time - Kārya-dina. Other regulations .. 160-162

CHAPTER IX

Arthopakṣepaka ... ... 163—190

Praveśaka ... ... 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 Mātṛgupta and Sāgara - opinions of commentators - Udatta-vacana - position in the play - no regulation seems to be absolute,

xx NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Viṣkambhaka ... 169-173

Twice defined in the Nāṭya-śāstra - its nature and function - a novel definition offered by

Sāgara - meaning of the term - no essential difference between Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka -

its position - view of Kohala - it was first not related to the Nāṭaka.

Aṅkāvatāra (Garbhāṅka) ... 173-179

Sāgara's definition - transition of next Act though intervened by an interlude - Dhananjaya

admits of no intervention - confusing stand of Viśvanātha and Śāradātanāya - conflicting defini-

tions in the Nāṭya-śāstra and Abhinava-bhāratī - standpoint of Bhoja - appearance of the term

Garbhāṅka - later it was not included in the Arthopakṣepaka-s.

Aṅkamukha (Aṅkāsya) ... 179-183

Sāgara defines it as a resume of the leading ideas of the following acts - Abhinava takes it to be

the definition of Aṅkāvatāra - opinion of Bharata - Viśvanātha gives two views - in all, two

views are available - both are based on the Nāṭya-śāstra.

Cūlikā ... 183-184

indication of something from behind the screen - participants - Śiṅgabhūpāla's treatment of the

topic.

A General review of the Arthopakṣepaka-s ... 185-190

Nāṭya-śāstra uses the term only once - authenticity of this verse and definitions of the five

Arthopakṣepaka-s in Chap. XIX of the Nāṭya-śāstra - view of Kohala who coined the term

Arthopakṣepaka - Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka 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 Nāṭya-śāstra by later theorists.

CHAPTER X

Title of the play ... ... 191—192

No regulation in the Nāṭya-śāstra - old practice

• Sāgara's view - that of Śāradātanaya - views of

Viśvanātha and Amṛtānanda and commentators.

Title of the Aṅka ... ... 193-196

Only Sāgara formulates a principle - all the

names of Aṅka-s referred to by Viśvanātha and

Śāradātanaya are found in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa -

necessity for the naming of Aṅka-s - staging of

selected Acts - a perusal of the foregoing

chapters.

CHAPTER XI

Vṛtti ... ... ... 197—229

Number of Vṛtti-s ... ... 197-202

Four Vṛtti-s of Bharata - theories of two and

three Vṛtti-s - Udbhata's scheme of Vṛtti - misre-

presentation of the theory by Dhananjaya and

others - criticism by Lollaṭa and Abhinava -

View of Bhoja - common view.

Characteristics of Vṛtti-s and Vṛttyāṅga-s ... 202-215

Forms of the four Vṛtti-s - critical assesment of

different views.

Vṛtti and Rasa ... ... 215-221

Controversy regarding the distribution of Rasa-s

to Vṛtti-s - root of all conflicting views - view of

Sāgara - opinion of Kolaḥala - standpoint of Abhi-

nava - Rasa-s of the four Vṛtti-s - opinion of

later theorists.

xxii

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Vṛtti and Ṛti

... 221-222

Three Ṛti-s according to Sāgara - Bhāratī is the

Vṛtti of all Rasa-s and Ṛti-s - particular Ṛti is

Bhāratī qualified by a particular Vṛtti - three

groups of Rasa-s and their relation with Ṛti

and Vṛtti.

Nature and mutual relation of the Vṛtti-s ... 223-229

Nature of Vṛtti - Abhinaya and its forms - their

relation with the Vṛtti-s - Vṛtti-s are interdepen-

dant - root of the misconception in limiting

Bhāratī to Prologue only - evolutin of Abhinaya

• conclusion.

Notes and References

Bibliography

Index

INTRODUCTION

From my college days, I have all along been an ardent admirer 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-Graduate classes, very often I came to be confronted with difficult problems concerning various topics of Sanskrit drama and dramaturgy. These problems could not be satisfactorily solved with the help of either the standard text-books like the Daśa-rūpaka and Sāhitya-darpaṇa, or the available commentaries 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 from different sources and thus help little to form a definite concept. 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 Nāṭya-śāstra and Abhinava-bhāratī. It is a common experience to every student of Sanskrit drama and dramaturgy that the commentators and later theorists profess an almost religious allegiance to the Nāṭya-śāstra while giving divergent and sometimes self-contradictory views on any topic. To name only a few, the theory of correlation of the three pentads (Avasthā, Sandhi and Arthaprakṛti) the nature of the five Arthopakṣepakas and their relation with the Aṅka, the significance of Vṛtti, 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 inadequate to explain these problems like many others.

It is not our business to find out here the shortcomings of my fore runners in the field. With due respect to those scholars, 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 source, 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 Arthopakṣepaka had a history of development 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 Nāṭya-śāstra (C. 300 B.C. to 300 A.D.) and the Abhinava-bhārati (A.D. 980-1030). But that this long period was not completely barren is brought home to us by the views discussed in the Abhinava-bhārati, Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa, Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa and the Bhāva-prakāśana mainly. For a proper comprehension of the theories of the Nāṭya-śāstra, it is imperative that all these works should be studied. Abhinava-gupta followed a particular school of thought in interpreting the Nāṭya-śāstra and almost at every step he referred to and criticised other views. Many of these views are found to be followed by Sāgara and it appears that he followed an earlier school of thought. Nowhere in the topics studied in the following chapters, Sāgara betrays any knowledge of the opinions of Abhinava-gupta specifically, excepting in cases where both agree.

In the following chapters the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kāśa has been taken up as the starting point for a comprehensive study of the theories of the Nāṭya-śāstra and their later developments. The work is neither a full commentary of the Nāṭya-śāstra like the Abhinava-bhārati nor an independent treatise like the Daśa-rūpaka, Nāṭya-darpana etc., nor it is a collection of all the current views with occasional attempts

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

of bringing about a synthesis among them, as the Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa and Bhāva-prakāśana. The portion of the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa with which we are concerned in the present study, is based on only a few chapters of the Nāṭya-śāstra.

It has been shown in the following chapters that almost in each case Sāgara quotes from the Nāṭya-śāstra and adds his comment, or describes a topic and then quotes from the Nāṭya-śāstra in his support. It has also been shwon that wherever Sāgara's reading of the Nāṭya-śāstra differs from Abhinava-gupta's, the former finds support in one or other of the manuscript readings.

Sāgara refers to and comments on many views not found in the Nāṭya-śāstra, but those of Mātr̥gupta receive his special attention; where the latter differs from the most commonly accepted opinions, Sāgara sides with him and this has been shown in several cases in the following chapters.

Following Mātr̥gupta, Sāgara admits only Sanskrit speaking characters as Viṭa, Tāpasa, Vipra etc., in a Praveśaka. Mātr̥gupta's novel theory of Sandhi-s, as found in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa has been fully explained and it has been shown that Mātr̥gupta's shorter method is but an alternative one and not a substitute of the elaborate method of Bharata and that the Sādhyādi-pañcaka theory is most probably older than Mātr̥gupta to whom it is attributed by some scholars, other than Sāgara. Mātr̥gupta's opinion about the Sandhyantaras has also been fully discussed.

Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa “The gem-treasury of the views of dramaturgic text”, makes us acquainted with some principles 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 Nāṭya-śāstra.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

xxvi NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Nāṭya-śāstra has been studied independently and in the light

of Sāgara's exposition. The view of Sāgara has been com-

pared with that of Abhinava. In doing so, all the different

views on any particular topic, as referred to by these two

authorities have been discussed. To make the study thorough

and comparative, the standpoints of the Sṅgāra-prakāśa,

Daśa-rūpaka, Nāṭya-darpana, Bhāva-prakāśana, Rasārṇava-sudhā-

kara and the Nāṭaka-candrikā have been discussed. In some

cases the Pratāparudra-yaśobhūṣaṇa 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 connection

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 Nālya-śāstra

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 in relation

to the dramatic literature.

Most modestly this thesis can claim to have treated for

the first time in the above method, some views of Mātṛgupta,

the problem relating to the source of the plot of Nāṭaka and

featuring of a contemporary hero therein, the actual implica-

tion of each member of the three pentads and their mutual

relation and the evolution of the Sandhyantara-s. The nature

of the individual Arthopākṣepaka-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 Aṅka itself was recognised by early theorists as an

Arthopakṣepaka. Fresh light has been thrown on the topic

of Sandhyaṅga-s, Patākāsthānaka-s the naming of plays and

the Vṛtti-s. The history of the Sandhyantara-s, specially 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 Nālya-śāstra have

been thoroughly discussed and it has been shown that the

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

xxvii

spirit behind these injunctions has been overlooked in later

texts and the variety of acts and incidents permissible to be

visibly represented came to be curtailed more and more.

Most of these topics had hitherto been discussed 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 Nāṭya-

śāstra 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 sūtra-like verses

of the monumental treatise are amenable to different inter-

pretations. So, the propounders of later school found no

difficulty in maintaining divergent views and at the same

time professing allegience to the Nāṭya-śāstra. We have

tried here to trace the origin of these schools as far as possible

and to clarify their standpoints.

The Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa of Sāgara-nandin and its age.

The text of the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa used here is the

solitary one that was edited by Professor Myles Dillon in

1937, from a single mahuscript which was discovered by

Professor Sylvain Levi from the collection of the Rājaguru

Hemrāja Śarman of Nepal. Professor Levi published a report

on the work in the Journal Asiatique (Vol. XCiii, October-

December 1923). Several papers on the work were published

by eminent scholars like 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 amend-

tions by the latter was pnblished as a volume of Transactions

of the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. Dr

V. Raghavan has identified most of the illustrations quoted

by Sāgara 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

xxviii 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, sources

of illustrations from anonymous works have also been traced.

Besides many anonymous sources (referred to with such

remarks as tathāhi, anye ca, ācārya ah 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

Vṛtti-s, Sāgara 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 Nāṭya-

śāstra (GOS) informs us that one māttikā support the reading

of Kohala instead of that accepted by Abhinava and gives

the whole verse6 which again tallies with the reading of

Sāgara. It is to be noted here that there is no mention of

Śānta-rasa in the verse and Sāgara also does not count that

Rasa. But Sāgara ascribes the verse to Ācārya. In ten

occasions Sāgara refers to his source as the saying of Ācārya,

eight of which have been traced in the Nāṭya-śāstra.7 Another

verse, attributed to Ācārya, describes the three ways of sow-

ing the germ and seems to be taken from some lost version

of the śāstra.8 In the present case also it may be presumed

that Sāgara believed that the above verse distributing the

Rasas among the Vṛttis was Bharata’s. Mm. P. V. Kane

opines, “It appears that Kohala’s work influenced the redac-

tors of the Nāṭya-śostra”. It is possible that the above verse

was included in some version of the Nāṭya-śāstra long before

Sāgara-nandin who had an access to that version and found

no reason to suspect its authenticity. In our discuśsion on

Bindu it has been shown that Sāgara 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 in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa. There are many

references to the name of Kohala in the Abhinava-bhārati

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

and Bhāva-Prakāśan, Sāgara-nandin's silence in the matter is inexplicable.

It has been stated above that Sāgara gives more importance to the views of Mātrgupta. His work has not come down to us and it is a serious loss to any student of Indian dramaturgy. The Rājataranginī gives an account of one Mātrgupta 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 anuṣṭubh verses. Several verses from his work with his name are found to be quoted in the Tīkā-sarvasva of Sarvānanda and the Arthadyotanikā of Raghava-bhaṭṭa. Ranganātha and Vāsudeva give the definition of Sūtradhāra from the work of Mātrgupta. Śāradātanaya also refers to his views with and without mentioning his name.11

But it is the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa from which we can have a real insight into Matrguptas originality and understanding of the art of dramaturgy. Special attention has been given here in dealing with the views of Mātrgupta and it has been shown that Sāgara also seems to have quoted some verses from the work of Mātrgupta 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 Puṣpa, a technical term for a particular way of the playing of the bīnā.13 Abhinava's comparative silence about the views of Mātrgupta is also inexplicable. Subhaṅkara in his saṅgita-dāmodara quotes Matrguptas view on Sandhi but does not mention his name. It appears that he had no direct access to the work of Mātrgupta and took those verses from some other work, most probably the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa.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 Rāghava-bhaṭṭa quotes verses of the Nāṭya-śāstra but attributes them to Mātrgupta16. Either Rāghavabhaṭṭa

xxx

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

is wrong or it may be presumed that some verses of the Nātya-śāstra were taken by Mātrgupta verbatim.

Prof. Sylvain Levi observes that Viśvanātha seems to have drawn extensively upon the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa without acknowledgement.17 Dr. V. Raghavan substantiates this observation and points out that regarding the Nātyālaṅkāras the Sāhitya-darpana be indebted to the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa, but so far as the examples of the Upa-rūpakas and some other illustrations are concerned, Viśvanātha’s indebtedness to Siṅgara is certain. He also gives a concordance of passages common to the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa and the Bhāva-prakāśana and observes that a close relation between these two works is undeniable and further shows that Bahurūpa-miśra knew the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa.18 It has been shown in the present discourse that all the names of Acts referred to in the Bhāva-prakāśana and in the sixth chapter of the Sāhitya-darpana are found in the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa.19 Not only the names of Acts but the citations therefrom in the Bhava-prakasana (written between 1175-1250 A.D.) and in the Sāhitya-darpana occur in the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa in similar contexts in almost all cases, whereas all the names of Acts found in the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa do not occur in the above two works. So, the indebtedness of Sāradātanaya and Viśvanātha to Sāgara-nandin seems to be undeniable. None of them, however, mentions the name of either the work or its author.

Śubhaṅkara, a Bengali theorist of the 15th century, names a Ratnakośa in his Saṅgīta-dāmodara as one of his sources20 and this Ratnakośa is undoubtedly the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa. Most of the cases where Śubhaṅkara appears to be indebted to the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa come under our discussion and have been noted in respective places. A concordance of passages common to the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa and the Saṅgīta-dāmodara is given here,21

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

xxxi

Sañgita-domodara

Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa

(1) P. 16, ll. 18-19...... ll. 17-18, rgbhyah pāṭhyam abhūd

gītam sāma-bhyah samapadyata/

yajurbhyo' bhinayā jatā rasāścāthar-

vaṇah smṛtāh// The verse contains

what is said in the Nāṭya-śāstra

(GOS) I. 17, but the reading is

quite different.

(2) P. 71, l. 16.......... l. 2167, haritālādi sāmagri maṣī saiva

tu varṇikā /

(3) P. 72. Kutopi

svecchayā etc.

ll. 365. 366, (infra pp. 171)

(4) P. 72. asūcitasyā

pātrasyā etc.

l. 331, (infra pp. 163)

(5) P. 73, ll. 4.5

ll. 1045-1046. (infra p. 223)

(6) P. 81. devatā-

darśanāntam etc.,

l. 389, (infra p. 82)

(7) P. 97 .................. ll. 460-469, (infra View of Mātrgupta

on Sandhis)

(8) PP. 98-99.......... ll. 925-929, 994-995, (infra

Sandhyantarās)

Mr. M. R. Kavi has pointed out that Sarvānanda, Subhūti,

Jātavedā, Kumbhakarṇa, Rāyamukuṭa and Jagaddhara have

mentioned or quoted from the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa.22

Dr V. Raghavan, however, notices that Sarvānanda practi-

cally refers to Ratnakośa the lexicon23 which has been referred

to by many including Śaṅkara and Narahari from Mithila.

Mr M. R. Kavi of Jātavedā's borrowing cities, śṛṅgāra-vīra

etc. iti ratnakośe cakārāt śānto pi gṛhītah. But Sāgara-nandin

enumerates the Rasas in a verse (ll. 1861-1862) where there

is no cakāra. My esteemed friend Dr K. K. Datta Shastri

informs me that Rāyamukuṭa actually quotes from the Nāṭaka-

lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośā.24 Among commentators of dramas Jagad-

dhara, Raṅganātha and Rucipati are stated to have drawa

upon this work.25 Raṅganātha oites Sāgara regularly by

xxxii NĀTAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

name,26 Rasa-candrikā and Tippani, two commentaries on the

Abhijñāna-śakuntala by Saṅkara and Narahari respectively,27

give clear evidences of their indebtedness to Sāgara-nandin.

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-

lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa came to be recognised as a standard work

fit to be drawn upon by the writers and nāṭaka commentators beginn-

ing from the 13th century A.D.

In our discussion it has been shown in many places that

Sāgara betrays no knowledge of the Abhinava-bhārati and the

Daśa-rūpaka, whereas in several occasions Abhinava criticises

the views held by Sāgara who seems to follow an older school.

Mr. M. R. Kavi opines that the style of Sāgara is older than

that of Abhinava. The Viddhaśālabhañjikā of Rājaśekhara

(10th cen. A.D.) has been cited in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa (1.3071)

and this provides the upper limit of Sāgara's date. Mr. M. R.

Kavi and P. K. Gode29 assert that Subhūticandra borrowed

from the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa. T. R. Cintamani, P. K. Gode and

M. R. Kavi, all are of opinion that Subhūticandra was alive

between 1062-1172 A.D.30 Sarvānanda wrote his commentary

in A.D. 1158-1159. The validity of the suggestion that he

quotes from the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa has been challenged by Dr

V. Raghavan, as stated above. He, however, admits that the

two passages where Sarvānanda and Sāgara illustrate the

three types of Śṛṅgāra 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. Sarvānanda

refers to the name Ratnakośa. So, the suggestion that he quotes

from the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa cannot be ruled out

altogether though no conclusive evidence is available. From

all these it appears that Sāgara-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. Kulkarni (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. Kalikumar Dutta Sastri. His two highly learned papers, Prologues and Epilogues in Sanskrit Drama and Pūrvarānga, (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 researcholar) showed the way in his illuminating discourse on Vrthi in J. O. R., Madras, 1932-33.

2. Cf. infra, the different ways of bija-nyāsa (chap. Bīja), the prohibition regarding the entrance of a character without being previously indicated (Chap. on Praveśaka), the distinguishing mark between the Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka.

3. For the list of names of authorities cited or used in the NLRK. see the NLRK. Eng. Tra. p. 71.

4. NLRK. ll. 1059-1062. This one has been taken into account in our discourse on Vrtti, Chap. XIX.

5. NŚ. GOS. Vol. II. p. 452.

6. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 105, the māttkā bha.

7. Cf. the text of the NLRK. below ll. 133, 333, 355, 535, 905, 912, 1394. 2778, NŚ (GOS) respectively XIX. 20-21, XVIII. 34-35, XVIII. 37, XIX. 39, XIX. 104-106 , XVIII. 42 XXII. 33, XVIII. 45.

8. NLRK. below l. 548. For elaborate discussion see infra chap. III, Bīja. It may be noted here that at least in one case Sgn. attributes a verse (NLRK. below l.2409) to the sage Bharata which is not found in the present NŚ.

xxxiv NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

9. Mm, P. V. Kane, HSP. p. 24. The point has been discussed in Chap. VIII. B., particularly below “A general review of the Arthapakṣepakas”.

10. Vik-u, p. 6, Karpūramañjarī, p. 5 Koneśvari-ṭīkā on Vik-u (ABORI. Vol. 38, Pts. III-IV edited by H. D. Velankar) also quotes a verse of Mg. on tenā-gīti. p. 286.

11. Bhā-pra. p. 234, l. 22. mentions the name of Mg., but in p. 216, ll. 9-10, Sdt. refers to the view of Mg. without mentianing his name.

12. Infra f.n. 40, below the Sandhyānga Karaṇa.

13. Mm. P. V. Kane, HSP, p. 54.

14. Infra, Chap. IV, below Nirvahana-sandhi of Mātṛ-gupta.

15. Dr. Raghavan, NLRK. Eng. Tra. p. 7.

16. Infra Chap. VII, f.n. 16 below fourth Patākā-sthānaka.

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 Ānka. For date of Śdt. see the Introduction of the Bhā-pra. pp. 73-77., Mm. P. V. Kane, HSP. p. 439.

20. Sañ-dā. p. 1.

21. In “Sources and References” (Sañ-dā pp. 125-136) the learned editors have pointed out (1) (6) (7) and (8) of the above agreements, and the (1) is said (Sañ-dā. p. 127) to be quoted in the Bhaktiratnākara.

22. A Volume of Indian and Iranian Studies presented to Sir E. Denison Ross, 1939, Date of Sāgaranandin, pp. 198-205.

23. NLRK. Eng. Tra. p. 6

24. Calcutt Sanskrit College Research Series, Commentary of Rāyamukuṭa, in Press.

25. Cf. papers of Prof. Levi and Mr. M. R. Kavi, referred to above and also the Introduction 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, Kuppuswami Sastri commemoration valume. Subhūticandra, p. 49.

30. (i) ABORI, Vol. XVI. pts 3-4, pp. 313-314, Subhūti's comentary on the Amarakosa—P. K. Gode.

ii) Kuppuswami Sastri commemoration volume, pp. 47-51, Subhūticandra,—P.K. Gode.

iii) JOR., Madras, Vol. VIII. 1934, Pt. IV, pp. 372-380, Subhūticandra's Commentary on Amarakosa,—T. R. Chintamani.

31. NLRK. Eng. Tra. p. 6.

CHAPTER I

Plot of the Sanskrit Drama

Qualitative analysis

Sanskrit rhetorecians use the term Kāvya to denote all sorts of the poetical compositions. Kāvya may either be abhināya (drśya) or śravya the former comprises all types of dramatic compositions which are primarily meant to be enacted and are appropriately designated as rūpa, rūpaka1 or nāṭya while the latter includes all other varieties of Kāvya which are meant to be read, recited and heard.2

"Nāṭya is imitation," says Sāgara-nandin3 and in support of his view quotes :

avasthā yā tu lokasya sukhāduḥkha-samudbhavā / tasyāstavabhinayaḥ Prājñair-nāṭyamityabhidhīyate4 //

Here Nāṭya has been used in the sense of dramatic representation. It is the abhinaya (imitation on the stage, i.e., dramatic representation) of states or situations of human life arising out of joy and sorrow.5 Through fourfold abhinaya (āṅgika, vācika, sāttvika and āhārya) the characters portrayed in drama are represented on the stage. The term abhinaya, according to Sāgara 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

Nāṭya 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 Nāṭaka Sāgara quotes the following verse from an anonymous source :

api śakyeta vidvadbhir-muktir-abhyāsa-kauśalāt / na tu nāṭaka-vidyeyāṁ sarvalokānu-rañjani10 //

2 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

It is interesting to note that the verse, attributed by

Śaṅkara to no less an authority than Prajāpati himself, places

nāṭakavidyā even above parā-vidyā in India where mokṣa 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-śāstra

though it speaks of ten rūpakas describes eleven types of

rūpakas including the Nāṭikā. The Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa and some

other works deal with the upa-rūpakas also.

Of these rūpakas Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa are recognised

as full-fledged drama with all the five Sandhis and four

Vṛttis. Between these two, Indian dramaturgy accepts

Nāṭaka as the main type. Sāgara like all other authorities on

Nāṭaka first for the treatment of this 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, ākhyāna, itivṛtta, itihāsa, kathā and samvidhā-

naka.11 In the Nātya-śāstra the theme of a drama has been

described as its body.T2 Now, from the standpoint of

descriptive analysis, later authorities beginning from

Dhanañjaya are of opinion that plots are of three kinds : the

renowned, invented and mixed. When the plot is derived

from the mythological or historical (itihāsa-purāṇa) sources.

It is renowned (prakhyāta). 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 (miśra) is 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 Nāṭaka. The

Nāṭaka-candrikā is most vocal on this point and says, kṛpta-

varjyam tu nāṭake.14 Plays of Prakaraṇa, Prakaraṇikā, Praha-

sana and Vīthī types have their plots invented by the poet.

The plot of a Nāṭaka should always be renowned (khyātetit-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

vrtta). Abhinava-gupta informs us that according to his

preceptor, the quality of being prakhyāta 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-śāstra nowhere has explicitly

divided the plot as renowned, invented and mixed. From

description of the different types of dramas, it appears

that the Nātya-śāstra 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 Nāṭaka

has been restricted to deal with the stories found in the

two Great Epics, the Purāṇas and the Bṛhatkathā, and these

works have all along been accepted as the perennial source of

the themes of Nāṭakas in India.

Sāgara quotes from the Nāṭya-śāstra the description of

Nāṭaka which says that the theme of a Nāṭaka 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 families of royal sages Sāgara means Lunar and Solar

dynasties17 and adds that the renowned activities are those

that are lokānām-anurañjanam karma. Rāma’s determination

in carrying out father’s command, his heroic discharge of

duty in slaying Rāvaṇa to avenge the wrongs done by the

latter through the abduction of Sītā and also difficult tasks

like the offering of own body by Jīmūtavāhana have been

cited as illustrations of renowned activities of the heroes.18

Regarding the quality of the plot of a Nāṭaka Sāgara

remerks :

nāṭakasyetivṛttam bhavati upāttam prati-saṃskṛtam ca/

Upāttam purāṇa-siddham rāmādi-vṛttāntah / Pratisamskṛtam

upāttam kevalam kavinā kimcid-utpādya-vastviti muni-vacanāt

prapañcitam/19

4 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Thus, according to Sāgara the plot of a Nāṭaka, though taken from any traditional source, can be refashioned by the poet and this is explained by the observations of the Muni. But who is this Muni according to whose view the plot of a Nāṭaka can be reshaped from its original form ? The Nātya-śāstra is quite silent regarding the matter. Bharata categorically neither gives nor denies the liberty of the poets in refashioning the plots of Nāṭakas.

In actual practice, however, it is found that all our renowned Nāṭakas 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 is Prati-samskrta, refashioned.

Historically speaking, Nāṭaka had its beginning in some crude and simple form of rūpaka like Dima and Samavakāra but gradually developed through ages into Pūrṇa-sandhi and Pūrṇa-vṛtti Nāṭaka proper.20 At the primary stage, it can be presumed that simple and short stories in their original form from the epics and Purāṇas were sufficient to meet the demands of drama. But in a full-fledged drama like Nāṭaka those stories were required to be elaborated and refashioned. The poets took the liberty of remodelling the plots to give them proper shape of Nāṭaka and to make them more appealing to the audience. Thus, in every extant Nāṭaka we find that the plot as a whole is pratisamṣkrta.

Among the texts on dramaturgy, the Bhāva-prakāśa only informs us that it is Mātr̥guptācārya who enjoins that the plot of a Nāṭaka, though taken from a traditional source can be refashioned by the poet.21 This statement of Sāradātanaya is attested by a quotation from the text of Mātr̥gupta found in Arthadyotanikā, a commentary on Abhijñāna-śakuntala by Rāghavabhaṭṭa. Dr. Raghavan points out that Sāgara directly borrows here the view of Mātr̥gupta.22 It thus appears that Sāgara here refers to Mātr̥gupta by the word muni, who keeping an eye on the actual practice of the day, enjoins the right of the poet in reshaping the plot of Nāṭaka the framework of which is to be borrowed from the traditional source.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

6

For various reasons Mātṛgupta’s description of Nāṭaka as quoted by Rāghava-bhaṭṭa is interesting. It says :-

1. Prakhyāta-vastu-viṣayam dhīrodāttādi-nāyakam/

2. rājarsi-vamśa-caritam tathā divyā-śrayānvitam//

3. yuktam Vrddhi-vilāsādyair-gunair-nānābhūtibhib/

4. śṛṅgāra-virā-nyatara-pradhāna-rasa-sṛṅrayam//

5. prakṛtyavasthā-sandhyāṅga-sandhyantara-vibhāṣanaih/

6. patākā-sthānakair-vṛttam patākāis-ca (tadangaīs-ca ?) pravṛttibhib//

7. nāṭyā-laṅkāranair-nānā-bhāṣā-yuk-pātra-samcayaih/

8. aṅka-pravesakair-ādhyaṃ rasa-bhāva-samujjvalam//

9. sukha-duḥkhotpatti-kṛtaṃ Caritam yastu bhūbṛtām/

10. itivrttam kathod-bhūtaṃ kimcid-utpādya-vastu ca//

11. nāṭakam nāma taj-jñeyaṃ rūpakam nāṭya-vedibhibh//28

It is evident that Sāgara directly borrows the expression kimcid-utpādya-vastu from the tenth line of the above quotation.

Taking into consideration the actual practice, as discussed above, the texts of Mātṛgupta and Sāgara may be interpreted to mean that the plot of a Nāṭaka is to be borrowed and at the sametime may be refashioned, upātta and pratisamskṛta, in this sense indicate two characteristics of the plot and imply that though the framework of the plot of a Nāṭaka should always be related to the achievements of the epic or purāṇic 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 Nāṭaka should be khyāti-vṛtta-sambaddha2 4 (connected with some renowned story), allowing thereby the scope of refashioning.

The Daśa-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 Bhāva-prakāśana and the Sāhitya-darpana reiterate the same.

The Nāṭya-darpaṇa also maintains the same.

Several instances from existing Nāṭakas 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 Nāṭya-darpaṇa

6 NATĀKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

seems to be more practical in stating that the poets, while depicting traditional stories, freely innovate new situations and reject old ones for the sake of making the Nāṭaka 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 Nāṭya-śāstra 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 Nāṭya-śāstra, at least an implicit one, no theorist could have stated so explicitly that the epic and purāṇic 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 ṛṣi, possibly none could have remodelled an ārṣa-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 ārṣa sanction which they certainly derived from the Nāṭya-śāstra. It will not be out of place to point out here that a simple epic story, depicted in its original form in a Nāṭaka, cannot be expected to portray diversities of prosperity, amorous pastimes and so forth, as demanded by the Nāṭya-śāstra itself.27 Thus, it will not be unjustified to conclude that the Nāṭya-śāstra implicitly supports the general practice of remodelling traditional stories in Nāṭakas.

Dr Raghavan says, “Themes are of three kinds, Renowned, Invented and Mixed ; Prakhyāta, Utpādya and Miśra” and about upātta and pratisamskṛta of the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa, he remarks. “These are two subdivisions of the first type of the plot, the Prakhyāta.28” But Sāgara does not divide the plot into prakhyāta, utpādya and miśra kinds. Moreover, this division refers to the theme of drama in general and not of Nāṭaka only. Like all other authorities Sāgara maintains that the invented story forms the theme of Prakaraṇa etc. It appears then that according to Sāgara also, plots of dramas are of three kinds, upātta, pratisamskṛta and utpādya corres-

ponding respectively with prakhyāta, miśra and utpādya of others. Thus upätta and pratisamskṛta cannot be taken as two subdivisions of prakhyāta.

Sāgara further maintains that even the lives of historical or contemporary kings may form the subject matter of Nāṭaka.

This view deserves special treatment, as it is opposed to that commonly held and finds support from no other authority excepting Śāradātanaya who declares :

prayojana-vaśāt-tat-tu vartamānam api kvacit /29

This is the gist of Sāgara's statement :

vartamānam-api-nṛpate-mahābhūtatasya kavi-buddhī-prakarṣād-

āsāditabija-bindvādikam yadi bhavati bhavatyeva nāṭaka-viṣayam30

At the outset, it should be pointed out that any insignificant contemporary king cannot be featured in a Nāṭaka according to the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa.

The contemporary king should be an exceptionally endowed individual (mahābhūta), so that the Poet may find scope to develop his life-history into the theme of a Nāṭaka.

The events of his life, selected for the treatment in a Nāṭaka, should be suitable to be invested with the Arthaprakṛtis and also to be divided into Kāryavastāḥ.

Sāgara 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 Nāṭaka.

What, however, is exactly meant by the word varttamāna is not clear.

It may indicate historical as opposed to epic and Purāṇic or simply contemporary, belonging to the age to which the poet himself belongs.

The traditional story of the composition of Nāṭya out of the elements of all four Vedas by Pitāmaha himself, the use of the term itihāsa to denote dramatic plot,31 and the subject matter of the first dramatic performance, i.e., the defeat of the demons at the hands of gods, as recorded in the Nāṭya-śastra's 32 all tend to suggest that in its origin drama certainly utilised current old stories.

But the Nāṭya-śāstra nowhere explicitly prohibits the lives of contemporary kings from being depicted in Nāṭaka.

It is Abhinavagupta who most emphatically opposes the above view championed by Sāgara.

The great commentator of the Nāṭya-śāstra maintains that lives of contemporary and

8 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

historical kings should not be depicted in any form of drama (Nāṭya) not to speak of the Nāṭaka, the highest form of drama. But that there were earlier adherents of the view which was in favour of portraying the activities of contemporary kings in dramas, is borne out by the statements found in the Abhinava-bhāraṭī itself. In the first chapter of the Nāṭya-śāstra, 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 life in Nāṭya. Abhinava-gupta opposes the view on the ground that some of the rūpakas are to deal with invented stories and some with renowned stories according to the Nāṭya-śāstra. So, there is no scope of prabhu-carita in Nāṭya. Here Abhinava remarks : naca varttamāna-caritā-nukāro yuktah, and adduces arguments in his 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 life of a contemporary king depicted in a Nāṭaka as hero.33 Later in the chapter XVIII of the Nāṭya-śāstra, Abhinava further remarks that if the life of the hero of a Nāṭaka is picked up from contemporary bistory, 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 in a Nāṭaka according to Abhinava who, however, maintains that divine heroines and gods as secondary characters may be introduced in Nāṭakas. A hero in a Nāṭaka 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 Nāṭaka as hero. The hero of a Nāṭaka should always be one who is rājarṣi-vamśaprabhava.

The Nāṭya-darpana simply repeats what has been said by Abhinava-gupta in this matter in different words.36 The view of the Daśa-rūpaka and its followers has already been discussed. Thus, with the solitary exception of Śāradātanaya all other authorities on dramaturgy beginning from Abhinava-gupta

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

9

opine against the inclusion of contemporary kings as heroes

in Nāṭakas.

An enquiry into the actual practice regarding the delinea-

tion of the lives of contemporary and historical kings in

dramas by ancient Indian play-wrights cannot but be interest-

ing here. The enquiry may be started with Kālidāsa though

there has been a great controversy regarding his date. Dr S.N.

Dasgupta places him in the 2nd. century B. C., i. e., in the

Śuṅga period.37 Accepting this view it can be pointed out

that the character of a contemporary and historical king has

been depicted in a Nāṭaka by the Prince of Indian poets

himself in his Mālavikāgnimitra.38 On the other hand, a

drama, consisting of nine Acts and with a famous theme

describing the activities of historical Personages like Buddha,

Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana, has been designated Śāriputra-

prakaraṇa by its author Aśvaghoṣa. According to Nāṭya-

śāstra, as interpreted by Abhinavagupta, the plot of a

Prakaraṇa may be invented or taken from anārṣa-kāvya like

Brhatkathā etc., or similar works of other poets.39 The story

of the drama Śāriputra-prakaraṇa is neither invented nor taken

from any anārṣa source known to us. That the story was not

taken from any ārṣa source like the Epics and Purāṇas, that

Śāriputra, the hero, was neither a king nor did belong to the

family of any rājarṣi and that Aśvaghoṣa perhaps utilised

some old anārṣa source for the story might have been the

reasons behind calling the drama a prakaraṇa. It can also be

surmised that Aśvaghoṣa 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 Nāṭaka though its story is not

taken from any ārṣa source. Candragupta certainly did not

belong to any family of royal sages, but Mudrā-rākṣasa is a

Nāṭaka and Abhinavagupta takes it to be so.40 Moreover,

the story as depicted in the drama is not taken from any

known ārṣa source 41 Later allegorical dramas like Prabodha-

candrodaya, Moharāja-parājaya and Saṅkalpa-sūryodaya are all

styled as Nāṭaka. The drama Moharāja-parājaya of Yaśah-

pāla, describing the conversion of Kumārapāla, the Caulukya

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 Kumārapāla. But within a few years events cannot shake off varttamānatva and assume prakhyātātva. Moreover, the drama may be supposed to have written Prabhu-paritoṣāya, as the author himself served under Cakravartin 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, Kālidāsa and Viśākhadatta appear to have given little importance to the theory that Nāṭaka should depict the lives of those royal heroes of Epics and Purāṇas who led exemplary lives and that its theme should always be taken from some ārṣa source as maintained by Abhinavagupta. But the theory itself is old enough and this can reasonably be surmised from the adherence of Aśvaghoṣa to it ; otherwise Śāriputra-prakaraṇa 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 Nāṭakas, 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 Ghaṇṭaka 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 Nāṭaka.48

Sāgara also seems to maintain that it is the story that counts and that the story should satisfy all the technical exigencies of Nāṭaka as discussed above ; the hero may or may not be a rājarsi-vamśa-prabhava one. Sāgara distinctly says that the vartamāna king can be featured in a Nāṭaka, if he is an exceptionally endowed (mahābhūta) 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 Nāṭya-śāstra.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 formulate the theory, as supposed by Prof. Biswanath Bhattacharyya.46 The Nātya-śāstra nowhere explicitly prohibits the historical and contemporary Kings from being featured in Nāṭaka. 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 Nāṭaka.47 Mātṛgupta also says the samething in the ninth line as quoted above. So, neither Sāgara himself nor the authority or authorities he follows, can be said to have violated any principle of the Nātya-śāstra 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 fails to evoke the Rasa (sentiment) in the minds of the spectators. It matters little whether the hero is a rājarṣi-vamśa-prabhava one or a historical or contemporary king. This seems to be the view of catholic theorists like Sāgara 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 is

12

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

evident in extant dramas. For the same reason some play-

wrights ventured to introduce historical and contemporary

stories in the field. Puritans naturally, opposed the idea and

Abhinava seems to hava voiced their view in his Abhinava-

bhāratī. This tussel between the catholic and puritan groups

of critics is a natural feature in the history of every literature.

Indian theorists have all along sought the sanction of

the Nāṭya-śāstra for their views and as a result serious

divergences have crept in so far as the interpretation of this

ancient text is concerned. Sāgara 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 Śāstra 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.

Sāgara seems to have had no objection against the portrayal

of gods as heroes in Nāṭakas. He himself states that

Nāṭaka is the imitation of past activities of gods etc., and

in his support quotes the following verse from the Nāṭya-

śāstra :

devatānāṃ manuṣyānāṃ rājñāṃ lokanahātmanām/

pūrvavṛttānucaritaṃ nāṭakaṃ nāma tad-bhavet//

The GOS. edition of the Nāṭya-śāstra reads the first half of

the verse as :

devatānāṃ ṛṣiṇāṃ ca rājñāṃ cotkṛṣṭa-medhasām/

A manuscript reads nāṭya in place of nāṭaka. There are

several other variants also.51 The reading nāṭya indicates

that the verse refers to the contents of drama in general and

not of Nāṭaka only. The word nāṭaka may also be used in its

generic sense to mean rūpaka. In any case, the verse sanc-

tions the representation of gods as main characters in dramas

including Nāṭaka.

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 Nāṭaka. The Nāṭya-śāstra in this

matter, simply states that the hero of a Nāṭaka should be

renowned and exalted or magnanimous (prakhyātodātta-

nāyakam) :53 The word udātta is very important here. Diver-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

gent views on it's interpretation have given rise to different

opinions regarding the type of the hero of a Nāṭaka.

The word udātta has not been explained in the Nāṭaka-

lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa. Abhinava-bhārati refers to the view of

Śaṅkuka who is said to have maintained that the word udātta

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 prakhyātavastu.53 Abhinavagupta him-

self states, udātta iti vīra-rasāyogy uktaḥ, and adds that all the

four types of Dhīra-lalita, Dhīra-praśānta, Dhīrododhata and

Dhīrodātta have been included by it. Thus, according to

Abhinavagupta, the hero of a Nāṭaka may belong to any one

of these four types.54

Dr S. N. Shastri maintains that Sāgara seems to adhere

to the school of thought according to which the hero of a

Nāṭaka should belong to the Dhīra-lalita class only and goes

on to prove the untenability of the view by citing instances

of Nāṭakas having Dhīroddhata heroes. He also declares

that Sāgara has misunderstood the real implication of

Bharata's instructions contained in the following lines.55

devā dhīroddhatā jñeyāḥ śur-dhīra-lalitā nrpāḥ /

senāpatir-amātyaśca dhīrodāttau prakīrtitau //

dhīra-praśāntā vijñeyā brāhmaṇā vanijastathā //56

Dr S. N. Shastri appears to have overlooked the full

relevant text cf the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa which distinctly

says :

sarvathā yena sarvam samāpyate sa khalu nāyakaś-catuḥ-

prakṛtikah/dhīroddhatah/dhīra-lalitah/dhīrodāttah/dhīra-praśāntaś-

ca/57

It is apparent that like Abhinavagupta, Sāgara also main-

tains that the hero of a Nāṭaka may belong to any one of the

above four types. Following the above general instruction of

the Nāṭya-śāstra Sāgara states that the gods are Dhīroddhatas

(vehements), a king is Dhīra-lalita (gay), the general and

minister are Dhīrodāttas (gallants, and a learned (śrotriya)

Brahmin and merchant are Dhīra-praśāntas (quiet). Besides

these, mixed types of heroes have also been recognised in the

14

NATAKA-LAKṢAṆA-RATNA-KOṢA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-koṣa which adds that these types are determined by their mode of conduct in love matters.⁵⁸ The Nāṭya-śāstra reads the verses, quoted above, in connection with the description of upacāra. Sāgara is fully conscious that the above division of heroes in the Nāṭya-śāstra is a general instruction, mainly related to the behaviour of the heroes in their love affairs. Nāṭya-śāstra 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 Sāgara 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-bhāratī. It informs us that some opine that the hero of a Nāṭaka should be of a Dhīra-lalita type. And this follows from the instructions contained in devā-dhiroddhatā etc., of the Nāṭya-śāstra (quoted above), because a king only should be featured as hero in a Nāṭaka and according to the Nāṭya-śāstra he belongs to the Dhīra-lalita type. Abhinavagupta opposes the view and points out that Janaka, Rāma etc., depicted as heroes in Nāṭakas do not belong to Dhīra-lalita group.⁵⁹ His conclusion is that the hero of a Nāṭaka may belong to any one of those four types.⁶⁰ The Nāṭya-darpana follows this interpretation of Abhinavagupta and goes a step further to declare that kings may belong to any one of the four types rājānastu caturvidhāḥ.⁶¹

Thus, there has been a controversy, among even earlier authorities, regarding the interpretation of the description of four types of heroes in the Nāṭya-śāstra and also regarding the admissibility of those types in Nāṭakas. Sāgara clearly states that all the four types are suitable to Nāṭakas Abhinavagupta followed by the authors of the Nāṭya-darpaṇa admits the same in a clever way. It has been shown that there were other views also.

The Daśa-rūpaka seems to have bypassed the controversy. It maintains that the hero of a Nāṭaka should always be a Dhīrodātta one. In this respect, later works like

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

the Rasārnava-sudhākara and Sāhitya-darpaṇa follow the

Daśa-rūpaka.62 If Dhanika’s interpretation of the term

udātta is accepted, then this view does not appear to be

so untenable as taken by Dr S. N. Sastri.63 Dhanika

maintains that audattyam hi nāma sarvotkarsena vṛttih.64

According to this interpretation, undoubtedly a new

approach to the problem, the hero of a Nāṭaka 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 Nāṭya-śāstra

itself and authorities like Sāgara and Abhinavagupta give

stress on this point in their own way, as has already been

shown. The Daśa-rūpaka, as interpreted by Dhanika, also

tries to achieve this end in an ingenious way. With the

above interpretation of the term udātta Dhanika finds no

difficulty in declaring Jīmūta-vāhana as a Dhīrodātta

hero.65 The view, however, has been severely criticised

in the Nāṭya-darpaṇa.66

The division of the heroes in dramas into Divya,

Adivya and Divyā-divya groups is decidedly of later origin.

Probably under the influence of Vaiṣṇavism67 Nāṭya-Śāstra,

Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa and Abhinava-bhāratī do not make any attempt

of classifying the heroes in this way.

CHAPTER II

Five Avasthās (Five successive states)

"An action when developed in full, as normally it is in the Nāṭaka, the most perfect of forms of drama, involves of necessity five stages of developments."1 These five stages are called five Avasthās or Kāryāvasthās of the plot, the itivrtta. They are,—Ārambha (Prārambha), Prayatna, Prāptisambhava (Prāptyāśā), Niyatā-Phalaprāpti (Niyatāpti) and Phalayoga (Phalāgama). They occur in this order as they are enumerated in the Nāṭya-śāstra and the preceding stage naturally leads on to the succeeding one.2

Sāgara-nandin describes the five Avasthās in prose and mostly in terms of the Nāṭya-śāstra without quoting it word for word. But at the close of his discussion he quotes Mātṛgupta and states that Mātṛgupta describes the five Avasthās briefly in the following way.3 It can be presumed from this, that according to Sāgara, Mātṛgupta's description of five Kāryāvasthās does not vary from that of the Nāṭya-śāstra. Mātṛgupta's description, as stated in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa is :

prārambo rāvaṇa vadhe khara prabhṛti-vaiśasam /

prayatnaḥ sūrpanakhayā kṛtaḥ siītāpahārataḥ //

sugrīvāsya tu sakhyena samjātaḥ prāpti-sambhavaḥ. /

niyatā phala-samprāptih kumbhakarnādi samkṣaye//

yo devai rākṣasapateḥ kāryo duṣṭamater vadhak /

phala yogah sa rāmasya dharma-kāmārtha-siddhaye //4

Mātṛgupta, as it appears from the above, described five Avasthās with reference to a Nāṭaka, beginning with the forest life of Rāma and ending at the killing of Rāvaṇa. Sāgara informs us that all these are clear in the Rāghavā-bhyudaya,5 an old lost Nāṭaka from which there are fourteen citations in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa. From the above description it appears that according to Mātṛgupta each of the five successive stages is marked by an incident or incidents and the Phalayoga is marked by the last incident

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

bringing about the gains of the hero in the forms of

virtue, pleasure and prosperity. Here Rāvaṇa-vadha has

been taken to be the Phalayoga and the first stage i.e.,

the annihilation of Khara etc., has been shown to lead

to the second stage marked by the abduction of Sītā and

so on. But at the time of killing Khara etc., Rāma cannot

be supposed to be conscious of the ultimate end, i.e., the

killing of Rāvaṇa. So, it cannot be said that according

to Mātr̥gupta the ultimate object of the hero is fixed in

the stage of Ārambha. Moreover, in the stage of Prayatna,

Mātr̥gupta seems to have given the scope of describing

the pursuit after the desired object by some one other

than the hero.

ĀRAMBHA (Beginning)

Sāgara defines Ārambha as : bijasyaut sukya-mātrabon-

dhah,6 and illustrates the same with a verse, said to be

taken from the Kośalānaka. As a comment on the illus-

tration he says, “This Ārambha is to accomplish this.”7

The illustration cited describes a situation where Rāma

is determined to move to the forest at his father’s

command and praises the move as commendable in all

respects. Bīja according to Sāgara, as will be shown, is

the cause of the final stage of the action. Now, the

exile of Rāma, the first incident, ultimately leads to the

destruction of Rāvaṇa, the final stage of the action, through

successive stages. But at this8 first stage the hero, here

Rāma, cannot be said to be conscious of sthe ultimate

goal. This is quite in conformity with the above exposition

of the Ārambha by Mātr̥gupta. Thus, according to Sāgara

Ārambha 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 Sāgara does not make any attempt

to explain the text of Nāṭya-śāstra quoted by himself, but

through illustration brings out the implication of Ārambha

2

18 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KCSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

and in doing so he follows Mātṛgupta, presumably with

a belief that Mātṛgupta does not differ from the Nāṭya-śāstra.

The Bhāva-prakāśa also follows this line of thought as it

appears from the illustration it cites from the Abhijñāna-

śakuntala. According to the Rasārnava-sudhākara the beginn-

ing of exertion by the hero for the final aim is the

Ārambha and in this respect it is followed by the Nāṭaka-

candrikā.9 Only anxious desire (autsukya-mātram) for the

accomplishment of the chief aim is the Ārambha according

to the Daśa-rūpaka and Sāhitya-darpaṇa.10 The Daśa-rūpaka is

not explicit enough whether the first move or anxious desire

should be always of the hero himself or not. Viśvanātha,

however, maintains that this autsukya may be aroused in the

mind of any leading character like the nāyaka, nāyikā etc.11

The final object is reached through successive stages. It

cannot 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 Mātṛgupta as

explained before, it can be pointed out that Rāma cannot

be represented as bent upon the killing of Rāvaṇa at the

stage of the annihilation of Khara etc., by him.

Abhinavagupta takes Bīja to mean upāya-sampat, i.e.

means and explains Ārambha 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 daiva (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 pratināyaka in not clear. The nāṭya-darpana

adds movement with anxiety for the means but follows the

line of Abhinavabhārati closely so far as the implication

of Ārambha is concerned.13

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

19

PRAYATNA (Effort)

Following the Nāṭya-śāstra, Sāgara defines Prayatna as :

Phala-yogam apaśyata eva tatra vyāparah14 ; and illustrates

this second stage of the action by citing the part of a

verse from the Kulapatyāṅka where Rāvaṇa in the guise of

a hermit describes his effort, presumably directed towards

the abduction of Sītā.15 Rāvaṇa certainly is not the hero

of the drama from which the illustration has been cited.

Thus, according to Sāgara, the zealous pursuit after the

object of desire which has not yet been found, is the

Prayatna. This pursuit may or may not be done by the

hero himself or related directly to the final object, but

must lead to the next stage of the action. This is what

Mātṛgupta says about Prayatna, as pointed out before.

According to Abhinavagupta, Prayatna is the more

serious endeavour of any one, as in the case of Ārambha,

in finding out the means for the final achievement. Here

also Abhinavagupta gives stress on mental activity. The

Nāṭya-darpaṇa follows Abhinava but states more explicitly

that only anxiety is Ārambha but Prayatna is serious

anxiety.16

The Daśa-rūpaka, as interpreted by Dhanika, maintains

that Prayatna is the speedy activity of some one, consis-

ting in the employment of means.17 The Sāhitya-darpaṇa

follows the Daśa-rūpaka and Avaloka.18 Persistence of the

anxiety for the attainment of the desired object is Prayatna

according to the Rasārṇava-sudhākara and this is followed

by the Nāṭaka-candrikā.19

The Bhāva-prakāśa defines Prayatna after the Nāṭya-

śāstra and illustrates it by citing the verse from the Mālatī-

mādhava Act. I, where Kāmandakī’s determined effort in

uniting Mādhava with Mālatī 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)

Sāgara defines Prāpti-sambhava briefly in the words of the Nātya-śāstra as bhāvamātrena phalasya yā prāptih.21 The word bhāvamātrena is significant, but has not been explained by him. The Bhāva-prakāśa in this respect comes to our help. It gives the same definition of the Prāpti-sambhava as is found in the Nātya-śāstra but reads sattvamātrena instead of bhāvamātrena.22 The stage is illustrated by Sāgara with a citation from the Sugrivānka, where the furious monkeys are asked to fall upon the demons. Sāgara comments on this illustration that here at the news of Sītā there is the determined effort of the monkeys to destroy the demons.23 Here the final end (phala) is evidently the recovery of Sītā 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 prāpti) so far as its possibility (bhāvamātrena) is indicated and the whole effort of the hero is directed to the final achievement. Thus, bhāvamātrena in the above definition seems to mean sattvamātrena i.e., in its mere existence. So, it appears that according to Sāgara Prāpti-sambhava is the knowledge of the existence and as such, possibility of the future phala-prāpti. The main characteristic of this stage is thus a psychological forestalling of a chance of achieving the end, tantamount to the adoption of a plan, based on materials in hand which are regarded as conducive to success. The Rasārnava-sudhākara says this in a more simple language.24 The Nāṭaka-candrikā follows the Rasārnava-sudhākara and also quotes the Nāṭya-śāstra in its support. It also quotes the view of Dhananjaya evidently to indicate its difference with that of the Nāṭya-śāstra.25

Abhinavagupta takes the expression bhāvamātrena to mean the removal of obstacles and the gain of additional means. Due to these two factors according to Abhinavagupta, the possibility of specific achievement but not its certainty, comes to be known at this stage. But to whom it is to be known is not clearly stated though this Avasthā has

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

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 similar to that of Mātṛgupta. Mātṛgupta, as quoted

above,27 seems to mean that the possibility of Rāma's

success in killing Rāvaṇa is born of his friendship with

Sugrīva, i.e., the gain of means. The Nāṭya-darpaṇa follows

the line of Abhinavagupta.28

According to the Daśa-rūpaka also, this third stage is

one of uncertainty regarding the final accomplishment due

to the existence of both suitable means and apprehension

of obstacles. The Sāhiṭya-darpaṇa here quotes the Daśa-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 develenment 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 Nātaka-lakṣaṇa offers two views so far as the descrip-

tion of the Niyatāpti is concerned. The Nāṭya-śāstra means

that at this penultimate stage of the action, the sure

success of the hero comes to be visualised an idea

(bhāvena).30 It appears, that according to the Nāṭya-śāstra

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

Niyatāpti in his own way. He takes the word bhāvena to

mean by main means. According to his interpretation, at

the stage of Niyatāpti it becomes apparent that the hero's

final achievement is assured by main means, through the

22 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

assistance of helping means and by the removal of obstacles.

Nātya-darpana follows this explanation of Abhinavagupta.31

It may be pointed out that here also Abhinavagupta does

not state specifically to whom it becomes apparent that

the means are sure to bring about the phala.

Sāgara first explains the term Niyatāpti as : niyatā niścitā

phala-praptir-upasthitaiva yāvat.32 He means to say that

at this stage of Niyatāpti the final attainment is to be

shown as almost come about. As an illustration he cites

from the Venī-samhāra where Pāñcālaka relates the message

from Vāsudeva to Yudhiṣṭhira asking the latter to make

preparations for the coronation, as Bhīma is sure to kill

Duryodhana in the battle already in progress.33 The

illustration shows that the success is about to come. But

even after this a tragic complication is created by the un-

foreseen entrance of Cārvāka in this drama. So, Niyatāpti

according to this explanation of Sāgara seems to consist

mainly in the removal of all known obstacles.

Sāgara then gives the view of Aśmakuṭṭa which says :

arāter-apacaya-paramparā niyatā ca phalaprāpti....34 According

to this view successive losses sustained by the enemy constitutes

Niyatāpti. This seems to be what Mātṛgupta means by

niyatā phalasampraptih kumbhakarnādisamkṣaye.35 Sāgara

illustrates this Niyatāpti by a citation from the Act VI of

the lost Rama-play Jānakī-rāghava of a forg otten dramatist.

Here, in the citation Lakṣmaṇa appears to console Rāma

that there is no cause of his dejection as the more for-

midable young enemies like Kumbhakarṇa. Indrajit and

Kumbha have already been killed and there remains only

the old Rāvaṇa.36 The illustration refers to the number

of losses of Rāvaṇa, the enemy of the hero (Rāma) of

the drama and this is the characteristic feature of Niyatāpti

according to Mātṛgupta and Aśmakuṭṭa as recorded by

Sāgara.

The Daśa-rūpaka holds that Niyatāpti is the certainty of

final achievement of the hero due to the want of obstacles.37

The Sāhitya-darpaṇa simply quotes this statement of the Daśa-

rūpaka and the Rasārṇava-sudhākara also means the same

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

and is followed by the Nātaka-Candrikā38 This view seems

to be somewhat similar to that of Abhinavagupta but not

so expressive and clear.

PHALAYOGA

(Accomplishment, Consummation)

Phalagama or Phalayoga is the last stage of the action

consisting mainly of the accomplishment of the desired

object of the hero. Following the Nāṭya-śāstra Sāgara

describes phalayoga as :

abhipretam-anurūpam kriyā-phalam yatra nispannam sa

phalayogah.39

The illustration is cited from the Jānaki-rāghava. In the

Act I of the drama, as quoted and commented upon by

Sāgara, the killing of Rāvaṇa and the rescue of Sītā

have been referred to through the dialogues of Sītā and

Priyamvadā. In the last Act, says Sāgara, both have been

accomplished in accordance 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 Mātṛgupta also as quoted above, says that the killing

of Rāvaṇa by Rāma is Phalayoga. It appears then that

according to Mātṛgupta whom Sāgara seems to have followed,

Phalayoga is also marked by incident or incidents. Sāgara

thus seems to maintain that here in the last stage the

desired fruits of action (abhipretam kriyāphal am) 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 nāyakasya) is phalayoga in which he achieves in full

the suitable object desired by him. The Nāṭya-darpana

also says the same in different words.41 The Daśa-rūpaka

simply states that the phalayoga consists in the full and final

attainment of the hero. The Sāhitya-darpaṇa, Rasārṇava-

sudhākara and Nātaka-candrikā just follow the Daśa-

rūpaka.42

24 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

In this last stage of the action of a drama the playwright 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 an ideal. This idea acts like a guiding force throughout the play. The incidents are represented to occur as connected by a chain ;—the central idea. In the Phalayoga this idea finally 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 Avasthās and the fact has been recorded by Śāradātanaya 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 Avasthās are connected with the hero and other dramatic personages objectively, but subjectly they are the concern of the poet and that the Nāṭya-śāstra itself and Abhinavaguptabhāratī appear to have supported this view.44

Dr. V. M. Kulkarni after a study of the Avasthās, mainly in the line of Abhinava-bhāratī, arrives at the conclusion that this division of the plot of a drama is a subjective analysis of the theme inasmuch as, “The Avasthās are primarily the mental states or attitudes of the hero with reference to the end aimed at by him.”45 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 Mātṛgupta and Sāgara 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 discussed in details. The analysis is subjective no doubt,

but that is from the standpoint of the playwright, as pointed out above. Abhinavagupta, of course, gives in some cases stress on mental states in explaining the Avasthās but not always of the hero himself. Abhinavagupta's analysis of the Avasthās seems to be one from the standpoint of the dramatist materialised through the characters of the play concerned.

Sāgara following Mātrgupta mainly, analyses the plot purely from the standpoint of a spectator and his process may be called an objective one. He seems to have given stress on the fact that the Avasthās are successive stages in the development of the action and each Avasthā is marked by an incident or incidents. It has also been shown where he differs from other theorists and mainly from Abhinavagupta. Among other writers, the authors of the Nāṭya-darpana follow closely the line of Abhinavagupta, and Śāradātanaya in some places seems to adhere to the school of thought represented by Sāgara 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

(Constituent Elements of the Plot)

The analysis of the plot into five Arthaprakrtis depend upon the formal division of the plot of a drama into principal and secondary actions, known in Indian dramaturgy as Ādhikārika and Prasāṅgika Vṛttas. The itivrtta or the plot of a drama consists of situations some of which are directly connected with the main thread of the story and some indirectly. From this point of view the plot has been analysed as consisting of two Parts : Ādhikārika and Prasaṅgika or Anusaṅgika.1 The plot of a drama is an organic whole and the so-called parts are inseparably connected behaving like elements in the constitution of a living organism. When they are artificially thought to be separated, they lose their dramatic quality. Moreover, the complex structure of a drama does not to easily yield to the above sort 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 such a division is essential.

Ādhikārika-vṛtta or the principal action plays the leading part in the final attainment and is directly connected with the hero. The Prasāṅgika one (incidental or secondary action) on the other hand, is not directly related to the final achievement but is contributory to it.2 The point has been made clear by an illustration in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa. It says that in a plot where the killing of Rāvaṇa is the Karya (Principal action), the slaying of Valin by Rāma to win Sugrīva’s alliance is Anusaṅgika.3 Sāgara informs us that according to some, the Anusaṅgika is a contributory story within the main story.4 Evidently, this is not the opinion of Sāgara. The secondary action is undoubtedly contributory to the principal action, but it may not always be a full-fledged story (kathā). It may be a mere incident.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

There has been a long-standing controversy regarding the significance of the term Arthaprakṛti. According to Abhinavagupta the five Arthaprakṛtis are but means for the attainment of the fruit, i.e., the final end.5 This is also the opinion of Dhanika, and Viśvanātha simply repeats the statement of Dhanika. The Nāṭya-darpaṇa also maintains the same opinion.6

Rasārṇava-sudhākara takes the Arthaprakṛtis to mean parts of the story. The view is not a new one. Abhinavagupta rightly criticises the view on the ground that if Arthaprakṛtis are taken to be the parts of the whole story, then the Sandhis also should be regarded as Arthaprakṛtis, which they are not.7

The standpoint of the Bhāvaprakāśa is a bit difficult to ascertain due to the nature of the text. It reads : arthaprakṛtayaḥ pañca kathā-bhedasya (one manuscript reads tathā dehasya) hetavaḥ/ etc kathāśarīrasya hetavaḥ parikīrtitāḥ.8 The reading dehasya seems to be probable as the two statements become identical. According to Śāradātanaya then Artha-prakṛtis are elements of the plot. They are the causes of the plot inasmuch as they combine to produce the plot. This definition of the Bhā. pra. is evidently taken from the Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa of Bhojarāja who also looks upon the Arthaprakṛtis as elements of the plot.9

Leaving aside the standpoint of the Rasārṇava-sudhākara we get two views regarding the nature of the Arthaprakṛtis. According to Abhinavagupta and others, as shown before, they are, phala-hetavaḥ or prayojana-siddhi-hetavaḥ, and according to Bhoja and Śāradātanaya they are, kathā-śarīra-hetavaḥ. It is interesting to note that both these schools of thought accept the word prakṛti to mean hetu (cause), but according to the former artha means phala while according to the latter it denotes the kathāśarīrā, the story.

Sagara says : naṭakīyavasthānāṃ...pañca prakṛtayaḥ svabhāvanti.10 It is evident that the word artha here, has been taken to mean the plot of a drama, but only a synonym of the word Prakṛti is given. The word prakṛti

28

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

or svabhāva here may however, be taken to mean constituent elements or inherent properties as other meanings of these two words appear unsuitable in this context. It thus appears that according to Sāgara Arthaprakrtis 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 Nāṭaka.11 Bhojarāja and Sāradātanaya as discussed above, appear to have shared the view held by Sāgara. It may also be pointed out here that Rūpa-gosvāmin, an ardent follower of the Rasārnava-sudhākara, describes Arthaprakrti as : pañca-vidhyāt kathāyāstu prakrtih pañcadhā smrtā.12 It is, however, not clear that the word Prakrti means here, but from the statement it appears that the Vaiṣṇava 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 Rasārnava-sudhākara and the school of thought represented by the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-koṣa.

It may further be pointed out that the view held by Sāgara and Bhoja regarding the Arthaprakrtis, appear to be an older one. Abhinavagupta refers to it. While commenting on itivrttte yathāvasthāh13… of the Nātya-śāstra he says : artha itivrttte prakrṭaya iti vaktavye arthograhaṇam atiriktam syāt ityavasthābhiśca tulyatāvarṇanāṁ varṇanāmātram syāditi kimanena,14 The above verse of the Nāṭya-śāstra enjoins that as there are five Avasthās in the itivrtta, so there are five Artha-prakrtis. Abhinava-gupta seems to mean that artha in the word arthaprakrtaȳh of the verse, becomes superfluous if it is taken in the sense of itivrtta which follows from the first half of the verse. Moreover, in that case Arthaprakrtis become equated with the Avasthās, as both of these groups signify nothing more than the nature of the plot, analysed in its different stages of development and as such, the description of the Arthaprakrtis becomes useless. So far as the above verse of the Nāṭya-śāstra is concerned, the cogency of the first argument of Abhinavagupta is unquestionable. But the editor

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

informs us that the first half of the verse is not found in most of the manuscripts15 and Sāgara also has not included the verse in his text. The second argument cannot be directed against Sāgara inasmuch as according to his standpoint Avasthās are five stages in the develop-

ment of the action and the Arthaprakṛtis are but constituent elements and not divisions of the plot and as such, the two pentads cannot be equated.

Regarding the order of the Arthaprakṛtis in a drama, Sāgara maintains silence. The problem will be considered in details in due course.16

To sum up, Arthaprakṛtis have been taken at least in three different senses by different schools of thought. According to the Abhinava-bhāratī Daśarūpaka, Nāṭya-darpaṇa and Sāhitya-darpaṇa, they are the means for the final attainment (phalahetavaḥ). Sāgara maintains that they are constituent elements of the plot and this view seems to be shared by Bhojadeva and Śāradātanaya. The Rasārṇava-sudhākara takes them as parts of the plot.

BIJA (Germ)

Bīja is the first of the Arthaprakṛtis and as the very seeds of the dramatic action it comes first. Bīja according to Sāgara is :

nāṭakārthasya phalabhūtasya karaṇam.1

It has been shown that Arthaprakṛtis according to Sāraga 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, Bīja according to the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa 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 according to Mātṛgupta 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 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

sprouts and develops with the progress of successive stages culminating into fruition, i.e., the final event, and as such, it is said to be pervading over the entire play.

Sāgara in support of his view quotes the description of the Bīja from the Nāṭya-śāstra which says that the Bīja is indicated or sown (in the initial stage) slightly but spreads out in various ways and ends in fruition.2 We have shown that there are three different views held by different schools of thought regarding the nature of the Arthaprakṛtis. Bīja being an Arthaprakṛti, has also been taken in three different senses, viz., phalabetu, nāṭakīyavastu-svabhāva and kathābhāga. But that it causes the action to culminate into fruition, is the opinion of all.3 There are, however, subtle differences of opinions regarding the exact implication of fruition and this will be shown later.

The Nāṭya-śāstra says, as shown above, that the Bīja is to be indicated or sown slightly (at the initial stage). By slightly (kiṃcit stokam) Sāgara means by such ways as śleṣa, chāyā and upakṣepa.4 Śleṣa, says Sāgara, is dvyarthavacana, i.e., conveying of double meanings, chāyā is similarity of incidents (kathāsāmyam) and upakṣepa means introduction of the plot (arthopasthāpanam).5

While discussing the Mukha-sandhi, Sāgara quotes a verse with similar import as above and attributes the same to Āchārya. The text runs : ........ ācārya aha / yasminnākhyāna bijasya śleṣeṇa cchāyayāpi vā / kriyate kīrtanam sadbhis-tan mukham parikīrtitam /6

Of the three ways of sowing th- Bīja, as mentioned by Sāgara above, two are included here in this verse ; the Upakṣepa is omitted. By the epithet ācārya Sāgara refers to Bharata invariably. It may be presumed that according to the belief of Sāgara the above verse belongs to the work of Bharata. But no trace of it is found in the present Nāṭya-śāstra. It is interesting to point out here that Tārā-nātha Tarkavācaspatī in his commentary on the verse. "satpakṣa madhuragiraḥ..." of the Veṇī-saṃhāra quotes : śleṣacchāyopadeśaiśca samuddiṣṭam visar pati / Yat phalodaya-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

31

paryantam tad bijam iha kīrttitam'//. The said pandita then

remarks : iti bharatokta-phalodaya-paryantam prabandhaprati-

pädyam artham bijarüpena slesena varnayati'.7 upadesaih

in the first pada of the verse quoted by Täränätha Tärka-

väcaspati, may be replaced by upaksepaih on the evidence

of the Nätaka-laksana-ratna-kosa. Sägara also illustrates

the indication of the Bija through slesa with the same

verse from the Veni-samhära as above, where the Sütra-

dhära describes Autumn but the hidden meaning of which

is the total destruction of the Kauravas.8 The verse,

quoted and attributed to Bharata by Täränätha Tarkavä-

caspati also is not found in the present Nätya-sästra.

Of the above two verses, attributed to Bharata, the one

found in the Nätaka-laksana-ratna-kosa describes the Mukha

sandhi and the other, quoted by Täränätha Tarkaväcaspati

describes the Bija. The former one mentions two ways

of indicating the Bija while the latter points out three

ways. Sägara himself also maintains that Bija can be indi-

cated in the same three ways. The diffe : ways of indicating

the Bija, referred to in the above t verses, have not been

mentioned by any other known authority like Abhinavagupta,

Dhananjaya, Rämacandra, äradätanaya, Viśvanätha 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 Nätya-sästra 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, probably

in Bengal, the homeland of Täränätha Tarkaväcaspati where

it was extant even before a century, otherwise we could have

found it in the work of any other authority, mentioned above.

Täränätha might have collected the verse from some other

commentary or from any other second-hand source. But

Sägara certainly utilised a copy of the Nätya-sästra which

did not differ materially from its present version. It seems

probable that Sägara, also hailed from eastern India and that

there was an eastern version of the Nätya-sästra.9 Of

course, a single instance cannot decide the issue.

Sägara illustrates the indication of Bija through similarity

32 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

of incidents (śleṣa) with a verse from the Jānaki-rāghava.

The verse concerned, seems to be the opening one of the drama10 and describes how Viṣṇu 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 Rāvaṇa by Rāma and the rescue of Sītā constituting, evidently, the Phalayoga of the drama.

As an illustration of the indication of the Bīja through Upakṣepa, the last verse of the Prastāvanā from the Kundamālā has been quoted. Here the Sūtradhāra introduces directly the play with such words as, here Lakṣmaṇa is taking Sītā to the forest.12 It should be noted that in each of the above three cases the hint to the final object (phala) has been taken to be the indication of Bīja.

Practically speaking, Bīja 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 api ca bhavisyatpāyāvinābhāvād bijam ityucyate.13 It also appears that Sāgara supports the indication of Bīja in the Prastāvanā.

Sāgara offers another view according to which Bīja 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.14 This evidently is the opinion of one of those theorists who take Arthaprakṛti as phala-hetu.

The metaphor of the growth and development of a tree from the seed, as used here, has also been utilised in the Bhava-prakāśana and Rasa-rṇava-sudhākara 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 playwright. The genesis of action, called bijanyāsa in Sanskrit dramaturgy, should be appealing 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 Bīja should be so introduced that it appears in the circumstances natural

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

33

and appropriate. The Indian theorists took up the matter seriously and consequently we come across different suggestions regarding this important topic.

Mātṛgupta, as quoted by Raghava-bhaṭṭa treats the introduction of Bīja more elaborately and from different angles.16 According to Mātṛgupta the Bīja 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 endeavour for the attainment of the final end. The poet may first introduce both the fruit and activity for its attainment or simply the activity, particularly mentioned. Mātṛgupta further maintains that Phalabīja is that which ends in fruition, the story (kathā) is the Vastubīja and the hero is the Arthabīja.

This Phala-bīja of Mātṛgupta is the Bīja of the Nāṭya-śāstra as explained above. But what is exactly meant either by the Vastu-bīja or Artha-bīja is not clear. Vastu and Artha are generally used as synonyms in the texts of dramaturgy to mean sthūla, the theme of the drama. Moreover, Kathā is said to be the Vastubīja, while Kathā and Vastu also denote the samething. A subtle difference between Kathā 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 (bīja) 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-bīja in the sense that his Prayojana is represented as served in a drama. Now, in every Nāṭaka these three germs are certainly present. The only significance that can be surmised in designating the above three as Bīja is the fact that according to the nature of the plot any one of them may get prominence over the others and tha action may be started with any one of the three types of Bīja.

There may be Nāṭaka 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 Kundamālā and the Uttara-rāma-carita are the best examples of this type of Nāṭaka. In both the dramas the plot, though related to the Rāmāyaṇa, is practically new

3

34

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

in the sense 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 Nāṭakas start with a critical situation of the main story, borrowed from the source.

On the other hand, in a Nāṭaka like Veṇī-samhāra, 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 Nāṭaka may be started with the introduction of the hero on the stage.

Bhīma in the Veṇī-samhāra captures the audience at the very starting of the play.

The drama Abhijñāna-śakuntala begins with the Artha-bīja, i.e., with the entrance of the king as chasing a deer, but very soon the poet creates opportunity of sowing the Phalabīja in the form of a benediction showered on the king by the ascetics.

The drama Ratnāvalī, practically begins with the Phalabīja.

After the exit of the Sūtradhāra, the minister Yaugandharāyaṇa enters and almost expresses the ultimate end to be achieved by the king.

The above three Bījas, as described by Mātṛgupta must be there in every drama but any one of them may get prominence due to the nature of the plot, as shown above.

Mātṛgupta’s above observation thus seems to be based on a close study of the actual practice.

Abhinavagupta also maintains that in different dramas Bīja may be of different forms.

The sowing of the Bīja may be done by indicating the means or the Phala or both, and the Phala may be of different varieties.

The Nāṭya-darpaṇa reiterates what has been said in the Abhinava-bhāratī.

Bindu (Sign of Continuity)

Sāgara quotes the definition of Bindu from the Nāṭya-śāstra and according to his interpretation Bindu is the cause of the continuity of the action upto the end when its main purpose (pradhāna prayojana) is interrupted by some subsidiary

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

issues.⁷ He illustrates Bindu with the verse “lākṣāgrhānāla...”,

rom the Veni-samhāra 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, i.e., the destruction of the Kauravas.⁸

Neither the illustration nor Sāgara's comment on it is expres-

sive enough to give an idea of the Bindu. The illustration is

practically the opening verse of the Veni-samhāra and as such,

the interruption of the main purpose by subsidiary issues giving

scope for the Bindu does not arise here at all. Śāradātanaya

informs us that according to Kohaḷa when the main purpose

(phala) of the Bīja is disconnected by subsidiary purposes,

Bindu is the cause of its continuation.⁴ This is also what

Sāgara means. Śāradātanaya again says : lākṣāgrhānaletyādi

bindok sāṃānyalakṣaṇam.⁵ Śāradātanaya here seems to be

influenced by Sāgara and offers a clue to the exposition of the

latter's view on Bindu. The verse lākṣāgrhānāla..., 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

motif. So, this verse has been taken to be a sāṃānyalakṣaṇa

of the Bindu. Like the Bīja the Bindu in this sense also

continues throughout the play.

Sāgara 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

till 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 Draupadī's hair has been

voiced in every Act of the Veni-samhāra with indignation, and

the resolution of self-sacrifice by Jīmūtavāhana has been

mentioned with firmness in the Nāgānanda. These are two well-

known instances of the reference to the main urge behind the

action, in every Act. Besides these two Sāgara cites two other

illustrations, one from the Rāghavābhyudaya and other from

the Jānakīrāghava.⁸ Śāradātanaya holds also a similar view

and states that Bindu may be due to māna or virahati; 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 Sāgara. It is said that the representa-

tion of successive slaughter of Mārica, Khara with his hosts.

Kumbhakarṇa and Indrajit is the Bindu in a theme depicting

the killing of Rāvaṇa. Similarly, the killing of Droṇa etc.,

is so in a play describing the destruction of the Kauravas.

But the description of successive losses sustained by the enemy

has been shown by Sāgara to be the characteristic of Niyatāpti

according to Aśmakuṭṭa and this has been discussed before.

The view seems to imply that it is only in the stage of

Niyatāpti Bindu is the cause of continuity (ācch edakāraṇa).

Before this stage the certainty of the final achievement cannot

be disclosed for the sake of dramatic suspense. In Niyatāpti

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 Phalāgama.

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

in 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-

kṛtis 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, i.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 main current of

the theme (Bindu) may also be represented as due to the

effort of the hero or his associates or both. It is also clearly

stated by Abhinavagupta that both Bīja 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.12

From the above discussion it appears that there is no two

opinions, so far as the basic function of the Bindu is concern-

ed. Sāgara offers three views regarding the nature of the Bindu

and the last two are referred to as those maintained by others.

The first view, evidently his own, follows the line of Kohala,

as presented by Śāradātanaya. This one is the generally

accepted view on Bindu.13 The second one is really signifi-

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 Śāradātanaya without any line

of demarcation drawn between the two. The third view,

referred to by Sāgara, has been shown to be an obsolete one.

Abhinavagupta elaborates the matter and shows how Bindu,

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 partially supports the second view offered

in the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa. In another place Abhinava-

gupta states that Bindu as the speech at the end of each Aṅka

connects the preceding Aṅka with the succeeding one. The

Nāṭya-darpana and Daśa-rūpaka also maintain the same

view.15 It is interesting to note that Kātyavema in his

commentary points out Bindu at the close of each Anka of

the Mālavikāgnimitra.16 The view occurs in the discussion

of Aṅka in both Abhinava-bhāratī and Nāṭya-darpaṇa. The

close of an Aṅka may be taken to be an occasion of the Bindu

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 main current of the story and at the close of an Aṅka

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.

Sāgara says that as drops of water dripping from the sides of

38

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

a thatch indicate the fall of water even when the rain is over,

so, Bindu also indicates the purpose and maintains the

continuity of the main action when it is interrupted by

secondary issues.17 Abhinavagupta maintains 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

surface of water, Bindu also is a wide-spreading element.18

Ricipati quotes a verse with similar meaning and attributes

the same to Bharata.19 The verse, however, is not found

in the present Nātya-śāstra. The Rasārnava-sudhākara draws a

very interesting simile 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.20 This simile suits

better with the view that holds Bindu as a pivotal idea recurr-

ing in each Act.

Patākā (Episode)

It has been pointed out before that the plot of a drama is

generally analysed in Indian dramaturgy as consisting of

two Parts,—the Adhikārika and the Prasangika, i.e., the

principal and the secondary action. This secondary action

or the subsidiary portion of the plot (prasañgika-vrtta) is

of two kinds,—the Patākā and Prakarī. 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 Patākā seems to have given rise to several

conjectures regarding its exact significance. Sāgara says

that as a banner on a pole placed in a certain place

indicates the whole army, so also the Patākā occupying

a certain portion of the action exposes the entire play

(nāṭakākadeśa-vartinī nāṭakam sakalam eva prakāśayati).

Abhinavagupta says that the episode (Patākā) is called a

Patākā by tradition as it is useful.3 Dhanika maintains

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

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

39

helps him. Similar also seems to be the view of the

Rasārṇava-sudhākara. The subtle differences of views

regarding the nature of Patākā among above authorities

are thus brought home to us. According to Sāgara,

Arthaprakṛtis are elements of the plot and as such Patākā

being an element helps the delineation of the entire

plot through its assistance to the main plot. According to

Abhinavagupta Patākā, being a means, as all Arthaprakṛtis

are, is useful to the hero. Dhanika and Śiṅgabhūpāla

state this more explicitly.

Sāgara quotes the definition of the Patākā directly

from the Nāṭya-śāstra and adds a gloss on the same. He

maintains that the existence of the Patākā is for the sake

of another as it contributes to lead the main action to its

goal. The Patākā (vṛtta) itself also assumes the character

of the main action for the display of heroic quality.

As an illustration of Patāka-nāyaka Sāgara cites the

character of Karṇa in the Veṇīsamhāra 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,6 It

appears from the above that according to Sāgara Patākā

may be the helper of even the Pratināyaka, i.e., the enemy

of the Pradhānanāyaka.

Sāgara further says that Patākā according to some, is the

action of the Upanāyaka and that it is sthūlārtha. According

to this view, adds Sāgara, what is done by the Upanāyaka

(secondary hero) coming forward (prādhānyam avalambya) to

help the main hero, constitutes Patākā; as the activities of

Makaranda in the Mālatīmādhava comes to the help of

Mādhava.7

The Bhāva-prakāśana and the Rasārṇava-sudhākara explici-

tly state that the upanāyaka-vṛttānta is the Patākā. Sāradā-

tanaya maintains that the Patākā-nāyaka is almost equal to

the main hero (tat samāna).8 Abhinavagupta cites the

characters of Sugrīva and Vibhīṣaṇa, as Patakā-nāyakas,

Dhanika maintains that characters like Sugriva etc., which

help the hero are Patākās.9 Viśvanātha also holds the view

that the Patākā-nāyaka should always be an ally of the main here.10 It is evident then that Sāgara's view that an ally of

the Pratināyaka also may be taken to be the leader of the Patākā is opposed to the views of almost all the reputed

authorities on dramaturgy. It is easy to understand the position of Abhinavagupta and others who take the Arthapra-

krtis as means for the final achievement of the hero (prayojana-siddhi-hetutvān or phala-hetutvān). Either by the Pratināyākā or

by his ally no prayojana-siddhi of the main hero is possible if not in an indirect way. The Nāṭya-śāstra says that the Patākā

is pradhānasyopakāraka and pradhānavat. Abhinavagupta and others take the word pradhāna to mean the main hero, while

Sāgara 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 pratināyaka), both of them should be considered as pradhānas. Both the characters are equally important

as the main plot rests on both. In such a drama an ally of the either may be called a Patakā-nāyaka if only

he satisfies other conditions. In dramas, where there are no such struggle the ally of the hero may occupy the

position of a Patākā-nāyaka if otherwise suitable. This seems to be the view of Sāgara. The drama Veni-saṃhāra

describes the struggle between Bhīma and Duryodhana mainly. Karṇa an ally of the latter whose vṛtta bears the

marks of the pradhāna, may rightly be called a Patākā-nāyaka from the above point of view. The view that the

upanāyaka-carita is the Patākā is sthūlartha-varṇana according to Sāgara. Here he seems to mean that generally the

Upanāyaka, who is an ally of the hero, is considered to be a Patakā-nāyaka but not everywhere. The vṛtta of the

Pratināyaka himself in dramas like the Veni-saṃhāra cannot be called a Patākā as he also aspires for the achievement

and his struggle against the main hero constitutes the main plot, in short his vṛtta according to Sāgara is also

pradhāna.

Regarding the problem whether a Patākā-nāyaka may be depicted as gaining some end or not, Sāgara maintains

a silence. But he states clearly that the Prakarī should be

of shorter duration and always serving the interests of others

and never of its own. Sāgara does not prohibit the

delineation of some incidental gain to the Patākā-nāyaka

where it is possible. He puts more stress on the merits

of the Patākā-nāyaka than on his gain. The ally of a

Prati-nāyaka cannot be described as gaining some end in a

drama, as the defeat of the Prati-nāyaka himself in any

Sanskrit drama a settled fact. There is, however, no

difficulty in showing the gains of a helper of the main hero

who is sure to win.

Abhinavagupta maintains that Patākā as an Arthaprakṛti

is a means and as such, serves other's interests. But,

the hero of the Patākā-vṛtta may be described as serving

his own interests too.¹¹ This is evident in the character

of Vibhīṣaṇa, Makaranda etc. The Bhāva-prakāśana, Nāṭya-

darpana, Rasārṇava-sudhākara and the Nāṭaka-candrikā hold

that the Patākā-nāyaka also achieves his own object of

desire.²² The Daśa-rupaka does not specifically say anything

regarding the problem. But, from its definition of the

Prasaṅgika-vṛtta it appears that both Patākā and Prakarī

may be delineated as having incidental gains.¹³ Viśvanātha

appears to be apperently self-contradictory when in the

same breath he enjoins :

patākā-nāyakasya syān-na svakīya-phalāntaram /

garbhe-sandhau vimārśe vā nirvāhas-tasya jāyate // and

yathā sugrīvāheḥ rājyapraptyādi /¹⁴ Different suggestions

to mitigate the difficulty in finding out the exact significance

of the above extract, have been offered both by classical

and modern critics. The suggestion that the portion of

the Patākā-vṛtta which deals with the personal achievement

of the Patākā-nāyaka should not be treated as Patākā

proper,¹⁵ is untenable, at least Viśvanātha seems to have

given no such indication. The second half of the verse

and the iliuistration. taken together, may mean that the

svārtha-lābha of the Patākā-nāyaka is to be depicted within

the Vimarsa-sandhi. But the first half of the verse expli-

citly denies any separate Phala of the Patākā. What

42 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

exactly Viśvanātha means here is not clear. The whole may

be taken to mean that the Patākā-nāyaka should not have

any separate Phala (svakīya phalāntara) whatever the Patākā-

nāyaka gains is but incidental and ultimately comes to

the help of the hero. The rājyalābha of Sugrīva, is not a

separate Phala-lābha but a means through which the hero

himself gets an ally. This mitra-lābha of the hero is to be

shown latest in the Vimarsa-sandhi.

Regarding the extent of Patākā's duration in a drama

the Nātya-śāstra says : agarbhad avimarśād va patākā vini-

vartate.16 According to Abhinavagupta the verse enjoins

that the achievement of the desired object of the Patākā-

nāyaka is to be depicted either in the Pratimukha or in

the Garbha Sandhi. After that, says Abhinavagupta, the

Patākā-nāyaka can persist being engaged in the assistance

of the principal hero, and in that case the designation

Patākā may be applied, not of course in the primary

sense of the term but simply because it was termed so

before. Moreover, the existence of the Patākā in the

Vimarśa-sandhi is almost essential according to Abhinava-

gupta.17 Then it comes that according to Abhinavagupta

the Patākā may exist upto the last Sandhi but the achieve-

ment of the Patākā-nāyaka should be depicted before the

Vimarśa-sandhi. Viśvanātha also informs us that this is

the opinion of Abhinavagupta.18 The Nāṭya-darpana makes

this point more clear. It has got no objection to take

the āni both in the sense of abhividhi and maryādā. Accord-

ing to the Nāṭya-darpana thus, the achievement of the

Patākā-nāyaka may be depicted in any one of the first four

Sandhis. The Nāṭya-darpana further states that the Patākā

as means, helps the main action and as such the achieve-

ment of the desired object of the Patākā-nāyaka cannot

be depicted in the Nirvahana Sandhi where the final attain-

ment of the main hero is to be shown.19 This seems to

be the most reasonable view. The Daśa-rūpaka is silent

regarding the duration of the Patākā, so also the position

of the Rasārnava-sudhākara and the Nātaka-candrikā.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

43

Regarding the extent of Patākā’s duration Sāgara remarks : sā ca garbhe avamarśe ca nivarttata iti nātyantikam etad avagantavyam.20 This refers to the precept “āgarbhād avimarśad...” of the Nāṭya-śāstra as quoted above.

Sāgara takes the precept to allude to the subsidiary action and not to the achievement of its hero as taken by Abhinavagupta and Rāmacandra-Gunacandra. He means to say that the operation of the Patākā need not be necessarily completed in the Garbha or Vimarśa Sandhi, i.e., it may continue further.31

In conclusion it may be pointed out that any achievement of the desired object by a Patākā-hero is purely incidental. The presence of more than one motif in a drama has never been favoured in India either in practice or in theory.

There are many Patākā-nāyakas having no personal interest in Sanskrit Plays. In case of military alliance the dramatists generally depict some sort of svārtha-labha of the Patākā-nāyaka through the cooperation of the main hero.

This is done simply to convince the audience that the alliance between the Patākā-nāyaka and the main hero is strong enough to withstand the trial of adversity.

Vibhiṣaṇa and Sugrīva, two well known Patākā-nāyakas of Rāma-plays, are depicted as assisting Rāma whole-heartedly being highly grateful by latter’s co-operation in their own cause.

The gain of Makaranda in the Mālatī-Mādhava has been shown just to heighten the effect of the drama by introducing parallelism.

The gain of the Patākā-nāyaka is to be depicted logically before or in the Vimarśa-sandhi because for the sake of vinipāta-pratikara ; the help of the Patākā-nāyaka is essential here as stated by Abhinavagupta.

Moreover, there are many Patākā-nāyakas like the Vidūṣakas or ministers in Sanskrit dramas, in whose cases no achievement is depicted.

Thus the achievement of the Patākā-nāyaka is purely an incidental affair and Sāgara seems to have found no necessity of mentioning this point particularly.

The Nāṭya-śāstra also does not state anything explicitly regarding the matter.

44 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Prakarī (Incident)

Sāgara quotes the definition of Prakarī from the Nātya- śāstra and his gloss on the same1 means that the Prakarī should have no uninterrupted development (nairantaryena Pravartanam tena vihīnam), and that its necessity is for the

sake of other's interest. That the Prakarī serves other's interest only comes from its derivative meaning according to Abhinavagupta.2 The duration of the Prakarī is also

very short. These are the two characteristics which differentiate it from Patākā. The Nātya-darpana maintains that the Prakarī is not essential like the Patākā in a drama.3

But it will be shown that even the Patākā is not avaśyambhāvi in every drama or even every Nāṭaka. From Dhanañjaya's definition of the Prasaṅgika-vṛtta as given

before, it appears that like Patākā the Prakarī may have its svārtha, a view which is supported by none. The

general opinion regarding the Prakarī is that it is almost an interesting casual incident occupying a small portion

of the whole action.4 Sāgara upholds the utility of Prakarī as a decorative device

of the plot and says that like a floral design (puṣpa-prakara it produces beauty.5 The Bhāva-prakāśana seems to have

taken up this idea of floral decoration but have gone a step further. It says that as flowers and akṣatas are for the

beauty of the religious rites so also the description of the Prakarī in a composition.6

As an example of the Prakarī Sāgara cites the incident of Rāvaṇa and Jaṭāyus from the Kulapatyaṅka. The

same illustration has also been cited by Śāradātanaya and Viśvanātha.7 The Nāṭya-darpana too, maintains that in Rāma-

Veni-samhāra is a Prakarī-nāyaka according to Abhinava- gupta.9

Kārya (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

previous discussion on the fifthavasthā, it has been shown that the dramatist also aspires for the attainment of the some end. Kārya may be described as the end both on the part of the principal hero of the drama and the dramatist himself.

Sāgara takes Kārya in the sense of the main purpose to be served in a drama i.e., 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 Rāvaṇa in a Rama-play may serve several purposes like the recovery of Sītā, 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 subsidiary purposes which enrich the main purpose, says Sāgara.1 Thus Kārya according to Sāgara is the main purpose for the accomplishment of which the action begins and ends when it is finally accomplished. At the conclusion the true nature of the Kārya is revealed to the audience.

In support of his view Sāgara quotes from the Nāṭya-śāstra, and as a gloss adds that there are two Kāryas, one is Ādhikārika and the other is Prāsangika.2 Here Kārya seems to be correlated with the itivrtta which has got two elements Ādhikārika and Prāsangika.3 Sāgara’s treatment of the matter here is a bit of confused nature.

the word Kārya has been used here loosely. According to Sāgara Arthaprakṛtis are elements of the plot, as discussed above; Kārya being an element cannot be taken to be the entire plot. Perhaps Sāgara means to say here that Kārya as an Arthaprakṛti is the purpose related to the Ādhikārikavṛtta ; otherwise the entire itivrtta is Kārya i.e., for some purpose. The main purpose in a drama is represented as served with the final achievement of the main hero. The main hero is one, says Sāgara who brings the representation of the drama invested with Bīja, 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), Kāma

46

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE1

( winning the desired woman) and Artha (attainment of something rare).4 Thus a subtle difference between the Karya and Phala has been drawn by Sāgara.

It has been shown before that Abhinavagupta takes the Arthaprakrtis as means. So, Kārya as an Arthaprakrti is definitely means according to Abhinavagupta. What can be made out of the confused text of the Abhinava-bhārati is this :

In the achievement of the hero various means in the form of resources, both physical and mental, and their proper employment are represented as adopted by the Pradhāna-nāyaka, Patākā-nāyaka and Prakarī-nāyaka (pra-dhāna-nāyaka-patākā-nāyaka-prakarī-nāyakaiścetana-rūpaiḥ). The Bīja is the chief of all these means (pradhānasya bijā-khyopāyasya) and all other means which contribute to the final fruition of the Bīja, constitute what is meant by Kārya.5

The Nātya-darpana follows this opinion of Abhinavagupta.6

"But this meaning of Kārya," points out Dr. Kulkarni, is rather unusual and even the Abhinava-bhārati and the Nātya-darpana not to speak of other theorists, take the term Kārya to mean Phala or Sādhya in the treatment of Avasthās and Sandhyāngas.7 It is evident that there is a confusion regarding the exact implication of the Kārya, Abhinavagupta takes all the Arthaprakrtis as means (phalāhetavaḥ), but Kārya has been taken in several places of the Abhinava-bhārati, to mean Phala. Now the Phala and Phala-hetu cannot be the samething. The position of the Nātya-darpana also is similar to that of the Abhinavagupta.

Dhanañjaya and Dhanika frankly asserts that Kārya is nothing but the Phala which is Trivarga in the form of Dharmārthakāmā.8 Here also the inconsistency is apparent, as according to the Daśarūpaka also the Arthaprakrtis are means. Rasārnava-sudhākara, and Nāṭaka-candrikā, also take the word Kārya to mean Phala and according to the former the Phala is Trivarga.9 According to the Rasarnava-Sudhā-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-prakāśana takes Sādhya, Kārya and Phala

ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

in the same sense and this Phala is Trivarga.10 Śaradātanaya mitigates the confusion as he, following Sāgara, takes the Arthaprakrtis as elements of the plot (katha śarīra hetavah).

Dr. Kulkarni points out that Prof. H. K. Dhruva's attempt to draw a distinction between Kārya, the object of the play, and Kārya the Arthaprakrti is baseless.11 According to Dr. Kulkarni "Kārya is the main drive for the hero's action and as such a means to the end." The said scholar further observes, "The Sāhitya-darpana gives slaying of Rāvaṇa as an example of the Kārya. Taking a clue from it one may say that with the killing of Rāvaṇa, Sītā's recovery is as good as achieved which is the fruition of the Bīja. Thus Kārya may be taken as the event immediately antecedent to the final fruition (Phalāgama)".12 It may be pointed out in favour of Abhinavagupta that there is no material difference between the means and the Phala. Bīja the chief of the means transforms into Phala with the assistance of other means, and Kārya is nothing but this transformation and as such it is a hetu.

As a resumè 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 Arthaprakrti which has already been discussed above. That the Patākā and Prakarī constitute what is called the Anusaṅgika or Prasaṅgika-vṛtta is accepted by all including the Nāṭya-śāstra. Curiously enough the Bhāva-prakāśana includes the Patākāsthānakas with Patākā and Prakarī as constituting the Prasaṅgika-vṛtta. But this theory of Śāradatanaya is supported by none.

Sāgara concludes his discussion on the Arthaprakṛtis 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 Nāṭya-śāstra a verse which means that anyone of these five Arthaprakṛtis may get prominence in cases where some special purpose is served by it and is deemed more useful, the others become-

ing subordinate.14 Abhinavagupta in his commentary on

the same verse remarks that unlike the five Kāryāvastās

which are equally essential in every drama, any Arthapra-

kṛti may become main when it serves the purpose of the

hero best; others though they may exist become as non-

existent. But Bīja, Bindu and Kārya are essential in every

case though there may be prominence of the one over the

other.15 In short, the prominence of particular Artha-

prakṛti in a drama depends, according to Abhinavagupta

upon its usefulness in serving the interest of the main

hero. Sāgara is silent about the problem whether the

Patākā or Prakarī or the both may be absent in a plot. The

Nāṭya-darpaṇa clearly states that if not required by the main

hero, the Patākā and Prakarī may be omitted altogether.

Where the hero does not require any help then only the

three means Bīja, Bindu and Kārya may serve the purpose

Bīja and Bindu are considered to be mukhya by the Nāṭya-

darpana, as they pervade the entire plot. Among the rest

the Kārya may be regarded as more prominent. Rama-

chandra refers to his drama Satyahariscandra, where there

is no Prasaṅgika-vṛtta.16

According to the Rasārṇava-sudhākara the Patākā and

Brakarī are always subsidiary and even Bīja etc., in some

places may come under the subsidiary division, the aṅga.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 Nāṭya-śāstra gives no general definition of the Sandhis which, however, receives special care in the hands of later authorities. Sāgara defines Sandhi as the joining together of different purposes of the same plot.1 The plot in its development serves different subsidiary purposes at different stages: Sandhis join them all and direct the whole towards the final end. To make this position more clear Sāgara 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 Sandhi, the joining together of the different parts or phases (avayava) of the main purpose (artha) in its progress towards being finally served and as such, each part or phase is called a Sandhi.3 The Nāṭya-darpana states this more directly as : sanddhayo mukhya-vṛttamśah. 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 Daśa-rūpaka also. According to the Daśa-rūpaka, as interpreted by Dhanika, 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 Sandhi.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 Sāhitya-darpana simply repeats the statements of Dhananjaya and Dhanika, while the Bhāva-prakāśana gives an elaborate and versified form of the same.6 Commentators like Rāghava-bhaṭṭa and Dhuṇḍirāja follow the Daśa-rūpaka.7 The Daśa-rūpaka in

4

60

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

another place uses the word Sandhi to mean a section of the

plot of a drama.8 This also is the view of Bhoja.9

According to the Rasārṇava-sudhākara the Sandhi is the

connection of subsidiary ends (avāntarārtha-sambandha) for

the sake of the finhl end (mukha prayojanavasāt) in the matter

of linking together of different parts or sections of the

story (kathāṅgānāṃ samanvaye).10 It is interesting to note

here that the Rasārṇava-sudhākara takes up the views of the

Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa and Daśa-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 Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kóśa, while others took it

to be a linking up of the different parts or sections of the

story and the Abhinava-bhārati and Nāṭya-darpaṇa followed

this view. The latter idea i.e., the view followed by Abhi-

navagupta was further developed by Dhananjaya and Dha-

nika. The Rasārṇava-sudhākara closely followed by the Nāṭaka-

candrikā evidently took up both the original views and made

a successful attempt to give a fuller definition of the

Sandhi. Thus, with the story-element in mind, Abhinava-

gupta and Rāmachandra-Guṇacandra analyse the plot into five

Sandhis ; Sāgara does the same keeping the different purposes

served in different parts of the story before his mind's eye.

The Daśa-rūpaka elaborates the former view and the Rasār-

ṇava-sudhākara accepts the both and arrives at a synthesis.

The word 'juncture' or 'critical juncture', is generally used

as an English equivalent of Sandhi. 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 & DRAMATURGY

according to Indian theorists should have a steady progress

from the beginning to the denouement through the Avas-

thās. The five Arthaprakṛtis, as has already been shown,

go on moulding the plot in its elaboration from 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 beginning, Viśā-

khādatta expresses this idea in a dramatic way through the

dialogue of a minor character, Samidharthaka ; tā kim nimit-

taṁ kukavi-kiḍa-naḍnassa via annaṁ muhe annaṁ nivvahane.11

The different subsidiary 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 in pursuance of the above ideal of unity.

The five Sandhis are Mukha, Pratimukha, Garbha, Vimarsa

(Avamarśa, Āmarśa) Upasaṁhṛti or Nirvahana and they

should occur in a drama in the same order in which they are

enumerated.12

It is a matter of common sense that all the five Sandhis

cannot occur in any and every type of drama (rūpaka).

As a matter of rule, says Sāgara, a Nāṭaka should con-

tain five Sandhis. He quotes here a verse from the Nāṭya-

śāstra, 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 Sāgara is the brevity of the subject

matter.13 In the matter of elision of a Sandhi or Sandhis

the Nāṭya-śāstra, as quoted in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa,

enforces a rule. When only one Sandhi is to be omitted

the fourth one (Vimarśa) gets the preference. In the case

of elision of two Sandhis, the third and the fourth (Garbha

and Vimarśa), in that of three the second, third and the

fourth (Pratimukha, Garbha, Vimarśa) are elided.17 It is

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, if it is to be treated in a drama, must have a beginning and an end.15 Elaboration, however, may be curtailed.

If, however, says Sāgara, 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 opinion that the number of Sandhis in a drama depends upon the extent of the Prasaṅgika-vṛtta ; it may be five or less according as the subsidiary portion of the plot is short or extensive. In support of this view Sāgara quotes from the Nāṭya-śāstra :

prasaṅgike parārthatvān-na tveṣa niyamaḥ bhavet / yad vṛttam tu bhavet kiṃcit tadyojyam avirodhataḥ //17

eṣa niyamaḥ in the verse has evidently been taken by Sāgara to refer to the niyama of the elision of Sandhi or Sandhis as presented in the verse immediately preceding this one (GOS. XIX. 18) in the Nāṭya-śāstra. Thus the first half of the above verse, according to the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa 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 depicted in compatibility with the Sandhis.18 It thus appears that according to Sāgara the brevity of the subject matter is the reason behind the elision of Sandhi or Sandhis and that the rule of the Nāṭya-śāstra regarding the omission of Sandhi is not applicable in the delineation of subordinate plot. If the subordinate plot is extensive enough, five Sandhis may be used in a drama and the whole action should be depicted in conformity with the Sandhis. The whole thing as presented by Sāgara, becomes unintelligible. If the rule regarding the elision of Sandhi is not applicable in the cases of delineation 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 Nāṭya-śāstra has evidently been misconstrued in the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa. 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 (NŚ. GOS. XIX. 17) that as a rule a drama should contain five Sandhis. According to Abhinavagupta the verse means that in the delineation of the subordinate plot the said rule (i.e., drama should contain five Sandhis) is not applicable and the subordinate plot should not be incompatible with the main plot.19 Regarding the elision of one or more Sandhis Abhinavagupta refers to the view of his preceptor according to which the itiṅṛtta should always be consisting of five Sandhis, as no action can be completed without the five Avast-hās, and Sandhis are correlated with the Avasthās. Thus, as per rule, the plot of a drama according to Abhinavagupta, consists of five Sandhis but due to some reasons, i.e., when the plot is not Pūrṇāṅga, it may contain less.20 Where the main plot is extensive enough, five Sandhis may be used.31

According to the Nāṭya-śāstra, the Naṭaka and Prakaraṇa are regarded as Pūrṇāṅgarūpaka and these two types contain all the five Sandhis. The Vimarśa-sandhi is absent in the Ḍima and Samavakāra while in the Vyāyoga and Īhaṃṛga, Garbha and Vimarśa both are omitted. The Prahasana, Vīthī Aṅka and the Bhāṇa contain only two Sandhis, the Mukha and Nirvāhaṇa, the Pratimukha, Garbha and Vimarśa do not occur in these types of rūpakas.32

As a résume of the above discussion it may be said that every dramatic plot should contain at least two Sandhis, Mukha and Nirvāhaṇa, there are exceptions regarding the use of other three Sandhis in dramas. Sāgara 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 Nirvāhana, 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, prasaṅgike pararthatvāt etc., of Nāṭya-śāstra. 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 Sandhis in a particular drama. The Nāṭya-śāstra enjoins definite rules regarding the omission of the three Sandhis, Pratimukha, Garbha and Vimarsa.

Some modern critics of Sanskrit drama maintain 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. Kulkarni.24 Dr. Kulkarni further and rightly asserts that neither the five Sandhis are conceived 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 Arthaprakṛtis are taken as five sections of the plot, as done by the Rasārnava-sudhākara the statement is justified. 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 Mātṛgupta on Sandhis

Regarding the treatment of Sandhis by Mātṛgupta, Dr. Raghavan observes. “In lines 459-534 the NLRK, enables us to appreciate the independence of and resource with which Mātṛgupta discussed the fundamental concept of the five. Ignoring the sixty-four elements or limbs of the five juncture the Sandhyangas, Mātṛgupta 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

prakṛti and the Avasthā. 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, achievement, and enjoyment.1 It is evident from this remark of Dr. Raghavan that the view of Mātrgupta is of special interest and deserves special attention.

An exposition of the text of the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa containing Mātrgupta’s view and Sāgara’s gloss on it, is difficult due to the random use of dandas (many of which have been suggested to be removed by Dr. Raghavan) and underlinings. M. Dillon informs us that the technical term in the manuscript of the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa marked red, have been underlined by him.2 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 Mātrgupta, as quoted in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa here, is also found in the Saṅgīta-dāmodara, of Śubhaṅkara, a theorist from Bengal, who perhaps, lived in the 15th Century A.D.3 Śubhaṅkara’s reading differs very little from that of Sāgara.

Mātrgupta, as it appears from the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna kośa describes each Sandhi as having three aspects and in most cases the aspects themselves have also been described but whether any order among them is intended to or not, is not clear. The Mukha-sandhi has been defined as : prārthanāvisayautsukyam ārambho hetucintanam / bijam sādhyopagamanam mukha-sandhiriti trayam //4

In the gloss of Sāgara, on this verse, three words Ārambha, Hetucintana and Bīja are underlined5 and as such can be accepted as names of three aspects of the Mukha-Sandhi. According to Dr. Raghavan, however, the names of the aspects are Prārthanā, Ārambha and Bīja.6 The text is amendable to both the interpretation.. But in every case the names of the aspects are given in Sāgara’s gloss in the first case-ending. If Dr. Raghavan’s suggestion is accepted the name Prārthanā becomes missing. On the other hand, an attempt of defining the aspects, though not of all, has been made in the quoted portion of Mātrgupta’s text. If

Ārambha is taken as the name of an aspect, the aspect Hetucintana remains undefined. From the text of Sāgara, however, Ārambha instead of Prārthanā appears to be the name of the aspect. It is better to interpret the text as it is, of course if there arises no incongruity in doing so.

The above verse of Mātṛgupta means that Ārambha, i.e. the yearning for the desired object (Prārthanā-viṣayautsukyam) the reflection upon the cause and the germ, (Bīja) i.e., the indication of the end, are the three aspects of the Mukha-sandhi.7 The Act I of the Nāṭaka Māyā-madālasā has been cited as an illustration of the Mukhasandhi. Sāgara remarks that here Ārambha is the eagerness of the king Kuvalayāśva to go to the penance grove in response to the entreaty of the sage Gālava, wishing the death of Tālaketu.

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, comments Sāgara, due to the reference of ‘rājadharma’ the king reflects on the cause of his forest sojourn and thinks that one sixth of the merit of the sacrifice performed, will be accrued to him, and this is Hetucintana.

Then Sāgara quotes another verse in which the abduction of Madālasā has been referred to. According to Sāgara, the recovery of Madā-lasā is the fruit, the germ (Bīja) of which is sown here by the reference of Madālasā’s abduction by Tālaketu.8 Thus, according to Mātṛgupta, 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 illustrations, cited by Sāgara above, it appears that these three phases may occur in the order in which they are enumerated. It is interesting to note here that there is no reference to Rasa in Mātṛgupta’s description of the Mukha-sandhi. The text, as we have it, in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa, is silent whether the genesis of the plot has got any connection with the Rasa or its origination and development.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

57

Pratimukha-sandhi

The definition of the Pratimukha-sandhi has been given as :

lābhah sādhana-sampattiḥ prasarah prasṛtā kriyā /

binduḥ sādhana-sambandhaḥ iti pratimukhe trayam //

In Sāgara's gloss on this verse the underlined words are

sādhana-sampatti, prasara and sādhana-sambandha. But, Lābha,

Prasara and Bindu appear as technical terms here.

Lābha (gain) is sādhana-sampatti which according to Sāgara, 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 Sāgara, the king kills Tālaketu with

an arrow given by the sage, and marries Madālasā. This

is gain through means (sādhana here is the arrow).

Prasara consists in the extension of the action (prasṛtā-

kriyā) which has been illustrated where Pātālaketu, the brother

of Tālaketu, prevents Madālasā from going. The act of

hostility is thus further extended after the initial success.

Bindu has been described by Mātṛgupta as sādhana-sambandha

i.e., relation or association with the means. Bindu, main-

tains Sāgara, is illustrated in the same Act where Pātālaketu

renews the act of hostility by making a fresh attempt in

abducting Madālasā as is expressed in the speech of Madā-

lasā, ajjaulta parītāyāhi etc., and this is sādhana-sambandha as

Kuvalayāśva takes up bow and arrow immediately, as it is

expressed in his speech. Thus according to Sāgara the

entire Act. II of the drama Mayāmadalasā is the second

Sandhi which consists of initial success, further extension

of the action and a fresh employment of means. The aspects

here explain a gradual development of action. After the

initial success of the hero, the playwright extends the action

by introducing fresh obstacles and depicting the hero as

conscious about the employment of new means which is

Bindu. It may be pointed out here that Abhinavagupta

also interprets Bindu as hero's knowledge of the connecting

link consisting in the employment of means.

68 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Garbha-sandhi

The Garbha-sandhi has been described by Matrgupta as :

sambhogo yogyatā tatra udbhedaḥ siddhidaŕśanam /

mitra-sampat patāketi trayam garbhe prakīrttitam //15

In the gloss of Sāgara on this verse, there are as many as five underlined words all of which cannot be accepted as technical terms as both Mātrgupta and Sāgara explicitly state that the Garbha-sandhi also consists of three phases.16 Moreover, Sāgara does not use the word patākā at all in his gloss, though it is a common technical term in dramaturgy. Here Mitra-sampat is the technical term intended for perhaps, just to avoid a confusion as, patākā is not used here in the sense of, vyāpipraśańgika-vritta, in which it is generally used.

The Act III of the same drama Māyāmadālasā, according to Sāgara constitutes the Garbha-sandhi. Sambhoga seems to be the name of the first aspect which is but only yogyatā 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, i.e., a situation where enjoyment 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 Sāgara as the happening of unwished for separation and this is illustrated in the speech of Madālasā where she says, “My right eye throbs.”17 The throbbing of the right eye of a woman is an evil omen. The siddhi-darśana, says Sāgara, is the counteraction of that evil omen, as in the speech of the king “May the throbbing be for good omen.”18 Udbheda and Siddhidaŕśana 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 Patākā. This is illustrated in the friendly behaviour of the Fire in not burning Madālasā who fell into it by the black magic of Kuṭilaka. Thus the third Sandhi

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURY

59

according to Mātṛgupta 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-sandhi

Vimarśa has been dascribed as :

nāśah kāraṇa-vaidhuryam kimci-cchreyah savighnatā/ punar bijena

sampattir-vimarśe tritayaṃ (m) bhavet //19 Sāgara's gloss on

this runs : caturthe aṅke madālasāyā nāśo darśitah/ sa ca rājñah

mukhya-kāraṇasya vaidhuryam bhavet / tatraiva bṛhadaśvena pitu-

stapah-phalam kathayato rājñah śreyah kathitam / tatra ca gṛha-

māniya tasya samārpayitvayet savighnatatayā (pā) tālaketu-prabhṛ-

tinām vadhe bijasya sampattiritri triyuto vimarśah20 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 Nāśa which is a

bereavement to the main cause of the action i.e., hero, and

is illustrated in the (temporary) loss of Madālasā. The second

aspect is a bit of good fortune for the hero though the

obstacle continues. This is illustrated in the statement of

Bṛhadaśva 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, i.e., the nouri-

shment of the germ is illustrated in the killing of Pātālaketu

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 removal of

obstacles are the aspects of the Vimarśa-sandhi according

to Mātṛgupta.

60 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Nirvahana-Sandhi

The last Sandhi has been described as :

abhipretartha-sampattih siddhih sādhyasya siddhatā /

prārabdhasya ca nirvāho bhaven-nirvahane trayam //21

The three aspects of the last sandhi appear to be the

accomplishment of the desired object, success and the

carrying out of the undertakings. The first aspect is illus-

trated in the return of the victorious prince Subāhu and

revival of Madālasā. Siddhi is the attainment of the pur-

pose. In the drama Māyāmadālasā 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. Sāgara says that the

harmonious carrying out of all the undertakings has been

shown clearly.22

Mātṛgupta's method of analysis of the plot of a drama,

as discussed above, is quite novel. It avoids the Sandhy-

aṅgas of Bharata and describes each Sandhi as consisting

of three aspects. The names of only three Arthaprakṛtis,

Bīja, Bindu and Patākā occur as characteristic marks of the

first three sandhis respectively. But all these terms are not

used here exactly in the same sense as in the Nāṭya-śāstra.

Dr. Raghavan maintains that in describing the Sandhis Mātṛ-

gupta gives a crucial place to the Arthaprakṛtis and Avasthās,23

But it has been shown that out of five, three Arthaprakṛtis

have been connected with three Sandhis respectively. The

names of the Avasthās or any reference to them do not

occur at all in Mātṛgupta's description of the Sandhis

It has also been shown that the Samgraha-jāmodara also

contains Mātṛgupta's description of the Sandhis. Śubhaṅkara

at the beginning of his work refers to the sources from

which he has drawn his materials and here with others the

name Ratnakośa occurs.24 This Ratnakośa is undoubtedly

the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa from which Subhaṅkara seems

to have taken directly in several occasions including the

lines containing the theory of Mātṛgupta as discussed above.25

The differences in readings may be attributed to the scribe's

fault. It is really surprising and significant also that the

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

theory, on no less an important topic than Sandhis and propounded by an authority like Mātṛgupta who has been generally accepted as living in Kashmir in the 7th century A.D.; was known to none but a Bengali theorist of the 15th century and most probably through the work of Sāgara.

Appendix

All the Sandhis and their aspects, as described by Matṛgupta have been illustrated by Sāgara with citations from the lost drama Māyāmadālasā. The Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa informs us that it is a Nāṭaka consisting of five Aṅka the hero is present.26 From the citations in the Nātaka-lakṣaṇaratna-kośa the plot of the Nāṭaka may be reconstructed for a clear understanding of Mātṛgupta’s standpoint, as the following :

Act—I

A sage, named Galava came to the king Kuvalayāśva and informed him that the demon king Tālaketu, the son of an asura’s daughter and ruler of a region near the eastern mountains, was creating hindrances to sacrifices and had abducted Madālasā, the daughter of Menaka and mānasi śikhinah sutā.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 king killed Tālaketu and married Madālasā. But Pātālaketu, the brother of Tālaketu, renewed the hostility and made a fresh attempt to carry away Madālasā.

Act—III

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

62 NATAKA-LAKASNA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

victorious. Then follows a scene of love making of the hero and heroine. Then due to the black magic of Kuṭilaka, an accomplice of Tālaketu, Madālasā fell in fire but was not burnt.

Act—IV

Loss, i.e., death of Madālasā took place somewhere outside the palace. The king was informed by Bṛhadaśva 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 Pātālaketu was killed.

Act—V

Madālasā was restored to life and prince Subāhu-returned after killing the enemy. 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 Sāgara had some special relation to or interest in the drama. It appears that just to illustrate the peculiar dramaturgic conception of Sandhis expounded by Mātṛgupta the drama Māyāmadālasā was composed most probably by Sāgara himself or by somebody intimate to him.

The Sādhyādipañcaka theory

The Sādhyādipañcaka theory, as found in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa is another novel method of analysis of the plot of a drama.29 According to this theory a dramatic composition, specially Nāṭaka, consists of five elements, viz., Sādhaka (agent, the hero), Sādhanā (the chief of the means), Sādhya (the end or the object to be accomplished), Siddhi (success) and Sambhoga (the enjoyment), Sāgara illustrates these five elements from the drama Bhīmavijaya, hitherto unknown.30 In this drama, says Sāgara Bhīma is the Sādhaka, the mace given to him by Vāsudeva is the Sādhanā the killing of Duryodhana is the Sādhya. Siddhi is the installation of Yudhiṣṭhira

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

on the throne and Sambhoga being the amorous play of Bhīma with Draupadī who has achieved her object. Here it is interesting to note that Siddhi goes to a person other than the Sādhaka 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 Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kōśa, a conclusion can be drawn that Mātṛgupta defines the Mukha-sandhi and others as dealing respectively with Sādhaka etc., as has been pointed out by Dr S. N. Shastri.31

Moreover, from the text of the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kōśa, it appears that the theory has not been given much importance to even by Mātṛgupta himself, who simply states that some experts describe the pentad of Sādhya etc. So, the theory seems to be older than Mātṛgupta and cannot precisely be attributed to him.32

After describing the theory of five Sandhis as propounded by Mātṛgupta, Sāgara takes up Bharata’s method of analysis of a dramatic plot into Sandhis and Sandhyangas with the remark : samagra-lakṣaṇam nāṭakam-uddidikṣur-ācāryaḥ punar-āha33 This statement shows that according to Sāgara, Mātṛgupta’s simpler method of Sandhis falls short in analysing the complex structure of the plot of a Nāṭaka, having all the characteristics, while Bharata’s elaborate theory is suitable for that purpose. Mātṛgupta’s own opinion also seems to be the same when he gives importance to the Sandhyangas in describing the Nāṭaka, as quoted by Rāghavabhaṭṭa.34 It is enjoined there that the Nāṭaka should be endowed with the Sandhyangas and these Sandhyangas in no way can be taken to mean the three aspects of each Sandhi of Mātṛgupta. Neither by Mātṛgupta nor by Sāgara they are so termed.

Evidently, by Sandhyangas in the above description of Nāṭaka, Mātṛgupta refers to the Sandhi-Sandhyangga theory of the Nāṭya-śāstra. So his shorter scheme of Sandhis seems to be elaborate one of Bharata which is accepted by Mātṛgupta himself.

64 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

A full-fledged drama (Samagra-laksana-nataka in the words of Sāgara) with all the Vṛttis and Sandhis, admits of many details, varieties of incidents and moods. Here Mātṛgupta seems to have recognised the importance of elaborate Sandhy-aṅga theory. Most probably with shorter and simpler dramas in his mind Mātṛgupta who is supposed to have written an independent treatise on dramaturgy,35 formulated his simple scheme. We have seen that Mātṛgupta’s Sandhis have been illustrated with reference to the plot of the Nāṭaka Māyā-madālasā by Sāgara. The plot of this drama, as has been shown, is neither very extensive nor complex. It thus appears, that Mātṛgupta’s theory of Sandhis was formulated, as an alternative one to that of the Nāṭya-śāstra for the analysis of the plots of simpler and shorter dramas, or only to show broadly the general course of dramatic action.

Sandhis (as described mainly after the Nātya-śāstra)

Mukha-Sandhi

Regarding the definitions of Sandhis Dr T. C. Mainkar maintains, “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 the Nātya-śāstra, regarding the characteristics of the Sandhis, developed in later ages and some of which have been mentioned in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa.

Sāgara quotes the definition of the Mukha-sandhi from the Nāṭya-śāstra,2 and takes it to mean, as it appears from his gloss, that the Mukha-sandhi contains the origination of the Bīja which is the source of different arthas remaining in harmony in the plot.3 artha here has been taken to mean different purpose served at different stages. Thus according to Sāgara, the inception of the Bīja 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

Abhinavagupta gives special stress on the point that the inception of the Bīja is the source of different Rasas originating from diversified facts. He bases his arguments on a different reading of the verse describing Mukha-sandhi in the Nātya-śāstra from that as found in Nātaka-lakṣaṇa.3a According to Abhinavagupta the Mukha-sandhi comprises that section of the plot where the incidents, suitable for the beginning, give rise to various āsvādas. The Nātya-darpana follows the Abhi-navabhāratī verbatim.4 The Sāhitya-darpana gives the definition of the Mukha-sandhi from the Nātya-śāstra but adds no gloss on it. The Bhāva-prakāśana also follows the line of Abhinavagupta.5 Dhanika makes the point more clear. He maintains that Mukha-sandhi contains the origination of the Bīja and is the source (hetu) of different purposes and Rasas. This is also the view of the Rasārṇava-sudhākara.

So far as the illustration of the Mukha-sandhi is concerned, Abhinava-bhāratī, Nātya-darpana, Bhāva-prakāśana and Sāhitya-darpana cite the Act I of the Ratnāvalī.7 From the above it is clear that excepting Sāgara all the renowned theorists rightly accept the Mukha-sandhi as the source of different Rasas. It seems that Sāgara in this respect is influenced by Mātrgupta who, as has already been shown, maintains a silence regarding the origination of Rasa in the Mukha-sandhi.8

From the Bhāva-prakāśana we come to know that there was a school of thought which maintained that the origination of the Bīja 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 (pradhānaphala) of the drama.9 Śāradātanaya establishes here a connection of the Trivarga with the Rasas and concludes that the Mukha-sandhi should be considered as the hetu of the Rasas.10 It is, however, not fair to conclude that either Mātrgupta or Sāgara belonged to that school of thought which has been criticised by Śāradātanaya as above.

Sāgara refers to the view of some anonymous experts who maintain that the Bindu can be placed together with the Bīja in the Mukha-sandhi, a view which is hitherto

5

66 NATĀKA-LAKṢAṆA-RATNA-KOṢA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

unknown.11 Evidently, this view avoids the correlation between the Sandhis and the Arthaprakṛtis. But the Nāṭaka-

lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa says that this is paṅsāntara and according to some they come consecutively.12 This second view is

shared by all the theorists and commentators. There are, however, different views regarding the Bindu. It has been

discussed in details that as a connecting link Bindu 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-

sandhi. This may be illustrated from the Veṇī-saṃhāra where the Bindu is placed in the Mukha-sandhi and the matter

has been fully discussed.13 Sāgara then quotes the view of an Ācārya which states that where the Bīja is indicated

through śleṣa or chāya that is the Mukha-sandhi.14 By Ācārya 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 Bīja. Other

im plications of the view has been fully discussed.15

PRATIMUKHA-SANDHI

The Nāṭya-śāstra defines the Pratimukha-sandhi as :

bijasyodghātanam yatra dṛṣṭa-naṣṭamiva kvacit /

mukhanyastasya sarvatra tadvai pratimukham smṛtam //

The Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa reads the third pada as :

mukhäbitasya sarvatra.1 The verse simply means that every-

where in the Pratimukha-sandhi of a drama, the Bīja having its inception in the Mukha-sandhi, goes on sprout-

ing, and in this development it is sometimes lost sight of and sometimes is seen. But this dṛṣṭa-naṣṭa characteristic

of the Bīja in the second Sandhi seems to have given rise to a storm of controversies among the theorists.

According to Sāgara the Bīja is seen in the form of the cause and is lost from the view in the form of effect. As

the Bīja 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 drṣṭa-naṣṭa feature of the Bīja in the sense that it is drṣṭa in the Mukha-sandhi but becomes naṣṭa and in the Prati-mukha-sandhi it becomes again udghāṭitā. Sāgara illustrates this feature of the Bīja from the Veṇi-samhāra. He points out that in the Act I, the Bīja is seen in the speech of Bhīma where he says, “Shall I not crush the thighs of Suyodhana with my club”,3 and in the Act II the same topic of breaking of the thighs is brought to the fore by Kañcukin in his evil-omened utterances.4 According to Sāgara the sowing of the Bīja through Ślesa is done in a verse of the Sūtradhāra where the destruction of the Kauravas has been referred to.5 Sāgara seems to mean that the Bīja, sown (i.e., hinted at) in the verse of the Sūtradhāra, becomes known (drṣṭa) in the above speech of Bhīma through the hint to the breaking of Duryodhana’s thigh which stands for the total annihilation of the Kauravas i.e., the final event in the affair. Then for sometimes it remains obscured (naṣṭa) by subsidiary issues like the love scene between Duryodhana and Bhānumatī, and is again made prominent through the utterances of Kañcukin.

Abhinavagupta refers to as many as six views including his own regarding the drṣṭa-naṣṭa feature of the Bīja and refutes five of them. The first three of these views are :

(i) kāryatayā drṣṭam kāraṇatayā naṣṭam (seen as an effect and ‘veiled as a cause). This view seems to be similar to that held by Sāgara so far as the approach is concerned.

(ii) upādeye drṣṭam heye naṣṭam (seen in the acceptable but obscured in the unacceptable).

(iii) nāyaka-vṛtte drṣṭam pratināyakeṭivṛtte naṣṭam (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 naṣṭa.6

(iv) The fourth view noted by Abhinavagupta which seems to be the Siddhānta-pakṣa, maintains that the unveiling of the Bīja is a particular state contributing to the final fruition, and even though the Bīja is seen it remains obscured due to the presence of opposing forces. The unveiling of the Bīja is like the sprouting of the seed covered by dust.7

As an illustration, Abhinavagupta quotes the verse āśastra-grahanād etc., of the Kañcukin from the second Act of the Veṇī-samhāra. Abhinavagupta introduces a counter argument that according to some, here the rise of the Pāṇḍavas indicated in the Mukha-sandhi is perceptible (drṣṭa) due to the death of Bhīṣma and imperceptible (naṣṭa) 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 iva in naṣṭamiva is overlooked.9 Abhinavagupta seems to maintain that in the above illustration from the Veṇī-samhāra the sprouting of the Bīja (i. e., pāṇḍavābhyudaya) is indicated by the reference to the death of Bhīṣma, while the reference to the killing of Abhimanyu screens it for the time being, i. e., it becomes naṣṭamiva and not actually naṣṭa as stated in the counter-argument.

(v) Some others maintain that drṣṭatā and naṣṭatā are features useful respectively in the Pratimukha and Avamarṣa. So, drṣṭānaṣṭatva is a matter of degree: the Bīja though drṣṭa in the first stage, appears to be naṣṭa when compared with the next stage, as it goes on developing.10 But Abhinavagupta remarks, atrāpivārtho na samgacchata eva11, i. e., the significance of iva is overlooked.

(vi) The view of Saṅkuka and others, as put in the Abhinava-bhāratī seems to take drṣṭanaṣṭamiva to mean slight visibility. But Abhinavagupta rightly remarks that this is ekadeśa-lakṣaṇam,12 evidently because the feature of naṣṭatva has been overlooked here.

Abhinavagupta then clarifies his own standpoint. He

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

maintains that the Bīja 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 Pratimukha-

sandhi represents a steady manifestation of the Bīja like

the sprouting of the saffron seeds. In the opinion of

Abhinavagupta this can be derived from the etymological

explanation of the term Pratimukha as : pratirābhimukhyena

yato'tra vrttih i.e., where the progress (of the Bīja) is favour-

able.T3 Abhinavagupta illustrates this progress of the Bīja

from the Ratnāvalī.T4 The Nātya-darpana follows this inter-

pretation of Abhinavagupta and cites the same illustration

with a clear exposition. It says that in the Mukha-sandhi

of the Ratnāvalī, the Bīja is sown in the Act I by the

minister while stating dvipādanyasmādi etc., and then it

is screened by spring festival etc. But in the Pratimukha-

sandhi the sprouting of the Bīja is shown in the Act II by

the meeting of the hero and heroine through the endeavour

of Susangata.15 It appears that according to Abhinavagupta

drṣṭanasṭatva of the Bīja is a regular feature in the Mukha-

sandhi and it is immaterial in the second Sandhi where the

steady progress of the Bīja is delineated. This seems to

be indicated by the word kvacit in the definition of the

Pratimukha-sandhi found in the Nāṭya-śāstra, as stated above.

Dāśa-rūpaka and the Sāhitya-darpana avoid the word

drṣṭa-naṣṭa and use lakṣyālakṣya instead, while the Rasārnava-

sudhākara and the Nāṭaka-candrikā use drśyādṛśya in their

description of the state of the Bīja in the Pratimukha-sandhi.

The Bhāva-prakāśana, on the otherhand, uses both lakṣyālakṣya

and drśyādṛśya.16 The Bhāva-prakāśana explains drśyatva as

prayojanānām nispatti and adrśyatva as the want of that.I7

According to these works the development of the Bīja in

the Pratimukha-sandhi is represented as perceptible and

imperceptible by turns and this is the characteristic of this

Sandhi.

From the above discussion it becomes clear that the

Nāṭya-śastra 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. Sāgara himself neither follows any of the above views nor is followed by any.

Mātrgupta, as discussed above, tactfully avoids the expression dr̥ṣṭa-nāṣṭa, but the aspects lābha (initial success) and prasara (further extension of the action) in his description of the Pratimukha-sandhi, may be accepted as a reasonable explanation of Bharata's above riddle. The Bīja in its progress may be said as visible (dr̥ṣṭa) 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 way of the hero and the theme continues and thus the object of desire (Bīja) is pushed back far beyond the reach (nāṣṭa). Mātr̥gupta, 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 Sāgara owes its origin to this position by analogy of a human body.1 The Nāṭya-śāstra as quoted in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa defines Garbha-sandhi as the part of the plot where the Bīja sprouts and where there are attainment, frustration and again pursuit2. The Bīja, having its inception (utpatti) in the Mukha-sandhi, is brought into view (udghātana) in the Pratimukha-sandhi and it sprouts further (udbhada) in the Garbha-sandhi. Sāgara says : mukha-pratimukhābhyāṃ mukhottānāsya bījāsya yatra udbhedaḥ prakāśanam3. Garbha-sandhi thus represents further manifestation of the Bīja than in the Pratimukha-sandhi. Abhinavagupta, followed closely by the authors of the Nāṭya-darpana, more explicitly says that the Bīja 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 Sāhitya-darpana also means the

same and attempts to explain the Garbha-sandhi with the

help of a popular etymology phalasya garbhīkaraṇād garbhah.5

The three words of the Nāṭya-śāstra prāpti (attainment),

aprāpti (frustration) and anveṣaṇa (pursuit) in the above

definition of Garbha-sandhi have given rise to controversies

among theorists. Abhinavagupta offers two views, and from

the printed text it is difficult to ascertain which one he

himself prefers. According to the first of these two views

prāpti is concerned to the nāyaka (the hero) and aprāpti is

in relation to the pratināyaka (villain, the chief opponent

of the hero) while anveṣaṇa 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 Abhi-

navagupta, as this explanation suits well in cases of Vīra and

Raudra Rasas only, others maintain that the Garbha-sandhi

represents gain, loss and pursuit by turns and as it co-exists

with the third Avasthā 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 Nāṭya-darpana8 simply repeats what is stated in the Abhi-

nava-bhāratī. This Sandhi has been illustrated by Abhinava-

gupta from the second and part of the third Act of the

Ratnāvalī where the meeting and separation between the

hero and heroine have been represented several times.9

The Daśa-rūpaka as interpreted by Dhanika, the Bhāva-

prakāśana, the Sāhitya-darpana, the Rasārṇava-sudhākara

and the Nāṭaka-candrikā follow this view in different words.

Bhoja-deva also maintains this view.10

Abhinavagupta further maintains that the third Avasthā

i.e., the Prāpti-sambhava represents only a possibility of

gain and not its surety and as the Garbha-sandhi correlates

to this Avasthā, the presentation of the loss is essential

here. In the Avamarṣa-sandhi, on the other hand, the

prominence is given to the gain over the loss.11

72

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Regarding this problem of prāpti and aprāpti in the

Garbha-sandhi, Sāgara maintains a different view which has

not even been referred to in any of the above works.

According to Sāgara, dramatic plots either describe obliga-

tion or prohibition; the former takes the form of gain

and the latter that of loss. As an illustration of the first

form Sāgara presents an anuṣṭubh verse containing both

definition and illustration.12 This verse itself yields no easy

exposition. It seems to mean that the Bīja, i. e., the

destruction of the demons which has already begun, becomes

obligatory to Rāma due to the abduction of Sītā by Rāvaṇa.

This is an instance of prāpti-(vidhi)-rūpa-vastu. This form

of the vastu appears to be illustrated in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-

ratna-kośa by a quotation from the drama Jānaki-raghava

in which Sugrīva says that by carrying away Sītā Rāvaṇa

has provoked Rāma's hatred for his own destruction.13

The second form, i. e., the aprāpti-rūpa, has been illustrated

by an analysis of the plot of the drama Tāpasa-vaṭsarāja.

Here the separation of (loss, aprāpti) Vāsavadattā 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 Lāvaṇaka when the country was attacked

by the enemy. The pursuit has been shown in the practice

of penance by the king.14

It is difficult to form any clear idea regarding Sāgara's

conception of the Garbha-sandhi from the above. He

seems to mean that the characteristic prāpti of the Garbha-

sandhi occurs in dramas where the deeds of the hero are

represented as of obligatory nature, while aprāpti consists in

the separation of the hero from his beloved. Thus the

representation of prāpti or aprāpti in the Garbha-sandhi

depends upon the nature of the plot, some dramas show

prāpti and some aprāpti. This explanation is quite novel

and is unknown to the theorists and commentators.

From the standpoint of Mātṛgupta prāpti may be taken

to mean prospect of enjoyment (sambhoga-yogyatā) and aprāpti

may be explained as fresh chance of mishap (udbheda).

The counteraction of this fresh chance of mishap and

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

making of friends (mitrasampat), as described by Mātṛgupta

may be said to be corresponding to anveṣaṇa (pursuit) in the

definition of Garbha-sandhi of the Nāṭya-śāstra.15

VIMARŚA OR AVAMARŚA

Bharata's definition of the Vimarśa-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 vilobhanakṛta is found in any of

the views referred to by Abhinavagupta. Similar is the

position of the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa. The definition

means that where the bijārtha disclosed in the Garbha-

sandhi, becomes either vilobhanakṛta or connected with

āśleṣa of that (tasya), is Vimarśa. Sāgara himself says that

Vimarśa is connected with the embrace (āśleṣaṇa-samyukta)

of something creating confusion or perplexity to the bijārtha

disclosed by the Garbha-sandhi.2 Abhinavagupta refers to a

view which takes Avamarśa in the sense of vighna, obsta-

cles. He further adds that according to this view here Bīja

in the Bharata's definition is to be taken to mean the fruit

of the Bīja and artha to mean nivṛtti.3 Thus, bijārtha means

the fructification of the Bīja. With the help of this exposition

Sāgara's above statement may be taken to mean that the

Vimarśa-sandhi presents the fructification of the germ as led

astray. The full implication of Bharata's definition of the

Vimarśa-sandhi, as quoted in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa is

now clear. The Garbha-sandhi describes further progress of

the Bīja than in the Pratimukha-sandhi towards the produc-

tion of the fruit. In the Vimarśa-sandhi, according to this

view this progress is represented by the dramatist as led astray

or, as perplexed or, beguiled fully (vilobhanakṛta) or partially

(tasya vāśleṣa yukta). It thus appears that though not expli-

citly stated, Vimarśa has been taken by Sāgara here in

the sense of vighna. The causes of vighna have not been

mentioned in connection with this view in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-

74 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

ratna-kośa, where two other views on the Vimarśa also occur. In simple words, this view maintains that the pro-

gress of the action towards the final achievement is depicted in the Vimarśa-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 Viśvanātha appears to be the most consistent author who

expresses very clearly that the Bīja (chief of the means) in the Vimarśa-sandhi manifests further than in the Garbha-

sandhi but fresh obstructions due to curse etc., are put before its fructification.5 The illustration is also very clear.

In the Abhijñāna-śakuntala the entire portion beginning from the fourth Act where Anasūyā says : piamvade ja-i-vi

gandhavvena vivāhena etc., to the seventh Act upto the recognition of Śakuntalā, comprises the Vimarśa-sandhi, as

this portion is śakuntalā-vismarana-rūpa-vighnālingitah.6 From the Abhinava-bhārati it appears that the view has not been

fully discarded by Abhinavagupta.7

Sāgara 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 Vimarśa-sandhi depicts a state of obscurity

(samurti) 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 main plot and produce a single result. This elaboration and ramification of the main purpose should be

completed before the close of the Vimarśa-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 Nāṭya-śāstra gives clear direction to the dramatist that the achievement, if there be any, of the Patākā-nāyaka should be delineated before the close of the Vimarsa-sandhi.9 Due to this elaboration and diversification the hero is generally depicted in the Vimarsa-sandhi as brooding over the facts for finding out a right direction. Thus, reflexion is said to be the nature of the Vimarsa-sandhi 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 Abhinavagupta, seems to be similar to the above one, refuted by the latter. According to Udbhata, in the Vimarsa-sandhi, the hero being obstructed in the course of his pursuit after the desired aim, broods over the situations.12 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 Dhanika, Bhoja, Saradatanaya, Singabhupala and Rupa-gosvāmin. The Dasa-rupaka, as interpreted by Dhanika, maintains that deliberation due to krodha or vilobhana characterises the Vimarsa-sandhi.13

The Bhava-prakasana gives two definitions of the Vimarsa-sandhi; one of which is verbally quoted from the Dasa-rupaka and the other states the same thing in different words.14 The Rasarnava-sudhakara followed by the Nataka-candrika maintains the same view.15

The Nataka-laksana-ratna-kosa contains another description of the Vimarsa-sandhi. According to this description, doubt (sandeha) appears to be the distinguishing feature of the Vimarsa-sandhi.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 is

76 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

unhampered. Simply 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 accomplishment of his desire. This doubtful state, says Sagara may be depicted as the result of temptation, perplexity, anger or mishap. Sagara illustrates Vimarsa through vilobhana from the Raghavabhyudaya, where Ravana with the intention of making a false peace, presents to Rama a demoness Jalini by name who takes the form of Sita. Thus the demons here through temptation cause doubt in the mind of Rama 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 vasanaja-vimarsa has been illustrated from the Act VI of the Veni-samhara by quoting the verse, tirne bhisma-

mahodadhau etc.19 The situation refers to the mace-duel between Bhima and Duryodhana which causes a doubt in the mind of Yudhishthira.

Abhinavagupta himself maintains that doubt is the nature of Vimarsa.20 From the standpoint of Abhinavagupta it may be said that the thirdavastha (Prapyasā) coexists with the third Sandhi (Garhba) and as such, it describes a possibility of attainment (sambhavana). The Vimarsa-sandhi coexists with the fourthavastha (Niyatapti) where samdaya (doubt) preponderates. Samsaya is possible 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 success 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

On a perusal of Abhinavagupta's view, it appears that though sandeha is the chief characteristic of the Vimarsa-sandhi yet vighna is there as the sandeha is caused by some sort of vighna.22 This point is made clear by the Natyya-darpana where the authors give almost equal stress on sandeha and vighna,23 otherwise they follow the Abhinava-bharati closely.

The above discussion proves that there has been a controversy regarding the correct interpretation of Bharata's definition of the Vimarsa-sandhi and Abhinavagupta seems to have discussed and criticised the views separately, while Sāgara appears to have arranged them into three groups. Sāgara refers to three views without entering into the critical task of evaluating their merits and it is not possible to find out his own opinion regarding the matter. It is interesting to note that all the three views given in the Nataka-laksana-ratna-kosa are deduced from the same definition of the Natyya-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-sandhi. Only Visvanatha is the consistent supporter of this view. Sāgara presents this view as that of Bharata-muni.

2. Deliberation (paryalocana) is the nature of Vimarsa-sandhi. This view has been supported by the majority of theorists including Sankuka, Udbhata, Dhanika, Saradatanaya, Singabhupala and Rupa-gosvamin.

3. Doubt (sandeha) is the chief feature of the Vimarsa-sandhi. This view finds strong support from Abhinavagupta and Ramacandra-Gunacandra. Sāgara illustrates Vimarsa 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 vighna 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

Vimarśa-sandhi presents obstacles to be overcome on the way of the final achievement, i.e., the fructification of the germ. Judged by the mental state of the hero it may be said that in the Vimarśa-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 Vimarśa-sandhi. Vighna creates a doubtful situation. Udbhaṭa and Śaṅkuka, 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 Vimarśa-sandhi. Abhinava-gupta taking the situation into consideration describes it as sandehātmā. Dhanika, Śāradātanaya etc., cling to the old view of Udbhaṭa and Śaṅkuka. Viśvanātha describes the Vimarśa-sandhi, taking into consideration the root cause of the sandeha and paryālocana. Sāgara most cleverly supports all the views, as it appears from the text of the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa. In conclusion it may be pointed out that Mātṛgupta also enumerates, as shown before, obstacle connected with a bit of success as one of the three aspects of the Vimarśa-sandhi. It appears thus probable, that chronologically also the views may be arranged in the same way as has been done above

NIRVAHAṆA-SANDHI

Sāgara gives the definition of the Nirvahaṇa-sandhi, evidently from the Nāṭya-śāstra :

samāptịḥ samyagarthānāṃ prastutānāṃ mahāujasām/

manā-bhāvottarānāṃ ca bhaven-nirvahaṇaṃ tu tat//1

Sāgara's comment on this verse means that where the arthas (purpose) of the Bīja etc., introduced previously are represented as finally served, is called the Nirvahaṇa-sandhi.2 It has already been shown that the Arthaprakṛtis

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

79

according to Sāgara 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 Nāṭaka assumes a great proportion (mahaujasām) and give rise to varied mental states nānābhāvottararāṇām. The final achievement in the Nirvahaṇa-sandhi marks the fulfilment of all these purposes. Mātr̥gupta also maintains, as has been shown,4 that the Nirvahaṇa-sandhi is characterised by the accomplishment of the desired object and a successful carrying out of all the undertakings. Sāgara's interpretation of Bharata's definition of the Nirvahaṇa-sandhi seems to be influenced by the view of Mātr̥gupta.

Abhinavagupta strongly supports the theory of correlation of the Sandhis with the Avasthās. He takes the word artha in the definition of the Nirvahaṇa-sandhi to mean Avasthā and maintains that the first four successive Avasthās corresponding to the first four successive Sandhis depict the gradual transformation of the Bīja and thus give rise to the state of excellence as the basis of aesthetic experience (camat-kārāspadatve jātotkarṣāṇām) through the delineation of varied mental states (krodhādibhirbhāvavaih). That part of the plot where they culminate to produce the fruit, is the Nirvahaṇa-sandhi, covered by the Phalajogāvasthā.5 Abhinavagupta presents another explanation of this sandhi, said to be the view of others. The word artha has been taken in the sense of upāya (means) in this explanation. According to this view the Nirvahaṇa-sandhi depicts the success of the chief means, set forth in the Mukha-sandhi in producing the desired phala.6 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa describes the Nirvahaṇa-sandhi after the first view of Abhinavagupta.7

Later authorities closely follow the line of Dhananjaya, who himself seems to be influenced by the above view. According to Dhananjaya the Nirvahaṇa-sandhi is that portion of the plot where the purposes of four other sandhis,

80 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

containing the Bīja and distributed in due order, are brought together to produce one result, i. e., the final end.8 The Bhāva-prakāśana gives this definition verbally. The Sāhitya-darpana reproduces both the text of Dhananjaya and commentary of Dhanika verbatim. The Rasārnava-sudhākara and the Nāṭaka-candrikā also follow the Daśa-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 :—kriyāphalena samyag-yogo nirvahanam.10 The last portion of the drama Ratnāvalī beginning from the entrance of the magician comprises the Nirvahana-sandhi.

The Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa records two post-Bharatan views which deserve special attention. Sāgara 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 Nāṭya-darpana, and the illustration has been cited from the Satya-hariścandra of Rāmacandra himself.13 The other theory, recorded in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa advocates the introduction of another obstacle in the Nirvahana-sandhi, put on the way of the final success of the hero. The fire-ordeal of Sītā 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 alive 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

curse of the sage Durvāsas in the Abhijñāna-śakuntala and

the capital punishment of Cārudatta in the Mṛcchakaṭikam

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-sandhi which is 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 Nirvāhaṇa-sandhi becomes

tame. There remains nothing interesting, as the audience

can fairly guess the conclusion. A short recapitulation of

the entire action, referred to by Sāgara 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 like the Mudrā-rākṣasa of Viśākhadatta, 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. Cāṇakya in the

Mudrā-rākṣasa discloses to Rākṣasa his plans in the Nirva-

haṇa-sandhi. Similarly, Mārica in the Abhijñāna-śakuntala

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. Rākṣasa should know the circumstances leading to

his defeat and should not think himself polluted by the

touch of Caṇḍālas before he can accept with a clear mind

the post of Amātya under Candragupta. Similarly, a real

union between Duṣyanta and Śakuntalā is possible only

when the actual cause of their separation is known to

both.

Some dramatists, as it appears from the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-

ratna-kośa16 took recourse to invent a fresh but momentary

complication at the last stage of the action to avoid a tame

6

denouement. The motif of this device is found in the fire-ordeal of Sītā in the Rāmāyaṇa. This portion of the Rāma-story forms the theme of many Rāma-plays. Śudraka, in his Mṛcchakaṭika, depicts Dhūrtā'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 heightened the tension ef the last Sandhi in the Mṛcchakaṭika. Sāgara records another view according to which, at the concluding portion of the Nāṭaka a god should appear on the stage,17 evidently to make the finishing more charming.

The appearance of Vāsudeva in the Veṇīsamhāra and that of Gaurī in the Nāgānanda, have been cited as exemples of the device. Sāgara mintains that the appearance of a god at the last moment in a drama indicates the prosperity (abhyudaya) of the hero. The appearance of divine sages, equivalent to gods, also serve the same purpose.18 The entrance of the divine sage Nārada, just to finalise a happy conclusion in Kālidāsa's Vikramorvaśī, may be cited as an example. The above theory seems to be based upon an observation of plots where divinities or divine-sages are presented on the stage at the concluding part of the Nāṭaka 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 Anargha-rāghava ascribes the view to Bharata and quotes a verse of the same import.19 This verse is also found in the Saṅgīta-dāmodara of Śubhaṅkara.20 Sāgara also, seems to quote the first hemistich of the verse,2T but refers to no authority. These sorts of quotations in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa which are not ascribed to any authority or introduced with any such expression as anyastvāha etc., are mostly found to be taken from the Nāṭya-śāstra. It may be surmised that the above verse was current in the name of Bharata in the days of Sāgara.

The above view, however, follows from the dictum of the Nāṭya-śāstra, quoted in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa where it is said that in the denouement of all sorts of

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

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 Duṣyanta and Śakuntalā in the hermitage of Mārica in the Abhijñāna-śakuntala and the entrance of real Sītā on the stage in the Uttara-rāma-carita, may be cited as apt examples of this theory.

The Nāṭya-śāstra with an eye on the possibility of a tame conclusion, further enjoins, as quoted in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-koṣa 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 Nāṭaka.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 Nāṭaka should be elaborate (pūrvavhāge vistaraniyam) and the second half compact (paścārdhe ca samharaniam).24

It has been discussed above that the Garbha-sandhi, occupies the middle portion of the plot and from the Vimarsa-sandhi begins what is 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 beginning of the falling action. Abhinavagupta offers two explanations.

According to some, the above statement of the Nāṭya-śastra means that the aṅgas, evidently the Acts, should gradually be shortened.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 kāryas in a drama end in the Mukha-sandhi, some in the Pratimukha, some others last upto the Avamarśa and the rest is completed in the Nirvahaṇa-sandhi.27

The

84 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

complicated plot of a Nātaka 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 Abhinava-gupta seems to be reasonable.

From the above discussion, it appears that the Nātya-śāstra in describing the Sandhis takes into account mainly the gradual transformation of the Bīja from its origination to fruition. The Bīja originates in the Mukha-sandhi (yatra bijasamut-pattih) and goes on sprouting (bijasyodghātanam yatra) through out the Pratimukha-sandhi but fully sprouts in the Garbha-sandhi (garbha-nirbhinna). Its progress towards fruition is checked by unforeseen obstacles (vilobhanakrta krodhavyā-sañja) in the Vimarsa-sandhi, and finally transforms itself into fruit in the Nirvahana-sandhi.

RELATION AMONG THE THREE PENTADS ; THE AVASTHĀS, SANDHIS AND ARTHAPRAKRṬIS

The analysis of a plot into Avastāś, Arthaprakṛtis and Sandhis has been discussed in details along with the nature and characteristics of each member of the above three pentads. Sāgara follows the Nātya-śāstra closely in maintaining 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.

Sāgara, as has been shown, takes the five Avastāś in the sense of five successive stages in the development of a plot. Regarding the problem whether these five Avasthās are all present or not in the plot of all types of plays, he states nothing explicitly. The Nātya-śāstra clearly states that every action must possess the five Avastāś 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 like Nātaka and Prakarana, 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 Sandhis and Arthaprakrtis, gives no such special stress as above, and actually sanctions that

there may be plots without some of the Sandhis and Arthaprakrtis. There is, however, no such relaxation,

sanctioned by the sage in the case of the Avasthās. The Nātya-śāstra thus seems to maintain that any type of play

must possess the five Avasthās. The silence of Sāgara in the matter, may be taken to be his support to this view.

Sandhis, according to the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kōśa 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 Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kōśa,

it may be said that the Sandhis may or may not correspond to the Avasthās. For this reason, Sāgara seems to have neither

asserted nor denied any correlation existing between the Sandhis and Avasthās. 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 Avasthās cannot reasonably be comprehended from the viewpoint held by Sāgara. It is, of

course, certain that the feature bijotpatti (origin of the germ) occurs in the Mukha-sandhi, but like Bindu (the sign of

continuation) the Bīja also continues throughout the play. The Patāka and Prakarī are not restricted to any particular

Sandhi in the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kōśa. Thus, according to Sāgara there is no necessary correlation among the above

three groups of five.

Like the Avasthās, 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 Avasthā.3 So, according to Abhinavagupta, the types of plays

not having all the Sandhis (hīnasandhi), cannot have all the Avasthās also. The Nātya-darpana closely follows Abhinava-

bhāratī in this respect and clearly states, sandhayo mukhyavṛttā-

86

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

msāh pañcāvasthānugāḥ kramāt.4 The Nātya-darpana further

maintains that all the five Avasthās occur in the Nāṭaka,

Prakaraṇa, Nāṭikā and Prakaraṇī5 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 Avasthās respectively, the five

sections of the plot constitute the five Sandhis.6 Thus, it is

not the Nātya-darpana that tries to link the Sandhis and the

Avasthās, as maintained by Dr Mainkar.7 Rāmacandra and

Guṇacandra simply 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 main advocate.

The above view has been attributed to his preceptor in the

Abhinava-bhāratī.8 This school of thought thus maintains that :

1. The Mukha-sandhi rests on Ārambha.

2. The Pratimukha-sandhi rests on Yatna.

3. The Garbha-sandhi rests on Prāptyaśā.

4. The Vimarsa-sandhi rests on Niyatāpti.

5. The Nirvahana-sandhi rests on Phalāgama.

The essence of the above theory is that a plot of a full-

fledged drama (Pūrṇāṅga-rūpaka) in its development passes

broadly through five stages (Avasthā) 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 Avasthās, Arthaprakṛtis and the Sandhis. The

Nāṭya-śāstra says : arthaprakṛtayaḥ pañca jñātvā yojyā yathā-

vidhi.10 The statement means that the Arthaprakṛtis are to

be used in a drama according to rules. But there is no such

rule (vidhi) regarding their order of use in a drama, prescribed

in the Nāṭya-śāstra 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-bhāratī stands, seems to maintain that the five

Arthaprakṛtis are to be used in a drama in the same order

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

in which they are enumerated in the Nātya-śāstra.11 The Nātya-darpana rightly opposes this view and enumerates the Arthaprakrtis in an order different from that of the Nātya-śāstra. 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 Avast-hās and Sandhis, the Arthaprakrtis also should occur in a drama in the same order in which they are enumerated, and regarding enumeration they follow the Nātya-śāstra. Naturally, the theory evolves that each Sandhi rests on the corresponding Avast-hā and Arthaprakrti.

The Daśa-rāpaka is generally believed to be the chief exponent of the above theory.13 Both Dhananjaya and Dhanika assert that the five Arthaprakrtis, combined respectively with the five Avast-hās give rise to the corresponding Sandhis.14 Dhananjaya further maintains that the ańyas of the Mukha and Pratimukha Sandhis are determined by the samavaya of the Avast-hās and Arthaprakrtis concerned.15 Śāradātanaya, Śińgabhūpāla and Rūpa-gosvāmin maintain this view. Bh ojadeva also seems to support this view.16 Commentators like Rāghavabhatta, Kāṭayavema and Dhundi are staunch followers of the above view. Now this theory of correlation may be stated clearly in the following form :

1. Bīja and Ārambha combine to form the Mukha-sandhi.

2. Bindu and Prayatna combine to form the Prati-mukha-sandhi.

3. Patākā and Prāptyāśā combine to form the Garbha-sandhi.

4. Prakarī and Niyatāpti combine to form the Vimarsa-sandhi.

5. Kārya and Phalāgama combine to form the Nirva-hana-sandhi.

It has been shown above that according to Abhinava-gupta the five Avast-hās and their corresponding Sandhis should occur in a pūrnańga rūpaka and that all the Artha-

88 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

prakrtis are not essential everywhere like the Avas-thās ; the Patākā and Prakarī may or may not occur in a drama.17 Thus, according to Abhinavagupta the absence of the Patākā and Prakarī does not hamper a drama from being Pūrṇānga, having all the Avasthās and their corresponding Sandhis. Abhinavagupta further rejects in unequivocal terms the existence of yathā-samkhya niyama among the Avasthās, Sandhis and Arthaprakrtis.18 This is also the view of the Nātya-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-bhārati 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 time.

It is curious to note that Dhanañjaya, the chief exponent of the above theory of correlation admits that the Patākā may or may not occur in the Garbha-sandhi20 and keeps silent as to the position of the Prakarī in a drama. Sāra-dātanaya maintains that in the Garbha-sandhi the Patākā does not occur in some dramas like the Mālavikāgnimitram and does occur in sum dramas like Mālatīmādhavam and as such, the occurrence of the Patākā in the Garbha-sandhi is optional. This view has been attributed in the Bhāva-prakāsana to Kohala.21 If Sāradata-naya 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 maintains that the Prāptya-sā should occur in the Garbha-sandhis and in the absence of Patākā, sometimes either the Bīja or Bindu should be used there.22 The Rasārṇava-sudhākara also maintains the same view.23 The above theory of correlation cannot stand if the Bīja or the Bindu is allowed to occur in the Garbha-sandhi unless Sāradata-naya admits that these two may occur more than once in a drama which

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

again goes against the main thesis of correlation. Like the

Daśa-rūpaka, the Bhāva-prakāśana also maintains silence

regarding the position of the Prakarī in a drama. It thus

appears that the Daśa-rūpaka and the Bhāva-prakāśa,

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 Patākā

and Prakarī. They are inconsistent, so far as they maintain

that each Sandhi is formed by a combination of the

respective Avasthā and Arthaprakṛti and at the same time

declare that the Patākā may or may not occur in the

Garbha-sandhi and observe silence regarding the place of

the Prakarī, which according to their theory should occur

in the Vimarsa-sandhi.

Śiṅgabhūpāla seems to have given the above theory a

mechanical perfection. He repeats what has been said by

the Daśa-rūpaka, regarding the determination of the aṅgas of

Mukha and Pratimukha Sandhis, but asserts that the aṅgas

of the Garbha and Vimarsa Sandhis also depend upon the

combination of the Prāptyāśā with the Patākā and that of

the Prakarī and the Niyatāpti respectively.24 Most incon-

sistently the Rasārṇava-suddhākara follows the Daśa-rūpaka and

the Bhāva-prakāśana in maintaining that the Patākā may or

may not occur in a drama.25 The Nāṭaka-candrikā closely

follows the Rasārṇava-suddhākara and adds that the aṅgas of

the Nirvahaṇa-sandhi depend upon the combination of the

Kārya and the Phalāgama.26 Śiṅgabhūpāla and Rūpago-

svāmin are apparently consistent isasmuch as they take the

Arthaprakṛtis as sections of the plot, which of course is

opposed to the Bharatan conception, as pointed out before.27

Among the commentators, Rāghava-bhaṭṭa, Kāṭayavema

and Dhuṇḍi are staunch supporters of the above theory.

Rāghava-bhaṭṭa follows the Daśa-rūpaka so far as the

dependence of the aṅgas of the Mukha and Pratimukha Sandhis

is concerned, but takes resort to the Rasārṇava-suddhākara to

show that the aṅgas of the Garbha and Vimarsa Sandhis also

similarly depend upon the combination of the Avasthās and

Arthaprakṛtis concerned.28 It is also interesting to note that

90 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

the Mātalivṛttānta is not a Prakarī according to Rāghava-bhaṭṭa, simply because it occurs at the close of a Sandhi and the aṅgas of the Vimarśa-sandhi do not depend on it.29

Kāṭayavema follows mainly the Bhāva-prakāśana in his commentary of the Mālavikāgnimitra and maintains that the Garbha-sandhi in this drama depends upon the correlation of the Prāptyāśā and Bindu.30 In connection of the Vimarśa-sandhi of the said drama, he says that here it is Vimarśa-sandhi, as the Bīja, occurring in the due place of the Prakarī is connected with the Niyatāpati.31 Dhundī in his commentary of the Mudrārākṣasa connects all the Artha-prakṛtis with the respective Avastāś and Sandhis and in this respect he follows the Rasārṇana-sudhākara.

The Nāṭya-śāstra represents a tradition, developed through centuries. It does not seem to betray any predilection towards the views that connect the Sandhis either with the Avasthās or with the Avasthās and Arthaprakṛtis both. Practically speaking, none of the above terms have been defined in the Nāṭya-śāstra. Later authorities defined them in their own way and different views evolved, as have already been discussed.

From their treatment in the Nāṭya-śāstra, it appears that the Avasthās may correspond to the Sandhis, though no hard and fast rule can be formulated. The Arthaprakṛtis are quite different things and all of them cannot reasonably be comprehended to coexist with either the respective Avasthās 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. Śāradātanaya, 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 Avastā. Mātṛgupta, as discussed above, in his treatment of the first three Sandhis gives crucial position to the Bīja, Bindu and Patākā respectively. These three Arthaprakṛtis are not taken there exactly in the same sense in which they are used in the Nāṭya-śāstra,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

at least as interpreted by Abhinavagupta, Sāgara and others.

Some other authority perhaps, drew inspiration from Kohala and Mātṛgupta and also being tempted by the word yatha-vidhi in arthaprakṛtayah pañca jñātva yojyā yathāvidhi of the Nātya-śastra. (GOS. XIV. 10), took the Arthaprakṛtis also to occur in a drama in the very order in which they are found to be enumerated in the Nāṭya-śāstra. A tendency naturally developed 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 Avasthā and Artha-prakṛti. 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 Sāra-dātanaya, however, could not give the theory of mechanical perfection which work was completed by Siṅgabhūpāla. Commentators mostly followed this absurd mechanical theory of correlation simply out of loyalty to the theorists who preceded them.

ANUSANDHI

The Nāṭya-śāstra says that the Patākā (vyāpi-prāsaṅgika-vṛtta) may contain one or more Sandhi or Sandhis, but as they are subservient to the interest of the main, they are called Anusandhis.1 Abhinavagupta informs us that Lollaṭa and others favour an analysis of the portions of the plot dealing with the Patākā-nāyaka, into Anusandhis.2 Abhinavagupta himself rejects the idea of taking the Anusandhis into account, because the Patākā itself serves the interests of the main hero. Moreover, if a Patākā is to be fully treated with, then it should be provided with another Patākā, thus giving rise to the anavasthā-doṣa.3 In principle, however, Abhinavagupta accepts that the Patākā-vṛtta may contain sandhi or sandhis, as any and every episode may contain five Avasthās on which the Sandhis are based, but he finds no necessity of enumerating them as they are all for the main plot.4

Following the Abhinava-bhāratī the Nātya-darpana makes the point more clear. The Nātya-darpana calls the Anu-sandhis as Gauṇa-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 Prakarī due to its shortness.5

The Daśa-rūpaka, on the otherhand, maintains that the Patākā-vṛtta should contain Anusandhis, whose number should be less than that of the main Sandhis by one, two, three or four, but the Prakarī should be used without any Sandhi.6

The attempt of analysing the Patākā-vṛtta into Sandhis is 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 into 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 omission in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa.

CHAPTER V

Sandhyangas

Angas of the Mukhasandhi

Sāgara quotes the definitions of the Sandhyangas from the Nāṭya-śāstra in almost all cases and illustrates them adding a short gloss on each. There are casual references to other views also.

1. Upakṣepa : Upakṣepa is defined as the beginning of the play.1 Herefrom the Kāvyārtha starts. As an illustration of the Upakṣepa, Sāgara quotes the verse, nirvāṇa-vairadahanāh etc., from the Veṇī-sam̧hāra.2 The verse practically occurs in the Prastāvanā and is put into the mouth of the Sūtradhāra. Sāgara, however, says that the illustration is given from the first Act of the drama Veṇī-samhāra.3 Thus the Prastāvanā also is taken into account in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa while analysing the plot into Sandhis. Abhinavagupta and Rāmacandra take strong objection to this method.4 Abhinavagupta illustrates Upakṣepa with the vease : lakṣā-grhānalaviśānna etc., the first dialogue to be recited by Bhīma from nepathyā before the exit of the Sūtradhāra, i. e., in the Prastāvanā.5 It thus appears that according to Abhinavagupta the plot begins from the first significant speech of one of the characters of the play concerned. Viśvanātha also follows Abhinavagupta and quotes the same verse as an illustration of the Upakṣepa.6 Sāgara seems to maintain that the plot begins from a clear hint to it by the Sūtradhāra in the Prastāvanā. This is evident from the above illustration of the Upakṣepa in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa. The verse concerned, along with the attached prose portion of Sūtradhāra’s speech, expresses a pious wish, “Let there be a peace between the Pāṇdavas and the Kauravas through the attempt of Kṛṣṇa,” and thus indicates the beginning of the theme. Through ślesa it also gives a hint to the destruction of the Kauravas, the ultimate object of the drama.7

94 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

2. Parikara : Sāgara quotes the definition of Parikara from the Nātya-śāstra and elucidates it by saying that Parikara is the amplification of the central theme which has already been started (in the Upakṣepa).8 As an illustration of the Parikara, the verse : yuṣmacchāśana-langhanāmbhasi etc., from the first act of the Veṇī-saṃhāra has been quoted where Bhīma hurls defiance at Yudhiṣṭhira before Sahadeva and expresses his resolve to destroy the Kauravas.9 The development of the main issue is apparent here.

3. Parinyāsa : Parinyāsa is the mention of the decision regarding the main issue, as stated by Sāgara following the Nātya-śāstra. The verse, cañcad-bhujā-bhramita-caṇḍagadābhighāta, etc., from the above drama has been taken to be the example of Parinyāsa by Abhinavagupta, Sāgara, Ramacandra-Guṇacandra and Viśvanātha.10 The verse expresses the decision of Bhīma that he would break the thighs of Duryodhana and would braid Draupadī's hair. Dhanika, however, quotes the verse as an example of Samādhāna.11 Sāgara gives another definition of Parinyāsa according to which it consists in the utterance of the truth of the matter, necessitated due to the multiplication of issues.12 The Daśa-rūpaka defines the above three aṅgas of the Mukha-sandhi as the sowing of the seed, its amplification and the final decision regarding it, respectively and is followed by the Nāṭya-darpana, Bhāva-prakāśana, Rasārṇava-sudhākara and the Nāṭaka-candrikā.13

4. Vilobhana : The description of the merits (guṇanirvarṇaṇam) of the object of desire (arthasya) is Vilobhana.14 The verse : manthāyastārṇavāmbh etc., of Bhīma, describing the terrible beating of the war drums in the Veṇī-saṃhāra has been taken up as an illustration of Vilobhana by Sāgara.15 To Bhīma the immediate object of desire is undoubtedly the war which is indicated here by the beating of drums and the above verse describes its terrible sound. The illustration thus is a bit far-fetched.

The Nāṭya-darpana following Abhinava-bhāratī, rightly cites the speech of Draupadī : kim nāha, dukkharam tue etc., supporting the guṇavattva of duryodhanavadha, referred to by

Bhīma in the verse : cañcad-bhuja-bhramita etc., in the same drama; as an illustration of Vilobhana.16 The Rasārṇava-sudhākara takes Vilobhana to mean a description of merits of the hero or the heroine.17

Abhinavagupta remarks that the above four aṅgas generally occur in the Mukha-sandhi and in the same order in which they have been enumerated.18 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa follows a different order in enumerating the aṅgas but maintains that Vilobhana occurs after Parinyāsa up to which it follows the order of the Nāṭya-śāstra.19

5. Yukti : Yukti has been defined as the careful consideration of facts.20 As an illustration of Yukti, Sāgara cites a verse which means that a mighty hero, though unarmed kills the enemy just as Viṣṇu slew Hiraṇyakaśipu.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 (mukhārtha) and illustrates it with the verse,—‘mathnāmi kauravasatam samare’ etc., from the Veṇī-samhāra.24 In this verse Bhīma expresses his firm determination to disobey Yudhiṣṭhira in avenging of the wrongs done by the Kauravas and to kill them. The central issue, i. e., the destruction of the Kauravas has been mentioned here.

The Nāṭya-śāstra defines Prāpti as the approach of a pleasurable situation.25 The Daśa-rūpaka, Nāṭya-darpaṇa, and the Sāhitya-darpaṇa follow this definition of the Prāpti.26

7. Samādhāna : Samādhāna is the re-establishment of the purpose of the germ (bījārthasyopagamanam).27 The concluding verse of the first act of the Veṇi-samhāra has been cited in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa as an illustration of Samādhāna.28 Sāgara defines : Prāpti as : mukhārthasyopagamana and Samādhāna as : bījārthopagamana. Bījārtha and mukhārtha practically indicate the samething. Thus one definition overlaps the other. Abhinavagupta points out that the Bīja in Samādhāna comes to be related to the main hero and is properly sown.29

96 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

8. Vidhāna: A situation causing both joy and sorrow is Vidhāna.30 Sāgara cites two examples of Vidhāna, one from the Bālacarita and the other from the Veni-samhāra.31 Viśvanātha also cites the same verse from the Bālacarita as the example of Vidhāna.32 The verse : bhūyah-paribha-vaklānti-lajjā etc., of Bhīma from the Veni-samhāra, cited by Sāgara as an example of Vidhāna, has also been quoted by Dhanika in the same context,33 but, in the Abhinava-bhāratī and Nātya-darpana, the same has been taken to illustrate Udbheda.34

9. Paribhāvanā : The incident or situation (artha) that provides for fresh curiosity (kutūhalāntarādāyi) is Paribhāvanā.35 Abhinavagupta maintains that the agitation (āvega) mixed with curiosity is Paribhāvanā.36 Sāgara illustrates this aṅga by citing from the Veni-samhära Act. I, where Draupadī, on hearing the sudden beating of the war-drums becomes curious and asks its reason to Bhīma.37 Abhinava-gupta, Dhanika and Viśvanātha also cite the same situation to illustrate Paribhāvanā,38

10. Udbheda : Udbheda has been defined as the sprouting of the Bīja.39 Sāgara cites the slaying of Mārīca and others as an illustration of Udbheda as these activities of Rāma have been taken to be manifestation of the germ of the doom of Rāvaṇa.40

11. Karana : The Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kosa reads Kāraṇa, but all other works follow the Nātya-sāstra and read Karana which has rightly been suggested by Dr Raghavan to be the correct reading.41 Karana has been defined as the commencement of the action to accomplish the desired object (prakr̥tārthah samārambhah).42 The speech of Bhīma, "Let us proceed to destroy the race of Kuru, in the Act I of the Veni-samhāra has been cited by Sāgara, as an illustration of Karana.43 As an aṅga of the Mukha-sandhi, Karana (kāraṇa) thus may be described as situation representing the first step towards the realisation of the purpose. The Nātya-darpana records a view, said to be maintained by some, according to which Karana is suppression of difficulties (vipadām samanām).44

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

97

12. Bheda : Athorities differ regarding the exposition of this aṅga. Its definition in the Nāṭya-śāstra seems to mean that the situation disrupting the union of something, is Bheda.45 Sāgara takes this definition of the Nāṭya-śāstra to mean that Bheda is the breaking up of affairs or purposes (artha), united through aggregation, Two Anuṣṭubhas have been cited to illustrate this aṅga.46 These two verses refer to a situation where the confusion of Daśaratha as to how can Rāma, forceless and weaponless, be expected to kill Tāḍakā 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 Sāgara 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 (upāyātmā) should be counted among Sandhyantarās.48 The Nāṭya-darpana defines Bheda (Bhedana) as the exit of characters and follows Abhinava-bhāratī both in exposition and illustration.49 According to the Daśa-rūpaka, as interpreted by Dhanika, Bheda is the encouragement of some factor fostering the germ.50 The Sāhitya-darpana follows Abhinavagupta.51 The Nāṭya-darpana records another view according to which Bhedana (Bheda) is the move that removes the obstacles against the growth of the Bīja.52

These are the twelve aṅgas of the first Sandhi. Dhanika maintains that among these, Upakṣepa, Parikara Parinyāsa, Yukti, Udbheda and Samādhāna are essential to the presentation of the Mukha-sandhi,53 The use of the rest according to Dhanika, is thus discretionary.

AṄGAS OF THE PRATIMUKHA-SANDHI

Sāgara enumerates the aṅgas of the Prati-mukha-sandhi after the Nāṭya-śāstra with slight deviations in naming of two aṅgas which will be noted in proper places. It is the

7

98 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Nātya-darpana that differs most from the Nātya-śāstra so far as the names of the aṅgas and their order are concerned. All other authorities mostly follow the Nātya-śāstra with bits of changes introduced here and there.

1. Vilāsa : Following the Nātya-śāstra, Sāgara defines Vilāsa as the longing or effort (samīhā) for amorous pleasures. He offers another definition of Vilāsa as the enjoyment of amorous play.1 The illustration is cited from the second Act of the drama Jānaki-rāghava, where Rāma expresses his delight on seeing the bashful and amorous movements of Sītā.2 Abhinavagupta rightly limits this aṅga to the second Sandhi of those dramas where Śṛṅgāra is the dominant Rasa and criticises the ill-timed and ill-placed inclusion of it in the second Act of the Veṇi-samhāra, depicting Duryodhana’s dalliance with Bhānumatī.3 Abhinavagupta, however, does not exclude this aṅga from the second Sandhi of dramas having Vīra as the dominant Rasa. He maintains that in these dramas Utsāha should take the place of Rati, as the word Rati in Bharata’s definition here stands for the Sthāyi-bhāva.4 The point has been made clear in the Nātya-darpana where it is clearly stated that the Utsāha etc., expressed through the behaviour of man and woman is to be taken as Vilāsa in dramas with Vīra etc., as the main Rasa.5 Thus, according to this view the aṅga Vilāsa may also occur in dramas with a Rasa other than the Śṛṅgāra, as the main.

2. Parisarpa : Following the Nātya-śāstra Sāgara describes Parisarpa as the pursuing of what has been seen at first and is lost afterwards.6 The illustration, eited by Sāgara from the drama Jānaki-rāghava, depicts the situation where Rāma describes Sītā 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 Nātya-darpana places it as the last aṅga of the second Sandhi and calls it as Anusarpa. In definition, however, the Nātya-darpana follows the Nātya-śāstra.7 The Bhāva-Prakāśana defines Parisarpa as the pursuing of the Bīja, seen before but lost sight of temporarily.8 This definition suits well

with the dr̥ṣṭa-naṣṭa characteristic of the Pratimukha-sandhi

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 Nāṭya-śāstra more clear and say that

Vidhūta is non-acceptance of the request at the first instance

and then acceptance of the same.10 Sāgara for illustration

quotes the verse : vikiṛa dhavaladirghāpāṅga-samsarpi etc.,

from the second Act (Bhānumatyaṅka) of the Veṇī-saṃhāra

where Duryodhana's entreaties to Bhānumatī have been

described.11 The Daśa-rūpaka takes Vidhūta to mean

arati.12 Only arati cannot explain the situation taken as

Vidhūta in the Nāṭya-śastra and this definition has been

rejected in the Nāṭya-darpana on the ground that it overlaps

the definition of Rodha (Nirodha).13

4. Tāpana : Tāpana has been defined in the Nāṭaka-

lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa after the Nāṭya-śāstra, as the visualisation

of a danger.14 As an illustration, the verse : dullaha-

janānurāo etc., from the second Act (Kadaligṛha) of the

Ratnāvalī has been quoted, where Sāgarikā 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

Tāpana as the non-availability of any means, but quotes the

same verse as above for illustration.17 The Daśa-rūpaka

reads Śama instead of Tāpana and defines it as the dispel-

ling of the arati which is the characteristic of Vidhūta.18

5. Narma : While describing the aṅgas of the Kaiśikī-

vṛtti, Sāgara defines Narma. Evidently, Narma the aṅga

of the Pratimukha-sandhi, has been taken by Sāgara as iden-

tical with Narma, the aṅga of the Kaiśikī-vṛtti. There he

gives the view of Ācārya, i.e., Bharata, according to which

Narma consists mainly in the use of dialogues provoking

laughter and promoting love (Śṛṅgāra).19 The Nāṭya-śāstra

in the context of Sandhy-aṅgas defines Narma as the laughter

caused in sport.20 According to the Daśa-rūpaka it is

simply humorous speech21 and this definition has been

taken up by Viśvanātha.22

6. Narmadyuti : Narmadyuti, according to the Nātaka-lakṣana-ratna-kośa is the laughter for the purpose of play and allurement.23 For illustration Sāgara quotes from the second Act of the Rantāvali a passage where the Vidūṣaka on hearing the words of the sārikā says to the king that there is a ghost on the tree.24 The Nātya-śāstra, however, defines Narmadyuti as the humourous speech used to cover one's own flaw and the Nātya-darpana also maintains the same view.25 Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra restrict Narma and Narmadyuti in plays depicting love affairs where the Kaiśikī-vṛtti gets prominence.26 Dhananjaya takes this aṅga to mean the joy arising out of Narma and finds Viśvanātha as his follower.27

7. Pragamana : The name of this aṅga has been vari-ously read in different treatises. Abhinavagupta reads Pragayana and says that it is a rūdhī-śabda. 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-śāstra, as followed be Sāgara, defines Pragamana 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 baṭu (pupil) has been quoted from the second Act of the drama Rāma-vikrama.31 From this characteristic of the Pragamana, it appears that this aṅga may occur anywhere in a drama and has no special connection with any Sandhi. Dhananjaya defines this aṅga

as uttarā vāc, and Dhanika seems to interprete it as a repartee contributing to the progress of the main topic.32 The Bhāva-prakāśana defines it as yuktottara which means nothing more than a fit reply.33

8. Virodha : Without any substantial difference in defi-nition the name of the aṅga is read as Virodha in the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa, Sāhitya-darpana, Rasārṇava-sudhā-kara and Nātaka-candrikā; and Nirodha in the Daśa-rūpaka and Bhāva-prakāśana. The Nātya-darpana reads Rodha while the Nātya-śāstra (GOS) reads Nirodha but one ms. reads

Virodha. Virodha is the appearance of some trouble (vya-sana-samprāpti).34 Sāgara cites illustration of this aṅga from the second Act of the Jānaki-rāghava where Sītā expresses her apprehension of troubles to Rāma for his enmity with Paraśurāma.35 The Daśa-rūpaka defines it as hitarodha and the Nāṭya-darpaṇa says that Rodha is arti and makes this definition clear when it says : artiḥ khedo vasanam iṣṭarodhād rodhah36 i.e., 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 Sāgara with reference to the situation where Daśaratha tries to appease Bhārgava with conciliatory words.37 Other authorities also agree with the definition of the Nāṭya-śāstra, as followed by Sāgara. The Nāṭya-darpaṇa, however, names this aṅga as Sāntvana.38

10. Puṣpa : Puṣpa has been described as flowery speech (viśeṣa-vacana) in the Nāṭya-śāstra39 and Sāgara explains the significance of viśeṣa-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 Jānaki-rāghava is the speech of a character who consoles Sītā by describing the excellence of Rāma's prowess and his victory over Paraśurāma.41 Abhinavagupta says that the speech expressing the ardour of love is also Puṣpa.42 This is most suitable to the Prati-mukha-sandhi of dramas depicting love intrigues. The Nāṭya-darpaṇa states that a statement becomes viśeṣavat when it says something over and above a former statement and it is Puṣpa (flower) as it enhances the beauty of the former statement like flower doing the same of the braid.43

11. Vajra : The aṅga Vajra, consists in a harsh statement,44 i.e., a shocking utterance. The illustration is cited from the Pumsavanāṅka where Rāma is accused of not abandoning Sītā, taken away and kept so long by Rāvaṇa 45

12. Upanyāsa : According to the Nāṭya-śāstra as accepted by both Abhinavagupta and Sāgara, Upanyāsa consists i

102 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

logical statement.36 This anga has been illustrated by Sāgara by a citation from the second Act of the Jānaki-rāghava where Sānanda, on hearing the reasoned speech of Dasaratha expresses his pleasure and supports it.47 This definition has also been followed in the Nātya-darpana.48 But according to one ms. of the Nātya-sāstra, 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-rūpaka records a different definition according to which Upanyāsa is propitiation ; Visva-nātha and Sāradātanaya 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. Rāghava-bhatta spots out this anga in two places in his Arthadyotanikā in two different senses.52

13. Varna-samhāra : The Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kosa records two definitions of this anga. According to the first one Varna-samhāra consists in concealing or repudiation of something which has already been exposed.53 The illustration is cited from the incidents of the Kadaligrha in the Act. II. of the Ratnāvali where the Vidūsaka asks the king to win over the tattling Susañgatā by a reward, so that the secret, i.e., the picture incident, which has already been known to her, may be guarded.54 Sāgara further informs us that according to some Varna-samhāra consists in the congregation of four castes.55 The GOS. edition of the Nātya-sāstra gives this second definition of the Varna-samhāra but one ms. supports the first definition.56 It is evident that Sāgara 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 i.e., the characters, dissociated for some reason and rejects the view that the congregation of four castes is Varnasamhāra.57 The Nātya-darpana follows the Abhinava-bhārati but refers to other two views found in the Nātaka-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 Varṇa-samhāra.59

Dhanika maintains that among the above thirteen aṅgas

of the Pratimukha-sandhi, Parisarpa, Prasama (Śama), Vajra,

Upanyāsa and Puṣpa are essential (pradhāna) and the

others may be used whenever possible or necessary and

this is also the view, upheld in the Nāṭya-darpaṇa.60 Bhoja,

as has been stated above, maintains that the Pratimukha-

sandhi contains twelve aṅgas.

AṄGAS OF THE GARBHA-SANDHI

1. Abhutodāharaṇa : The Nāṭya-śāstra as well as other

text books read the name of this aṅga as Abhūtoḍāharaṇa

kośa and Asatyāharaṇa of the Nāṭya-darpaṇa, All the

theorists follow Bharata in defining this aṅga as consisting

in a deceptive statement.1 For illustration Sāgara refers

to the passage from the Act called Aśvatthāmā, i.e., the

Act. III of the Veṇī-saṃhāra, where the Sūta describes how

Yudhiṣṭhira took resort to falsehood in announcing the death

of Aśvatthāmān.2

2. Mārga : All the theorists agree in describing Mārga

as a statement of truth or of facts.3 This aṅga has been

illustrated in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa with a passage

from the Act. III of the Jānakī-rāghava where Hanumān

describes the achievements of Rāma which are facts.4

3. Rūpa : Following the Nāṭya-śāstra, Sāgara defines

Rūpa as a conjecture having a citrārtha.5 By citrārtha

Sāgara seems to mean unusual or wonderful sense, as is

evident from the illustration cited from the Śāṅketāṅka,

(the Act III of the Ratnāvalī) where the love-lorn king

describes his own condition and says that it is really wonder-

ful or unusual that Kāma 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 Abhi-

navagupta and Rāmacandra refer to the above situation to illustrate Udāharaṇa.8

Abhinavagupta interpretes the definition of Rupa of the Nāṭya-śāstra as some inconclusive statement due to the diversity of facts and distinguishes this aṅga from the Yukti 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 Ratnāvalī the verse,—prasidetī brūyām idam asati etc., forming a speech of the king which has been taken as an illustration of the Paryupāsana by Dhanika.10 The Daśa-rupaka omits the epithet citra and states that the Rūpa consists in a statement containing conjectures.11 The Nāṭya-darpana follows Abhinava-bhāratī but records the view held by Dhananjaya, as the opinion of some and also refer to a view according to which Rūpa is a striking description, as is clear from the illustration cited from the Veni-saṃhāra (Act IV) where Sundaraka gives a vivid description of the battle-scene.12

4. Udāharaṇa : The Nāṭya-śāstra as accepted by Abhinava-gupta defines Udāharaṇa as a statement expressing excellence of something.13 Sāgara does not differ very much from this in describing Udāharaṇa as an exaggerated statement.14 For illustration Sāgara refers to the verse : yo yaḥ sastram bibhartti etc., from the Veni-saṃhāra (Act III) where Aśvatthāman boastfully declares that he would kill all the heroes of the Pāṇḍava camp.15 The Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa and the Sāhitya-darpana also cite the same illustration.16

5. Krama : The Nāṭya-śāstra as interpreted by Abhinava-gupta; describes Krama as the knowing of the real state of affairs concerning something pondered over.17 Sāgara defines Krama as the knowledge of the events to come, bhaviṣyat tattvopalabdhiḥ.18 The illustration is cited from the Aśvatthāmāṅka (Act III of the Veni-saṃhāra) where Kṛpa asserts that given the supreme command, Aśvatthāman is able to destroy the whole world, not to speak of the Pāṇḍavas.19 But, strictly speaking this cannot be taken as bhaviṣyattattva, it is simply a bold assertion of Kṛpa regarding the future events which is never to materialise. It thus

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

105

appears that any bold assertion regarding a future 'event is

Krama according to Sāgara. The view held by Sāgara

with illustration has been recorded in the Nāṭya darpaṇa as

the opinion of some.30 Dhananjaya describes Krama as

the accomplishment of the desired end and this view has

also been recorded in the Nāṭya-darpaṇa as the opinion of

some, while the Bhāva-prakāśana repeats it.21 The Daśa-

rūpaka further says that according to some Krama consists

in bhāvajñānam.22 This view is in conformity with that of

Abhinavagupta and the Nāṭya-darpaṇa upholds this view,23

The Sāhitya-darpaṇa gives the definition of Krama from the

Nāṭya-śāstra.24

6. Samgraha : All the authorities agree in describing

Samgraha as a statement introducing conciliation (sāma) or

offer of some gift (dāna) or other expedients like bheda

and danda.25 Sāgara illustrates this aṅga with the concil-

iatory speech of Dhṛtarāṣṭra from the Act. V. of the

Veṇi-saṃhāra.26

7. Anumāna : Anumāna has been described as arriving

at a logical conclusion through inference from something

perceptible.27 This aṅga has been illustrated in the Nāṭaka-

lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa with the second half of a verse, quoted

from the Jānaki-rāghava, as informs the Sāhitya-darpaṇa.

Herein the conclusion of one's being the son of the Sun

has been drawn from one's lustrous body and prowess.28

8. Prārthanā : Dhananjaya, Śāradātanaya and Siṅga-

bhūpāla do not take this aṅga into account and maintain

that there are twelve aṅgas of the third Sandhi29 instead

of thirteen of Bharata as followed by Sāgara, Rāmacandra and

Viśvanātha. The mātṛkā bha text of the Nāṭya-śāstra as

informed by the editor of the GOS. text, does not contain

the definition of Prārthanā.30 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa also

informs us : kecit tu prārthanam idam caṅgam na manyante.31

Prārthanā according to the Nāṭya-śāstra is a request for the

enjoyment of love (rati), rejoicing (harṣa) or festivity

(utsava).32 But Sāgara describes this aṅga simply as a

request and for illustration quotes from the Sampatyanika

where Māyāvatī seems to try her wit on someone.33

106 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

9. Utkṣipta : There are several variants so far as the name of this aṅga is concerned.34 According to the Nāṭya- śāstra as interpreted by Abhinavagupta. Akṣipti consists in the bursting out of the secret (garbhasyodbhedanam), hidden in the heart.35 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa defines the aṅga as the revealing of the Bīja but accepts the above view of Abhi- navagupta as an alternative.36 The Sāhitya-darpaṇa also follows Abhinava-bhārati.37 Sāgara describes Utkṣipti as the revealing out of the Bīja (bijodbhedanam).38 For illustration a verse from the Bālacarita, an unidentified work, is quoted where it is said that Rāma promised the kingdom as a reward for the recovery of Sītā and slaying Vālin he had given it to Sugrīva.39 Sāgara comments on this illustration that the accomplishment of the garbhabīja has been disclosed.40 The accomplishment of the hidden Bīja here evidently refers to the recovery of Sītā. The ,Daśa-rūpaka also defines Ākṣepa as the disclosing of the garbha-bīja.41 From the above it appears that here the word garbha in the definition of the Nāṭya-śāstra has been taken by some to mean secret feeling while others take it in the sense of main purpose (bīja), remaining hidden and as a result we get almost three separate definition of this aṅga, disclosing of the hidden feeling, that of the main purpose and the same of the hidden main purpose. The Nāṭya-darpaṇa informs us that some authorities do not take this aṅga into account at all.42

10. Totaka : Sāgara describes Toṭaka after the Nāṭya- śāstra as the speech full of samrambha43 (excitement). For illustration a verse from the Rāmacarita has been quoted where Rāvaṇa in excitement declares that his fire of anger will fall on the forest of enemies.44 Here Rāvaṇa's agitation is due to anger. The point has been made clear by Abhinavagupta who says that a speech, pregnant with excitement (āvega) is Toṭaka, as it pierces the heart, and this excitement may be due to joy, anger or to some other reason.45 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa also means the same.46

11. Adhibala : The Nāṭya-śāstra 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 Ratnāvalī where the king is deceived

through the foolishness of the Vidūṣaka by Vāsavadattā

in the guise of Sāgarikā.47 The Daśarūpaka, Nātya-darpaṇa,

Bhāva-prakāśana and Sāhitya-darpaṇa48 follow Abhinavagupta.

But one ms. of the Nātya-śāstra defines Adhibala as kapa-

tasyānyathābhāva.49 This definition has been accepted by

Sāgara and Bhoja.50 Adhibala, thus according to Sāgara and

Bhoja consists in the baffling of an attempt of deception. The

illustration is cited from the Sampātyaṅka where an attempt of

the Rākṣasī Māyāvatī to dupe Aṅgada, Hanumān and others

has been depicted as foiled.51 The Nātya-darpaṇa also refers

to this view as the opinion of some.52 The Daśa-rūpaka

informs us that in some works Adhibala is defined as :

todakasyānyathābhāva.53 The Nātya-darpaṇa records a view that

describes it as, sopalambhat vākyam.54

12. Udvega : Fear from the king, or the enemy, or

the robber gives rise to the situation of Udvega according

to the Nātya-śāstra.55 Abhinavagupta maintains that here

enemy (ari) includes even the heroine,56 evidently in love

intrigues. Dhanika also means the same when he illustrates

the aṅga by referring to the situation where Sāgarikā is

afraid of Vāsavadattā. But Dhananjaya defines Udvega

as : arikṛtā bhītiḥ.57 The Nātya-darpaṇa follows Abhinava-

gupta and the Nātya-śāstra.58

In the light of the above, the scope of Sāgara's defini-

tion of Udvega as, nṛpatijanitabhayam59 (fear from the king)

is too small. The reading here in the text may be amended

as, nṛpādijanitabhayam. This reading finds support from a

ms. of the Nātya-śāstra, the Sāhitya-darpaṇa and the Sṛṅgāra-

prakāśa.60 As an illustration of Udvega, Sāgara quotes a

verse from the Sompātyaṅka where Aṅgada being unable to

find out Sītā thinks in despair what will he say to Rāma.61

The verse really depicts Aṅgada's anxiety (udvega) and not

fear from the king.

13. Vidrava : Sāgara says that Vidrava (agitation,

panic) is due to saṅkā, bhāya and trāsa.62 A subtle differ-

ence in meanings of these three words has been brought

108 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

home to us by Sāgara when he illustrates Vidrava with a verse that depicts a situation where, on hearing terrible noise created by Khara etc., Rāma apprehended (śankā) (some mischief), Sītā became afraid (bhaya) and the sages became panic-stricken (trāsa).63 Thus, Vidrava according to Sāgara is a state of confusion arising out of apprehension, fear and panic and Viśvanātha also means the same.64 For this exposition of Vidrava, Sāgara seems to be indebted to Śaṅkuka whose view has been reproduced in the Abhinava-bhāratī.65 Sāgara further says that according to some the Vidrava may arise from any one of the above three causes.66 Abhinavagupta himself maintains that Vidrava is śaṅkā produced by bhaya and trāsa67, and this interpretation has been accepted by Bhoja and Rāmacandra-Guṇacandra.68 The Daśa-rūpaka names the aṅga as Sambhrama and defines it as : śaṅkā-trāsau, and Bhāva-prakāśana simply reiterates this.69

It is thus shown that Sāgara follows the Nāṭya-śāstra in enumerating the above thirteen aṅgas of the Garbha-sandhi. It has already been pointed out that Dhananjaya, Śāradātanaya and Siṅgabhupāla omit Prārthanā and maintain that the third Sandhi has got twelve aṅgas. The view has been recorded in the Nāṭya-darpana as shown above. Viśvanātha also refers to the view.70 Among these aṅgas Abhūtāharaṇa, Mārga, Toṭaka, Adhibala and Ākṣepa are main according to Dhanika and Rāmacandra-Guṇacandra.71

AṆGAS OF THE VIMARŚA-SANDHI

1. Apavāda : Apavāda is censure and all the authorities beginning from Bharata define it as the declaration of fault.1 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa, however, makes the point more clear and says that Apavāda is parivāda which means, sva-para-doṣodghaṭṭanam.2 The illustration in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa is taken from the Act Māyā-lakṣa-(kṣma)-ṇa of the drama Jānakī-rāghava, The verse quoted for the purpose

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

109

gives a list of wrongs committed by Rāvaṇa and declares that the terrible consequence of these is sure to come.

2. Sampheṭa : Sampheṭa is an exchange of angry speeches. Sāgara offers two illustrations of this aṅga ; one from the Veni-saṃhāra (Act. VI) where Yudhiṣṭhira and Cārvāko engage in altercation regarding the duel between Bhīma and Duryodhana, and the other is from the Samketānka, i.e., the Act III of the Ratnāvalī where Vāsavadattā chastises the king. Abhinavagupta informs that some name the aṅga as Samsphoṭa, taking the root sphoṭa to mean anādara.

3. Drava : The Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa defines Drava after the Nāṭya-śāstra as guruvyatikrama and distinguishes it from Vidrava of the Garbha-sandhi by stating ; saṅkādibhir-manasah kṣobho vidravalḥ sa eva paribhavakrto dravah. Thus, according to Sāgara 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 saṅkā etc., while in case of Drava, it is caused by paribhava (humiliation). The illustration is cited from the Act VI of the Veni-saṃhāra where Yudhiṣṭhira expresses his mental agitation before Draupadī by referring to the great humiliation they suffered at the hands of the Kāuravas even before the superiors and kinsmen, the only remedy for which is their own death or that of Duryodhana. Abhinavagupta, however, takes the expression guruvyatikrama in the sense of disrespect or insolence towards the superiors. Dhananjaya, Rāmacandra-Guṇacandra and Bhoja also define Drava as consisting in showing of disrespect to the superiors, to this Viśvanātha adds the reason śokāvegādisambhava. 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 Nāṭya-darpana admits of two Dravas, one in the Garbha-sandhi and the other in the Vimarsa-sandhi. The first is the Vidrava of the Nāṭyaśāstra and Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa.

4. Śakti : Almost all the theorists follow the Nāṭya-śāstra in defining Śakti as the putting down of an antagonism : virodhapraśama Abhinavagupta, evidently with love-

110 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

dramas in his mind, interprete the definition of the Nāṭya- śāstra as placating one who is angry.14 Sāgara picks up

the illustration from the Cūdāmaṇi-samihāra (Act. V. of the Nāgānanda) where Garuḍa at the advice of the hero

promises not to kill any living being in future.15 The situation referred to in the illustration may be taken to

depict the putting down of the virodha of Garuḍa with the Nāgas. The Nāṭya-darpana defines Śakti following the above

explanation of Abhinavagupta as kruddha-prasādanam, but extends its scope and says that Śakti consists also

in the total annihilation of the angry enemy.16 It also informs us that some theorists omit Śakti and admit a new

aṅga Bhāvāntara, while some others place Ājñā in the place of Śakti. Bhāvāntara is said to be the existence of contrary

intentions and Ājñā consists in giving an order without considering the propriety.17

5. Vyavasāya : Vyavasāya has been defined in the Nataka-laksana-ratna-kośa as a statement connected with the

pratijñā-hetu.18 The expression pratijñā-hetu has not been explained by Sāgara. For illustration Sāgara quotes a por-

tion of a speech from the Veṇī-samihāra (Act. VI) where Pāñcālaka describes the finding out of Duryodhana by

Bhīma and refers to the statement of Vāsudeva that Duryodhana knows the art of mastery over water (jalas-

tambhana).19 From this illustration it appears that pratijñā- hetu has been understood by Sāgara 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 Vāsudeva. The definition of Vyavasāya in the Nāṭya-śāstra has been explained

by Abhinavagupta also in the sense of acquisition of means for the accomplishment of undertakings.20 The Daśa-rūpaka

defines this aṅga as the declaration of ones own power, i.e., boasting.21 The Bhāva-prakāśana and the Rasārnava-

sudhākara follow this view, and the Nāṭya-darpana refers to it as the opinion of some.22

5. Prasaṅga : Prasaṅga according to Sāgara is the declaration of something which is not the chief subject-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

111

matter :23 i.e., irrelevant. The mourning of Yudhiṣṭhira on

hearing the false news of Bhīma's defeat and death from

Cārvāka in the Veṇī-samhāra (Act. VI) has been cited as an

illustration of Prasaṅga.24 Here lamentation over Bhīma's

death is entirely irrelevant as the fact is otherwise than the

defeat of Bhīma. This definition of Prasaṅga, though

supported by one of the manuscripts of the Nāṭya-śāstra25

differs from that accepted by Abhinavagupta, but is followed

by the Bhāva-prakāśana and is referred to in the Nāṭya-

darpana as maintained by some.26

The definition of Prasaṅga in the Nāṭya-śāstra as accepted

by Abhinavagupta and followed by Dhanañjaya, Rāmacandra

and Viśvanātha, means that the aṅga consists in the state-

ment where superiors are respectfully referred to.27

7. Dyuti : The Nāṭya-śāstra defines Dyuti as a contemp-

tuous speech, vākyaṃvādarṣa-samyuktam.28 Sāgara adds two

more adjectives, viz., threatening (tarjanā) and insulting

(adhikṣepa) to the speech and concludes that an address

(āhūti) with a harsh effect (durukti parināmā) is meant here.29

The challenging rebukes and harsh addresses hurled to

Duryodhana hidden under water by Bhīma, as reported to

Yudhiṣṭhira by Pāñcālaka in the Veṇī-samhāra have been

referred to as forming an illustration of Dyuti by Sāgara.30

The same situation has been referred to for illustration of

Dyuti in the Daśa-rūpaka and Sāhitya-darpana, while defining

the aṅga as consisting in a threatening and intimidating

speech.31 The Nāṭya-darpana takes this aṅga to be simple

tiraskāra and refers to all the above views as those of

others.32

8. Kheda : Theorists like Dhanañjaya, Śāradātanaya,

and Siṅgabhūpāla do not count kheda as an aṅga. The

reason perhaps is, as indicated by Abhinavagupta, that

śrama a Vyabhicāribhāva cannot be included in the list of

Sandhyāṅgas. Abhinavagupta, himself, however, maintains

that śrama, udvega, vitarka etc., though included in the list of

Vyabhicārins, may also be used as Sandhyāṅgas if there is

scope.33 The Nāṭya-śāstra followed by the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-

kośa, Nāṭya-darpana and Sāhitya-darpana, defines Kheda as

112 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

exhaustion (śrama) due to mental and physical over-working.34 For illustration Sāgara quotes a verse from

the Jānakī-rāghava (Act VI) where Rāma visualises Sītā’s

wearingess.35 Pratiṣedha : The Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa and the

Sāhitya-darpaṇa follow the Nāṭya-śāstra in taking Pratiṣedha

into account as an aṅga. The Nāṭya-darpaṇa also seems

to admit this aṅga but terms it as Virodha.36 Pratiṣedha

has been defined as the obstruction to the (achievement of the) desired object.37 Sāgara, for illustration, refers to the

situation where Śaṅkhacūḍa describes his frustration in

offering his body to Garuḍa, due to Jīmūtavāhana’s interven-

tion in the Act V of the Nāgānanda.38

10. Virodhana : In complete agreement with the Nāṭya-

śāstra Sāgara defines Virodhana as the appearance of delay

or lapse (atyaya) to the kārya, i.e., the accomplishment

of one’s own desire (kāryātyayopagamanam).39 Bhoja and

Viśvanātha also maintain this view.40 As an illustration of

this aṅga Sāgara refers to the situation in the Act VI of the

Veṇī-saṃhāra, where the Kaṅcukin mistakes Bhīma as Dur-

yodhana, evidently out of fear, and declares that the latter

after killing the former is coming here and is seeking

Pāñcālī here and there.41 The Virodha of the Nāṭya-

darpaṇa, as identified with Pratiṣedha above, also comes very

near to this aṅga.

There is a confusion among the theorists regarding the

exact significance of this aṅga. The Daśa-rūpaka, defines

it as samrabdhānām virodhanam and Dhanika cites the angry

exchange of hot words between Bhīma and Duryodhana

from the Veṇī-saṃhāra (Act V) as an illustration.42 The

Bhāva-prakāśana gives two similar definitions of Virodhana.43

The Rasārṇava-sudhākara defines the aṅga as, virodhanam niro-

dhoktiḥ śabdānām ca parasparam.44 Several mss. of the

Nāṭya-śāstra 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 Viśvanātha and the other supporting the

explanation offered by Dhananjaya, Śāradātanaya etc.

11. Ādāna : Sāgara quotes the definition of Ādāna from the Nāṭya-śāstra.46 According to this definition Ādāna signifies a situation that shows the nearness of the object indicated by the Bīja. It shows that the final fruition of the Bīja is drawing near. Sāgara illustrates this aṅga from the Act IV of the Ratnāvalī by citing the speech of Vāsa-vadattā who on seeing the conflagration request the king to save Sāgarikā kept bound, and the king readily accepts.47 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa also defines Ādāna as : phala-sāmipyam.48 Another school of thought represented by the Daśa-rūpaka, Bhāva-prakāśana, Rasārṇava-sudhākara etc., define Ādāna as a recapitulation of the action.49

12. Sādana : The term Sādana as an aṅga of the fourth Sandhi is found only in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa. The Nāṭya-śāstra followed by the Nāṭya-darpaṇa, and the Sāhitya-darpaṇa names the aṅga as Chādana while the Daśa-rūpaka, Bhāva-prakāśana, Raśārṇava-sudhākara, Chalana. Sāgara describes this aṅga as an insulting speech, apamānakaṛtam vākyam, while the Nāṭya-śāstra enjoins that insulting speech is to serve a purpose (kāryārtham).50 The illustration, cited by Sāgara is from the Act. VI of the Veṇisaṃhāra where Bhīma after his final triumph returns and from behind the screen asks for the whereabouts of Draupadī and refers to the insults she had to suffer in the past.51 Here the speech of Bhīma cannot be taken to be an insulting one though it refers to the past humiliations of Draupadī. Abhinavagupta makes the point clear and justifies the name Chādana as it covers the insult.52 Sāgara's illustration may also be taken in this sense. The Nāṭya-darpaṇa follows Abhinava-bhārati and defines Chādana as manyumāṛjana.53

The Daśa-rūpaka and the Bhāva-prakāśana understand Chalana simply as insult and the view is recorded in the Nāṭya-darpaṇa.54 Similarly the Rasārṇava-sudhākara defines Chalana as : avamānādikaranam kāryāntam.55 Viśvanātha, following the Nāṭya-śāstra defines Chālana as the suffering

of an insult or the like for the sake of a purpose.56 The Kāvyamālā edition of the Nāṭya-śāstra records a manuscript reading according to which Chalana is sammohana due to an insult or a similar discomfiture.57 It is interesting to note that the Nāṭya-darpaṇa 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. Prarocanā : Sāgara defines Prarocanā as a situation that shows the samhatārtha,59 but what is exactly meant by samhatārtha is not clear. For illustration Sāgara refers to a verse in the Act VI of the Jānakī-raghava60 where Lakṣmaṇa appears to console Rāma and says that more formidable and young enemies like Kumbhakarṇa, Indrajit and Kumbha have already been killed and it is the old Rāvaṇa who remains. This verse foresees the final victory of Rāma, i.e., the consistency of the final accomplishment is shown here. Samhatārtha in the definition may thus be taken to mean consistent or coherent purpose to be served.

Prarocanā may thus be taken to signify a situation that foreshows the final end of the play. The Nāṭya-śāstra defines Prarocanā as samhārārtha-pradarśinī which has been explained by Abhinavagupta as, nirvāhyamānasyārthasya darśikā.61 Thus according to Abhinavagupta also, Prarocanā means a situation that shows the desired end which is going to be accomplished. The final accomplishment, however, is represented in the last Sandhi. Bhoja and Viśvanātha also give the above definition of the Nāṭya-śāstra.62 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa defines Prarocanā as bhāvasiddhih but follows Abhinavabhārati in its commentary.63 The definition of the Daśa-rūpaka which seems to be followed by the Bhāva-prakāśana and the Rasārṇava-sudhākara64 do not differ in sense from that of the Nāṭya-śāstra as interpreted by Abhinavagupta.

Besides the thirteen aṅga discussed above, the GOS. edition of the Nāṭya-śāstra gives names and definitions of three other aṅgas of the Vimarśa-sandhi which are not commented upon by Abhinavagupta. They are,—Vyāhāra, Yukti and Vicalana which are defined respectively as,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

115

tyakṣa-vacanāṁ, savicchedāṁ vacāh and avamānārtha-samyuta.65

On the other hand Dhananjaya omits Kheda and Prati-

sedha of the Nāṭya-śāstra and admits two new aṅgas, Vidrava

and Vicalana defined as, vadha-bandhādi and vikaṭthanā

respectively.66 Śāradātanaya, Śiṅgabhūpāla and Rūpago-

svāmin follow the Daśa-rūpaka in this respect.67 All these

simply show that the confusion regarding the number and

definition of the Sandhy-aṅgas is very old. Abhinavagupta

himself informs us that some authorities omit any of the

above thirteen aṅgas,68 and maintain that the fourth Sandhi

consists of only twelve aṅgas.69 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa also

records this view.

Dhanika maintains that among the thirteen aṅgas of the

Vimarśa-sandhi, Apavāda, Śakti, Vyavasāya, Prarocanā and

Ādāna are important.70 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa omits Apavāda

from this list.71

ANGAS OF THE NIRVAHANA-SANDHI

Artha : Artha as a name of an aṅga of the last

Sandhi occurs only in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa where

it is defined as an allusion to the main theme.1 In this

sense it is not different from the Sandhi of all other

authorities including Bharata. Sandhi has been defined in

the Nāṭya-śāstra as the coming up of the Bīja sown in

this Mukha-sandhi.2 Pradhānārtha of Sāgara may be

taken to mean the Bīja of Bharata's definition. The

definitions offered by other authorities do not differ in sense

from that of the Nāṭya-śāstra.3 The illustration cited by

Sāgara is said to be taken from the Mārica-vāñcaka.4

Here Lakṣmaṇa requests Rāma to enter Laṅkā and accept

the hospitality of the citizens. The killing of Rāvaṇa and

the recovery of Sītā appear to constitute the pradhānārtha of

the play which has been indirectly hinted at in the portion,

cited as illustration.

2. Grathana : Grathana according to the Nāṭya-śāstra,

as followed by Sāgara, Viśvanātha and Bhoja, is a reference

different purposes.5 All other authorities define Grathana

as a reference to the kārya, evidently the main one repre-

sented to be served in the play (and not kāryas as taken

in the Nātya-śāstra, Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa ect.).6 Even

Abhinavagupta and Viśvanātha in their notes on illustrations

cited, remark kāryasyopakṣepād,7 meaning thereby that the

aṅga consists in a reference to the kārya. Sāgara, on the

other hand, for illustration cites a verse from the Samhāra

(last Act) of the Jānakī-rāghava, where Lakṣmaṇa refers to

several purposes shown as served in the drama, which are,

killing of Khara, Dūṣaṇa etc., 'removal of the obstacles of

penance, the death of Rāvaṇa the enemy of Indra and

the installation of Vibhīṣaṇa on the throne.8 In the con-

cluding paragraph of our discussion on the Avasthās, it has

been pointed out that Indian dramatists always favour a

mono-centric plot. In the light of the above the validity of

the reading kāryānām as well as Sāgara's exposition become

questionable. From the standpoint of Sāgara it may be said

that the kārya (main purpose) is ānusaṅgika-sampanna9 i.e.,

the term kārya is to be taken to mean the main purpose

along with the subsidiary ones. The point has already been

elaborately discussed.10 Thus, there is no harm in taking

Grathana to signify the recapitulation of kāryas. Moreover,

the accomplishment of the main purpose (phala) is always

associated with the serving of different subsidiary but connec-

ted purposes. So, a reference to the main purpose (kārya)

imply the same to subsidiary ones. In the illustration cited

by Sāgara, the killing of Rāvaṇa is the main purpose and

others are subsidiary ones.

3. Nirṇaya : Nirṇaya is the narration of past experi-

ences.11 For illustration both Abhinavagupta and Sāgara

refer to the situation in the Act IV of the Ratnāvalī where

Vasubhūti and Sāgarikā come to recognise each other and the

identity of the latter is disclosed.12

4. Paribhāṣaṇa : Paribhāṣaṇa has been described in the

Nātya-śāstra as dialogues containing censure13 and the aṅga is

accepted in this sense by Sāgara, Viśvanātha, Rāmacandra

and Bhoja.14 Abhinavagupta and following him Rāmacandra

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

117

Guṇacandra, however, restrict this censuring to one’s own self only.¹⁵ For illustration Sāgara refers to the situation in the Veṇī-saṃhāra (Act IV) where Bhīma censures Duryo-dhana and Duḥśāsana, and begs Yudhiṣṭhira for leave to tie up the braid of Draupadī with his hands, tinged with the blood of the chief enemy.¹⁶ Bhoja also refers to the same situation for illustration.¹⁷ Dhananjaya understands this aṅga as mutual conversation simply¹⁸ and the view has been referred to in the Nāṭya-darpaṇa as the opinion of some.¹⁹ The Bhāva-prakāśana accepts both the above views.²⁰

5. Dyuti (Kṛti) : Dyuti according to Sāgara is the removal of the torment produced by jealousy or that of the jealous and torment.²¹ Bhoja defines this aṅga as the removal of jealousy and anger and a manuscript of the Nāṭya-śāstra supports this definition.²² The sense of the illustration, a single sentence, cited by Sāgara from the Kāmaṭattvamarti²³ is not clear. Sāgara’s view on this aṅga, however, has been referred to in the Nāṭya-darpaṇa, as the opinion of some.²⁴ The Nāṭya-śāstra as interpreted by Abhinava, defines Dyuti as the appeasement of anger etc.²⁵ Excepting the Naṭya-śāstra, Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa and Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa, all other works read the name of the aṅga as Kṛti. A manuscript of the Nāṭya-śāstra also uses the term Kṛti instead of Dyuti.²⁶ The Daśa-rūpaka defines Kṛti as lab-dhārthaṣaṃmanam,²⁷ i.e., peace due to the attainment. Kṛti may also imply the confirmation of the thing attained, as it appears from the Avaloka.²⁸ The Bhāva-prakāśana also gives these two implications of Kṛti.²⁹ The Sāhitya-darpaṇa quotes the definition of Kṛti from the Daśa-rūpaka and illustration from the Avaloka verbatim.³⁰ The Nāṭya-darpaṇa gives a quite new definition of the aṅga as kṛtiḥ kṣemam, i.e., the maintenance of the result attained.³¹ This definition does not differ in sense from that of the Daśa-rūpaka as interpreted by Dhanika. The Nāṭya-darpaṇa further informs us that some substitute Dyuti for Kṛti and define it as, prāptaṣya pratikūlyaṣamanam.³²

6. Prasāda : According to the Nāṭya-Śāstra, as followed by Abhinavagupta, Sāgara and Bhoja ; Prasāda consists in

118

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

a propitiatory speech or situation.33 Both Abhinavagupta and Sāgara cite the same speech of Vāsavadattā for illustration from the Ratnāvalī (Act IV) where she propitiates Sāgarikā and dresses her with ornaments.34 Abhinavagupta informs that some read this aṅga just after Dyuti,35 as is actually done in the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa. The Nāṭya-darpaṇa names an aṅga Upāsti and defines it as sevā which is para-prasattikṛtvyāpāraḥ, but informs us that some recognise Prasāda instead of Upāsti.36 Thus, some sort of propitiation is the main element of Prasāda and this is the opinion of all other theorists.37

7. Ānanda : All the theorists agree with Bharata in defining Ānanda 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 Ratnāvalī (Act IV)• where the king gladly accepts the offer of Vāsavadattā, i.e., the hand of Sāgarikā.40

8. Samaya : Samaya has been taken in the Nāṭya-śāstra, Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa, Daśa-rūpaka, Nāṭya-darpaṇa, Sāhitya-darpaṇa etc., as the disappearance of misery.41 But Sāgara defines it as the end of opposition, virodha-śamanam, and illustrates it by quoting from the Act IV. of the Ratnāvalī the speech of Vāsavadattā where she herself presents Sāgarikā to the king and requests to treat her affectionately.42 Thus by virodha samanām, Sāgara also means a situation which depicts the disappearance of troubles for principal characters.

9. Anuyoga : The term Anuyoga denoting a Sandhyaṅga is used only in the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa where it is defined as the searching for the right object.43 For illustration Sāgara cites a speech from the Saṃhāraṅka (last Act) of the Jānakī-rāghava, where Rāma eagerly asks Vibhīṣaṇa whether it is a fact that Sītā is unburnt, as he himself fails to see clearly due to the overflow of tears of joy.44 That Sītā is safe and that the reunion which is the final end (kārya) of the drama is approaching, may be taken as the yukta-kārya here and Rāma is seeking that. From the

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

119

above exposition it appears that Anuyoga of Sāgara is the Nirodha of the Nāṭya-śāstra and Nāṭya-darpana, while it is termed as Virodha in the Bhāva-prakāśana and Vibodha in the Daśa-rūpaka and Sāhitya-darpana. The Nāṭya-śāstra, as interpreted by Abhinavagupta, defines Nirodha as the search for the final object of desire through reason.45 The same has been said about Nirodha in the Nāṭya-darpana in different words.46 The Daśa-rūpaka omits yuktyā from the definition of the Nāṭya-śāstra and says Vivodha is, kāryamārganam ; this definition seems to be followed by other theorists.47

10. Upagūhana : (Nāṭya-darpana Parigūhana, Rasārṇava-sudhākara Upagūdha). All the theorists follow Bharata in defining Upagūhana as the occurrence of something marvellous or wonderful.48 This is considered to be an important haracteristic of the concluding portion of a drama and the point has already been elaborately discussed in connection with the Nirvahana-sandhi. Sāgara illustrates this aṅga49 by referring to the concluding portion of the Veṇī-samhāra where Kṛṣṇa describes how a marvellous situation is going to be created as all sages, generals, princes of different dynesties and even Vyāsa, Vālmīki and Paraśurāma themselves are coming to celebrate the corronation of Yudhiṣṭhira.

11. Bhāṣaṇa : According to Sāgara, Bhāṣaṇa is a statement of conciliation etc.50 The Nāṭya-śāstra also means the same when it says that Bhāṣaṇa is the statement accompanied by conciliation or gifts or the like.51 Other theorists also understand this aṅga as acquisition of honour, or conciliatory statement or praise.52 Both Abhinavagupta and Sāgara, for illustration refer to the same situation from the Ratnāvalī (Act IV) where Vasubhūti praises Vāsavadattā, as she herself gives Sāgarikā to the king.53 Abhinavagupta rightly points out that Samgraha of the Garbha-sandhi also bears the same characteristics as Bhāṣaṇa and maintains that as the latter is compulsory in the Nirvahana sandhi, it is enumerated here.54 The Nāṭya-darpana also maintains that the use of this aṅga is compulsory in the last Sandhi.55

120 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

12. Pūrvavākya : The definition of the Pūrvavākya, as given in the Nāṭya-śāstra and commented upon by Abhinava-gupta, signifies that this aṅga consists in the disclosure of the main purpose, proposed (evidently in the Mukha-sandhi) to be served.56 Sāgara also seems to mean the same when he says that Pūrva-vākya is the disclosure of the Bīja.57

As an illustration Sāgara cites the speech of Bhīma from the Veni-samhāra (Act VI) where he says to the maid "Where is Bhānumatī ? Now let her insult the wife of the Pāṇḍavas.58 The reference is directly to the insult of Draupadī by Bhānumatī, reported to Bhīma 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 reference to the Bīja.59 But the speech of Bhīma really refers in a covert way to the total annihilation of the Kauravas and the victory of the Pāṇḍavas which is the Phala of the drama.

Moreover the prose portion quoted by Sāgara is a part of the whole speech of Bhīma and is immediately preceded by a verse (kṛṣṭā yenāsi etc.) where the killing of both Duryodhana and Duḥśāsana has been referred to.

The Daśa-rūpaka defines the aṅga as the sight of the Kārya and in this respect is followed by the Nāṭya-darpaṇa and the Bhāva-prakāśana.60 The Sāhitya-darpaṇa follows the definition of the Nāṭya-śāstra.61 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa further informs that some authorities understand Pūrvavākya as a statement similar to that made in the Mukha-sandhi, etc.62

13. Kāvya-samihāra : Sāgara defines Kāvya-samihāra in the words of the Nāṭya-śāstra 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 Nāṭya-śāstra.64 For illustration Sāgara refers to the verse Krodhāndhaiḥ sakālam etc., from the concluding portion of the Veni-samhāra where Yudhiṣṭhira says that he has already obtained all the desired ends in reply to Vasudeva's question, "What more do you wish?".65

It is a convention that towards the conclusion of a Sanskrit play some senior or noble character or the main helper of the hero, as the case may be, asks the hero a question like, kim

te bhuyan priyam upakaromi. The hero in reply expresses his full satisfaction and in many cases gives a list of attainments. This portion of the play is designated as Kāvyasamhāra and marks the termination of the dramatic business of a play and also is invariably followed by the Praśasti.

14. Praśasti : Sāgara following the Nāṭya-śāstra says that Praśasti is the end of the play and consists of a prayer for the welfare of the king, the Brāhmaṇas and cows etc.66 For illustration, the concluding verse from the Rāghavābhyudaya is quoted.67 This is the conventional ending of a Sanskrit play and as a Sandhyāṅga, Praśasti should be used compulsorily. The Nāṭya-darpaṇa enjoins that Kāvyasamhāra and Praśasti are compulsory aṅgas and the latter also forms a part of the play.68 Praśasti is always written in verse.

The above fourteen aṅgas of the last Sandhi are generally held to be equally important.69 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa rightly restricts the use of Sandhi, Niroda, Grathana, Pūrvabhāva, Kāvyasamhāra and Praśasti in the Nirvahana-sandhi only.70

The Kāvya-samhāra is generally found to be concluded with such speech of the hero as : atah param api priyam asti, and then in 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-vākya is found to be prefixed to be benedictory verse (Praśasti) just after the aṅga Kāvyasamhāra. In some cases the term is found to be appended to the introductory speech itself of the Praśasti as : tathāpīdam astu bharata-vākyam.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 Praśasti verse itself is known to be the Bharata-vākya. The most interesting point is this that the term Bharata-vākyam is not found in any of the renowned works on dramaturgy lika the Nāṭya-śāstra with Abhinava-bhāratī, Nataka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kāśa, Daśa-rūpaka, Bhāva-prakāśana, Rasāranava-sudhākara, Sāhitya-darpaṇa etc. Rāghava-bhaṭṭa seems to observe that the Praśasti is meant for the recitation by a member of the dramatic troupe.73

122 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

(Bharata i.e. Naṭa) and as such, it is called Bharata-vākya. The Praśasti, the last and obligatory Sandyaṅga cannot be taken to be recited by any character of the play concerned. Technically the play ends with the Kāvya-samhāra after which none of the participants in acting can be regarded as a character of the play, and the Praśasti is recited by a Naṭa or Naṭas (Bharata) on behalf of the troupe. Śivarāma in his commentary on the Nāgānanda says that the Praśasti itself is Bharata-vākya and the Naṭa 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 Shastri thus rightly suggests that the Bharata-vākya prefixed to the Praśasti-verse is simply a stage-direction. It is neither an aṅga 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 Sandhyaṅgas. Like all other theorists Sāgara maintains that the number of the Sandhyaṅgas is sixtyfour,1 but following the Nāṭya-śāstra he himself has described sixtyfive Sandhyaṅgas. Abhinava-gupta, the great commentator of the Nāṭya-śāstra, also does the same.3 The Nāṭya-śāstra, as it has come down to us, cannot help much in the matter. It distinctly says that the number of the Sandhyaṅgas is sixtyfour,3 but enumerates and defines sixtyfive of them. It has also been shown above that three extra aṅgas of the Vimarsa-sandhi have been recognised and defined in the GOS. text of the Nāṭya-śāstra but Abhinavagupta omits them.4

There is no controversy regarding the number of aṅgas of the first, second5 and the last Sandhis. Abhinavagupta seems to be in favour of accepting twelve aṅgas of the fourth Sandhi,6 though the view in another place has been referred to as maintained by some in the Abhinava-bhārati itself.7 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa records a view that admits twelve aṅgas

of each of the third and fourth Sandhi.8 Broadly speaking there are two views regarding the number of the aṅgas of the third Sandhi. The Daśa-rūpaka, followed by the Bhāva-prakā-śana, Rasārṇava-sudhākara and the Nāṭaka-candrikā assigns twelve aṅgas to this Sandhi, while in the Nāṭya-śāstra, as inter-preted by Abhinavagupta and Sāgara, the number is thirteen, The Nāṭya-darpaṇa and the Sāhitya-darpaṇa follow this view.

Besides the Abhinava-bhāratī, Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa and Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa, the Nāṭya-darpaṇa and Sāhitya-darpaṇa may be said to be close followers of the Nāṭya-śāstra so far as the Sandhyaṅgas are concerned. The first group of works omits Prārthanā from the list.9 Similar controversy regard-ing the acceptance of the Ākṣepa (Utkṣiptam) as an aṅga has also been noted before.

Abhinavagupta fails to assert which one of the sixty five Sandhyaṅgas, explained by himself, is to be dropped so that the total number becomes sixty four. He records a view that omits Praśasti, as it is not included in the subject matter of the play.10 Viśvanātha also informs us that some omit Prārthanā of the third Sandhi to make the total number sixty four and some omit Praśasti 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 Sandhyaṅgas 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 naṭa-sampradāya of the day, as taken by many.12 The present Nāṭya-śāstra 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 explained by the earliest terminology and definitions of the Sandhyaṅgas. So, new terminology and definitions of the Sandhyaṅgas evolved, but always there was a persistent endeavour to keep the total number sixty four.

In the expositions of the respective Sandhyaṅgas 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 Pratimukha-sandhi (Vilāsa, Vidhūta, Narma, Narmadyuti) 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 definitions of the Nātya-śāstra. So far as the Sandhyangas are concerned, the text of the Nātya-śāstra 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-kośa do not agree with that accepted by Abhinavagupta, Sāgara finds support from manuscript readings recorded in the GOS. text or from the views referred to by Abhinavagupta13 That long before Sāgara, Abhinavagupta, Dhanañjaya and Rāmacandra-Gunacandra, different versions of the Sandhyanga-portion of the Nātya-śāstra 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 Nātya-śāstra itself. Sāgara followed the text of the Nātya-śastra 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

Sāgara 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, Sāgara seems to maintain that the Sandhyangas need not necessarily be used in a play according to the order of their enumeration. This can be shown from the passages he cites for illustration from the Act I only of the Veṇi-samhāra.1

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

125

Abhinavagupta clearly states that no order is required to be maintained in the use of the aṅgas of a particular Sandhi and refutes the theory of Udbhata and others who hold that the aṅgas of a Particular Sandhi should be used in due order and in that Sandhi only.2 According to Abhinavagupta an aṅga of a particular Sandhi can be used in another Sandhi also.3 He further states that if the Sandhy-aṅgas occur one after another in due order, then Sandhyantararas and Lāsy-aṅgas etc., cannot be used at all.4 From this remark it is event that according to Abhinavagupta Sandhy-aṅgas are neither the subdivisions of Sandhis nor the Sandhis are mere combinations of Sandhy-aṅgas arranged in an order, there are other elements to be used along with the aṅgas in a Sandhi.

Śāradātanaya and Siṅghabhūpāla maintain that no order is to be maintained in using the Sandhy-aṅgas in a play.5 The Nāṭya-darpana also maintains the same opinion and enumerates the Sandhy-aṅgas in a different order than the Nāṭya-śāstra. The Daśa-rūpaka like the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa keeps mum, but Dhanika seems to support the view of Abhinavagupta as is evident from the illustrations he cites.6

Among the commentators it is Rāghava-bhaṭṭa who specifically states that the Sandhy-aṅgas may be used in a play by altering the order in which they are enumerated and all the Sandhy-aṅgas need not be used in a play.7 Kāṭayavema also gives no stress on their order, as is evident from his commentary on the Mālavikāgnimitra.8 Thus the view of Udbhata, as referred to by Abhinavagupta, finds no support either from the theorists or from the commentators like Rāghava-bhaṭṭa and Kāṭayavema.

The view of Abhinavagupta and Rāmachandra regarding the problem whether an aṅga assigned to a particular Sandhi can be used in another Sandhi or not, has been discussed above. Abhinavagupta, however, maintains that some of the aṅgas of some Sandhis necessarily and naturally belong to those Sandhis only.9

The text of the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-koṣa on this point is not clear. It states : saṃmiśrāṇyapi dvi-tri-samkhyā-yuktāni anantarasaṃdhiṣu bhavanty etāni rasa-bhāvāpekṣayā.10

difficult to find out from this sūtra-like cryptic statement what Sāgara exactly means. In support of this statement Sāgara, however, quotes two easily intelligible verses, attributed to Ācarya, i.e., Bharata. The verses actually occur in the Nāṭya-śāstra.11 The first one of these two verses means that poets considering Rasa and Bhāva should use the aṅgas in a drama according to the Sandhis. The second verse according to Abhinavagupta means that one aṅga assinged to a particular Sandhi may be used in another Sandhi and that an aṅga belonging to a particular Sandhi may be used there twice or thrice,12 and also that a single aṅga may serve the purpose of the two or three aṅgas.13 In the light of this explanation of the two verses of the Nāṭya-śāstra, quoted in support of the above statement of Sāgara, the statement itself may be taken to mean that according to the exigencies of Rasa and Bhāva (rasabhāvāpekṣayā) aṅgas of a particular Sandhi may be used in other Sandhis (sammiśrāṇ-

yapi, anantara-sandhiṣu) and that a single aṅga may be used twice or thrice, or a single aṅga may serve the purpose of two or three aṅgas (dvitri-saṅkhyā-yuktam). In actual practice also some of the aṅgas are seen to be used more than once in a drama. The Nāṭya-darpaṇa points out that Sampheṭa and Vidrava in the Veṇī-saṃhāra and Vilāsa in the Ratnāvalī have been used more than once.14 Sāgara enjoins that these sixty four Sandhyaṅgas should be used by poets in Nāṭakas.15 This may be taken to be a general rule based on yatha sandhi etc., of the Nāṭya-śāstra, quoted in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa.16 From this it cannot be concluded that according to Sāgara each and

every Nāṭaka should contain all the aṅgas, as no attempt has been made in the Nāṭaka-lākṣaṇa-ratna-kośa to locate all the aṅgas in a single Nāṭaka. Abhinavagupta also maintains that all the aṅgas may be used in a drama but not as a rule.17 This is also the opinion of Sāradātanaya. Among the theorists only Vidyānātha and Siṅgabhūpāla illustrate all the sixty four Sandhyaṅgas, each from a single work. Vidyānātha, truly speaking, to illustrate the rules of dramaturgy, writes a novel Nāṭaka in five Acts

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

127

co-related to five Sandhis depicting the career of his patron Pratāparudra, upto his corronation. The drama itself is practically a part of the work Pratāparudrayasobhūṣaṇa. Siṅgabhūpāla, however, illustrates sixty four Sandhyaṅgas from the Bālarāmāyaṇa and proudly declares his achieve- ments.I9

Among the commentators Dhuṇḍirāja is the single person in his class to point out all the Sandhyaṅgas from a single drama, the Mudrārākṣasa. The very nature of the Sandhy- aṅgas shows that all of them cannot be used in a single drama of normal type. The aṅgas like Narma and Narmadyuti, intimately related to the Śṛṅgāra-rasa according to the Nāṭya- śāstra, cannot be comprehended to occur in a play like the Mudrā-rākṣasa. Logically speaking, no hard and fast rule can be formulated regarding the use of the Sandhyaṅgas, and this is the standpoint of the Nāṭya-śāstra itself. To sum up, according to Indian dramaturgy all the aṅgas 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 Sandhi to which they are assigned.

III

NECESSITY AND NATURE OF THE SANDHYANGAS

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

128 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 Nāṭya-śāstra maintains 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 aṅgas8 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 Alañkāras their use should be prayatnantaranāpekṣa. All these have been very aptly and precisely stated in the Nāṭya-darpana.7

According to the Nāṭya-śāstra, as followed by the Nāṭakalakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa the Sandhyangas should be used considering the exigencies of the Rasa and Bhāva.8 The Dhvanyāloka9 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 Śāstra. Abhinavagupta bitterly criticises the introduction of a love scene (vilāsa) between Duryodhana and Bhānumatī in the Veṇī-samhāra, 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 overdeveloped, 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 Bhāva-prakāśana,12 where Subandhu has been credited with a novel theory of Sandhis. The name of Drauhiṇī,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAM & DRAMATURGY

is also associated with this theory.13 It groups the Nāṭakas into five types of Pūrṇa, Praśānta, Bhāsvara, Lalita 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 Nāṭya-śāstra and the Sandhis of Subandhu, as represented in the Bhāva-prakāśana have got no similarity with those of the Nāṭya-śāstra. This is altogether a separate theory and the Rasārnava-sudhākara summarily dispenses with it as unsatisfactory and unrecognised by Bharata.14

Mātṛgupta’s view on Sandhis and the theory of Anusandhis of Lollaṭa have already been discussed. Then there is the Daśā-theory which is referred to and refuted by Abhinavagupta.15 This theory mainly divides each Avasthā into three Sthānas, upakrama, upasamhāra and madhya : each of these Sthānas has been divided into five Daśās (stages) Ārambha, Yatna etc. Thus there are fifteen Daśās in every Avasthā and altogether seventy-five Daśās 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 Mātṛgupta. The Daśā-theory, the Sandhyantaras16 and the Anusandhis of Lollaṭa 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 Sāgara belongs to this group, but he pays due respect to other pūrvācārya-s, specially to Mātṛgupta.

Another interesting tendency of grouping can be mentioned in this connection. Abhinavagupta refers to a view that makes no difference between the Lakṣaṇas and Sandhyangas.17 Daṇḍin goes a step further and considers the Sandhyangas, Vṛtyangas and Lakṣaṇas as Alaṅkāras.18 Dr Raghavan rightly remarks, “Alaṅkāra in Daṇḍin is a wide

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 Sandhyāñgas as different moods and

situations contributing to the progress and forming parts

of the dramatic action cannot be brought under Alañkāras,

the poetical embellishments.

CHAPTER VI

SANDHYANTARAS

Sāgara omits the theories of Anusandhi and Daśā, both of which are referred to and rejected by Abhinavagupta; but treats the Sandhyantaras in details. The GOS. edition of the Nāṭya-śāstra, 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 utility of the Sandhyantaras but neither the Nāṭya-śāstra nor Abhinavagupta makes any attempt to define and illustrate them. Dhananjaya and Viśvanātha clearly avoid the topic. Bhoja does not define the Sandhyantaras but illustrates each of them.2 The Nāṭya-darpana at the end of the first Viveka refers to these, as according to the view of some and enumerates them.3 The Bhāva-prakāśana also simply gives a list of twenty-one Sandhyantaras.4 Chronologically speaking then, so far as the available texts are concerned, it is the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa first that defines and illustrates each of them. The Rasārnava-sudhākara with its close follower the Nāṭaka-condrikā also, gives a detailed account of the Sandhy-antaras with definitions and illustrations.5 Saṅgīta-dāmōdara also gives the names of the Sandhyantaras and there they are called the Pradeśas of the Sandhis, as in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa.6

Sāgara maintains that these twenty-one Pradeśas (situations, 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. Śiṅgabhūpāla also opines that unlike the Sandhyāṅgas 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

Sāgara says nothing definite regarding the utility of the

Sandhyantaras. The Nāṭya-śāstra seems to indicate that the

necessity of these twenty-one lies in the role of their con-

necting the aṅgas of the Sandhis.9 The Rasārṇava-sudhākara

also maintains that they are to prevent the looseness

in the use of the Sandhyāṅgas and the Nāṭaka-candrikā

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

Sandhyāṅgas and thus they are primarily related to the aṅgas.11

Others, as stated by Abhinavagupta, maintain that they are

but varieties of the Sandhyāṅgas like Upakṣepa etc., each

of which may be of different varieties.12 A single aṅga

Upakṣepa has been shown as of different variety in different

drama. It is krodhātmā in the Veni-saṃhāra, bhayātmā in

the Rāmābhyudaya, svapnarūpa in the Pratimāniruddha and

hetavadhārānātmā in the Udātta-rāghava.13 Thus the Sandhy-

antaras have, according to this view, got no separate entity

besides the Sandhyāṅgas, they are but to indicate the special

marks of the latter group of sixty-four. Abhinavagupta

himself understands them as nothing more than the Vibhāva,

Anubhāva and Vyabhicāribhāva ; 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 Dāśa-rūpaka maintains that

they may be covered by the Alāṃkāras or Vyabhicāri-

bhāvas16 and as such, require no separate treatment.

Following the Abhinava-bhāratī, the Nāṭya-darpaṇa also

maintains that the Sandhyantaras require no elaborate treat-

ment, as some of them (Sāma etc.) are identical with

the Sandhyāṅgas, some (Mati etc.) are Vyabhicāri-bhāvas,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

133

some (Dūta, Lekha etc.) are but the very incidents of the

plot of the play, whilst others are but the varieties of

Upakṣepa etc.17 Thus, excepting Sāgara, Bhoja and Siṅga-

bhūpāla, 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. Sāgara and Śubhaṅkara read

Dhī, Rujah and Upadhi instead of Hrī, Ojas and Lekha

of the Nāṭya-śāstra. The Rasārṇava-sudhākara also reads

Dhī. The Bhāva-prakāśana enumerates both Upadhi and

Lekha and omits Dhī or Hrī. It reads Hāsa instead of

Sāhasa of others.

Sāgara 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

Patākāssthānas, Sāgara states, svapnodūtah nepathyākāsavacanām

likhitānyanantara-samdhiṣu kathyante.19 Svapna and Dūta

have been included by Sāgara in the list of the twenty-one.

Dr Raghavan points out20 that this line of the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-

ratna-kośa seems to be a reference to the view of Mātṛgupta,

as quoted by Rāghavabhaṭṭa in the Arthadyotanikā. Rāghava-

bhaṭṭa says : ukto mātṛguptācāryaiḥ svapno dūtaśca lekhaśca

nepathyoktistathaiva hi/ākāśa vacanam ceti jñeyā hyantara-

sandhyayah.21 This gives us another important information

that among the ancient authorities on the subject Mātṛgupta

also accepts the Sandhyantaras. Excepting Nepathyokti and

Ākāśa-vacana, other names given in the above verse of

Mātṛgupta, occur also in the list of the Nāṭya-śāstra.

It is interesting to note that the number of the Sandhyaṅ-

taras like that of the Sandhyaṅgas, also went on increasing

and Sāgara takes into account at least twenty-four of them

including Lekhyokti, Nepathya-vacana and Ākāśa-vacana from

different sources. The Upadhi found in the lists of the

Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa, Bhāva-prakāśana and Saṅgīta-dāmodara is found

neither in the Nāṭya-śāstra nor in any other text. The Dhī is

found as a variant of the Hrī in one manuscript.22 The first

134

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

anonymous authority cited by Sāgara does not refer to

Mātrgupta whose view, however, has also been recorded in

the Nataka-laksana. Mātrgupta accepts Nepathyokti and

Ākāśa-vacana as two separate Sandhyantararas. Thus Sāgara

had before him another authority excepting Mātrgupta who

counted Ākāśa-vacana as a Sandhyantara.

From the treatment of the Sandhyantararas 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. Singabhū-

pāla maintains that some Ācārya approves of their utility :

ācāryāntara-sangatyā camatkāro vidhīyate.23 The Nātya-

darpana also expressly states that the Sandhyantararas are

taken into account by some theorists only.24 These facto rs

tend to support the assumption that the Sandhyantararas 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 simply mean

that some theorists do not approve of any utility of the

Sandhyantararas while some attach importance to them. It is

also a fact that. all the topics of the Nātya-śāstra are not

equally treated by each and every later authority.

The Nātya-śāstra gives no definition of the Sandhyantararas

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 maintained by Abhinava-

gupta. Their definitions gradually took shape in the hands

of later authorities.

Sāgara himself in most cases gives only the synonyms

of the names of Sandhyantararas while explaining26 them

and these are in no sense can be called as definitions.

The Dāna 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 Sugrivānka, where false

Hanumat has been used against Sugrīva.28 Sāgara, 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 Rujā as physical pain

caused by blow etc., and then says that others include

even the sight of an evil omen causing mental anguish

In Rujā.29 The definitions of Sandhyantaras given in the

Rasārnava-sudhākara cn the other hand, are fuller and in

most cases have got no apparent similarity with those

found in the Nātaka-lakṣana. Sāgara'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 Siṅgabhūpāla, i.e. 14th century A.D.

It has been pointed out above that Rāghavabhaṭṭa quotes

the view of Mātṛgupta to support that the Nepathya-

vacana is a Sandhyantara. But at least in ten cases the

said commentator, while pointing out other Sandhyantaras,

quotes their definitions from the Rasārṇava-sudhākara.30

The quotation concerned from the text of Mātṛgupta, as

given above, only enumerates some Sandhyantaras but

gives no definition. As Nepathya-vacana and Ākāśa-bhāṣita

have not been taken into account as Sandhyantaras in the

Rasārnava-sudhākara, Rāghavabhaṭṭa gives no definition

of them. From this it may be supposed that Mātṛgupta

himself also did not define the Sandhyantaras. Probably

their definitions began to take shape after Mātṛgupta and

did not reach to a final stage even upto the time of Sāgara.

At present, however, there is nothing to prove conclu-

sively that the Sandhyantaras were not included in the

original Nāṭya-śāstra and that some other seer formulated

them. If they were included in the Nāṭya-śāstra after Mātṛ-

gupta we could have found the names of Ākāśa-vacana and

Nepathyaokti in the list given there. It can thus be accepted

unhesitatingly that the Sandhyantaras were there in the Nāṭya-

śāstra at least before Mātṛgupta. Mātṛgupta took up the

Sandhyantaras from the Nāṭya-śāstra and increased their numter

at least by two, Nepathya-vacana and Akāśa-vacara. We, of

course, know nothing definite about Mātṛgupta's opinion

regarding the purpose served by the Sandhyantaras in a play.

CHAPTER VII

PATĀKĀSTHĀNAKA

Patākasthānaka is a dramatic artifice to foreshadow future events. It signifies particular spots in the body 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 Patākasthānaka as :

yatrānyasmiṃscintyamāne tallingo'yah prayujyate /

āgantukena bhāvena patākasthānakaṃ tu tat //1

The Nātya-śāstra (GOS) reads the first pāda of the verse as : yatrārthe cintite'yasmin, but the reading of the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa is found in a ms.2 By āgantuka-bhāva Sāgara understands Vyabhicāribhāva. Thus, according to Sāgara, that is Patākāshtānaka, where something is being thought of but some other things having the same characteristics (tallinga) is indicated or introduced through a V yabhicāri-bhāva. For illustration, Sāgara refers to the Daśarathānka and says : daśaratho rāmasya rājye cintyamāne bharatasya rājyam

tallinga-jātamiti viśadenāgantukena vyabhicārinā bhāvena gṛhītah pathati ramo'pi gacchatu vanamityādi.3

But this interpretation of Sāgara is quite novel and is not accepted by any other theorist. There may be a change of Bhāva in the acting of a character on the stage due to the indication of some future event, but that indication is not given by any other Bhāva, āgantuka-bhāva here in this context simply means some accidental or extraneous matter which is not in hand. Abhinavagupta says : sahakāri-kṛtam āgantukam ucyate.4

We know that in a play every episode is sahakāri to the pradhāna-vṛtta. 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-bhāva). These spots are called Patākāsthānaka in Sanskrit dramaturgy.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

137

The Nātaka-lakṣana, Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa, Nāṭya-darpana and

the Sāhitya-darpana follow the Nāṭya-śāstra and maintain that

there are four types of Patākāsthānakas. But the Daśa-

rūpaka accepts only two varieties of the Patākāsthānaka,

inasmuch as, the similarity between the indicating matter and

the matter indicated lies in respect of situation or attribute.5

Dhanika clarifies this and says that where the indication

is given through the alaṅkāra Anyokti, it is the first type

(known as Tulyasamvidhānaka) and in the case of the second

type (named Tulyaviśeṣanaka) the indication is offered by the

alaṅkāra Samāsokti.6 Śāradātanaya seems to have expanded

this theory to make it corroborate to the view of the Nāṭya-

śāstra. Śiṅgabhūpāla and Rūpagośvāmin also follow suit. They

maintain that the Tulyasamvidhānaka variety of the Patākā-

sthānaka is of three kinds conforming respectively to the first

three varieties of the Nāṭya-śāstra and that the Tulyaviśeṣaṇa

variety is a kind by itself and corresponds to the fourth Patākā-

sthānaka of the Nāṭya-śāstra.7 But none of the theorists like

Abhinavagupta, Sāgara, Bhoja and Rāmacandra-Guṇacandra

refer to this view. Neither the standpoint of the Daśa-rūpaka

in this respect, nor its elaborated form as in the Bhāva-prakā-

śana etc., can be supported by the canons of the Nāṭya-

śāstra. The Daśa-rūpaka maintains clearly a different view

from that of the Nāṭya-śāstra regarding the Patākāsthānakas

and Śāradātanaya with a synthetic outlook tries to correlate

the two. Śiṅgabhūpāla seems to have followed the Bhāva-

prakāśana in this respect.

Sāgara, Bhoja, Śāradātanaya, Viśvanātha and Śiṅgabhū-

pāla quote the difinitions of the four Patākāsthānakas

verbatim from the Nāṭya-śāstra. Rāmacandra-Guṇacandra

in their own way offer sūtra-like definitions, but in the

gloss follow the Nāṭya-śāstra closely. In the Nāṭya-darpana

the order of the Patākāsthānakas is found to be a bit

changed. The fourth variety of the Nāṭya-śāstra is the

third one of the Nāṭya-darpana and vice-versa.8 Dhanañ-

jaya sticks to his own position and Dhanika illustrates

two types of Patākāsthānakas.

138

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

The first Patākāsthānaka according to the Nāṭaka-

lakṣana-ratna-kośa, consists in the immediate fulfilment of

the desired end (tatksanādeva samīhasyārthasya nispattih)

through the attainment of the object longed for (abhivāñ-

chana-siddhiniṣpādanataḥ).9 The illustration is given from

the Nāgānanda where Jīmūtavāhana wishes to sacrifice him-

self but Śaṅkhacūḍa refuses to give him the vadhyacihna,

the purpose of which is served by a pair of red cloth, sent

by the mother of Mitrāvasu through the Kañcukin, who

hands it over to the hero. Abhinavagupta also offers the

same illustration10 along with another from the Ratnāvalī.

The second Patākās̄thānaka is a statement having double

meanings (śliṣṭam vacanam) and incorporating many purposes

(bahvartha-samādhānam) forming the basis of the composi-

tion (prastutasya kāvyayāśrayam).11 The verse nirvāṇa-vaira-

dahanaḍi etc., recited by the Sūtradhāra in the Prastāvanā

of the Veṇī-samhāra has been chosen to be the illustration.12

The verse through Śleṣa refers to the annihilation of the

Kauravas and the victory of the Pāṇḍavas, though apparently

it expresses the welfare of both the parties. This verse of

the Veṇī-samhāra undoubtedly forms the basis of the play

as it arouses the wrath of Bhīma and also contains the

central theme in a nutshell.

The third Patākās̄thānaka, as Sāgara describes it, con-

sists in the intimation of the object (arthaprakāśam) 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

khanditā-nāyikā and the nāyaka.14 The more common illus-

tration, however, is the dialogue of Cāṇakya and Siddhār-

thaka in Mudrārākṣasa, (Act. I) :

Cāṇakya:-api nāma durātmā rākṣaso gṛhyeta ?

Siddhārthaka:-(Prativiśya) aam gahido15

Raghavabhaṭṭa quotes the same definition as in the Nāṭya-

śāstra of the third Patākās̄thānaka twice with a minor varia-

tion but ascribes it to Mātr̥guptaT6 It shows that

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

139

Matrgupta in his work on dramaturgy took some verses from

the Nāṭya-śāstra verbatim.

The fourth Patākāsthānaka, according to Sāgara consists

in a well-knit and ambiguous arrangement of words giving

reasons (upapattimān) and capable of linking the motive of

the composition (kāvya-yojana-ksama).17 For illustration a

verse, addressed to Sītā by Rāma, has been quoted from

the Jānakīrāghava.18 The verse carries two meanings :-

(1) this Aśoka garden will charm thee with its blossoms ;

(2) perhaps Rāvaṇa having the Puṣpaka chariot will carry

thee off in the pleasure garden. Thus it suggests the motive

of the action, i.e., the abduction of Sītā.

The verse uddāmotkalikām etc., in the Act II of the

Ratnāvalī has been cited as an illustration of the fourth

Patākāsthānaka in the Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa, Bhāva-prakāśana,

Rasārṇava-sudhākara and Sāhitya-darpaṇa19. All these works

appear to be influenced by the Avaloka where the said

verse has been quoted as an illustration of the Tulyaviśeṣaṇa

variety of Patākāsthānaka,20 which is taken to be the

same as the fourth one of the Nāṭya-śāstra, as pointed out

before. But Abhinavagupta clearly states21 that this verse

cannot be taken as an illustration of the fourth Patākā-

sthānaka, on the other hand it is an example of Vyāhāra

an aṅga of the Vīthī.

Dr S. N. Shastri says that the subsidiary portion of the plot

is of three kinds : the Patākā, Prakari and the Pataka-

sthānakas.22 This is the view of Śāradātanaya alone23 and

is not maintained by any other authority including the

Nāṭya-śāstra. The Patākāsthānakas in no way can be con-

sidered as constituting a sub-division of the Prāsaṅgika-

vṛtta. They are really decorations adding charm to the

composition, as stated by Sāgara.24 The Nāṭya-śāstra it-

self states : eatuṣpatākā-paramaṃ nāṭake kāryam iṣyate.25

Abhinavagupta also maintains that they add beauty to the

composition but refers to a view that takes them as dūṣaṇas.26

The Nāṭya-darpaṇa too emphasises this decorative aspect

of the Patākāsthānakas and enjoins that there should not

140 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

be any play devoid of it. It also maintains 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 Sāgara restricts their use

in first four Sandhis only and clearly states that the last

Sandhi should not have any Patākāsthānaka.29 At the con-

clusion of the discussion on the topic Sāgara states : asya

prayogo mukhādi-sandhi-catusṭaye kvāpi vidhātavyah.30 Here

the pronoun asya may refer to the Patākāsthānaka in

general or only the fourth one. In the first case the state-

ment simply 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 Nāṭaka-lakṣana-ratna-kośa does not appear to have recom-

mended the use of the four Patākāsthānakas in succession.

On the other hand, Sāgara 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 Patā-

kasthānakas 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

in first four Sandhis in succession and takes the words

prathama, dviṭīya etc., before them as indicating their occur-

rance in the Mukha Sandhi, Pratimukha-sandhi etc., res-

pectively.31 Viśvanātha also refers to the view as maintained

by some, but he himself advocates the free and frequent

use of the Patākāsthānakas 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 Abhinava-

bhāratī that establishes a relation between the Patakā-nāyaka

and the Patākāsthānaka. This view upholds that in the first

four Sandhis there should be as many as four Patakā-nāyakas

and each should be indicated successively by the four

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

141

Patākāsthānakas. Abhinavagupta rightly criticises this view as asat.33 Another theory, referred to and rejected by Abhinavagupta as upahāsepātrikr̥tah pakṣah, makes the number of the Patākās-thānakas 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, Arthaprakr̥tis and Arthopakṣepakas. This fact might have tempted some later theorit to raise the number of the Patākās-thānakas to five. We have also seen that some authors endeavoured to correlate the Sandhis, Avast-hās and Arthaprakr̥tis. A similar attempt was also made to tag the Patākās-thānakas with the Sandhis. All these views are decidedly later but they were formed long before Abhina-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 Sāgara there should be no Patākās-thānaka 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-sandhi the final object comes very near to be accomplished and there remains practically no future event to be indicated by a Patākās-thā-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 ltttle scope of a Patākās-thānaka in the Nirvahana-sandhi.

Sāgara, however, is not the propounder of the above theory. It is Mātṛgupta, if Rāghavabhaṭṭa is to be believed, who recommended that the four Patākās-thānakas should be used in the first four Sandhis, but whether in succession or not, is not clear from the quotation found in the Arthadyota-nikā. Rāghavabhaṭṭa says : eṣām sthānam apyuktam mātṛgūp-tācāryaih-mukhe garbhe vimarse ca caturṣvapi/bhedaḥ sandhiṣu kartavyāḥ patākāsthānakasya tu35// The verse seems to mean that different Patākās-thānakas are to be used in the first four Sandhis. Among the authors of extant works on dramaturgy, Sāgara is the most ardent follower of

Mātṛgupta and his standpoint, as discussed above, supports this view. From the statement patākāsthānakasya bhedāḥ sandhiṣu kartavyāḥ, it does not definitely follow that the Patākāsthānakas are to be used in succession. But this theory of the use of Patākāsthānakas in succession in the first four Sandhis, also seems to be very old. A definition of the first Patākāsthānaka, ascribed to Ādi-bharata by Rāghavabhaṭṭa gives a hint to this theory. Raghava-bhaṭṭa states : tallakṣaṇam ādi-bharate—sahasai-vārtha-sampattir-nāyakasyo-pakārikā/ patākā-sthānakam sandhau pratham(?) tanmatam//36 Here it is said that this is the description of the Patākāsthānaka which is to be used in the first Sandhi, i.e., the first Patākāsthānaka is restricted to the first Sandhi. 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. Again the Nāṭya-śāstra, enjoins that Patākā, the vyāpi-prāsaṅgika-vṛtta, 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 Mātṛgupta 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 established a correlation among the four Sandhis, four Patākā-sthānakas and four Patākānāyakas. The theory has rightly been exploded by Abhinavagupta, as shown before. The view of Śāradātanaya that the Patākāsthānaka forms a subdivision of the Prāsaṅgika-vṛtta is also based on the same tendency, as above. The above theory ascribed to Ādi-bharata was further elaborated and the number of the Patākāsthānakas was raised to five to fit in with the five Sandhis and a theory of mechanical correlation was thus established. It is interesting to note that all these theories developed as early as to be refuted by Abhinavagupta. It also shows to what extent the author of Indian dramaturgy have shown their extra-ordinary genious for correlation and classification.

CHAPTER VIII

DIVISIONS OF A PLAY FOR REPRESENTATION

(i) AṄKA (ACT)

Avasthās, Arthaprakṛtis and Sandhi-Sandhyāṅga-Sandhyantaras, 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 Aṅka, Viṣkambhaka and Praveśaka, 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.

Aṅka, says Sāgara, is the parichedayitā of the ākhyāna-grantha,1 i.e., it divides the sections of the play. Each of these sections, enjoins the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa, should contain various actings (prayogaḥ) and should be pervaded (upagūḍha) with different types of Bhāvas and Rasas.2 This is said as an exposition to nānā-vidhāna-yukto bhāvāi rasaiśca gūḍho bhavet,3 taken evidently from the Nāṭya-śāstra where the whole verse is read as :

aṅka iti rūḍhi-śabdo bhāvaiśca rasiśca rohayatyarthān / nānā-vidhāna-yukto yasmāt tasmād bhavedaṅkaḥ //4

The first half of Sāgara's quotation occurs as the third foot of the verse from Nāṭya-śāstra, but the reading of the second half is not exactly the same as that of the second foot in Nāṭya-śāstra. Here Abhinavagupta informs us that some theorists headed by Lollaṭa accept the reading gūḍha. The Abhinava-bhāratī here reads, aṅka iti rūḍhiśabda iti / bhāvaiḥ rasaiśca gūḍhaścannāḥ vyāpto 'tho ṅka-śabdena yādṛcchikenocyate iti bhaṭṭa-lollaṭadyāḥ gūḍha iti pāthaṃ vyācakṣire/

144

NATAKA-LAKSAN-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

anye rohayatyarthāniti paṭhanti.5 Thus the reading of the second

foot of the above verse from the Nāṭya-śāstra, according

to Lollaṭa seems to be bhāvain rasaīśca gūḍho bhavet exactly

similar to that of the second half of the hemistisch quoted

by Sāgara, 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-bhāratī is : aṅka iti rūdhisabdo

i.e., aṅka is a yādṛcchika-śabda as Abhinavagupta puts it.6

According to this interpretation aṅka is a samjñā-sabda : i.e.,

aṅka, as used in dramatic literature is simply a name having no

derivative meaning and is applied in its particular sense

through traditional sanction. The reading, rohayatyarthān,

implies that Aṅka is so called as it nourishes the theme as if on

its lap.7 This is undoubtedly an instance of folk-etymology

but authorities like Dhanika, Siṅgabhūpāla and Sāradātanaya

adopt it.8 Abhinavagupta maintains that the word aṅka 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 Sāgara is to take into consideration

the entire action while constructing the Aṅkas of a play. He

is to consider the Sandhyangas, Avatthās and the expansion

of the Bindu etc., in dividing a play into Aṅkas.10 The

Bindu, we know, serves to maintain 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

Aṅkas in a full-fledged Nāṭaka or Prakaraṇa may be from the

minimum five to the maximum ten.11 Abhinavagupta opines

that the Aṅkas should correlate to the Avatthās, an Aṅka

should be closed with the end of an Avasthā. The Bindu,

that acts like a linking thread, should at the close of each

Aṅka, be so placed as to connect it with the following Aṅka.

Thus there should be at least five Aṅkas corresponding to five

Avastathās in a Nāṭaka,12 and the Bindu at the end of each

Aṅka is to give a fresh impetus to the further development

of the plot. Abhinavagupta further maintatins that if the

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

145

first Avasthā demands a larger space it can take two Añkas and in this way due to the exigencies of other Avasthās the number of Añkas 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 succesive Avasthās. Now, it appears that according to Abhinavagupta there should be at least five Añkas depicting five Sandhis and Avasthās in a Pūrṇa-sandhi-rūpaka; i.e., Nāṭaka or Prakaraṇa. An Avasthā and its corresponding Sandhi may cover two Añkas and thus there may be upto ten Añkas in a Nāṭaka. So, according to Abhinavagupta no Avasthā or Sandhi can either be ended before the close of an Añka or be started from within an Añka. A Sandhi or Avasthā should be started at the beginning of an Añka and should also be concluded at the end of an Añka.14 From the above, it can also be inferred that no Sandhi and its corresponding Avasthā can occupy more than two Añkas 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 commentators. Viśvanātha allots the entire portion from the beginning of the Act IV up to the situation prior to the recognition of Śakuntalā in the Act VII of the Abhijñāna-śakuntala to Vimarsa-sandhi.15 The Acts III, IV and V of the Veṇī-samhāra comprise the Garbha-sandhi according to the Nāṭya-darpaṇa.16 Dhuṇḍi points out that the Act I of the Mudrā-rākṣasa contains first two Sandhis and the last three Acts of the same Nāṭaka have been allotted to the Nirva-hana Sandhi by the same commentator.17 According to Rāghava-bhaṭṭa the Mukha-sandhi in the Abhijñāna-śakuntala ends within the Act II, wherefrom the Pratimukha-sandhi begins ; similarly the Garbha-sandhi closes within the Act V and from there the Vimarsa-sandhi begins.18 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa, a work of a dramatist, follows Abhinava-bhāratī mainly, but in this respect it clearly states that a single

Avasthā, if required, can be delineated even throughout three Acts19 and gives an illustration from the Veṇī-samhāra as noted above. It further informs us that according to

146 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

the traditional view (vrddhasampradaya) an Avasthā 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, i.e., within the Act. The authors, however, appear to have supported both the views.20 Here by vrddhasampradāya the Nātya-darpana refers to the view upheld by Abhinavagupta.

The Nātya-śāstra nowhere clearly states that there exists any correlation between the Añkas and Avasthā-Sandhis of a drama. The poet is given a free hand to exercise. Sāgar also keeps silent about the problems as where an Avasthā is to be concluded and how many Añkas can be occupied by a single Avasthā or Sandhi. It should be noted here that Sāgara accepts no parallelism between Avasthās and Sandhis and the matter has been fully discussed before. No hard and fast rule can be formulated regarding the relation between an Avasthā and an Añka and this seems to be the implication of Sāgara's silence here in this respect.

Regarding the general rule about the number of Acts in a Nāṭaka, A. B. Keith rightly observes, "the rule is generally obeyed, but late dramas styling themselves Nāṭakas are known of one (Ravidāsa's Mithyājñānavidambana), two (Vedāntavāgīśa's Bhojacarita), three or four acts, and one comparatively early work exists in one version of fourteen acts, the Mahānāṭaka ; the Adbhūta-nāṭa of a Kavibhūṣaṇa has twelve acts."21 Some of Bhāsa-dramas may be included in this list. But most of the works named above may not be styled Nāṭaka proper. Prof. Sivaprasad Bhattacharya maintains that the Mahānāṭaka is a hand book of the Kathakas who recite and explain the epics and the Purāṇas.22 For further exposition of the Añka Sāgara quotes from the Nāṭya-śāstra :

yatrārthasya samāptiryatra ca bijasya bhavati samhārah / kimcidavalagna-binduh so'nka iti sadāvagantavyah //22a

This verse according to Sāgara's gloss enjoins that in an Añka a particular incident (arthasyānusaṅgikasyā) is to be fully delineated and a partial development of the main

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

147

theme is to be depicted (pradhānārthasyāṃśataḥ samśaranam) while the Bindu is to maintain the link.23 Abhinavagupta interprets the verse according to the traditional view to mean that a certain Avasthā and its corresponding Sandhi should be completed in an Añka, 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 Añkas and quotes the view of Kohala (and others ?) that enumerates and defines those, viz., Cūḍāñka (Culikāñka), Avatārañka and Añkamukha.25 This view of Kohala will be taken up in our discussion on the Arathopakṣepakas. At present it is to be noted that this view of Kohala finds no mention in any of the works like the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa, Daśa-rūpaka, Bhāva-prakāśana etc.

Following the Nāṭya-śāstra the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa enjoins that there should be only four or five Nāyakas in a Nāṭaka and in Añkas their actions are to be depicted along with different circumstances (nānā-daśā-yukto'nkah) ; but these actions should not be protracted leaving the main issue which is made to be served by them.26 Sāgara takes the word nāyaka to signify in this context both the chief hero and other leading characters like the heroine, the secondary hero, the enemy of the hero even, who is to be killed.27 The Nāṭya-śāstra says : sannihitanāyako'nkah kartavyo nāṭake prakaraṇe vā.28 Sāgara in his gloss on this hemistisch says that in every Añka any one of the above Nāyakas must be present. The examples of this principle are given from the Veṇī-saṃhāra and the two Nāṭakas Māyāmadālasā and Nāgānanda are cited as having the principle hero in every Añka.29 To furnish an Añka with different Rasas, not only the actions of the leading eharacters but those of others like queens, their retines, 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

Sāgara quotes the Nāṭya-śāstra to show what is permissible 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 Nāṭya-śāstra enjoins :

(1) krodha-prasāda-śokāḥ śāpotsargo'tha (NLRK. ādi)

vidravodvāhau /

adbhuta-sambhava (NLRK. samśraya) darśanam

ahke pratyakṣajāni syuh //

(2) yuddhaṃ rājyabhraṃśo maraṇaṃ nagaroparodhanam

caiva /

pratyakṣāṇi tu nāṅke praveśakaiḥ samvidheyāni //

The NLRK. reads the third foot as : na pratyakṣāṇi

santi.31

According to Abhinavagupta, Bhoja and Sāgara the first verse enumerates some items which are allowed to be visibly represented in an Act. They, however, differ regarding the meaning of śāpotsarga. Sāgara takes it to mean pronouncing 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 is not in favour of permitting the utterance of a curse to be visibly represented in an Act, while Sāgara 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 maintain that these are specially attractive items that can be visibly represented on the stage and as such, they have been enumerated in the Nāṭya-śāstra separately.34 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa does not enumerate the above items but seems to follow the line of Abhinava-bhāratī when it says : śāpāvasānā-vivāhādayo'pi rañ-jakatvāt sākṣāt-kāryaḥ.35 Sāgara 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 Añka of Indian theorists, of above incident is a very difficult affair even on a modern stage.

Dr M. M. Ghosh maintains37 that both the above verses of the Nāṭya-śāstra enumerate items which are not permissible to be visibly represented on the stage. He accepts the reading, añka pratyakṣajāni (añke apratyakṣajāni) instead of añke pratyakṣa...in the verse krodha-prasāda etc. This is the reading of the KSS. edition of the Nāṭya-śāstra.38 Dr M. M. Ghosh, the KSS. and KM. editions of the Nāṭya-śāstra read the verse, yuddham rājya etc., immediately after the verse krodha-prasāda etc.39 But Sāgara, Bhoja and Abhinavagupta do not support this reading and interpretation. They maintain that the Nāṭya-śāstra permits the visible representation of feats of anger, favour, grief etc., in an Añka. 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 hampering the development of Rasa. It may be added here that in practice also, Indian dramatists do not hesitate to depict krodha etc., in Añkas. In the Veṇī-saṃhāra the feats of anger may be said to be a regular feature in almost all the Acts. Prasāda and śoka are not rare in our dramas. Sāpot-sarga, in the sense in which it is taken by Abhinavagupta, is present in the Abhijñāna-śakuntalā. Vidrava is itself a Sandhyañga40 and a scene of marriage is there in the Viddhaśālabhañjikā of Rājaśekhara. Marriage is also the theme of the Pārvatiparinaya.

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 convention did not permit the introduction of death scenes on the stage.41 In the light of this opinion the much debated Bhāsa problem has also been judged. Bhāsa in depicting death scenes freely in the Añkas41a has either been alleged of breaking the rules of the Nāṭya-śāstra 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 Praveśaka or the like. Death of the main hero or heroine, however, 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 Nāgānanda and the Mṛcchakaṭikā. Jīmūtavāhana and Vasantasenā are both visibly restored to life on the stage.

Regarding the main hero, the Nātya-śāstra also enjoins that in an Aṅka or Praveśaka of a Nāṭaka or Prakaraṇa, there should be no death of the Nāyaka ; 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. Abhinavagupta also asserts that the death of the main hero should neither be represented visibly in an Aṅka nor even be reported to in Praveśaka etc.44 Abhinavagupta informs us that according to some even the Patākānāyaka etc., also are to enjoy this privilege ; and some others prohibits the visible representation of even the striking of the main hero by some one.45 Sāgara too maintains that in an Aṅka, as a rule, neither the actual death of the main hero who is to prosper at the end, nor even that of the villain should be depicted, but their flight, peace or capture only may be shown.46 This injunction, adds Sāgara, is not absolute as the hero's enemies like Rāvaṇa, Duryodhana and Kamsa etc., in Nāṭakas are to be killed eventually. But that killing should not be visibly represented i.e., if necessary, may be reported in a Praveśaka or the like. In a Prakaraṇa, however, the poet is free in 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 establishes peace with Śakāra in the Mṛcchakaṭikā.47 Thus Sāgra 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 Arthopokṣepaka, 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 Nārāyaṇa 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 representation and the intention of avoiding 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 anubhāva maraṇa may be represented in cases where the dead revives, as is the case of Jīmūtavāhana. Thus, according to Abhinavagupta visible representation of any sort of death without revival is totally forbidden on the stage. This is the opinion 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 curtain. It may be noted here that this principle appears to be generally followed in the plays ascribed to Bhāsa. The deaths of Daśaratha (Pratimā, Act. II), Vālin (Abhiṣeka, Act. II) and Ariṣṭā (Balacarita, Act. III) are depicted almost at the close of the Acts concerned, while that of Duryodhana (Urubhaṅga) is shown at the close of the play itself, as we

152 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

have it. Deaths of Cāṇūra, Muṣṭika and Kaṃsa ( Bāla-carita) are depicted in 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 Nāṭya-śāstra, as has already been shown, totally prohibits the death of the main hero and general death scenes in an Aṅka. About death scenes it says : pratyakṣāni tu nāike praveśakaiḥ samvidheyāni.50 From this Dr M. M. Ghosh seems to conclude that the Nāṭya-śāstra allows visible representation of death in an Arthopakṣepaka, like the Pra-veśaka etc.51 Accepting this, view it may be said that the Nāṭya-śāstra prohibits a detailed representation of death scenes as an Aṅka demands, but not their representation in a summary way in the Praveśaka or Viṣkambhaka. The standpoint of the Nāṭya-śāstra requires further elucidation. It draws up different lists of items prohibited on the stage.

While describing various activities of women of superior and middling types it says :

cāru nāmbaragrahaṇaṃ raṅge na snānaṃ na vilepanam / nāñjanam nāṅgarāgaśca keśa-samyamanaṃ tathā // naprāvṛtā naikavastā na rāgamadharasya tu / uttamā madhyamā vāpi kurvīta pramadā kvacit //

Again in the same chapter Nāṭya-śāstra gives another list : na kāryaṃ śayanāṃ raṅge nāṭyadharmāṃ vijānataḥ /

yadva śyaitārthavaśād ekākī sahito 'pi vā / acumbanāliṅganam caiva tathā guhyam ca yad bhavet // danta-cchadyam nakha-cchadyam mvi-bhraṃśanam eva ca / sthantantara-vimardaṃ ca raṅga-madhye na kārayet // bhojanam salila-krīḍā tathā lajjā-karaṃ ca yat / evaṃ vidhaṃ bhaved yad yat tat raṅge na kārayet // pitā-putra-snuṣā-śvaśrū-dṛśyaṃ yasmāt tu nāṭakam / tasmād etāni sarvāṇi varjanīyāni yatnataḥ //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 decorum were highly valued. Anything shameful or indecent was not

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

allowed on the stage. Presentation of grim realism was

also not the aim of Sanskrit drama. In fact, grim realism

has not been favoured in any form of ancient Indian art or

literature. The above list is certainly not comprehensive.

So, it is said in this connection that anything like these

(evam vidham bhāved yad yat) and which are considered to be

shameful (lajjākaram 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 Nāṭyācārya are to consider

this fact in writing and producing a play. This seems to be the

implication of the above injunctions. The Nāṭya-śāstra also

puts before us a very practical reason behind these injunctions

in pitāputra-snuṣā 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-rāmacarita represents Sītā

as sleeping and Rāma as supporting and affectionately

caressing her. But none can allege that here the limit of

modesty has been transgressed. The wife of Cārāyaṇa

in the Viddhaśālabhañjikā 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 Kālidāsa allows Śakuntalā to be dressed and toilated

at the eve of her journey to Hastināpura, 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 Śakuntalā which are to be witnessed by the

audience for a proper comprehension of the repudiation

scene in the next Act. Kālidāsā takes all possible cares

to veil the beauty and identity of the heroine 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 Durvāsas also has been introduced. Some

may take objection to the wearing of the ksaumayugala by

Śakuntalā 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 (Sūtradhāra) 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 Nāṭya-śāstra are purported to avoid in any type of

rūpaka 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 Nāṭya-śāstra also gives no compre-

hensive list. Here it's injunctions appear to be words of

caution addressed to the Sūtradhāra and the playwright con-

cerning all types of plays (rūpakas).

In the light of the above, the prohibitive verse in the

chapter XVIII of the Nāṭya-śāstra (quoted before) appear

to refer only to such acts, a full-scale visible representation of

which is forbidden in the Ańka of a full-fledged drama,

as the context shows. Regarding the visible representation

of fighting, it may be pointed out, that Nāṭya-śāstra gives

directions as to how the fighting is to be acted on the stage.55

Similarly, the Nāṭya-śāstra 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 Nāṭya-śāstra. The Aṅka is to re-

present scenes vividly and elabroately. The Nāṭya-śāstra 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

pūrṇa-sandhi-rūpakas wherein also the Praveśakas may visibly

represent fights etc., in a summary way. But, Sāgara is

of opinion that such representation is totally forbidden,

only the incidents are to be reported in the Praveśakas,

as has been stated before. Regarding death scenes it may

be pointed out here that excepting the works of Bhāsa,

as noted before, not a single Sanskrit drama is known to

us as depicting such a scene. In the Act II of the Uttara-

rāma-carita, Rāma enters with his sword drawn and actually

imitates striking Śambuka who is not on the stage, as the

direction shows. But immediately Śambuka appears as a

divine being (divya-puruṣa). 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

Aṅkas and Arthopakṣepakas alike, they totally prohibit the

visible representation of all the scenes coming under the

above injunctions of the Nāṭya-śāstra, given in different

chapters and in different contexts.58 The Sāhitya-darpaṇa

include even vivāha and sāpotsarga in this list of prohibited

items.59 All these according to them are to be reported,

if required, in an Arthopakṣepaka. The narrow outlook

of the latter works when compared with the Nāṭya-śāstra

becomes evident. The variety of acts and incidents to be

visibly represented on the stage came to be curtailed more

and more.

156

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

III

Duration of Time Covered by an Añka

Regarding the duration of time that can be represented

in an Act, the Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kosa gives as many as three

views. The first one is taken from the Nātya-sāstra. It

says : eka-divasa-pravrttah kāryo'nkah sa prayogam adhikritya.

Sāgara's gloss on it means to say that the entire plot

should be so treated that an Añka can represent the

matter of one day.61 Abhinavagupta also maintains that

an Añka 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 Añka.63 But the incidents are to be so arranged

that they may not create any hindrance to the rontine duties64

like sandhyā-vandanādi. 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.

Sāgara refers to two other views. Some opine that incidents

covering half of a day can be represented in an Añka, others

maintain that an Añka can treat what may occur in a

day and a night.65 The Bhāva-prakāsana also refers to the

first of these two views.66 Singabhūpāla maintains that the

duration of the entire day or its half is to be represented

in an Añka.67 The Nātya-darpana offers a maximum and a

minimum limit of the duration of time suitable to be

represented in an Añka as four Yāmas 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 Mahābhārata is to be distributed in Acts, has not been

elaborately treated in the Nātaka-laksana. Sāgara simply 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 Sāgara quotes

in his support from the Nātya-śāstra : varṣād ūrdhvam na

kadācit. 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.71 According to Abhinavagupta, from the

long life of an epic hero a few years are to be selected for

representation in a drama. Rāma though passed fourteen

years in exile, yet there were only three or four such years,

as full of incidents. Now the Nātya-śāstra enjoins that in

an Añka incidents occuring in a single day can be repre-

sented and if these incidents are such as cannot be accom-

modated in the Añke, then the less important ones are to

be summarily treated in a Praveśaka following that Añka.72

In the same way incidents occuring in course of a month

or year can be represented in an Añka, followed by a

Praveśaka or the like, but more than a year should not be

treated in this way in a single Añka.73 An Añka 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 Arthopakṣepaka. Thus the incidents of fourteen years

of Rāma'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 Añkas in the above method. So, in a

drama consisting of five Añkas, there can be represented

at best five days having incidents (kāryadināni). Similarly

in a drama of ten Añkas up to ten such days can be

represented.74 Thus, theoretically an Añka 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 PERSPECTIVE

that there is no injunction against the representation of

events of one day in more than an Act.75

IV

Other Regulations

Sāgara conclude the topic with the remark that neither

one should enter in nor exit from the stage during the

Añka 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 Añka 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 Viṣkambhaka, Sāgara quotes from

the Nāṭya-śāstra :

na mahājana-parivāraṁ kartavyam nāṭakam prakaraṇam vā/

ye tatra kāryoa-puruṣāścatvarah pañca vā te syuh//78

It appears that Sāgara takes this verse as containing a

general injunction applicable to Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa. 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 main

action and others are simply to be mentioned outside the

main action.79 What exactly Sāgara 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

bahireva etc., is not a happy one. Viśvanātha, 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 Nāṭya-śāstra 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. Abhinavagupta 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 yātrā 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 principle upheld by him has also found a general approval.83 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 characteristics of Ańka, Sāgara has missed a very important point which has been insisted upon by all other theorists of Indian dramaturgy and invariably followed by dramatists. As a rule, all characters should exit from the stage at the end of an Act.85 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 characters. Abhinavagupta says that at the close of an Act the exit of all characters is to be shown by covering them with the yavanikā and the same is the opinion of Rāmacandra-Guṇacandra.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 yāvanikā means covering the stage with the front curtain. If on the other hand, the back curtain is meant, 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 Nātya-śāstra and

the plays of Aśvaghoṣa, Bhāsa, Śūdraka and Kālidāsa 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 peculiar

technique of construction and representation. In the Act

III of the Abhijñāna-śakuntala, the king enters and proceeds

towards the bower on the bank of the Mālinī where he

reaches after going a few steps only. Almost all the Acts

of the Mṛcchakaṭikā 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 kakṣyās88 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 abhinaya 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 Sanskrit plays.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

161

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 Nāṭya-śāstra, as interpreted by Sāgara and Abhinava, enjoins that a particular incident requires to be fully delineated in an Act.91 This principle has been emphasised again in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa where Sāgara 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, is 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 Daśa-rūpaka nicely puts this in a short compass, ekāhacaritaikārtham.93

The untenability of the theory of the dependence of Acts on the Avasthā-Sandhi, as advocated by Abhinava-gupta and others; has also been shown. It has been shown above that an Aṅka maintains an unity of time and action. But no such unity is essential in an Avasthā. The first Avasthā of the Abhijñāna-śakuntala according to Rāghava-bhaṭṭa 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 Abhijñāna-śakuntala though they have been taken to be included in

II

the Vimarśa 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 divided for different purposes and from different standpoints but, a simplification of those into a clear-cut mould is practically impossible. Acts and Avasthās 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 Avasthās and Acts are so corrlated, 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 maintained for a long time.

CHAPTER XIX

ARTHOPAKSEPAKAS

1. Praveśaka

The purpose served by the Praveśaka in a Sanskrit drama has been indicated in our foregoing discussion on the Aṅka. Praveśaka 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 same time should be conveyed to the audience 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 Praveśaka. This is the opinion of the Nāṭya-śāstra as understood by SāgaraT 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 Arthopakṣepakas, specially by the Viṣkambhaka. Abhinavagupta, therefore, takes the word Praveśaka of the Nāṭya-śāstra in the above context to stand for all the Arthopakṣepakas.2

In the form of a popular etymology, Sāgara gives his opinion regarding the function of the Praveśaka. He says that the Praveśaka is so called because it introduces characters on the stage, praveśayati pātrāṇi raṅgam iti praveśakah.3 He further states that the entrance of the Praveśaka, and to justify this statement he quotes from an anonymous authority: asūcitasyā pātrasya praveśo naiva vidyate,4 i.e., 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 Saṅgīta-dāmodara, in Raṅganātha's commentary on the Vikramorvaśīya and also in the commentary on Anargharāghava by Rucipati who in two cases attributes the verse to Bharata and in another to the Saṅgītakalpataru5. Raṅganātha ascribes the verse to the commentary on the Daśa-rūpaka by Devapāni and says that the view is also shared by the Sāhasaṅkīya-tikā6. The above half of the verse given by Sāgara, is found in the commentary of Narahari on the Abhijñāna-śakuntalā and also in the Arthadyotanikā of Rāghava-bhaṭṭa with a different reading and under different context7.

Neither the Nāṭya-śāstra nor Abhinava-gupta directly prohibits the entrance of a character without being indicated. Standard works like the Daśa-rūpaka, Bhāva-prakāśana, Rasārṇava-sudhākara and Sāhitya-darpaṇa, also do not refer to this view. Dramatists, however, generally follow this principle. Some renowned commentators and a late work like the Saṅgīta-dāmodara, as noted above, honour the principlc. The Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-koṣa, so far as the extant works are concerned, is the earliest one to refer to this view. Sāgara seems to have taken the line from some ancient source8, probably the work of Mātṛgupta whom he honours so much. Rāghava-bhaṭṭa does not connect the view with the function of the Praveśaka, but Raṅganātha, Rucipati, Narahari and Śubhaṅkara refer to the view in connection with the Praveśaka or Viṣkambhaka.9

They strongly assert that the main function of the Praveśaka (or Viṣkambhaka) is to give prior indication to the entrance of a leading character.10 It thus appears that this principle got a wide recognition and among the theorists Sāgara is first to cite it as an ancient view.

To show other uses of the Praveśaka Sāgara quotes from the Nāṭya-śāstra : kālotthāna-gati-rasa-vyudāsārambha-kārya-viṣayāṇām / arthābhidhānabhūtah praveśakah syād anekārthah //11

According to the gloss of Sāgara, this verse means that the Praveśaka 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 variety in the perfor-

mance.12 Abhinavagupta maintains that the above verse

mentions five uses of the Praveśaka 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, Sāgara quotes from

the Nāṭya-śāstra :

nottama-madhyama-puruṣairācarito nāpyudātta-vacana-

prākṛta-bhāṣācāraḥ prayogam āsādya kartavyaḥ //14

Thus in a Praveśaka, (a) no superior or middling

character but only low ones are to take part, (b) there

should be no udātta-vacana and (c) only Prākṛta is to be

used. Sāgara gives no meaning of the word udātta-vacana

but, for illustration refers to the Śaktyanka where two monkeys

take part in a Praveśaka, and then remarks : tadeva nodātta

vacanaṃ tadeva prākṛta-bhāṣācāram.15 It is evident that

udātta-vacana has not been taken by Sāgara to mean

Sanskrit language. But Abhinava-gupta distinctly says :

udāttaṃ saṃskṛtaṃ vacanaṃ tasya niṣedhaḥ.16 So, according

to Abhinava-gupta only nica-pātra should take part in a Prave-

śaka and not Sanskrit but only Prākṛta should be their

language. Dhanañjaya also seems to prohibit the use of Sans-

krit in the Praveśaka when he uses anudāttoktiā in its definition

which has simply been copied by Viśvanātha.17 The Nāṭya-

darpana and Rasārṇava-sudhākara also allow only nica-pātra in a

Praveśaka and as such, Sanskrit becomes prohibited.18 Bhoja

also maintains that Śauraseni etc., should be the language in

a Praveśaka.19

Sāgara maintains quite a different view. From the

Nāṭya-śāstra he quotes : Parijanakathānubaddhaḥ praveśako nāma

vijñeyaḥ20, i.e., Praveśaka consists of dialogues of servants

or retinue. In his gloss Sāgara includes in the term parijana

such lower and middling characters as male and female slaves,

chamberlains and the like.31 Thus the Kañcukin (chamber-

lain), a Sanskrit-speaking madhyama-pātra, has been included

among the characters to take part in a Praveśaka. Abhinava-

gupta, however, interprets the above hemistich of the Nāṭya-

166

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Sāstra to refer to all the Arthopakṣepakas and maintains that the Kañcukin may appear in a Viṣkambhaka23; i.e. the Kañcukin or any madhyama-pātra has been excluded from the Praveśaka.

In support of his above theory Sāgara quotes the view of Mātṛgupta that permits parasites, (Viṭas) ascetics, Brahmins, sages and chamberlains etc., to take part in a Praveśaka.24 These are all Sanskrit-speaking characters. Again, at the conclusion of his gloss on the verse kāloithānagati etc., of the Nāṭya-śāstra (quoted before), Sāgara means to state that the only additional characteristic is to be added to the view of the Nāṭya-śāstra is the use of Sanskrit when ascetics etc., take part in a Praveśaka.27 Illustrations of Praveśakas with Sanskrit-speaking characters have been cited from third Acts of the Raivatīpariṇaya, Śaśikāmadattā and the Abhijñāna-śakuntala.28 But, the interlude at the beginning of the Act III of the Abhijñāna-Śakuntala is noted as a Viṣkambhaka and not Praveśaka in printed texts and that is also the opinion of Rāghava-bhaṭṭa.29

It is a Viṣkambhaka in the opinion of all the theorists who do not follow the above principle of Mātṛgupta, as here the disciple of the sage Kaṇva performs the interlude in Sanskrit language. The encyclopaedic Bhāva-prakāśana records the above view of Mātṛgupta though his name has not been mentioned, and here we get the full verse,27 half of which is found in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa,

Among the commentators, two from Mithilā, Śaṅkara and Narahari quote the entire verse in their commentaries on the Abhijñāna-śakuntala38 and the readings there correspond exactly with that adopted by Sāgara. It is all the more interesting to note here that Śaṅkara attributes the verse to one mahārāja. Śaṅkara, perhaps believed that Mātṛgupta of Kalhana's Rājatarangiṇī, who was a king and poet,29 was also the author of a treatise on dramaturgy. After all, it is evident that there was a theory according to which middling characters like parasites, ascetics, chamberlains etc., all speaking Sanskrit, could take part in the Praveśaka. Perhaps Mātṛgupta was the propounder of this theory, at least his name as the earliest supporter of the theory is recorded by Sāgara.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

167

Sāgara quotes the view of another anonymous authority according to which the Praveśaka should be subservient to what follows,30 and as an illustration of this characteristic, cites the Praveśaka in the Act III of the Veṇī-sam̧hāra. The dialogues there between a rākṣasa couple though in Prākṛta, has been mentioned as udātta-vacana by Sāgara.31 It has been shown before that following the Nāṭya-śāstra Sāgara prohibits 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 udātta-vacana, though he maintains silence regarding the implication of the word. Abhinava-gupta refers to a view that understands udātta-vacana as : svātmā-kārya-viśrānta-vacana. Thus, according to this view, in a Praveśaka such speeches as refer to the affairs of those who take part in it, are prohibited33 ; i.e., in a Praveśaka, the dialogues, of course in Prākṛta, should be related to the affairs of the main characters, the hero, heroine etc. In the above illustration of Praveśaka from the Veṇi-saṃhāra Sāgara cites the speech of the rākṣasa : “Out of his wrath against the son of Drupada, he (Aśvatthāman) may kill us also” as udātta-vacana,34 The speech here gives a sequel of the main story (prakrama) by its reference to the wrath of Aśvatthāman 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 Sāgara also takes udātta-vacana to mean speeches related to the affairs of characters themselves.35

The Praveśaka maintains Sāgara, is to be used in between two Acts and there too, at the beginning of an Act and never in the middle or end.36 It thus follows that a Praveśaka should not occur at the beginning of the Act I of a play. Dhanañjaya, Viśvanātha and Siṅgabhūpāla state this convention more explicitly.37 But the Nāṭya-darpaṇa maintains that this is the opinion of some theorists, some do not allow a Praveśaka at the beginning of the first Act.38 Śāradātanaya also says that generally the Praveśaka is prohibited at the beginning of the first Act.39 Abhinava-

gupta also maintains that the Praveśaka is to be used in between two Acts.40 From the standpoint of Sāgara it may be argued that as the Praveśaka is to introduce the pātra of the following Act, it should be used at the beginning of that Act, and because in the Act I of a drama the pātra is introduced by the Sūtradhāra (or Sthāpaka) in the Prastāvana, the Praveśaka 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 epitomize the scattered portions of the story which are not possible or permissible to be elaborately represented in Añkas.

(2) The Nāṭya-śāstra as we have it, prohibits udātta-vacana and higher characters in the Praveśaka and prescribes only Prākṛta language there. This is also the generally accepted view.

(3) Mātṛgupta admits Sanskrit language and such characters as Viṭa, Tāpasa, Vipra, Kañcukin etc., in a Praveśaka. Sāgara, Śāradātanaya and two commentators from Mithila accept this view.

(4) All the theorists agree that the Praveśaka should not be used at the beginning of the first Act, but from the evidences of the Nāṭya-darpaṇa and Bhāva-prakāśana it appears that there were some who had no objection against the use of Praveśaka at the beginning of the first Act.

(5) According to some, as recorded in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa, even udātta-vacana is permissible in a Praveśaka where it is prakramādhina. 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. Śubhañkara and some commentators who also maintain that the Praveśaka serves to give the

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

169

prior indication of the entrance of a leading character in the immediately following Act.

In conclusion, it may be pointed out that neither any one of the niṣedhas nor the vidhi of the Nāṭya-śāstra regarding the Praveśaka as enumerated (in 2) above, is thought to be absolute by all the theorists. It may be added here that according to the Viṣṇu-dharmottara-purāṇa, two characters are to take part in a Praveśaka.41 This purāṇic injunction is but a general statement of facts, as Praveśakas are generally found to be performed by two characters, though instances of Praveśakas with only one character are not wanting. The one at the beginning of the Act II of the Svapna-vāsavadatta may be cited here, as an example.

II. Viṣkambhaka (Viṣkambha)

All the editions of the Nāṭya-śāstra describe the Viṣkambhaka twice each. The GOS. edition of the Nāṭya-śāstra in the chap. XVIII, while describing the Prakaraṇa says :1

(1) madhyama puruṣairnītam yojyo viṣkambhako'tratai- tvajñaṛh/ samskṛtavacanānugatāḥ samkṣepārthaḥ pra- veśakavat//

(2) suddhah samkirṇo vā dvividho viṣkambkako 'pi kartavyah/madhyamapātraḥ suddhah samkirṇo nicamadhyamakṛtaḥ//.

The KSS. and KM. editions here read another verse :2

(3) aṅkāntare mukhe vā prakaraṇam āśritya nāṭake vāpi/ viṣkambhakastu niyataḥ kartavyo madhyamairadhamaiḥ//

Again in the chapter XIX of the GOS. edition, we get a similar description of the Viṣkambhaka :3

(1) madhyama-puruṣa-niyojyo nāṭaka-mukhasandhi-mātra- saṅcāraḥ/ viṣkambhakastu kāryaḥ purohitāmātya-kañcu- kibhiḥ//

(2) suddhah samkirṇo vā dvividho viṣkambhakastu vijñe- yaḥ/ madhyama-pātraiḥ suddhah samkirṇo nicama- dhyama-kṛtaḥ//

170 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

The commentary of Abhinava-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 Abhinavagupta4 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.5 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 Viṣkambhaka becomes questionable. However, according to the Nāṭya-śāstra as it stands now :

(a) Viṣkambhaka 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. Viṣkambhaka is sāṃkṣepārtha like the Praveśaka (praveśakavat).

(b) A Viṣkambhaka may be either śuddha or samkirṇa. In a Śuddha-viṣkambhaka, only Sanskrit is to be used by a madhyama character or characters ; while in a Samkirṇa-viṣkambhaka, there should be both Sanskrit and Prakrit-speaking characters (nāma-madhyama-pātra).

Thus the use of Sanskrit is the only mark that distinguishes a Viṣkambhaka from a Praveśaka where only Prakrit is to be used.5a It is also clear from the above that the Nāṭya-śāstra recognises Praveśaka along with the Aṅka, as the main device of representation and Viṣkambhaka is considered as nothing but Praveśaka with the use of Sanskrit. Abhinava-gupta also takes the word Praveśaka of the Nāṭya-śāstra in several places, as shown before, to stand for the five Arthopakṣepakas and also for Viṣkambha-ka.6 But in other later works, excepting the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa and Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa,7 Viṣkambhaka is found to be defined first and the definition of the Praveśaka comes as an atideśa. These later authorities, however, follow the Nāṭya-śāstra closely, so far as the nature and function of the Viṣkambhaka and Praveśaka are concerned.8

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

171

Following the Nāṭya-śāstra Sāgara also admits that the Viṣkambhaka does not differ materially from the Praveśaka, it is praveśakasthānīya9, and is of two kinds śuddha and saṃkirṇa. Only Sanskrit is to be used in the Śuddha-viṣkambhaka ; if an inferior character, speaking Prakrit is also involved, it is Saṃkirṇa-viṣkambhaka.10 But it has been shown that Sāgara following Mātṛgupta permits Sanskrit-speaking madhyama characters to take part in a Praveśaka and as such, the use of Sanskrit or the participation of a madhyama character cannot be the mark to distinguish a Viṣkambhaka from a Praveśaka. To show the distinction between the two, Sāgara quotes from an anonymous source and adds his comment :

kuto 'pi svechayā prāptaḥ sambaddho nabhayorapi/ viṣkambhakaḥ vijñeyaḥ kathārthasyāpi sūcakaḥ// kuto 'pi hetoḥ svayam evāgataḥ/sambaddho nabhayorapi nāyaka-ladṛśakṣa-yorapi na pratibaddhaḥ//11

The above verse occurs also in the Bhāva-prakāśana and Saṅgīta-dāmodara.12 Among the commentators Rucipati and Jagadhara quote the verse and ascribe it to Bharata. Śaṅkara also quotes it but gives no name of the source.13 Rucipati further says : viṣkambhako nāma pāṭrabhedaḥ. This gives a clear hint to the implication of the above verse and Sāgara's comment thereon. A Viṣkambhaka is to be carried on by a character or characters who should not be directly connected with the hero or his enemy. The particular type of character thus involved, is to enter the stage out of his own accord and should indicate relevant matters of the plot.

Sāgara tries to give an etymology of the word and says that a Viṣkambhaka is so called as it supports (the progress of the action) out of joy.14 Dr Raghavan remarks, “It is usual to interpret Viṣkambhaka 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 : viṣkambhayatyupastambhayati viṣkambhakaḥ, and this sense has been made more clear in the Nāṭya-darpaṇa when

172 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

it says that the Viṣkambhaka supports the action by linking (the scattered portions of the story).16 From the above discussion, it appears that Sāgara admits of no essential distinction between the Viṣkambhaka and Praveśaka. In common with other theorists he maintains that there should be at least one Sanskrit speaking madhyamapātra in a Viṣkambhaka. But neither Sanskrit speech nor madhyamapātra is prohibited in a Praveśaka according to the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa. A Praveśaka maintains Sāgara, indicates the entrance of the next leading character and this seems to be the only distinguishing feature of a Praveśaka over Viṣkambhaka in his opinion.

It has been shown before that with other theorists Sāgara also do not admit the use of Praveśaka at the beginning of the first Act of a drama, though the Nāṭya-darpana refers to the view as maintained by some. As to the position of the Viṣkambhaka, Sāgara 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. Abhinava-gupta informs us that Kohala favours the use of the Viṣkambhaka at the beginning of the first Act only and this is corroborated by Rāmacandra-Guṇacandra, while Śāra-datanaya attributes the view to Bhoja.17 Abhinava-gupta himself maintains that unlike the Praveśaka, the Viṣkambhaka may be used at the beginning of the first Act, but this does not mean that it should not be used between two Acts ; i.e., it may be used between two Acts and also between the Prastāvanā and the first Act.18 This is also the generally accepted convention.19

Dr M. M. Ghosh observes, “First it (Viṣkambhaka) related to the Nāṭaka” and that perhaps in a later stage of the development of Indian drama, it came to be related to the Prakaraṇa also.20 But the Nāṭya-śāstra (GOS XVIII) defines the Viṣkambhaka while describing the Prakaraṇa and the definition found in the chap. XIX (GOS) has been suspected to be interpolation. Bhoja clearly states that the Viṣkambhaka, serving the purpose of the Praveśaka, is to be used here in the Prakaraṇa, and Sanskrit speaking

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

173

madhyama-pātras are to take part in it.20a Abhinava-gupta also maintains that the Viṣkambhaka is much more useful in a Prakaraṇa 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 Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa gives the view of Cārāyaṇa who favours the use of Viṣkambhaka in Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa alike.22 But in another place while describing the Prakaraṇa Sāgara asserts that Viṣkambhaka is obligatory in Prakaraṇa.22a The KM. and KSS. editions of the Nāṭya-śāstra read a verse : aṅkāntare mukhe’vā etc. as quoted above,23 that restricts the use of Viṣkambhaka in Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa only.

Another verse, that occurs in all the editions of the Nāṭya-śāstra clearly states : prakaraṇa-nāṭaka-viṣaye praveśakaḥ saṃ-vidhātavyah. Abhinavagupta in his commentary on this verse says that, the scope of the theme in rūpakas other than the Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa is limited, so, the Praveśaka is not a necessity there.24 Here Praveśaka undoubtedly stands also for the Viṣkambhaka. For the same reason the Nāṭya-darpaṇa restricts the use of the two in Nāṭikā and Prakaraṇī :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 Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka is recommended in Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa alike for the representation of complicated plots. This principle, as shown above, is also supported by the canons of the Nāṭya-śāstra.26

III. Aṅkāvatāra (Garbhāṅka)

There has been a longstanding confusion regarding the nature and utility of Aṅkāvatāra and Aṅkamukha. The introduction of other two terms Garbhāṅka and Aṅkāśya by some theorists has made the problem more complicated. Sāgara, however, takes no note of these two terms and explains only Aṅkāvatāra and Aṅkamukha.

174 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Añkāvatāra, says Sāgara, is the transition of an Act,

aṅkasyāvatarāṇam,1 and then quotes the following definition

from an anonymous source ;

samāpyamāna ekasminnaṅke hyanyasya sūcanam/

samāsato hi nātyoktaiḥ (nātyajñaiḥ or nātyoktyā ?) so'ṅkāvat-

āra isyate.2//

The confused text of the Bhāva-prakāśana gives, with a

minor difference in reading, this definition of the Aṅkāvatāra3

along with the other definition of the same from the

Daśa-rūpaka. Jagaddhara in his commentary on the Mālatī-

mādhava quotes this definition of the Aṅkāvatāra.4 Dr

Raghavan informs us that the above verse is quoted by

Bahurūpa Miśra in his commentary of the Daśa-rūpaka and

is ascribed to the Dvādaśasāhasrī.5 According to the above

view, Aṅkāvatāra is the indication of the next Act by

means of short (dramatic or cryptic) speech at the end of

the preceding Act. Sāgara illustrates this Ankavatara by the

closing verse of the Act I of the Nāgānanda. 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 heroine 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 Aṅkāvatāra,

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 Praveśaka between Acts I and II of the Nāgānanda.

Similarly a Viṣkambhaka intervenes between the Acts VIII

and IX of the Mālatī-mādhava. Thus it appears that the above

view on Aṅkāvatāra admits the intervention of an interlude

between the two Acts concerned. But this is opposed by the

Daśa-rūpaka and its followers, as will be shown. It is

curious that Viśvanātha practically follows the Daśa-rūpaka in

defining the Aṅkāvatāra but, for illustration cites the transi-

tion of the Act VI from the Act V of the Abhijñāna-

śakuntalā, and between these two Acts there is also

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

175

a Pravaśaka ; the fisherman scene.8 Dr K. K. Datta Sastri

informs us “The Bengal recension of the drama, however,

deems it (the Praveśaka) as a part and parcel of the fifth

Act and gives it the designation Ańkāvatāra.” The said

scholar also shows reasons and justifies the standpoint of

the Bengal recension in designating the fisherman scene

itself as an Ańkāvatāra instead of Praveśaka.9 But the

theorists, as shown above, do not maintain that the inter-

lude itself is the Ańkāvatāra. Thus, according to the school

of thought followed by Sāgara, Ańkāvatāra 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 Daśa-rūpaka as interpreted by Dhanika,

that is the case of Ańkāvatāra when without any interven-

tion of a Viskambhaka 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 Mālavikā-

gnimitra.11 This is the generally accepted view regarding

the Ańkāvatāra. The Bhāva-Prakāśana in its usual way,

reproduces the above definition and illustration from the

Daśa-rūpaka along with the other definition, as stated

before.12 The Sāhitya-darpana also gives a similar defini-

tion of the Ańkāvatāra,13 though the illustration cited goes

to support the view of Sagara, as pointed out before.

Vidyānātha endorses the view of Dhananjaya.14 Sińga-

bhūpala cites the same illustration as in the Avaloka and

seems to follow the Daśa-rūpaka when he defines the Ańkā-

vatāra as, where all the characters of the preceding Act

enter the next Act to represent the continuation of the

same event.15 Rupa Gosvāmin reproduces this definition

of the Rasārnava-sudhākara with a minor modification.16

Thus, according to this group of theorists headed

by Dhananjaya, Ańkāvatāra 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 Nāṭya-śāstra and Abhinava-bhāratī we get at least three more or less similar but confusing definitions of the Añkāvatāra. The GOS. version in chapter XIX defines it as :

añkānta eva cānka nipatati yasmin prayogam āsādya/

bijārtha-yukti-yukto jñeyo hyankāvatāro 'sau//17

But the commentary of Abhinavagupta on this verse is not found. In another place, however, Abhinava-gupta gives almost an identical definition of the Añkāvatāra and seems to regard the same as from the Nāṭya-śāstra.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 Añkāvatāra. 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 Daśa-rūpaka says about Añkāvatāra more clearly. The Nāṭya-darpana also gives a similar definition of the Añkā-vatāra and cited the same illustration as in the Avaloka.20

"That there was further confusion", regarding the Añkā-vatāra is evident not from the Nāṭya-darpana alone, as informs Dr Raghavan,21 but from the Abhinava-bhārati itself which the Nāṭya-darpana follows. The name of the Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa also cannot be omitted as the source of the confusion noticed in the Nāṭya-darpana. Abhinava-gupta informs us that Kohala defines Añkāvatāra, a kind of Añka as ;

aṅkasyāṅkāntare yogastvavatāraḥ prakīrtitaḥ22 i.e.. when one Act is directly connected with the other, it is Añkāvatāra. This Añkāvatāra of Kohala appears to be the same as that of the Nāṭya-śāstra, as discussed before. Abhinava-gupta himself, on the other hand, says that when in an Act the central theme of all other Acts, i.e., thc Bīja is introduced, it is called Avatā-raṅka. The illustration is cited from the Act II of the Ratnāvalī where Susaṅgatā in appreciation of Śāgarikā'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 Avatārāṅka than that is given by Kohala whose view he himself quotes. Now this Avatārāṅka of Abhinavagupta is nothing but Añkāvatāra and thus we get two definitions of the same from Abhinava-gupta himself :

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

(1) Passing from one Act to another without any break; this is the most common view, supported by the Nāṭya-śāstra 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-bhāratī.

The encyclopaedic text of Bhoja's Śṛngāra-prakāśa is much more confusing. In one place in the chapter XI it describes Praveśaka, Viṣkambhaka, Aṅka-mukha, Garbhāṅka and Cūlikā, but omits Aṅkāvatāra.24 Here the Garbhāṅka has been described as :

aṅkāntare parāṅko nipatati yasmin prayogam āsādya// bijārtha-yukti-yukto grabhāṅko nāma sa jñeyah//

This Garbhāṅka of Bhoja is the Aṅkāvatāra of the Nāṭya-śāstra and Abhinava-bhārati.25 In antother place we find that the name of the Aṅkamukha is missing and Aṅkavatāra is included and thus the number five is not disturbed.26 Again in the same chapter we find another description of Garbhāṅka, where it has been stated to be a synonym of Aṅkāvatāra27 :

bijārtha-yukti-mān aṅko yo'nkeṣvekan prayujyate/ sa nātakeṣu garbhāṅko 'ṅkāvatāraśca kathyate//

According to this view, among the Acts the one which is bijārthayukti-mān (containing the introduction of the central theme, i.e. the Bīja) is called the Garbhāṅka or Aṅkāvatāra.

This definition of Garbhāṅka-Aṅkāvatāra is offered in another words by Abhinava-gupta as that of Avatārāṅka.28 Bhoja, as it appears from the above, gives two separate definitions : one of the Garbhāṅka and the other of the both Gar-bhāṅka and Aṅkāvatāra.

The Aṅkāvatāra of the Nāṭya-śāstra and others has been taken as the Garbhāṅka, and the Avatārāṅka of Abhinava-gupta has been recognised as Garbhāṅka or Aṅkāvatāra.

Śāradātanaya also seems to understand Garbhāṅka as another name of the Aṅkāvatāra, but it has been pointed out before that he records both the views, one held by Sāgara and the other found in the Nātya-śāstra, Dāśa-rūpaka etc.

We are not sure with what Aṅkāvatāra Śāradātanaya indentifies the Garbhāṅka.

178 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

The Nāṭya-darpana first sets forth the most common view on Añkāvatāra30 and then practically in the words of Abhinava-gupta records his view on Avatārāñka as being the definition of Añkāvatāra according to some. The same illustration as found in the Abhinava-bhāratī has also been cited,31 and then is stated :

āyam ca garbhāñko 'pyucyate/yadāhuh :

añkāntareva cāñko nipatati yasmin prayogam āsādya/

bijārtha-yukti-yukto garbhāñko nāma vijñeyah// iti/32

This verse is undoubtedly the same as found in the Nāṭya-śāstra as the definition of the Añkāvatāra. But the slight changes in readings of underlined words here have completely changed the meaning of the verse. The verse, as it is, means that when an Añka comes within another Añka, it is called Garbhāñka. But this does not appear to be the intended meaning of the authors, as the verse has been cited to support the view that Garbhāñka is Añkāvatāra. None of the two definitions of Añkāvatāra, given before by themselves can be taken as fully identical with this definition of Garbhāñka. It is not also clear which one of two Ankāvatāras according to two different views is intended to be referred to by the pronoun ayam. Most probably the Añkāvatāra according to the common view is meant here by ayam and Dr. K. K. Datta Shastri rightly opines that this form of Garbhāñka is obviously based on a doubtful version of the Nāṭya-śāstra, available to the authors of the Nāṭya-darpana.33

In practice also, we find that the introduction of some sort of a stage performance within the stage came to be a recognised dramatic device even from the time of Kālidāsa. In the Act II of the Mālavikāgnimitra, there is a solo performance of Chalitaka type of dance by Mālavikā, followed by songs. Śrīharṣa, in the 7th. century, made a further development of the idea. In the Act III of his Priyadarśikā that we actually find is almost an embryo drama (to use Keith’s terminology), a small play with bits of preliminary details within a play, and in the text it is rightly named as Garbha-nāṭaka. Bhavabhūti in the last

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

179

Act of the Uttaracarita and Rājaśekhara in the Act III

of his Bālarāmāyaṇa adopt the same device.

In the realm of dramaturgy, as it appears from above

discussion, Garbhāñka, as a device of the representation of

plot appears first in the Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa of Bhoja in the

11th century, so far as extant texts are concerned. But

here and also in the Nāṭya-darpaṇa (12th cent.) and Bhāva-

prakāśana (13th cen.), it is treated as indentical with

Añkāvatāra. The Nāṭya-darpaṇa, however, records a new

definition of Garbhāñka 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 Nāṭya-śāstra but with significant changes in

reading. This definition with its basis in the Nāṭya-śāstra

was most probably shaped by some theorist with an eye

on the said old practice and was included in some version

of the Nāṭya-śāstra, reasonably long before Rāmacandra-

Guṇacandra who without any question to its authenticity

included it in their work.

Later in the 14th century, Viśvanātha and Śiṅgabhūpāla

took up Garbhāñka but not as an Arthopakṣepaka. They

treated it as topically related to Añka. According to

Viśvanātha, Garbhāñka is a play with raṅgadvāra and

āmukha within a play. As an illustration Viśvanātha cites

the Sītā-svayaṃvara scene,34 called a Garbhāñka by the

poet himself in the Act III of the Bālarāmāyaṇa.35 Śiṅga-

bhūpāla describes Garbhāñka in the same light but more

elaborately 36 and Rūpa Gosvāmin follows him closely.37

This is in brief the history of Garbhāñka in theory and practice.38

IV. AṄKA-MUKHA (Añkāsya)

The Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa defines Añka-mukha, as

the Act where there is a résume of the leading ideas of

all the following Acts.1 The illustration is cited from the

opening scene of the Mālatī-mādhava 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 Miśra-viṣkambhaka. The Bhāva-prakāśana, as usual, with

other views gives the above definition and illustration of

Ańka-mukha.3 Dr Raghavan informs us that Bahurūpa

wrongly ascribes the definition to Bharata (ṣaṭsahasrikāra).4

As in the case of Ańkāvatāra, Sāgara's view of Ańka-

mukha also is quite different from the more common

conception. According to Sāgara Ańkāvatāra consists in the

prior indication of the events of the next Act at the close

of an Act, and Ańka-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

this Ańka-mukha of Sāgara is the Avatārańka (Ańkāva-

tāra) of Abhinavagupta as explained before.

The definition of the Ańka-mukha, as available in the

Nāṭya-śāstra but which has been ascribed to Kohala by

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 is called Ańka-mukha. In principle, this definition of

Ańka-mukha is supported by Dhananjaya, Rāmacandra and

Śingabhūpāla, but they use the term Ańkāsya instead of

Ańka-mukha, and in the Nāṭya-darpana both the terms

are clearly stated to be synonyms.6 Bhoja also gives the

definition from the Nāṭya-śāstra.7 Sāradātanaya while enum-

erating the Arthopakṣepakas uses the term Ańkāsya,8 but

in his usual way gives all ihe variant definitions of Ańkāsya

and Ańka-mukha. He quotes the definition and illustration

of Ańkāsya verbatim from the Daśa-rūpaka and Avaloka

respectively9 and from the Nāṭak -lakṣana-raṭna-kośa he takes

those of Anka-mukha. To Again, he gives another definition

of Ańkāsya which is very similar in form to that found in

the Rasārṇava-śudhākara and in matter to that of the Daśa-

rūpaka, and a second of Ańka-mukha which appears to be

similar to that found in the Nāṭya-śāstra.11 Thus Bhāva-

prakāśana seems to give two definitions of each of the Ańka-

mukha and Ańkāsya which appear to be recognised here as

two separate devices. But the number of the Arthopakṣe-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

pakas is five and Śāradātanaya seems to have no intention to distrub this fact recognised by all. It may thus be supposed that Śāradātanaya takes Añka-mukha and Añkāsya as the two names of the same device but gives all the available definitions with the name Añka-mukha or Añkāsya as found in his sources. Viśvanātha defines and illustrates Añka-mukha and his definition is quite in line with that of Sāgara and the illustration is also the same as in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa i.e., from the beginning of the Mālatī-mādhava.12 Then he simply quotes the definition and illustration of Añkāsya from the Daśa-rūpaka and Avaloka and also frankly admits : etacca dhanika-mutānusā-reṇoktam.13 Lastly Viśvanātha informs us that according to some this Añkāsya is covered by the definition of Añkā-vatāra.14 It is thus clear that he himself does not recognise Dhanika's form of Añkāsya. Rūpa Gosvāmin, though at the very beginning of his Nāṭaka-candrikā despises the prakriyās of Viśvanātha,15 yet follows him closely in respect of Añka-mukha. He first gives the definition of Añka-mukha from the Sāhitya-darpaṇa with the word aṅkāsya in place of aṅka-mukha in the source, but remarks that this Aṅkāsya is identicai with the Añka-mukha according to some. Then the definition of Añkāsya is quoted, apparently from the Rasārnava-sudhākara with the remark that it is covered by Aṅkāvatāra according to some.16 Thus it appears that Rūpa Gosvāmin prefers to use the term Aṅkāsya but follows Viśvanātha, so far as the treatment of the topic is concerned. It may be noted here that the definition of Aṅkāsya as found in the Daśa-rūpaka and Rasārnava-sudhākara is similar to that of the Aṅka-mukha of the Nāṭya-śāstra and that again has been ascribed to Kohala by Abhinavagupta as stated before. But we have seen that Sāgara defines Aṅkāvatāra as the indication of the following Act by means of a cryptic speech at the end of the preceding Act. This is undoubtedly similar if not identical, to the definition of Aṅka-mukha, as available in the Nāṭya-śāstra and ascribed to Kohala by Abhinava-gupta.

182 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Regarding the term Añkāsya it may be said that among

the texts available to us, it is first found in the Daśa-rūpaka

The term itself signifies nothing new, only mukha of Añka-

mukha of the Nātya-śāstra is substituted by its synonym

āsya and this may be supposed to be due to metre causa,

as it appears from the definition of Añkāsya in the Daśa-

rūpaka. Sāgara and Bhoja stick to the old term. Other

theorists who use the term Añkāsya either directly follow

the Daśa-rūpaka or record its view as reference only.

We thus get two distinct views before us regarding

the nature of Añka-mukha :

(1) It is the résumé of the leading events of all other

Acts. This is the view of Sāgara. Śāradātanaya

records this definition of Sāgara and Bahurūpa ascribes

the same to Saṭsahasrikāra i. e., to Bharata, but it

is not found in the present Nāṭya-śāstra. Viśvanātha

gives a similar definition of Añka-mukha and Rūpa

Gosvāmin follows him. The definition of Anka-

mukha, as available in the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa is

similar to that of Avatāṅka (Añkāvatāra) of

Abhinavagupta.

(2) According to the Nāṭya-śāstra (or Kohala in the

opinion of Abhinavagupta) Añka-mukha links 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-

Guṇacandra and Siṅgabhūpāla. Śāradātanaya also

records the view. But this definition of Añka-mukha

is similar to that of Añkāvatāra as found in the

Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa. Viśvanātha and Rūpa

Gosvāmin, perhaps due to the influence of Sāgara,

maintain that this Añka-mukha (Añkāsya) is covered

by Añkāvatāra of some.

It thus appears that there has been a long standing

confusion regarding the nature of Añkāvatāra and Añka-

mukha with its root in the Nāṭya-śāstra and Abhinava-

bhāratī. In the present state of our knowledge and also

with the present Nāṭya-śāstra in our hand we cannot say

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

183

which one of the two views, stated above, is earlier.

The Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kōśa maintains silence regarding

the source of the definitions of both Aṅkāvatāra and

Aṅka-mukha, but the view upheld therein cannot be

declared later at least in the face of Bahurūpa'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 Sāgara's

own, it would not have been recognised by them. Who

knows whether there was a version of the Nāṭya-śāstra

or some similar renowned work available to Sāgara from

which these views were derived.

V. Cūlikā

Sāgara says that Cūlikā 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 Sāgara quotes :

yathā paṭī-madhya-gataịh sūta-māgadha-vandibhiḥ/

arthopakṣepanam yatra kriyate sā hi cūliketi//2

Cūlikā neither indicates 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 Cūlikā, and this is the

common view.3 Sāgara maintains that generally Sūtas

(charioteers), Māgadhas (panegyrists) and Vandins do the

job. The word vandinah has been taken to mean Nagnā-

cāryas,4 referring to minstrels (not to naked teachers) as

has been shown by Dr Raghavan with evidences from

lexicons.4a But the word in this sense is not of common

use and the reading may be emended as, nāndyācāryaḥ,

meaning maṅgala-pāṭhakas.4b Sāgara further maintains that

others, even leading characters may also take part in a

Cūlikā 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

Aśmakuṭṭa6 :

ata eva munirbharatācary / așmakuṭṭaśca/

antah paṭiniviṣṭair yat kriyate'rtha-nivedanam/

antar yamanikā-samsthais-cūlikārtha-prakāśanam//

It is evident that this is not a full werse, as is treated

in the text of the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa, but two halves

of two separate verses from two different sources and Sāgara

himself means to say so in ata eva etc., as above. Both,

however, mean the samething that Cūlikā is the informatnin

concerning the plot conveyed from behind the curtain by

anyone.

Abhinavagupta informs us that Kohala defines Cūḍā

(cūlikā) as : arthopakṣepanam cūḍā bahvarthaih sūta-vandibhih.7

It is interesting to note that Kohala also assigns the task

of performing the Cūḍā to such roles as Sūtas and Vandins

etc. The Nāṭya-darpana gives two names of this device viz.,

Culā and Cūlikā and then says : ‘sā cūdeva cūlikā’.8 From

all these it appears that Cūḍā, as given by Kohala, was the

origital name and the Cūlā and Cūlikā came from it.

Śiṅgabhūpāla gives a detailed account of Cūlikā9 and

expressly states that it may occur at the beginning, middle

or end of an Act and this has been taken up by Rūpa

Gosvāmin.10 In the Rasārṇava-sudhākara a distinction has

beeu drawn between Cūlikā and Khaṇḍacūlikā. 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 Khaṇḍa-

cūlikā. Śiṅgabhūpāla points out that others call it a case

of Viṣkambhaka, but he himself does not perfer to call

it so, enāṃ viṣkambham evānye prāhur naitan matam mama.11

The illustration of this Khaṇḍa-cūllkā has been cited

from the Act I of the Bālarāmāyaṇa of Rājaśekhara.12

But this is not the common view of Cūlikā.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

185

VI. A general review of the Arthopakṣepakas

The five Arthopakṣepakas have been explained with a comparative study of the theories advanced by different authorities. There is a confusion regarding the term Arthopakṣepaka itself. The Nāṭya-śāstra, 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 Viṣkambhaka, however, are elaborately treated in the previous chapter. The verse that enumerates the five and contains the term Arthopakṣepaka and also the verses which define the five in the chapter XIX of the Nāṭya-śāstra (GOS) are held to be spurious by the editor of the GOS edition2 on the grounds that (i) some of the manuscripts omit these verses, (ii) Abhinava's commentary on them are not available, (iii) some of these verses are mere repetitions as they are found in the previous chapter, and (iv) some of them are identical with the verses of Kohala, quoted by Abhinavagupta. But Dr K. K. Datta Shastri maintains that these verses of the Nāṭya-śāstra cannon be held spurious because, (i) omission of a passage in one or other manuscript does not necessarily imply its spuriousness, (ii) Abhinavagupta does not explain each and every passage of Nāṭya-śāstra, (iii) repetitions are not totally unknown to the Nāṭya-śāstra, (iv) verses attributed to Kohala by Abhinava may be considered as taken from the Nāṭya-śāstra verbatim by Kohala himself.3 Dr Shastri has justified each and every one of these contentions with sufficient evidences from the Nāṭya-śāstra, Abhinava-bhārati and the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa, But he himself admits that the text of the Nāṭya-śāstra is extremely uncertain in this portion.4 Moreover, what portions of the present Nāṭya-śāstra are pre-Bharatan, post-Bharatan, and Bharatan is yet to be finally settled. Kohala is presented before us in the Nāṭya-śāstra 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 Nāṭya-śāstra.5 His "relation with the Nāṭya-śāstra is not quite clear." The time and extent of the supposed influence6 of his

186

NATAKA-LAKSA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

work on the redactors of the Nāṭya-śāstra has not yet

been properly assessed. It may also be supposed that many

verses of some earlier version of the Nāṭya-śāstra were taken

verbatim by Kohala in his work and many verses from

which, on the other hand, were included in the Nāṭya-śāstra

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 Bharata7. Moreover, the definition of Añkā-

vatāra, as quoted in the Abhinava-bhārat with the introduc-

tory remark yathoktam, shows that Abhinavagupta himself

recognises it as taken from the Nāṭya-śāstra. This defini-

tion is almost identical with that found in the chap. XIX

of the (GOS) Nāṭya-śāstra.7a In another place Abhinava-

gupta remarks8 : tathā ca kohalo 'rthopakṣepa-pañcakam

uktavān, i. c., Kohala enumerated the five Arthopakṣepakas.

If we are to believe on the evidence of this statement

of Abhinavagupta that Kohala first defined each of the

five Arthopakṣepakas, then we are to accept that the above

mentioned definition of Añkāvatāra 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 Nāṭya-śāstra, elaborately

treats Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka in chapter XVIII (GOS).

In chapter XIX (GOS) along with these two other three

Arthopakṣepakas are defined. Of these three the definition

of Añkāvatāra appears to be genuine from the above

evidence of the Abhinava-bhārati. From all these it appears

that the definitions of all the five were there and Kohala

brought them under one general term Arthopakṣepaka,

enumerated the five as Abhinavagupta puts it, and systema-

tised the whole scheme. Kohala thus, may be credited

with the coining of the term Arthopakṣepaka. More-

over, Abhinavagupta most reasonably points out that

the Nāṭya-śāstra uses the term Praveśaka in several

places instead of Arthopakṣepaka, as a generic one to

signify either all the five devices or the two main ones

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

187

Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka.9 Had the term Arthopakṣe-

paka been known originally, it could have been conveni-

ently used. This term appears once in the Nāṭyaśāstra (GOS.

XIX. 110) in the verse that enumerates the names of five

devices and this verse may be said to be included-in the Nāṭya-

śāstra 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 Viṣkambhaka are clear cut scenes in the

modern sense of the term. The back-ground is never

represented as changed in a Praveśaka or Viṣkambhaka,

as is very often done in an Act. But regarding other

three Arthopakṣepakas, it may be said that they are never

treated, either tn theory or in practice, as separate scenes

outside an Act. Añkāvatāra and Añka-mukha are always

included within one or other of the Acts and are never

treated as entities exterior to the Acts like Praveśaka or

Viṣkambhaka.10 Cūlikā 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

speaking Añkāvatāra and Añka-mukha signify the nature

of the beginning of an Act or a particular relation between

two Acts. We have also seen that ākāśa-vacana and nepaṭhya

vacana are taken by Mātrgupta, Sāgara and others as

Sandhyantarās. Cūlikā (i.e., utterance of something from

behind the screen) in an Act is nothing but nepaṭhya-vacana

i.e., a Sandhyantara and cannot be included in the Artho-

pakṣepakas. Like the Añkāvatāra and Añka-mukha Cūlikā,

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 nepaṭhya-vacana. The Viṣkam-

bhaka at the beginning of the Act II and Acts III and V

proper, of the Uttara-rāma-carita start with Cūlikā. Thus

these three Arthopakṣepakas (viz., Añka-mukha, Añkāvatāra

and Cūlikā) denote the modes of the beginning of Acts.

The above seems to be the view of Kohala who maintains

that there are three types af Acts marked by Añkāvatăra, Cūḍā (Culikā) and Añka-mukha, as Abhinavagupta informs us.13 It thus appears that according to Kohala the Añka itself is the main Arthopakṣepaka, because the three types of these Añkas have been included in the five Arthopakṣepakas by himself.14 Sāgara also maintains that the Arthkpakṣepakas are but artha-pratipādakas, those which set forth or introduce the theme of the drama.15 In this sense also Añka may be taken as an Arthapratipādaka.

From the view point of representation on the stage the Nāṭya-śāstra originally appears to have recommended the division of the plot into a number of acts (Añkas) and scenes (Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka) to maintain a link of the theme. The definitions of three types of Añkas, marked by Añkāvatăra, Añka-mukha and Cūlikā were there in the Nāṭya-śāstra. But perhaps, 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 reprsentation of the plot, under one general term Arthopakṣepaka and enumerated the names of five Arthopakṣepakas and clearly stated that Añkāvatăra, Añka-mukha and Cūlikā 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 Añka, begins his discussion on the Arthopakṣepakas with the remark : sampratyayaka-vidhayā praveśakādaya ucyante,16 implying thereby that from the view point of representation on the stage before an audience, the Praveśaka etc., do not differ materially from an Añka.

The nature and function of the two types of interludes, Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka, which are well marked scenes, have been elaborately discussed. It has also been shown that Sāgara, following the Nāṭya-śāstra maintains that there is no material difference between these two. He says that the Viṣkambhaka is praveśakasthāniya.17 Even later commentators also accept the above view. Raghava-bhaṭṭa in his

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

189

Arthadyotanikā informs us that the Praveśaka between the Acts V and VI of the Abhijñāna-śakuntala is called the third Praveśaka by some as there are two Viṣkambhakas ; one in the Act III and the other in the Act IV, thus this is the third Praveśaka.18 Śaṅkara in his Rasa-candrikā commentary on the same drama says : praveśaka eva viṣkambhakah.19

Prof. Jagirdar, on a study of the Praveśakas employed in the plays of Bhāsa, arrives at the general conclusion that the Praveśakas in Sanskrit drama in general, simply introduce the following main scenes.20 This seems to be somewhat in conformity with the view held by Sāgara that Praveśaka introduces the entrance of the following leading character.21 Prof. Jagirdar further maintains that Viṣkambhakas 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, Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka, and a parallelism can be established between Viṣkambhaka and Greek Chorus.23 But these arguments do not seem to hold good so far as the dramas of even Kālidāsa are concerned.

The Dhīvara scene is a Praveśaka in the Abhijñāna-śakuntala but it summarises the incidents unrepresented on the stage. It appears that both Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka help the introduction of the following main Act and summarise the events or incidents unrepresented on the stage. Their difference lies elsewhere and that has already been discussed.

Later theorists, at least beginning from Dhanañjaya, divided the plot from the view point of representation on the stage, into two ; dṛśya-śravya and sūcya. 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 indicated through Arthopakṣepakas, as being unfit or uninteresting for elaboration and visible representation.24 All the Arthopakṣepakas are thus limited as means for indication (sūcanopāya).

This sort of division of the plot is unknown in the Nāṭya-

190

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

śāstra and Sāgara also does not recognise this division.

The original conception of Arthopakṣepaka, consisting of three types of Aṁkas (marked by Aṁkāvatāra, Aṁka-mukha and Culika) and two types of scenes the Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka, was totally lost. A strict line of demarcation came to be drawn between Aṁkas and Arthopakṣepakas.

These later theorists missed the original implicaiion of Aṁkāvatāra, Aṁka-mukha and Culikā and naturally a confusion arose. This confusion was worse confounded by the introduction of two new terms Garbhāṁka and Aṁkāsya.

An attempt has been made to bring out the original significance of the deviccs which seems to be maintained, at least to a reasonable extent, in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa.

CHAPTER X

(i) TITLE OF THE PLAY

It is an old practice that the titles of literary compositions, 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 Nātya-śāstra nor most of the later texts on dramaturgy give any direction regarding the naiming of dramatic compositions. From the Nātya-śāstra we get titles of two plays, one is Amṛta-manthana, a Samavakāra 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 Nāṭya-śāstra where no title of the play is given but only the theme has been alluded to.1 The Mahābhāṣya also seems to contain reference of subject matters of two plays.2 It thus appears that a brief statement of the subject-matter served the purpose of titles of plays in the primary stage of its development. But Aśvaghoṣa names his play Śāriputraprakaraṇa 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, Sāgara first refers to a principle regarding the naming of plays. The text of the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa clearly shows that Sāgara here quotes the view of some ancient authority, though the name of the source is not śiven. It is enjoined that the title of the dramatic composition is to refer either to the Pradhāna (hero) or the Vastu (Plot). Titles of Nāṭakas like Rāmānanda, Jānaki-rāghava and that of the Prakaraṇa Mālatīmādhava have been cited as referring to the Pradhāna and those of the Nāṭaka Kundamālā and the Prakaraṇa Mṛcchakaṭika have been taken as indicating the Vastu. It appears from this that by pradhāna-nirddśa and

192

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

vastunirdeśa Sāgara simply means that the title of a drama is

to contain in either the designation of the hero or those of both

the hero and heroine or a reference to the crucial incident of

the plot. Śāradātanaya means the same when he says :

tannāman nāṭakādyantar (nāyakādyantar ?), garbhītāṛthopasūcakam.4

The use of the word garbhitārtha (crucial incident) is un-

doubtedly an improvement upon Sāgara's vastu-nirdeśa.

The views expressed by Viśvanātha and Amṛtānanda in

the 14th century are more elaborate. The latter says, samjñā

tu nāṭakādinam nāyakenetarcana vā/nāyikānāyakavyākhyānāt

samjñā prakaraṇādiṣu/nāṭikā-saṭṭakādinām nāyikābhir-viśeṣa-

nam/.5 This view gives much stress on the designations

of the hero and heroine in naming a play but falls short

to explain a title like Kunda-mālā, inasmuch as it omits

the principle that the title of a play may be formed

by referring to the main incident of the plot. Viśvanātha

makes an attempt to give a more clear-cut principle

and states that the title of a Nāṭaka should be : garbhitārtha-

prakāśaka, the Prakaraṇas 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 naming Nāṭikā,

Saṭṭaka etc.9 This rigid principle of Viśvanātha lacks

corroboration to the titles of ancient dramas. Neither the title

of the Nāṭakas Mālavikāgnimitra and Jānakī-rāghava may be

said to be garbhitārtha-prakāśaka, nor the title Mṛcchakaṭikā

or Śāriputraprakaraṇa is formed after the names of the

hero and heroine The broad principle of the Nāṭak-lakṣaṇa-

ratna kośa seems to be more suitable to explain the titles of

Sanskrit plays.

It is interesting to note that Rucipati in this matter

quotes, nāṭakasyā ca yan-nāma garbha-nirḍiṣṭa-lakṣaṇam, and

ascribes it to Bharata.7 Śaṅkara in his Rasa-candrikā

commentary of the Abhijñāna-śakuntalā gives a better generali-

sation regarding the naming of a drama. He says : vastunā

vastu-netṛbhyām netrā nāyikayāpi vā/ dvābhyām vā vastu-nāribhyām

kāryā samjñā 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 sanskrit drama.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

193

(ii) Title of the Añka

Excepting the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa, none of the existing works on Sanskrit dramaturgy including the Nāṭya-śāstra, tries to formulate any principle regarding the naming of individual Acts of dramas. Sāgara 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 delineated therein.

In the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa, there are citations from as many as fifty-three individual Acts with titles.

Abhinavagupta, Dhanika, Rāmacandra-Guṇacandra and Śiṅgabhūpāla are not found to refer the Acts by their titles. Śāradātanaya and Viśvanātha in many cases have cited from different Acts with titles.2 But it is interesting to note that all the names of Acts, referred to in the Bhāva-prakāśana and in the chapter VI of the Sāhitya-darpaṇa are found in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa. Not only the names of Acts but the citations therefrom, as given by Śāradātanaya and Viśvanātha, occur in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa in similar contexts in almost all cases.3 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, is 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 like Bhāṇa, Vyāyoga, Vīthī etc. There was also the practice of staging individual Acts in India and this becomes evident when we take into consideration the reason behind the naming of Acts, The title of a drama is required to be announced by the Sūtradhāra (or Sthāpaka) in the prelude. Similarly 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 is very often argued, specially in connection with the one Act plays of Bhāsa, that the hereditary actors of Kerala, the Cakyars, use to stage selected Acts from renowned Sanskrit dramas4. The Ūrubhaṅga of Bhāsa is generally taken to be such an Act of some lost lengthy Mahābhārata-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 representation.

The silence of authorities like Abhinavagupta, Dhananjaya etc., in the matter of either the principle of naming or referring to the names of individual 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-vithī of the Act I of the Mālatī-mādhava. The grove itself and a garland of vakula flowers play an important part in the Act and as such it is named Vakula-vithī. But the commentator in explaining the name quotes a definition of the Vithī, 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 from 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 validity 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 Śāstra, giving injunctions regarding

Vidhiś and Niṣedhaś, and as a Śāstra it was expected to

follow the Śāstric 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 Nāṭya-śāstra 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 Nāṭya-śāstra is. But the literature

that formed the basis of this monumental work is sunk into

oblivion. After the Nāṭya-śāstra was codified it acquired a

sanctity, almost religious in character for which the work

itself was certainly well-deserving. With this Nāṭya-śāstra

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 Nāṭya-śāstra. 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 their origin in the sūtra-

like composition of the Nāṭya-śāstra itself, amenable to several

interpretations.

It has also been shown that a number of schools of thought

developed long before Abhinavagupta and Sāgara 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 Nātya-śāstra there are problems like the traditions

of Sat-sahasrī, Dvādaśa-sahasrī, Ādi-bharata7 etc. It is generally

admitted that there are two recensions of the Nātya-śāstra.

But in the preface of the GOS. edition Mr M. R. Kavi points

out that no two out of forty manuscripts of the Nātya-śāstra,

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, like Rāghava-Bhaṭṭa, Jagad-

dhara, Rucipati, Śaṅkara etc., some verses are found to be

ascribed to Bharata which are not available in the present

Nātya-śāstra. Much weight cannot be attached to the words

of these later commentators. But in cases where the ascrip-

tions are supported by a text like the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-

kośa and are widely recognised, the quotations concerned can

reasonably be taken as collected from some copy of the Nātya-

śāstra. In the foregoing chapters some such cases have been

discussed, the most important of which are, the three ways

of bija-nyāsa, 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’pi svecchayā etc., distinguishing a Viṣkambhaka from a Praveśaka.

CHAPTER XI

VṚTTI

The term Vṛtti is of special significance in almost all the branches of Sanskrit literature. In philosophical works, it is 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 (parārthābhidhānam vṛttih), and denotes Kṛt, Taddhita, Samāsa, Ekaśeṣa and the verb-forms with suffixes San etc. (kṛt-taddhita-samāsāikaśeṣa-sanādyanta-dhāturūpāḥ pañca vṛttayaḥ1). In Alamkāra-literature, the significative capacity of words is called Vṛtti, and four varieties of it (Abhidhā, Lakṣaṇā. Vyāñjanā, Tātparya) have generally been recognised. The sense in which the term Vṛtti is used in Sanskrit dramaturgy has variously been expressed in English as ‘bearing of characters’2, ‘manner or style’3, mode etc. A perusal of the number and different types of Vṛtti-s and their nature is essential for the understanding of the nature and function of Vṛtti itself and the position of the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa in this respect. It may be pointed out here that the Nāṭya-śāstra, Bhāva-prakāśana and Rasārṇava-sudhākara give accounts of the mythical origin of the Vṛtti-s of which Sāgara-nandin is quite silent. He only says : etā vṛttayaś-caturvidha-samāśrayāḥ. This simply indicates the origin of Drama from the four Vedas.

I. Number of Vṛtti-s

The Nāṭya-śāstra recognises four Vṛtti-s ; they are, Bhāratī, Sāttvatī, Kaiśikī and Ārabhaṭī. Sāgara accepts this view4 and does not refer to any other. But there was a confusion and it is evident from the Abhinava-bhāratī, Bhāva-prakāśana,

198

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Dasa-rūpaka etc. Abhinava-gupta caustically refers to the views which maintain that the number of Vṛtti-s are two, three or five.5 He neither explains these views nor mentions the names of their propounders. He, however, deals elaborately with the view of Udbhata and its criticism by Lollaṭa.

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 problem concerning the Vṛtti-s in all their aspects. There he suggested the reasons of holding the number of Vṛtti-s as two and three. Any and every dramatic situation consists of Vāk and Ceṣṭā, and each of these two may be either Lalita or Uddhata. Bhāratī, Sāttvatī, Kaiśikī and Ārabhaṭī are essentially the Vṛtti-s of Vāk, Ceṣṭā, Lālitya and Auddhatya respectively. So, “The two Vṛtti-s are either the Bhāratī and the Sāttvatī referring to Vāk and Ceṣṭā or the Kaiśikī and the Ārabhaṭī referring to Lālitya and Auddhatya”.

Dr Raghavan further presumes that the “vyāpāra or activity of Vāk (speech), Kāya (body) and Manas (mind)” might have given rise to the view holding the number of Vṛtti-s as three.6 But the activities of Vāk and Kāya are not independent of the same of Manas. There is nothing in the nāṭya-vyāpāra which may be conceived of as purely the activity of mind, though it is the basis of all the vyāpāra-s. So, it is not convincing that the activities of Vāk, Kāya and Manas in nāṭya-vyāpāra prompted some ancient scholar to propound the theory of three Vṛtti-s.

This theory of three Vṛtti-s is the thesis of Udbhata, as will be discussed below. In favour of the view maintaining the number of Vṛtti-s as two, another reason may be adduced. Among the four principal objects of human life Dharma, Artha, Kāma and Mokṣa ; drama deals primarily with the second and third and taking these two into consideration two Vṛtti-s only may be accepted.

Udbhata himself suggests this, of course as a counter argument,—kiñca yadi tāvat punar-thakāmoddeśena kaiśikyabhidhīyate dharmam-artham coddiśya vṛttidvayam vaktavyam.7 Moreover, as will be shown, below,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

199

Udbhaṭa divides the entire dramatic situation into two classes

and this also may be taken to be the basis of the theory of

two Vṛtti-s.

Udbhaṭa's theory of Vṛtti has been the source of controversy

and confusion among ancient theorists and modern scholars

alike. Dr S. N. Shastri8 remarks that, apart from the four

Vṛtti-s of Bharata, “Udbhaṭa believes in a fifth Vṛtti which

he calls Artha-vṛtti.” This is evidently based on the wrong

observations of Dhanañjaya and Śāradātanaya. Dhanañjaya

asserts that beyond the three (viz., Sāttvatī, Kaiśikī and

Ārabhaṭī), there is no other Artha-vṛtti (nārthavṛttir-atalh-parā).

The fourth one, i.e., the Bhāratī is a Sabda-vṛtti. Dhananjaya

goes on to say that the followers of Udbhaṭa recognise these

three Artha-vṛtti-s, but takes into account a fifth one :

kaiśikīm sāttvatīm ārthavṛttim-ārabhatīm-iti | /

paṭhantaḥ pañcamīm vṛttim-audbhaṭāḥ pratijānate //9

Dhanañjaya does not specifically state that the fifth Vṛtti of

Udbhaṭa is Artha-vṛtti, That Dhananjaya means so, has

probably been surmised on the basis of his above assertion

nārtha-vṛtti—etc. It is Śāradātanaya who specifically states

that the followers of Udbhaṭa recognise the fifth Vṛtti, the

Artha-vṛtti, audbhatāḥ pañcamīm-artha-vṛttim ca pratijānate.10

Closely similar diction suggests that here in this case the

source of Śāradātanaya is the Daśa-rūpaka.

Now, the standpoint of Udbhaṭa, so far as can be deci-

phered from the text of the Abhinava-bhāratī is quite diffe-

rent from what Dhananjaya and Śāradātanaya seems to have

understood. Udbhaṭa appears to have criticised Bharata's

scheme of four Vṛtti-s which are connected with speech (Vāk)

and physical movements (Ceṣṭā) and as such, representations

of death (maraṇa), swoon (mūrcha) etc., become devoid of

any Vṛtti, as in these there is neither any Vāk nor Ceṣṭā.

Thus, according to Udbhaṭa, the four Vṛtti-s of Bharata fail

to comprehend the entire field of representation. For this

and other reasons, Udbhaṭa gives up the old scheme of four

Vṛtti-s and proposes a new one. He, for death and swoon

etc., establishes first the Phala-samvitti-vrtti which is but the realisation of the fruit of Vāk and Ceștā :

tasmāt phalasamvittyākhyā vṛttih vāk-ceștayoh phalānubhava iti yasyā lakṣaṇam, sābhyupagantavyā / avaśyam caitat, anyathā mūrcchā-maranādau vāk-ceștayor-abhāve nirvṛttikataiva syāt11 /

Thus Udbhata first divides the nātya-vṛttā̄ra into two classes of situations where there are Vāk-Ceștā and where there is the realisation of Phala but no Vāk-Ceștā. Now, the situations related to Vāk and Ceștā may either be proper (nyāya) or improper (anyāya). So, only three Vṛtti-s are to be recognised, viz., Nyāya-vṛtti, Anyāya-vṛtti and Phala-samvitti-vṛtti :

tasmāt (vāk) Ceștātmikā nyāya-vṛttir-anyāya-vṛtti-rūpā tat-phala-samvittir-iti vṛtti-trayam-eva yuktam-iti bhatṭodbhalo manyate.12

Thus, these observations of Udbhata, as found in the Abhinava-bhārati, uphold the theory of three Vṛtti-s. Abhinava-gupta further quotes a verse, presumably from the text of Udbhata. This verse means that through Vāk and Ceștā the Vṛtti is of two kinds, and these two with reference to the four Puru-sārtha-s become eight, which again through nyāya and anyāya become sixteen ; and the Phala-vṛtti is of many kinds due to the diversity of Rasa. In fine, Udbhata propounds a new scheme of Vṛtti 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 Arthavṛtti simply because artha in dramaturgy sometimes means phala. This seems to be the background of mis-statement found in the Daśa-rūpaka and Bhāva-prakāśana, as pointed out before.

Abhinava-gupta further refers to the view of the followers of Śaṅkaligarbha who accept the four Vṛtti-s of Bharata but take recourse to a fifth one Ātma-samvitti by name, for bringing such situations as swoon etc., (where there is no Vāk-Ceștā) under the fold of Vṛtti. This view actually, and not that of Udbhata, upholds the scheme of five Vṛtti-s. The Ātma-samvitti Vṛtti, as Abhinava-gupta puts it, has been

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

201

thought to be inferred from such dramatic situations where

there is no movement (sakala-kārya-nivṛttyanumeyā).13

The above two views, as Abhinava-bhāratī informs us,

have been bitterly criticised by Lollaṭa and finally exploded

by Abhinava-gupta himself. Their arguments are mainly :

a) Vṛtti means vyāpāra. But according to the followers

of both Udbhaṭa and Śakaligarbha the Phala-saṃvitti

and Ātma-saṃvitti are not related to any vyāpāra.

Therefore, these two cannot be termed as Vṛtti at all.

b) If everything related to nāṭya is to come in the fold

of a Vṛtti, then to which Vṛtti the raṅga, musical

instruments etc., are to belong ?

c) Representation of death or swoon is also the vyāpāra

of mind at least and can be associated with the Sāttvatī

Vṛtti.14 So, there is no necessity of recognising any

separate Vṛtti for them.

Abhinava-gupta thus, establishes the scheme of Bharata.

It may be pointed out that Udbhaṭa and Śakaligarbha 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 ceṣṭā.

That there were other views on the number of Vṛtti-s is

known from the Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharṇa. Bhoja here (II/66-68)

recognises a scheme of six Vṛtti-s that adds two new ones,

Madhyama-kaiśikī and Madhyamārabhaṭī with the four of

Bharata. Again (II/83-87) he refers to and rejects a view

that admits of twelve Vṛtti-s characterised by three Guṇa-s.

This second scheme seems to be formulated keeping Kāvyas

in view. In his śṛṅgāra-prakāśa15 again, Bhoja admits of a

Vimiśra-vṛtti along with the four of Bharata. This new one

according to Bhoja, possesses the features of all the four old

ones. Sāgara-nandin, however, does not enter into the

controversy and accepts the scheme of Bharata without any

reservation. There are four Vṛtti-s according to this scheme,

they are Bhāratī, Sāttvatī, Kaiśikī and Ārabhaṭī, and in these

four Vṛtti-s respectively, says Sāgara,16 speech (vāk), emotional

202

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

absorption (sattva), grace (līlā) and physical action (vyāyāma)

predominate. In nāṭya these four Vrtti-s cannot be located

in different water-tight compartments. The characteristics

of one are very often than not found to coexist with those

of others. Predominance of one or other of the above factors

determines the Vrtti in a particular dramatic situation. This

point will be discussed later.

II. Characteristics of Different Vrtti-s

The four Vrtti-s and their varieties (vrtyaṅgas) have been

described by Sāgara-nandin mainly after the Nāṭya-śāstra.

It may be pointed out here that vrtyaṅgas are neither limbs

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-nandin when about Bhāratī Vrtti he says,—asyā vr̥tteś-

catvāro bhedā aṅgatvam āgatāḥ2, i.e., four forms of this Vrtti have

come to be recognised as four aṅgas. In fact, the word aṅga

in Sanskrit dramaturgy does not generally mean limb or sub-

division. It may further be pointed out that the names of

various Vrtti-s and their aṅgas have been accepted in the

Nāṭya-śāstra itself as rudhiṣabdas. An enquiry into their mean-

ings as done by Abhinava-gupta and others, leads us nowhere

so far as their characteristics are concerned. Sāgara-nandin

makes no such attempt.

A. Bhāratī

Sāgara-nandin quotes the definition of Bhāratī from the

Nāṭya-śāstra.3 In Bhāratī, speech of male characters speaking

Sanskrit predominates (vāk-pradhānā puruṣa-prajajyā.. saṅskr̥ta-

pāṭha-yuktā) and females are excepted (strī-varjitā). This is the

Vrtti 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. Prarocanā, Āmukha, Vīthī and Prahasana.

Of these Vīthī and Prahasana are two separate types of plays.

Neither the Nāṭya-śāstra nor the Nātaka-lakṣana-ratna-kośa has

discussed the characteristics of these two varieties here in this

connection.4 Prarocanā also has not been defined in the

Nāṭya-śāstra here in this context, It is simply said that in the

Pūrvarañga the (performance of), auspicious Prarocanā is

conducive to success, prosperity and victory, it wards off the

evil. Sāgara-nandin quotes this verse5 but adds no comment.

The Nāṭya-śāstra defines Prarocanā in the fifth chapter (GOS.)

as an element of the Pūrvarañga. There it is said that the

Prarocanā is to induce the audience to the play to be staged

through suggestion to its theme with cogent reasons and

having reference to the siddhi.6 In one manuscript, however,

the verse is repeated in connection with the discussion on

Vṛtti.7 Sāgara-nandin says that Prarocanā is so called as

it presents a well known idea (prasiddhārtha-pradarśanī)8 delineated 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 Prarocanā. An illustration has

been cited from an unknown drama Naraka-vadha.9 In conclusion, however, Sāgara-nandin enjoins that to introduce the

Mukha and other Sandhi-s, Prarocanā should be done at the

beginning, and there the Nāndī which is the obligatory

element of Pūrvarañga is to be performed.10 Thus, it appears

that according to Sāgara-nandin Prarocanā is an element of

the Pūrvarañga.

The utility of Prarocanā consists in rousing the interest of

the audience about the theme of the play and it is an aṅga of

the Pūrvarañga. There are no two opinions regarding this

view.11 Another aṅga of the Bhāratī is Āmukha, i.e., Prastā-

vanā.12 Nāndī, in actual practice, invariably occurs in the

Prastāvanā. Thus it appears that Āmukha itself forms a part

of the Pūrvarañga. But here there are different opinions.

Abhinava-gupta appears to maintain that Prarocanā and

Āmukha as aṅgas of the Bhāratī are different from these of

Pūrvarañga.13 Of course, neither in the Nātya-śāstra nor in the Abhinava-bhāratī it has been clearly stated that Āmukha is a part of the Pūrvarañga. Sāgara-nandin discusses both Prārocanā and Āmukha in this chapter of Vṛtti, particularly in connection with the Bhāratī. He, however, does not limit the Bhāratī in the Pūrvarañga only as done by some. For the clarification of this point characteristics of other Vṛtti-s are required to be explained. Pūrvarañga and Āmukha by themselves are two controversial topics and require separate chapters excepting, of course, their relation with the Vṛtti, and that has been taken up here in this chapter. Those two have been elaborately discussed by Dr Kalikumar Datta Shastri in two illuminating papers, Prologues and Epilogues in Sanskrit Drama and Pūrvarañga : Bharatan and Post-Bharatan.14

B. Sāttvatī

Sāgara-nandin quotes the definition of Sāttvatī from the Nātya-śāstra.1 The chief characteristic of this Vṛtti is sāttvata-guṇa which is explained as noble qualities like obedience to one's superiors : guru-śuśrūṣādi-sadṛttayah. Abhinava-gupta takes the expression to mean mental affairs : mānasa-vyāpārah.2 This is in conformity with the next verse of the Nātya-śāstra3 where it is said that this Vṛtti is characterised by emotion and its expression through speech and gestures : vāgaṅgābhinaya-vatī...// sattvādhikāravukta .. //. The Nātya-darśana makes the point more clear.4 It says that Sāttvatī is the mental affair (mānasam karma) connected with three types of acting, emotional, verbal and physical (sattvābhinayā-vāgābhinayā-ṅgābhi-naya-yuktam), and that the first type predominates. Representation of sacrifice and heroism (virtuous conduct, nyāya-vṛtta, according to the reading of the Nātya-śāstra) is another characteristic of Sāttvatī. This Vṛtti is full of exhilaration having the grief subdued. It is further said that Sāttvatī abounds

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

205

in haughty characters exchanging insulting words : uddhata-puruṣa-prāya parasparādharṣanakṛta5. All these features of this Vṛtti have been illustrated in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa

but most of which are not from dramatic compositions. The four forms of this Vṛtti are Utthāpaka, Parivartaka, Saṃlāpa6

and Sānghātya.

Utthāpaka

What comes out from the definition of the Utthāpaka as quoted by Sāgara-nandin (probably) from the Nāṭya-śāstra is that it consists in exchange of haughty words in attempts of exciting the opponent.7 In different words Dhananjaya, Śiṅga-bhūpāla and Viśvanātha also maintain the same.8

Parivartaka

The word parivartaka signifies a change and this has been taken to be the main characteristic of Parivartaka in all the works on dramaturgy including the Nāṭya-śāstra. Of the three definitions found in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa9, 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 Nāṭya-śāstra also means the same when it says : utthāna-samarārabdhān-arthān-utṣṛjya yo'rtha-yoga-vaśāt / anyān-arthān bhajate....... //10 That Parivartaka is the changing of one's own course of action, is also the opinion of Dhananjaya, Śiṅga-bhūpāla, Viśvanātha etc.11

The second definition given by Sāgara-nandin, also states that it is called Parivartaka when one takes resort to force (daṇḍam-āsthāya) finding intrigue (bheda), conciliation (sāma) and gift (dāna) are of no avail. Sāgara-nandin 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,--prakṛtasya kāryasya daivavaśād anyathaiva pari-pākah. There is one common factor in all the above definitions

of Parivartaka and that is a change, either calculated or unforeseen.

Samlāpa (NŚ. Sallāpa)

Samlāpa, as the name implies, is exchange of words with or without threats (sādharṣajo nirādharṣajo dvividhaḥ) and thus of

two types. This is the opinion of Sāgara evidently following the Nāṭya-śāstra.12 The Daśa-rūpaka, however, defines Samlā-

paka as serious dialogue (gaviroktiḥ) having diverse feelings and sentiments (nānā-bhāva-rasā-mithaḥ). Śiṅga-bhūpāla and

Viśvanātha follow Dhanañjaya.13

Sāṅghātya (NŚ. Sāṅghātyaka)

Sāṅghātya in Sanskrit dramaturgy has been taken to imply such dramatic situations where the breaking up of an alliance

is represented. It may be due to several reasons, deliberation, bribing, blunder or luck.14 According to Sāgara-nandin,

Sāṅghātya is deception (kūṭa uchyate). He says that it is illustrated in the false rumour of Vāsavadattā’s death in the

conflagration at Lāvaṇaka and in the drama Rāghavābhyudaya where Rāvaṇa to deceive Rāma, disguises the demoness

Jālinī as Sītā in connection with a false peace.15 It thus

appears that intrigue or deception is the chief characteristic of Sāṅghātya according to Sāgara-nandin.

From the above, it is evident that Sāttvatī Vṛtti is connected with dramatic situations mainly of political nature and

fight-shows on the stage. It may be pointed out here that the Nāṭya-darpaṇa sums up the above characteristics of different

forms of Sāttvatī without mentioning the names of the forms.16

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

207

C. Kaiśikī

Kaiśikī is pre-eminently the Vṛtti of dramatic situations depicting erotic sentiment. The Nāṭya-śāstra gives practically two definitions of this Vṛtti. One of them is in Indravajrā metre :-

yā slakṣṇa-nepathyaviśeṣa-citrā strī-samyutā yā bahu-nṛtya-kāmopabhoga-prabhavopacārā tām kaiśikīm vṛttim udāha-ranti //1

and the other in the Āryā :-

bahuvādya-nṛtta-gitā śṛṅgārābhinaya-citra-naipathyā | mālyālaṅkāra-yutā praśasta-veṣā ca kāntā ca //

citra-pada-vāk-bandhair alaṅkṛtā hasita-rudita-roṣādyaiḥ | strī-puruṣa-kāma-yuktā vijñeyā kaiśikī vṛttiḥ //2

The first one in Indravajrā of these two definitions has been commented upon by Abhinava-gupta and has also been accepted by Viśvanātha3 with a minor difference in reading. The second definition in Āryā speaks the same thing as in the first one, in different phraseology with a few added unimportant details. It is to be pointed out here that in the case of Ārabhaṭī, Abhinava-gupta comments upon the definition in Āryā and omits the other in Indravajrā metre. The definition of the Kaiśikī in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa is not taken verbatim from the Nāṭya-śāstra, but does not differ from that of the Nāṭya-śastra materially.

śṛṅgārābhinayod-bhāsi-pāthya-mālya-vibhūṣanā |

nṛtya-vāditra-gītādhyā kāmasambhoga-lakṣaṇā //

sukumāra-kāvya-bandhām ujjvala-vastrābharana-veṣām ca //

kāmopacāra-bahulām bhāṣante kaiśikīm kavayaḥ //4

Kaiśikī-Vṛtti 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 Vṛtti. This is the most charming Vṛtti and excepting a few like the Mudrā-rākṣasa, all our ancient

208

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

plays are found to have given much scope to this Vṛtti.

Similarly, the authors of dramaturgy also paid greater attention to the elaboration of this Vṛtti giving rise to difference

of opinions.

Narman may be said to be the soul of Kaiśikī as the names

of its forms suggest. The connotation of the term Narman

is also very wide. It includes dalliance, grace, pleasantry

and the like. The four varieties of this Vṛtti are,—Narman,

Narma-sphoṭa, Narma-garbha and Narma-sphañja.

Narman

Sāgara-nandin draws no distinction between Narman the

aṅga of Prati-mukha-sandhi and the same a variety of Kaiśikī.

Of the former he says that it will be discussed later, i.e., in

the context of Kaiśikī.5

The definition and illustration of Narman in the Nāṭaka-

lakṣaṇa-ratna-koṣa present it as the expression of hidden

emotion (aṇṭargatākūṭam) under some pretext (chadma-gar-

bhakam) and is free from blaming others and coarse or obscene

language (parāpavādaih paruşair-aslilaisca vivarjitam).6

Sāgara-

nandin refers evidently to the Nāṭya-śāstra when he says that

the teachers describe Narman as abounding in merry words

promoting love.7 The Nāṭya-śāstra adds two more traits of

Narman with the above, it is viśuddha-karaṇam and nivṛtta-

virasam.

The Nāṭya-śāstra describes three types of Narman.8 In

this connection Abhinava-gupta remarks that Narman is

marked by the pre-eminence of laughter (hāsa-pradhānā-

tādeti sāmānya-lakṣaṇam), and this laughter (comic) may be due

to the expression of jealousy (tatra hāsa īṛsyām vā sūcayitum),

or to rebuke others (param vopālabdhum), or to attract other's

mind (para-hṛdayam vāṅkṣeptum) ; and thus, it is of three types.9

Sāgara-nandin refers to a view and that also admits of

three varieties of Narman but as it is distinguished by laughter,

desire and fear : hāsecchā-bhayabhedena narmātra trividham bhavet /

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

209

The first variety is the joke (parihāsa) with amorous gestures of man or woman inflaming love :

śṛṅgāroddīpano yah syāt parihāsa savibhramah /

stri-pumsayostu narmaitad-dhāsyābheda-vyavasthitam //10

It is interesting to note that this variety of Narman has been designated by Sāgara-nandin himself as Samjoga-vihita-narma or Suddhā Kaiśikī in another place. There a verse has been quoted of which the first half is śṛṅgāroddīpano etc. ; and the second half is, hāsecchā-bhaya-bhedena etc., as quoted above.11

The second variety of Narman, i.e., the variety distinguished 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 illustrated, 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 Sāgara-nandin does not follow the Nāṭya-śāstra in describing the varieties of Narman.

Dhanañjaya, Śiṅga-bhūpāla, Viśvanātha and Rūpa-gosvā-min follow the Nāṭya-śāstra and maintain that hāsya is the main feature of Narman. But they describe Narman as primarily of three types ; śṛṅgāra-hāsyaja, suddha-hāsyaja and sabhaya-hāsyaja. Dhanañjaya further divides Narman into eighteen types. Others follow Dhanañjaya excepting Viśva-nātha who makes the number nine.14

Narmasphoṭa

Sāgara-nandin describes Narmasphoṭa as a situation where an unmarried girl (kanyā) in secret company with the hero being discovered by the heroine is overcome with fear and shame, while the hero remains silent as if doing nothing.15 But according to the Nāṭya-śāstra as commented upon by Abhinava-gupta, Narmasphoṭa is the partial manifestation (asamagrākṣipta-rasa) of the emotion of love contributed by

14

210 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

the touches of different other feelings (vividhanām bhāvānām lavair-lavair-bhūsito) like fear, laughter, alarm, anger etc. (bhaya-hāsa-harṣa-trāsa-roṣādyāh).16 The Daśa-rūpaka also speaks the same in different words : bhāvānāṃ sūcito’lpa-raso lavaiah.17 Śingabhūpāla accepts this definition of Narma-sphoṭa and adds another18 :-anyais-tvakānde sambhoga-vicchedā iti gīyate. This is similar to that of Naṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa. Viśvanātha and Rūpa-gosvāmin follow the Daśa-rūpaka.19 It is interesting to point out here that Saṅkara in his commentary on the Abhijñāna-śakuntalam quotes from an anonymous source a definition according to which Narmasphoṭa consists in private conversation of the hero and heroine conducive to enjoyment.20 Jagaddhara, on the other hand, quotes from another unknown source that Narmasphoṭa is the manifestation of inner feelings.21 It is thus evident that there were several divergent opinions regarding the definition of Narma-sphoṭa.

Narmagarbha

Sāgara-nandin describes Narmagarbha22 as such situations where one waits in disguise for the fulfilment of purpose i.e., love affair. This is evidently the gist of the definition of Narmagarbha found in the Nāṭya-śāstra,23 where it is said that when the hero acts with his identity concealed through various means suitable to love affairs, it 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-hrtin-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, explain Narmagarbha as the behaviour of the hero and are silent about the heroine. It is the Rasārṇava-sudhākara that

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

includes similar behaviour of the heroine also in the definition

of Narmagarbha.27

The GOS. edition of the Nāṭya-śāstra records a peculiar

definition of Narmagarbha as occuring in some manuscripts.

According to this definition, that is also Narmagarbha where

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 Śinga-

bhūpāla 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-

ding to some, this is the samkṣipta (samkṣiptaka) type of

Ārabhaṭī.

Narmasphañja

Sāgara-nandin defines Narmasphañja after the Nāṭya-

śāstra, as the enjoyment of the first union with a beautiful girl

the consequence being troublesome.30 This is illustrated,

says Sāgara-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 : narmahsphuñja vighna ityar-

thah.32 Narmasphañja has been taken in the above sense in

the Daśa-rūpaka, Rasārṇava-sudhākara and Sāhitya-darpaṇa.

But it is interesting to note that in the Daśa-rūpaka the term

is Narma-sphiñja and in Sāhitya-darpaṇa it is Narma-

sphūrja.33

It is apparent that Sāgara-nandin fails to distinguish

between Narmasphoṭa and Narmasphañja. Both of these

varieties of Kaiśikī have been described by him as situation

where the hero in dalliance with a girl is detected by the

heroine. This is Narmasphañja according to the Nāṭya-śāstra

and other works.

212 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

D. Ārabhaṭī

Ārabhaṭī is defined in the Nāṭya-śāstra as :

ārabhaṭa-prāya-gunā tathaiva bahu-kapāṭa-vaiñcanopetā /

dambhānṛta-vacanavati tvārabhaṭī nāma vijñeyā //1

This verse is commented upon by Abhinava-gupta. There is another verse in Indravajrā metre on which the commentary of Abhinava-gupta is not available.

pustāpavātā-pluta-lañghitāni cchedyāni māyākṛttam-indrajālam /

citrāṇi yuddhāni ca yatra nityam tam tādrśim ārabhaṭim

vadanti //

This verse, informs the editor of the GOS. version, is a recognised one of Bharata.2

Sāgara-nandin defines Ārabhaṭī as :

samuddhata-prāya-gunā vīra-raudrādbhutatātmikā /

kapāṭānṛta-dambheṣu vaiñcanāskandayoh sthitā //3

It is apparent that this definition, though not a verbatim reproduction, yet it does not differ materially from the first one of the Nāṭya-śāstra. Ārabhaṭī is primarily the Vṛtti of violence (auddhatya) as against grace (lālitya) of Kaiśikī. The Ārabhaṭī, as stated by Sāgara-nandin, is associated with heroic, terrible and marvellous feelings ; and rests on deceit, falsehood, arrogance, treachery and assault. It is doubtful whether Sāgara-nandin means to assign the Vīra and Adbhuta Rasas to Ārabhaṭī. Perhaps, only bhāvas are meant here. The point will be discussed later. It is further stated in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa that Ārabhaṭī is the Vṛtti of such situations as war, combat, magic illusion, tearing, leaping etc., yuddha - nityuddharājitā - māyā - chedana - plutādibhih - ārabhaṭī jñeyā.4 This appears to be based on the second definition of Ārabhaṭī quoted above from the Nāṭya-śāstra. Four varieties of Ārabhaṭī have been recognised, viz., Samkṣiptaka, Avapāta, Vastūtthāpana and Sampheṭa.

Samkṣiptaka

The Nāṭya-śāstra defines Samkṣiptaka as :

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

213

anvartha-silpa-yukto bahu-pustotthāna-citra-nepathyā / samkṣiptā-vastu-viṣayo jñeyo samkṣiptako nāma //5

Sāgarā-nandin gives almost an identical definition :

samkṣiptā-vastu-viṣayaḥ prayogāśrita-silpavān / bahu-pustotthāna-kṛtair-veṣair samkṣiptako mataḥ //6

Samkṣiptaka is samkṣiptā-vastu-viṣaya and this expression has variously been taken to mean by modern scholars as, consisting in brief arrangement of some matter,7 a matter summarily dealt with,8 condensed matter.9 But all these yield no sense. Ārabhaṭī is not the Vṛtti primarily of sūcya portions of the plot. So, the question of condensation or the like does not arise. Sāgarā-nandin also gives no explanation.

But Abhinava-gupta rightly interprets the expression as : samjñayā kṣiptāni vastūni viṣayo'syeti…/ He further states : tāni vastūni darśayati (anvartheti) /… prayojanena-nugatāḥ silpayuktāḥ kuśala-silpi-vracitāḥ, arthā yatra10 Thus Sam-kṣiptaka consists mainly in the presentation of symbolic objects (samjñayā…) which are artificially constructed for dramatic representations (prayogāśrita…). This presentation of symbolic objects includes many Pustas i.e., scenic appliances like models of chariot etc. shield, armours banners etc., as stated by Sāgarā-nandin.11 Varieties of dress also constitute another element of Samkṣiptaka.

The Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa records that according to some theorists the appearance of the second hero after the fall of the first one (pūrva-nāyaka-nāśenā-para-nāyaka-sambha-vah) is Samkṣiptaka, as illustrated in the installation of Vibhīṣaṇa to the throne after the death of Rāvaṇa.12 Daśa-rūpaka as interpreted by Dhanika, also state that Samkṣipti (Samkṣiptaka) consists 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 Paraśurāma's attitude from arrogance to quietude.

The use of Pusta, of course, has been accepted as a mark in another definition of Samkṣiptaka.13 Viśvanātha simply quotes Dhanika's comment.14 The Nāṭya-darpaṇa also accepts

214 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

the view as a variety of Ārabhaṭī.15 It has been pointed out before that the above is the characteristic of Narmagarbha according to Bharata, as informed by Śiṅga-bhūpāla. To the same effect a verse is also found in the Nāṭya-śāstra, of course without the commentary of Abhinava-gupta. It is practically impossible now to trace the origin of these conflicting views regarding the characteristics of Saṃkṣiptaka.

Avapāta

According to the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa, Avapāta is the behaviour of one totally bewildered (sarvathā viklavasya ceṣṭitam). It is a situation 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 definition of Avapāta as given in the Nāṭya-śāstra.17 Other theorists also maintain this view.18

Vastūtthāpana

Sāgara-nandin gives no definition but describes Vastū-tthāpana with illustrations and their exposition.19 Vastūtthā-pana consists in situations where different characters express different sentiments in connection with a single issue (nānā-rasa-yuktam bandhūnāṃ ceṣṭitam). It has been illustrated by Sāgara-nandin with reference to various behaviours expressive of different sentiments of those who were related to Madana and Rāma when they were encountered by Śambara and Paraśurāma respectively. This is the characteristic of Vastū-tthāpana according to the Nāṭya-śāstra20 also, which, however, adds that there may or may not be the element of panic (savidravā-vidravaśrayam vāpi).

Daśa-rūpaka gives quite a new definition of Vastūtthāpana according to which it consists in the creation of objects by magic (māyādyutthāpitam vastu). Viśvanātha and Śiṅga-bhūpāla maintain the same view.21 This view, evidently rests

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

215

on the meaning of the word vastūtthāpana i.e., creating of objects by magic, an element of Ārabhaṭī-vṛtti.

Sampheṭa

Sāgara-nandin closely follows the Nāṭya-śāstra and describes Sampheṭa as a tumultuous situation (sambhrama-mayah) where there may be much of fights, combats and intrigues (yuddha-niyuddhabahulalḥ kapāṭa-mayah) along with terrible clash of weapons.22 Daśa-rūpaka describes Sampheṭa simply as fighting of two angry persons, and this has been followed by Śiṅga-bhūpāla and Viśvanātha.23 Preponderence of the heroic, terrible and marvellous sentiments is another mark of Sampheṭa according to the Nātaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa.24

From a perusal of the characteristics of Sāttvatī and Ārabhaṭī as discussed above, it becomes clear that while the former is concerned with the delineation of such noble qualities as obedience to superiors, heroism etc., the latter is that of arrogance, treachery, deceit etc. The movements and gestures of characters on the stage in Sāttvatī should be restrained and dignified ; but in Ārabhaṭī those are required to be violent. There may be a bit of softness, an element of Kaiśikī, in Sāttvatī, but Ārabhaṭī is opposed to it.

III. Vṛtti and Rasa

That there has been a longstanding controversy regarding the distribution of Rasa-s among the Vṛtti-s is evidenced by a number of divergent readings available in respect of the two verses concerned of the Nāṭya-śāstra (GOS), as quoted below1 :

I) hāsya-śṛṅgāra-bahulā kaiśikī paricakṣitā / sāttvatī cāpi vijñeyā vīādbhuta-śamāśrayā //

II) raudre bhayānake caiva vijñeyārabhaṭī budhaiḥ / bībhatse karuṇe caiva bhāratī samprakīrtitā //

216

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Different readings in (I), first half :

hāsya-śṛṅgāra-karuṇair-vṛttih syāt kaiśikī rasaiḥ /

second half :

a) sāttvatī caiva vijñeyā vira-raudrādbhutaśrayā /

b) vīre cāpyadbhute caiva vṛttih syāt sāttvatī /

Different readings in (II), first half :

bhayānake ca bībhatse raudre ārabhaṭī bhavet /

second half :

a) bhāratī cāpi vijñeyā karuṇādbhutarūpayoḥ /

b) ......vīra-hāsyādbhutaśrayā

c) sarveṣu rasa-bhāveṣu bhāratī samprakīrtitā

The following conflicting views emerge out of the above regarding the assignment of Rasa-s to each of the Vṛtti-s in the Nāṭya-śāstra itself :

Rasas-s assigned to Bhāratī :

(i) Bibhatsa and Karuṇa

(ii) Karuṇa and Adbhuta

(iii) Vīra, Hāsya and Adbhuta

(iv) All Rasa-s

to Sāttvatī :

(i) Vīra, Adbhuta and Sama i.e. Śānta

(ii) Vīra, Raudra and Adbhuta

(iii) Vīra and Adbhuta

to Kaiśikī :

(i) Hāsya and Śṛṅgāra

(ii) Hāsya, Śṛṅgāra and Karuṇa

to Ārabhaṭī :

(i) Raudra and Bhayānaka

(ii) Raudra, Bhayānaka and Bibhatsa

Sāgara-nandin refers to a view that assigns Karuṇa and Adbhuta to Bhāratī (bhārati karuṇādbhute) and then quotes :

vīrādbhuta-prahasanairiha bhāratī syāt

sāttvatyapiha gaditādbhuta-vīra-raudraiḥ /

śṛṅgāra-hāsya-karuṇair api kaiśikī syād-

diṣṭā bhayānaka-yutārabhaṭī saraudrā //2

According to this view : Rasa-s of the Bhāratī are Vīra,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

217

Adbhuta and Hāsya ; to Sāttvatī are assigned Adbhuta, Vira and Raudra ; to Kaiśikī belong Śṛṅgāra, Hāsya and Karuṇa ; and to Ārabhaṭī,—Bhayānaka and Raudra. This is the view of the ācārya (ācārya-matam), as Sāgara-nandin puts it. He himself, however, maintains that Bharatī pervades all the Rasa-s (rasān sarvān iyam vrttir-bhāratī vyāpya tiṣṭhati), and that though there are four Vṛtti-s, it is in Bhāratī that the three others are united ; ekībhāvas tu sarvāsām bhāratyām eva dṛśyate.3 Now, by ācārya in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa, invariably Bharata has been referred to. But the verse quoted above as one of the ācārya is actually of Kohala as informs the editor of the GOS. edition of the Nāṭya-śāstra.4 Abhinava-gupta also remarks : yattu śṛṅgāra-hāsya-karuṇair-iha kaiśikī syād iti kohaloktam tan-muni-mata-virodhād-upekṣyam eva,5 i.e., the view of Kohala that assigns Śṛṅgāra, Hāsya and Karuṇa to Kaiśikī 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 Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-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 Nāṭya-śāstra”.6 It may be suggested that the above verse of Kohala found access to some version of the Nāṭya-śāstra from which Sāgara-nandin picked it up as the view of the ācārya, i.e., Bharata.

It has been shown above that according to Sāgara-nandin, Bhāratī is the Vṛtti of all Rasa-s, and that this is supported by a manuscript of the Nāṭya-śāstra, (cf. above IV under Rasa-s assigned to Bhāratī). So, the charge of limiting Bhāratī 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 Bhāratī noted above as available from the different readings of a verse of the Nāṭya-śāstra, Kohala agrees with the third one ; Sāgara-nandin refers to the second and third views but himself supports the fourth one that speaks of Bhāratī as the

218

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Vṛtti of all Rasas. Dhananjaya also maintains that Bhāratī is the all-pervading Vṛtti and Viśvanātha simply repeats what is said by Dhananjaya.8 Śiṅga-bhūpāla too, maintains the same view and says ; bhāratyāḥ sarva-rasa-sādhāraṇyam-upa-pannam-eva.9

Now, in the Nāṭya-vyāpāra Bhārati has been recognised as the vāg-vyāpara by all theorists. Without Bhāratī then, nāṭya can be comprehended as nothing more than the dumb show. So, Bhārati should be recognised as the Vṛtti of any and every Rasa. The Nāṭya-darpaṇa rightly observes : sarva-rūpaka-bhāvitvād rasānāṃ ca vāgjanyatvāt sarvarasasātmakatvam10 (bhāratyāḥ), i.e., Bhāratī 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 Nāṭya-śāstra regarding the ascription of Rasa-s to Sāttvatī. The divergent readings, however, give three views as shown above. But they all agree in assigning the Vīra and Adbhuta to Sāttvatī. Abhinava-gupta appears to accept the first view that recognises Sāttvatī as the Vṛtti of Vīra, Adbhuta and Śānta. The second view omits Śānta in its place. This is the opinion of Kohala and Sāgara-nandin. It is to be noted here that neither Kohala nor Sāgara-nandin recognises the Śānta-rasa. Like Sāgara-nandin, Śiṅga-bhūpāla also ascribes this view to Bharata.10a

It is also to be noted that in the definition of the Sāttvatī, as discussed before, the Nāṭya-śāstra (GOS) also says that Sāttvatī is ,—vīrāddhuta-raudra-rasā. The protagonists of the third view appear to have avoided the controversy and accepted Sāttvatī as the Vṛtti of Vīra and Adbhuta. Abhi-nava-gupta himself recognises this difference of opinions.

While commenting on sāttvatī cāpi...śamāśrayā (quoted above), he remarks that those who recognise Śānta-rasa read śamāśrayā, but those who do not, they replace Ś by S11, i.e., they read samāsrayā. It is to be remembered in this connection that Śama, according to some theorists is the Sthāyi-bhāva of the Śānta-rasa.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

219

In the definition of the Sāttvatī, as noted above, Sāgara-nandin further states that this Vṛtti is svalpa-karuṇa-śṛṅgāra,12 i.e. Sāttvatī comprises Karuṇa and Śṛṅgāra to a lesser degree. The KM. edition of the Nāṭya-śāstra accepts this reading and Dr M. M. Ghosh also supports.13 These two features of the Sāttvatī have been illustrated in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa as quoted below :

alpa-karuṇa yathā :

vivṛddhātmāpyagādo'pi durante'pi mahānapi / vāḍaveneha jaladhiḥ śokah krodhena pīyate //

svalpa-śṛṅgāro yathā :

priye tāvanna netrābhyāṃ pāśyāmyadya tavānanam / na dṛśo yāvadaśrūni vamanti ripu-yoṣitām //14

It is apparent that neither Karuṇa nor Śṛṅgāra is manifested in the above, it is Krodha that dominates over the both. Śoka and Śṛṅgāra in cases like the above can be said to attain nothing more than the status of the Vyabhicārī-s. The definition of Sāttvatī as accepted in the GOS. edition of the Nāṭya-śāstra, specifically prohibits Śṛṅgāra, Karuṇa and Nirveda in Sāttvatī (nirasta-śṛṅgāra-karuṇa-nirveda). In this context Abhinava-gupta remarks that there may be cases where in Sāttvatī Śṛṅgāra, Karuṇa and Nirveda may occur but never in a manifested state like Krodha, Viṣamaya and Utsāha.15 The expressions alpa-karuṇa and svalpa-śṛṅgāra together with the above two illustrations also suggest the same.

From the descriptions of the Kaiśikī by different theorists, as observed before, it appears that there is no difference of opinions so far as the ascription of Śṛṅgāra and Hāsya to this Vṛtti. A version of the Nāṭya-śāstra, as shown above, includes Karuṇa also as the Rasa of Kaiśikī, and this is the view of Kohala and Sāgara-nandin. Śiṅga-bhūpāla informs us that this is also the opinion of Rudraṭa, but he himself does not favour the idea of ascribing Karuṇa to Kaiśikī.15a Abhinava-

220

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

gupta seems to maintain that Karuna having wailing as its

feature, is to be ascribed to Bhāratī 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. Śṛṅgāra is undoubtedly the Rasa

of Kaiśikī, and Hāsya a derived Rasa from Śṛṅgāra as the

Nāṭya-śāstra maintains,17 certainly belongs to Kaiśikī. Karuna

with Śoka as its sthāyī-bhāva cannot be said to be compatible

with Kaiśikī. But Karuna-vipralambha is a subdivision of

the Śṛṅgāra itself and is fit to be ascribed to Kaiśikī. Thus

Karuna cannot be taken as totally incongruous with Kaiśikī.

It has been shown before that two views are available

regarding the Rasa-s of Ārabhatī from the readings of the

Nāṭya-śāstra. The first view that ascribes Raudra and

Bhayānaka to Ārabhatī is shared by Kohala and Sāgara-

nandin. The second view adds Bibhatsa with Raudra and

Bhayānaka.

Sāgara-nandin seems to lack consistency in his observa-

tions on the topic of the Rasa-s of Ārabhatī. So far as the

general principle of ascription of Rasa-s to different Vṛtti-s

are concerned, he follows Kohala but defines Ārabhatī as,—

vīra-raudrādbhutātmikā, and Sampheta a form of Ārabhatī as,—

vīra-raudrādbhuta-prāyair... Again, in a third occassion he

points out that the dipta-rasas like Raudra, Bhayānaka and

Bibhatsa belong to Bhāratī and Ārabhatī18. Bhāratī is the

Vṛtti of all Rasa-s. Raudra, Bhayānaka and Bibhatsa also

fit in well with the characteristics of Ārabhatī. But Vira and

Adbhuta are said to be the Rasa-s of Sāttvatī. These two

Rasa-s cannot be taken as compatible with Ārabhatī 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 Vṛtti. Thus Dhananjaya assigns Śṛṅgāra

te Kaiśikī, Vira to Sāttvatī, Raudra to Ārabhatī and all Rasa-s

to Bhāratī. Viśvanātha simply repeats what is said by

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

221

Dhanañjaya.19 Śiṅga-bhūpāla informs us that some scholars

explain the Bharatan verse that distributes Rasa-s to the Vṛttis

as simply a general rule and that they accept no binding

regulation in this matter :

kecittu tām imam ślokam bhāratīyam niyāmakam /

prāyikābhiprayatayā vyacakṣānā vicakṣaṇāḥ //

The Viṣṇudharmottara also maintains that the Bhāratī is vāk-

pradhāna, Sāttvatī is vīra-rasa-prāyā, Ārabhaṭī is raudra-pracārā

and Kaiśikī is śṛṅgārahāsya-bahulā.21

IV. Vṛtti and Rīti

The Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa recognises only three Rīti-s ;

Gauḍī, Vaidarbhī and Pāñcālī and distributes the Vṛtti-s

to these three. It assigns Bhāratī to all the Rīti-s, Sāttvatī

to Pāñcālī, Kaiśikī to Vaidarbhī and Ārabhaṭī to Gauḍī.1

The work avoids the exposition of Rīti-s. Sāgara-nandin

remarks in this connection that the exposition of Rīti-s is to

be done in the kāvyamīmāṃsā and that here it is avoided for fear

of the work becoming too long.2 From the manner of put-

ting, it appears that Sāgara-nandin himself intended to discuss

Rīti in a separate work entitled Kāvya-mīmāṃsā 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 simply that the

present work deals with dramaturgy and it is fit to treat Rīti

in a separate work.

There is no reference to the theory of regional distribution

of Rīti-s in the Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa. It may be noted

here that the concept of Rīti is absent in the Nāṭya-śāstra.

Probably, the concept developed later and in its origin it was

associated with regional literary manners.

The concept of Rīti 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 Vṛtti-s, Bhāratī is the speech. So, Bhāratī alone

is primarily related to the Rīti-s. This is exactly what

Sāgara-nandin means when he assigns all the Rīti-s to Bhā-

rati. It has been shown before that Sāgara-nandin assigns

all the Rasa-s also to Bhāratī and asserts that all other Vṛtti-s

are united to Bhārati. This is significant. Bhārati is the

speech and drama without speech is a mere dumb show. Three

other Vṛtti-s are certainly to depend on the Bhārati for re-

presentation. Now, Vaidarbhī according to the rhetoricians

is the Rīti per-excellence. So, it may reasonably be connected

with Bhāratī qualified by Kaiśikī. In excellence, Pāñcālī

comes next to Vaidarbhī and can be linked up with Bhāratī

cum Sāttvatī. Similarly, when Bhāratī is qualified by the

forceful Ārabhaṭī, it can be taken as associated with the

vigorous Rīti Gauḍī. This appears to be the opinion of

Sāgara-nandin. He divides Rasa-s into three groups3, viz.,

delicate or tender (mṛdu), inflamed (dipta) and moderate

(madhyama), and shows the co-relation of these three with

Vṛtti-s and Rīti-s in the following way :

i) The Rasa-s of the mṛdu group are Śṛṅgāra, Hāsya and

Karuna, and they belong to Bhāratī cum Kaiśikī

and come under the Vaidarbha-rīti (raseṣu śṛṅgāra-

kāruṇya-hāsa mṛdavah vaidarbha-rītibhājah bhāratī-kaiśikī-vṛtti-viṣayāḥ

The Raudra, Bībhatsa and Bhayānaka are dipta

Rasa-s (diptāḥ raudra-bībhatsa-bhayānakāḥ). They

have been assigned to Bhāratī cum Ārabhaṭī

(bhāratyārabhaṭī-viṣayah) and Gauḍī is their Rīti

(gauḍa-rīti-bhājāḥ).

iii) The third group, i.e., madhyama consisting of Vīra

and Adbhuta (madhyamau vīrādbhutau) has been

ascribed to Bhāratī cum Sāttvatī (bhāratī-sāttvati-

viṣayau). The Rīti of this group is Pāñcālī (pāñcāla-

rīti-bhājāviti).

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

223

V. Nature and Mutual Relation of the Vṛtti-s

The Nāṭya-śāstra says that the Vṛtti-s are the nāṭya-mātaraḥ, and that the ten types of plays (daśa-rūpa) have been evolved out of them through production (prayoga).1 Sāgar-nandin describes Vṛtti as : nepathye (a?) gīta-vādita-rasa-bhāvābhinava (ya?) ṇṭṭa-jātīnām kvāpi viśeṣe vartanam iti vṛttih kathita /.1a According to this description, Vṛtti in dramaturgy signifies a distinctive way of using the elements of nāṭya which are costume and make-up, both vocal and instrumental music, dance and expression of different emotions and feelings through acting (abhinaya). Dress, make-up, dance, music, etc., in drama are used in a distinctive way. Similarly, in our day-to-day life a particular feeling or sentiment is expressed in certain ways, but in nāṭya it should be expressed in a dramatic way. This description of Vṛtti has been taken up by Śubhaṅkara in his Saṅgīta-dāmodara.2

Sāgara-nandin further says : athavā vilāsa-vinyāsa-kramo vṛttir-iti, i.e., Vṛtti is the manner of arrangement of vilāsa. This definition of Vṛtti is exactly the same as is found in the Kāvya-mīmāṁsā of Rājaśekhara.3 It is obvious that the word vilāsa is not used here in its technical sense to denote either an aṅga of the second Sandhi or a mahāguṇa of the nāyaka or a ceṣṭālamkāra of the nāyikā. The context shows that the word is to be taken here to mean action in general. Bhoja-rāja also means the same when he says that Vṛtti is : ceṣṭā-viśeṣa-vinyāsa-kramah.4 Abhinava-gupta defines Vṛtti-s as mental, physical and verbal actions arranged in a suitable manner (kāya-vāṅ-manasāṁ ceṣṭā eva sahavaicitryeṇa vṛttayaḥ).5 In a drama actions are to be arranged dramatically so that æsthetic pleasure can be evoked in the mind of the audience.

The Nāṭya-darpaṇa defines Vṛtti as : puruṣārtha-sādhako vicitra-vyāparo vṛttih.6 Puruṣārtha 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 gain (artha)

224

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

and success in love affairs (kāma) are regarded as fruits in

this context. The said work further elucidates the point and

says that all the dramatic actions (nāṭya-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 Daśa-rūpaka, as interpreted by Dhanika, defines Vṛtti

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 Vṛtti as the vyāpāra-viśeṣa of the heroine

and others (nāyikādi).8

Drama is the imitation of human actions. The playwright

delineates these actions in a particular form and manner in his

work. The actors and actresses also represent these actions

in a particular way and this is called acting (abhinaya).

Indian theorists divide this abhinaya into four forms, viz.,

speech (vācika), gestures and postures etc. (āṅgika), certain

emotional expression (sāttvika), and dress, make-up and

accessories (āhārya). Drama or abhinaya consists of actions

both verbal (vāg-vyāpāra) and physical (kāya-vyāpara) with

both of which the mental action (mānasa-vyāpāra) is related

to as the giding factor. Now, the all-pervading Bhārati is

speech, i.e., verbal action which is called vācikābhinaya. In

the context of Vṛtti 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 in Indian dramaturgy as sāttvi-

kābhinaya. This form of abhinaya comes under Sāttvati-

Vṛtti.

Some physical actions in abhinaya are vigorous and force-

ful and it is the Ārabhaṭi-Vṛtti that stands for this aspect

of abhinaya.

The mild Kaiśiki-vṛtti includes all sorts of graceful and

gay physical actions.

The last two groups of physical actions in Sanskrit drama-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

turgy are known as āngikābhinaya, and this abhinaya consists

of clearly perceptible gestures and postures. Broadly speaking,

sāttvikābhinaya also consists of physical actions, and a question

may be raised here why in Indian dramaturgy it is differ-

tiated from the āngikābhinaya and is brought under a separate

head. A counter argument may also be poised here. Why

then vācikābhinaya is a separate form ? It is also physical

action in a sense. Sāttvikābhinaya as the term implies 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, i.e., 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, i.e. 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 sāttvikābhinaya. This is more

connected with mental action (mānoso-vyāpārah) than gross

physical actions. Abhinava-gupta has given a hint to the

point in explaining sattva of the Sāttvatī as mental affair and

this has already been noted above in connection with the

exposition of Sāttvatī-Vṛtti. Now, the fourth form of abhinaya,

i.e., the āhārya consists of costume, make-up and accessories.

It is a matter of common sense that this aspect of abhinaya is

related to all the four Vṛtti-s and also to other forms of

abhinaya. Thus the entire field of abhinaya is covered by the

four Vṛtti-s and that is why the Nāṭya-śāstra calls them the

mothers of nāṭya.

15

226

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

In nāṭya the four Vṛtti-s are interdependent. They are mutually associated, independent existence of a particular Vṛtti in nāṭya is not feasible. Thus, without verbal action, i.e., Bhāratī 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 Vṛtti. The point has been hinted at by Sāgara-mandin when he remarks that in four Vṛtti-s Bhāratī, Sāttvatī, Kaiśikī and Ārabhaṭī the speech, emotion, grace and physical action respectively predominate (yathā-kramaṃ ca vāk-sattva-līlā-vyāyāma-pradhānāḥ).9 But when in elucidation of this remark he says, āhāryaṃ kaiśikyāṃ,10 i.e., āhārya predominates in Kaiśikī, it sounds inconsistent. Dress, make-up and accessories are meant by āhārya which we know are related to all the Vṛtti-s. Special importance of āhārya in a particular Vṛtti cannot be conceded to. Abhinava-gupta has made the whole point clear. He says : anyonyam saṃvalitā vṛttayaḥ kevalaṃ kvacit kimcid adhikaṃ iti prādhānyena vyapadeśaḥ parivartate.11 The Nāṭya-darpana also recognises that the Vṛtti-s are mutually associated in drama and that the prominence of one above others in a particular portion of a play is the reason behind the ascription of that portion to that particular Vṛtti.12

Bhāratī, as we have seen, is the vāg-vyāpāra and is related to all the Rasas and Rīti-s. It pervades the entire play and it is only with the assistance of this vāg-vyāpāra that all other vyāpāra-s, i.e., Vṛtti-s get scope of representation. But to some later authorities beginning from Dhanika, this characteristic of Bhāratī has been lost sight of. They restrict the scope of Bhāratī to the prologue (Prastāvanā) only. Dhanika admits that Bhāratī is speech (śabda-vṛtti), but curiously enough he maintains that it is concerned to prologue and is to be discussed in that context (āmukhasaṅgatvāt tatraiva vācyā).13 Śiṅga-bhūpāla more emphatically asserts that

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

227

Bhārati is : prastāvanopayogitvāt sañgam tatraiva lakṣyate.14

According to the Daśa-rūpaka, the Sthāpaka-sūtradhāra after Pūrva-raṅga enters the stage to perform Prastāvanā and recites a verse containing hints to the plot of the play concerned. He may also describe a season and adopts the Bhārati.15 Prastāvanā thus, is not included in the Pūrva-raṅga and it begins with the Bhārati. From this Dhanika arrives at the conclusion that Bhārati is restricted to Prastāvanā.

The root of the above misconception is not easy to be found out. The Nāṭya-śāstra nowhere specifically says whether the Prastāvanā is included in Pūrva-raṅga or not. But Prarocanā, an aṅga of the Bhārati is recognised as the same of the Pūrva-raṅga.16 Other three aṅga-s of the Bhārati are Āmukha, Vīthī and Prahasana. Āmukha is another name of Prastāvanā.17 Vīthī and Prahasana are two separate types of play (rūpaka) of minor type (apūrṇāṅga). The aṅga-s of Vīthī can be employed in Prahasana also, so says the Nāṭya-śāstra.18 It is Mātrgupta who, as reported by Rāghava-bhaṭṭa, recommends : svair-aṅgair-cāpi vīthyaṅgaiḥ prakuryād amukham budhaḥ, i.e., some of the aṅga-s of the Vīthī can be employed in the Āmukha too. Sāgara-nandin quotes the entire verse without, however, mentioning the name of the source. Dhananjaya also maintains the same opinion.19 Of the five aṅga-s of Prastāvanā, two (Udghātyaka and Avalogita) are aṅga-s of the Vīthī also. Sāgara-nandin further recommends, certainly on the authority of the above view of Mātrgupta, the employment of Nālikā (another aṅga of Vīthī) in Āmukha.20 Thus it appears that all the aṅga-s of Bhā-ratī are connected with Pūrva-raṅga and Āmukha, 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 Vṛtti-s of physical action only. Bhārati was used in those shows in the form of prayers and introductory speeches by Sūtradhāras. This, Dr Raghavan maintains, explains

223

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

why Bhāratī has been restricted to the prologue only and called strī-varjitā and samskrta-pātha-yutā. In plain words, in the evolution of drama, speech element came after physical actions, and at the primary stage it was limited to prologues or introductions of the shows, and this is the reason why some theorists were tempted to restrict Bhārati to prologue only.

It is an accepted theory that dance preceded speech in the evolution of drama proper. But later theorists who restrict Bhārati to prologue cannot be credited as conscious of that evolution. They have simply followed the earlier works. But neither the Nātya-śāstra nor any other commentator like Abhinava-gupta, anywhere specifically states that Bhārati is restricted to Prastāvanā. Abhinava-gupta, as has been noted before, draws a distinction between Prarocanā and Āmukha of Bhārati and those of the prologue. It is more probable that Dhanika simply failed to understand the view of the Nātya-śāstra if he had any access to the same. Other theorists like Siṅga-bhūpāla simply followed Dhanika. It is more interesting to note that the Daśa-rūpaka itself does not specifically state that Bhārati is restricted to prologue. It discusses Bhārati in connection with the prologue, and this may be taken as due to the identity of the aṅga-s of both. Dhananjaya perhaps means to say that as the play proper begins with Prarocanā where there may be a reference to the story and as the same is an aṅga of the Bhārati the Sūtradhāra is to adopt Bhārati herefrom. Moreover, the necessity of a Sūtradhāra to introduce or interpret does not arise without a plot, i.e., well arranged story. So, it is difficult to accept with Dr Raghavan the existence of the presentation of such stories without words through the medium of dancing prior to the existence of drama proper. On the other hand, the prevalence of such shows presupposes drama with dialogue. Any way, the root of the above misconception regarding the scope of Bhārati lies primarily in the sameness of its aṅga-s with those of the prologue.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

229

The standpoint of the Nāṭya-śāstra regarding the scope of Bhāratī has been clearly explained by Abhinava-gupta. He means to say that as speech the Bhāratī pervades the entire drama (trailokya-vyāpinyā hi bhāratyāḥ); Prarocanā and Āmukha are parts of it (kaścid-amśah prarocanā-rūpah, evam āmukha-svabhāva ityādi).22 Moreover, as has been noted before, according to Abhinava-gupta chief characteristics only have been mentioned in Bharata's definitions of Vṛtti-s. There Bhāratī is defined as strī-varjitā saṃskṛta-pāṭha-yuktā. This is simply to give scope to the chief characteristics of Kaiśikī, as Abhinava-gupta puts it : strī-varjiteti kaiśikī-prādhānyāvakāśam gamayati. In Kaiśikī female characters predominate. The gracefulness of their Prakrit speeches (prākṛta-pāṭhya-lālityāt) also indicate Kaiśikī (kaiśikīm avaśyam ākṣipet).23 The Nāṭya-darpana makes the point more clear. It says that Bhāratī begins from Prarocanā and Āmukha where generally Sanskrit is found to predominate, but it pervades the entire drama even in cases of Prakrit speeches.24 Sāgara-nandin also admits of this all-pervading character of Bhāratī as has already been discussed.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

Chapter I

1 DR. I. 7.

2 NLRK. ll. 8-11. The NŚ. (GOS. XV. 126; XVI. 5) uses Kāvya and Nāṭya as synonyms.

3 NLRK. ll. 266 ; ll. 2283-2284.

4 NLRK. ll. 267-268. The verse, as it is, does not occur in any of the present versions of the NŚ. The first half is undoubtedly the same as that of V. No. 142 of 19th chap. of the NŚ. (GOS) and the second half seems to be similar to that of V. No. 144 of the same chapter. Ruci-pati in his com. on the An. rā. (p. 9) attributes the verse to Bharata and reads tadiyānukṛtiḥ in place of tasyāstvabhinayaḥ.

5 DR I. 7. avasthā-mukṛtir-nāṭyam.

6 NLRK I. 269 and. ll. 2282-2285.

7 NŚ. GOS. I. 15.

8 NŚ. GOS. I. 17; NLRK. ll. 17-18.

9 NŚ. GOS. I. 116 ; XIX. 143.

10 NLRK. ll. 25-26. The verse is also found in the Bhā-pra. (p. 222, ll. 16-17) where the reading of the first half is : api sidhyeta viduṣām etc. Śaṅkara in his Ra. ca. (Abhiśaku. p. 116) attributes the verse to Prajāpati. Another verse on the eulogy of Nāṭaka and attributed to Pitāmaha by Sāgara (NLRK. ll. 15-16) is also found in the said work and also in the Tippanī of Narahari in the same context as belonging to Prajāpati (Abhi-śaku, p. 116 and p. 296). This verse also, is found in the Bhā-pra. p. 238. ll. 2-3. Dr Raghavan informs that Bahu-rūpa Miśra in his gloss on the DR. reproduces the entire portion of the NLRK. ll. 14-26. NLRK. Eng. Tra., p. 60.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

231

The NŚ. itself and Abhi-bhā refer to Brahma in several places.

11 NLRK. 1. 2173.

12 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 1, itivṛttam tu nāṭyasya śarīram parikīr-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 : upādhyāyā ittham ahuḥ/iha trivi-dhayā prasiddhyā prasiddhatvam bhavati, amuka evamkāri amutra deśa iti. cf., ND. p. 24.

16 NLRK. ll. 32-33. prakhyātā-vastu-viṣayām. prakhyātodātta-nāyakam/rājarṣi-vamśa-caritam tathā divyāśrayotthitam//

The NŚ. (GOS. XVIII. 10) reads : divyāśrayopetam instead of divyāśrayotthitam of the NLRK., divyāśrayopetam according to Abhinavagupta means, “having divine helpers” Cf., Abhi-bhā. NŚ. GOS. Vol. II. P. 412. Full gloss on the expression divyāśrayotthitam in the NLRK is missing. The NLRK only says, divyānāṃ maheśvara-jimūtavāhanādinām 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. ll. 44-45, l. 2189.

18 NLRK. ll. 39-44.

19 NLRK. ll. 47-50. Śaṅkara in his Ra. ca. on the Abhi-śāku (p. 162) seems to have quoted from the NLRK. when he remarks : upāttam pratisamskṛtam ceti vṛttadvayam. Here Śaṅkara quotes : pañca pañca catuh-ṣaṣṭiś-catuh pañcaika-viṁśati/ṣaḍviṁśa-navatiryatra tadāhur-nāṭakam budhāḥ// ṣaḍviṁśa is obviously a corrupt reading : it should be �ṣat-trimśat, as in the exposition of the verse Śaṅkara himself states. The verse occurs in the NLRK. (ll. 1858-1859). Here the reading is aṣṭāika-viṁśati. 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 (l. 1857) saying ata evaocyate. At the conclusion of his exposition on the verse Śaṅkara

232

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

says, etacca vistareṇa ratnakośe kathitam. This ratnakośa

is undoubtedly the NLRK. Other instances of

Śaṅkara'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-vṛttā-śrayam-api kiñcid-

utpādya-vastu ca vidheyam nāṭakam-iti māṭṛguptena

bhāṣitam //

22 NLRK. Eng. Tra. p. 60.

23 Abhi-śāku. p. 9. It is apparent that Mg.'s description

'of Nāṭaka 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 NŚ. The NŚ.

does not specifically state anything regarding the main

Rasa of a Nāṭaka while Māṭṛgupta enjoins that either

Śṛṅgāra or Vira should be the main Rasa (1.4 in above

quotation). Later authorities perhaps, are influenced

by this dictum of Māṭṛgupta (Cf., Bhā-pra. p. 233. 1.3 ;

RS. III. 131 ; SD. VI. 10). Fifth and sixth lines of above

quotation are found in 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 1.1 ; SD. VI. 50 and below.

26 ND. p. 25.

27 NLRK. 1.34. NŚ. GOS. XVIII. 11. nānā-vibhūtibhir-

jutamṛddhi-vilāsādirguṇaiśca......//

28 NLRK. Eng. Tra. p. 60.

29 Bhā-pra. p, 200, 1.18.

30 NLRK. 11. 51-53.

31 NŚ. GOS. I. 19. itihāsa mayā stṣṭah etc. Abhi. bhā. on it

says, itihāso daśa-rūpakam.

32 NŚ. GOS. I. 57. yathā daityāḥ surair-jitāḥ.

33 NŚ. GOS. vol. I. P. 27. prabhu-paritoṣāya prabhu-caritam

kadācinnātye varṇanīyam-iti yathā daityāḥ surair-jitā ityetas-

māl-labhyata iti kecidāhuḥ|tadasat| .. na ca vartamāna-caritā-

nukāro yuktah|vineyānāṃ tatra rāga-dveṣa-madhyast(hā)dinā

tanmayī-bhāvābhāve prīterab(h)āvena vyutpatter-apyabhāvāt|

34. NŚ. GOS. Vol. II. P. 413. tena vartamāna-rāja-caritam

ca avarṇanīyam eva, tatra viparīta-prasiddhi-bādhayā adhyā-

ropasya akiñcitkaratvāt.......|etadarthameva prakhyāta-gra-

hanam prakarṣa-dyotakam punah punarupāttam |

35. NŚ. GOS. Vol. II. P. 412. naca sarvathā deva-caritam

tathā avarṇanīyam/... ...prakarī-paṭ(ā)kā-nāyak(ā)di-rūpena......

añgī-karaṇam........

yadi tu mukhyatvenai(va) deva-caritam varṇyate tat-tāvadvi-

pralambha-karuṇ(ā)dbhuta-b(h)ay(ā)nak(a)-rasocitaṃ cen-nibadhya-

te tan-mān(u)ṣa-caritam-eva sampadyate|......nāyikā tu

divyāpyavirodhini... |

36. ND. (p. 25) takes king to mean one belonging to the

Kṣatriya class and not an actually coronated king, as

princes are very often found to be depicted as heroes

in Nāṭakas.

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 Abhi-bhā. (p. 430)

anārṣaṃ iti purāṇ(ā)di-vyatirikta-b(r)hatkath(ā)-dyupanibaddhaṃ

mūladeva caritādi | āhāryam iti pūrvakavik(ā)yād-v(ā)-āharanī-

yaṃ samudradata-ceṣṭit(ā)di |

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-kathā as an ārṣa source. This lost work,

perhaps, was not the source of the plot of the Mudrā-

rākṣasa, as we have it. (See HSL. Cal. Uni. p. 265,

I-68. p. 34), brhatkathā-mūlam mudrā-rākṣasaṃ, and quotes

two verses which are obviously interpolated from

Kṣemendras Brhatkathā-mañjarī (II. 216, 217) (HSL.

p. 265. fn. 2). The story of the defeat of the Nandas

through the stratagem of Cāṇakya and the installation

234

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

of Candragupta, however, find mentions in the Viṣṇu-

purāṇa (IV. 24), Pariśiṣṭaparvan (VIII. 253-54) and some

other minor works. cf. PHAI. Pp. 265-270.

Traditional accounts of the fall of the Nandas and the

rise of the Mauryas are preserved in the ārṣa source like

the Purāṇas 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 is the subject-matter of the drama.

The entire plot may in a sense, be said to be invented

by Viśākhadatta. Moreover, according to Ag. Bṛhatkathā

is an anārṣa source, as pointed out before. How then

Ag. himself calls it a Nāṭaka cannot be explained.

41

Keith, The Skt. Dr. P. 254.

42

NŚ. GOS. Vol. II. P. 436. ghaṇṭakādayastvāhuḥ nāyako

nṛpatirityetāvan-mātraṃ nāṭakādāvupajivitah na tu prakhyā-

tatvamapi /

43

NLRK. 11.51-52.

44

NŚ. GOS. I. 114-115.

45

Sāgarikā, 1st. yr., 2nd issue, P. 170.

46

NŚ. GOS. XVIII. 12 ; NLRK. 11. 37-38.

47

NŚ. GOS. XIX. 1 ; NLRK. 1.216. itivṛttam hi nāṭyasya

śarīram parikīrtitam

48

NŚ. GOS. VI below verse 31. na hi rasādṛte kaścidarthah-

pravarttate

49

NSRK. 11. 1732-1733. ato'nyathāvṛttiṣu paṇḍiteṣu

na dandamākarṣuti śāstrakāraḥ /

50

NLRK. 11. 27-30. NS. GOS. XIX. 145. also mss. readings

given there. The Tippanī of Narahari on the Abhi-śaku

(P. 295) reads nāṭya. Śaṅkara in his commentary on the

same (P. 162) reads the verse as it is found in the NLRK.

The Viṣṇudharmottara-Purāṇa (Khaṇḍa III, Adhyāya

17, V. No. 7) also says, caritam tridaśānāṃ vā nāṭakaṃ

tattra kīrtitam/

51

52

NŚ. GOS. XVIII. 10.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

53 Cf. Supra. fn. 15.

54 NŚ. GOS. Vol. II. Pp. 411-412.

prakhyāte bhāratādau yad-vastu tadviṣayo'sya, tatrāpi kiñcid-aprasiddham bhavati, tan-nirākaraṇāya prakhyāto-kiñcid-aprasiddham|......upadhyāya itthamāhuḥ......evam tāvad-datteti śrīsaṅkukaḥ||

dve prasiddhe ukte, prakhyātodāttetyanena tṛtīyā prasiddhir-uktā/udātta iti vīra-rasa-yagya uktaḥ|| tena dhīralalita-dhīra-prasānta-dhīroddhatā-dhīrodāttāḥ catvāro' -pi gṛhyante /

55 LPSD. Vol. I. Pp. 4-5.

56 NŚ. GOS. XXIV. 18-19.

57 NLRK. II. 260-262.

58 NLRK. II. 262-264. The printed text reads : pādacāreṣu boddhavyāḥ tatra ta iti. Dr Raghavan rightly suggests that pādacāreṣu is a curruption for upacāreṣu. NLRK. Eng. Tra. P. 72.

59 NŚ. GOS. Vol. II, P. 414.

60 NŚ. GOS. Vol. II. P. 414. yat-tu paṭhitam tatra dhīra-lālitatvam rājñā eva varṇanīyam nānyasya, senāpatya-mātyayor-dhīrodāttatvam-eva, devānām dhīroddhatatvam-eva, dvijātīnām dhīra-prasāntatvam-eveti, evam param draṣṭavyamata eva prakhyāto-dāttetyaatra catvāro'-pi nāyakāḥ svīkṛtā iti vyākhyeyam /

61 ND. I. 7, cf. also the commentary on p. 26. eva varṇanīya iti sva-yogavyavastāpakatvenaivāvadhāryate nānyayogavyavacchedena|

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 jīmūtavāhanāder-dhīrodāttatvam-iti|

66 ND. P. 26. ye tu nāṭakasyā netāraṃ dhīrodāttam eva pratijānate, na te munisamayādhyavagāhinaḥ, nāṭakeṣu dhīra-lālitādīnām-api nāyakānām darśanāt kavi-samaya-bāhyāśca. This criticism is solely based on the traditional interpretation of the term Dhīrodātta and the writers seem to have turned a deaf ear to the new interpretation of the term given by Dhanika.

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. II. 54-58. NŚ. GOS. XIX, 7,8.

3 NLRK. I. 102.

4 NLRK. II. 103-108.

5 NLRK. I. 109, for Rāghavābhyudaya see infra. f.n. 8 under Bindu, chap. III.

6 NLRK. I. 59. This is after the NŚ. GOS. XIX. 9. autsukyamātra-bandhas tu yadbijasyā nibadhyate/mahataḥ phala-yogasyā sa phalārambha iṣyate // It is interesting to note that RB. (Abhi-śaku. P. 15) attributes this verse to Ādibharata. Bhā-pra. (P. 206 ll. 5-6) gives the same definition.

7 NLRK. II. 59-65. The illustration is evidently from a lost Rāma-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. śakuntalāyāḥ kṣatreṇa parigrāhya-kṣamatva-taḥ ārambo'-samśayaṃ kṣatretyādi duṣyanta-bhāṣite//

9 RŚ. 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. pradhānabhūtasya phalasya...tat-tannāyakocitasyā yadbījam upāyasampat tasya yadautsu-kyamātraṃ tadviṣayā-smaraṇotkanṭhānurūpam...tasya bandho hṛdaye nirudhiḥ prārabbhaḥ, sa ca nāyakasyāmātyasya nāyikāyaḥ pratināyakasyā daivasyā vā /

13 ND. P. 44. phalaṃ mukhyaṃ sādhyaṃ tadartham autsukyam upāviṣayaṃ anenopayenaitat sidhyatīti smaraṇotkanṭhādikarma tadanuguṇo vyāpāraścobhayam ārambhaḥ |

14 NLRK. I. 66. NŚ. GOS. XIX. 10. RB. attributes (Abhi-śaku. P. 69) this verse to Ādi-bharata.

15 NLRK. II. 67-68. There are six more citations from this Act in the NLRK. below ll. 205, 942, 1752, 1817,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

237

3076, 3112. Dr Raghavan informs us (NLRK. Eng. Tra. P. 61) that Kulapatyanka is the Act of the lost Rāma play Udātta-rāghava of Amoghavarṣa Māyurāja, of which a manuscript has been luckily discovered by him (SOLRP. Intro. P. XIII). It is curious that the name of the drama itself has not been mentioned by Sgn. The Bhā-pra. cites this Ańka twice (P. 202. l. 1, p. 279. l. 10) which occur also in the NLRK. in the same contexts, (ll. 205-207 ll. 3110 respectively). Śdt. also does not mention the name of the drama. Viśvanātha also cites from the Kulapatyanka in two cases and both these citations occur in the NLRK. in similar contexts (SD. p. 353 and NLRK. ll. 205-207. SD. p. 420, NLRK. l. 1752). In other two cases where the name of the drama Udātta-rāghava has been mentioned the SD. seems to have followed Dhanika (SD. p. 331, DR. p. 63. SD. p. 398, DR. p. 60). Dhanika 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-viṣaya-smaranecchāsan-tāna-svabhāvah /

ND. p. 45. autsukyamātramārambhah, paramautsukyam prayatna ityarthah /

17 Avaloka, DR. p. 5. phalasyāprāptāvupāya-yojanādirūpa-śceṣṭā-viśeṣah prayatnah / yathā ratnāvalyām-ālekhyābhi-lekhanādir-vatsa-rāja-samāgamonpāyah /

18 SD. p. 354. VI. 72.

19 RS. p. 214, III. 24; NC. p. 10.

20 Bhā-pra. p. 206, ll. 7-8 and 19-20.

21 NLRK. ll. 69-70. NŚ. GOS. XIX. ll. iṣatprāptir-yadā kācit phalāsya parikalpyate / bhāvamātrena taṃ prāhurvi-dhijñāḥ prāpti-sambhavam //

22 Bhā-pra. p. 206, ll. 9-10.

23 NLRK. ll. 70-75. Dr Raghavan informs us that this is the Act IV of the Udātta-rāghava(NLRK. Eng. Tra. p. 61). This Act has been referred to in the NLRK. below

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. prāptyāśā tu mahārthasya siddhi-

sadbhāva-bhāvanā /

25 NC. Pp. 10-11.

26 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 7. bhāvah upāyah, tasyā saha-

kāryantarayogah pratibandhaka-vāranam ca mātra-

padenāvdharitam ....... sambhāvanā-yogyatvamasambhāvanā-

viśistatvam nāma tṛtīyā karturavasthā /

Cf. Supra, below Five Avāsthās.

28 ND. p. 45.

29 DR. I. 21. Avaloka. p. 6 ; SD. VI. 72.

30 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 12. niyatām tu phala-prāptim yadā bhavena

paśyati / niyatām tām phala-prāptim saguṇām paricakṣate //

RB. in his Arthadyotanikā (Abhi-śaku. Pp. 168-169)

attributes the verse to Ādibharata. The Bhā-pra. (p.

206. 11.11-12) also seems to have adopted this description

of Niyatāpti but the reading there is currupt.

31 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 7. sāmegrim yadā...mukhyopāyena

niyantritam phalāvya-bhicāriṇīm pāśyati. ND. p. 46.

32 NLRK. 1.76. This is evidently from the NŚ. excepting

the portion “yadābhāvena” etc., as quoted above.

33 NLRK. 11. 78-81.

34 NLRK. 1,83. The NŚ. counts one Aśmakuṭṭa among hun-

dred sons of Bharata (NŚ. GOS. I. 33). Like some other

Bharataputras Aśmakuṭṭa was perhaps an ancient ācārya

on dramaturgy. The NLRK. refers to his views in

connection with important topics like Niyatāpti as men-

tioned above and also Cūlikā and Toṭaka 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 Jānaki-rāghava. The drama appears

to have depicted the Rāma story beginning from his

forest life up to the recovery of Sītā. From the number

of citations from this drama in the NLRK. Dr Raghavan

(SOLRP. p. 60) suggests that Sāgara 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. itself from 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 Viśvanātha, occurs in the NLRK. (ll. 747-748) in the same context as in SD. as an illustration of Anumāna, an aṅga of the Garbha-sandhi. Now, the Jānaki-rāghava, referred to so many times by Sgn. finds no mention in the Abhi-bhā. DR. ND. Bhā-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. I. 89. NŚ. GOS. XIX. 13, abhipretam samagram

ca pratirūpam kiriyāphalàm / itivṛtte bhāvedyasmin

phalayogah prakirttitah // It is interesting to note that RB. attributes (Abhi-śaku, p. 230) this verse to Mātr-gupta. The Bhā-pra. (p. 206. ll. 13-14) reads the third foot of the verse differently.

40 NLRK. II. 90-100.

41 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 8 ; ND. p. 46.

42 DR. I. 22 ; SD. VI. 73 ; NC. p. 11.

43 Bhā-pra. p. 159. ll. 11-12. abhiṣṭārthaparipako netra-der athavā kaveḥ / drumādiphalavad-yatra svādyate tat phalam bhavet //

44 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 5. Abhi-bhā. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 4. kaviryat phalam utkarṣeṇe vivakṣati tat pradhānaphalam/

45 JOI. Vol. V. No. 4 p. 374.

240

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Chapter III

1 NLRK. ll. 218-219 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 2.

2 NLRK. ll. 222-224 ; 228-229 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 3,5.

3 NLRK. ll. 225-226.

4 NLRK. l. 227 .. anyastvāha / kathāyām eva kathāntaram upakārakṛd ānusaṅgikam iti /

5 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p.12. arthak phalam tāsya prakṛ-tayah upāyāḥ phalahetava ityarthah / tadetaịh pañca-bhīrupāyaiḥ pūrṇaphalam niṣpāḍyate / For an exposition of Abhinavas division of Arthaprakṛtis into two groups viz., Inanimate and Animate ; the first comprising the Bīja and Kārya 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. l. 22 ; p. 205. l. 1.

9 Kumarasvamin in his com. on the PRYB (p. 104) says : arthaprakṛtayah prayojanasiddhi-hetava iti kecit / kathā-śarīrasya kāraṇāniti bhoja-rājadayāḥ / Śṛ-pra. Vol. II. Chap. XII. p. 48. kathā-śarīropādānā-kāraṇabhūtāḥ pañcārthaprakṛtayo bhavanti / arthaprakṛtayaḥ pauṃca kathādehasya hetavaḥ / This definition of Bhojadeva also supports our suggestion regarding the reading of the above line of the Bhā-pra.

10 NLRK. ll. 131-13. Śaṅkara is his Rasa-candrikā (p. 162) seems to have followed the NLRK. when he says : arthasya prakṛtayaḥ svabhāvāḥ.

11 NLRK. ll.132-133. naitān parityājya nāṭakārthāḥ sambhavanti|

12 NC. p. 9.

13 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 20. itiṛtte yathāvasthāḥ pañcāram-bhā-dikāḥ smṛtāḥ / arthaprakṛtayaḥ pañca tathā bijādikā api //

14 NŚ. GOS. III. p. 12.

15 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 12. f.n. 1. idamardham ta-pa-ḍa-da-na-ba-ya mātṛkāsu na vartate /

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

241

16 See Infra (D). Relation among the three pentads.

Bija (Germ)

1 NLRK. l. 136. also l. 538. bijam nāṭakāsya phalabhūtāsya hetuḥ.

2 NLRK. ll. 137-138. kiñcinmātram samuddiṣṭam bahudhā yad-visarpati/yāvac phalāvasānam ca tad-bijam iti kīrtitam // NŚ. GOS. XIX. 22. RB. attributes (Abhi-śaku. p. 15) this definition of Bija to Ādi-bharata. Bhoja also (Śr. pra. Chap. XII. p. 432) defines the Bija as,—alpa-mātram upakṣiptam bahudhā yad visarpatī / phalāvasānam yacca syāt tad bijam iti sañjñitam //

3 DR. I. 17 ; ND. p. 37. I. 29 ; Bhā-pra. p. 2 4. ll. 4-5 ; SD. VI. 65-66 ; RS. III. 8-9 ; NC. p. 9.

4 NLRK. ll. 139-140. kṭmcit stokam śleṣa-chāyopakṣepapra-bhrtiviraṅgaịḥ samuddiṣṭam kathitam /

5 NLRK. ll. 144-145.

6 NLRK. ll. 548-550.

7 V-sam. Ed. Jivananda, Calcutta 1934, p. 8.

8 NLRK. ll. 145-147.

9 Dr Sukumar Sen (Bāṅgālā Sāhityera Itihāsa, Ed. III, Pt. I. p. 33) and Dr Niharranjan Roy (Bāṅgālīra Itihāsa, p. 745) maintain that Sāgarandin’s homeland was Bengal.

10 Cf. Dr Raghavan, NLRK. Eng. Trā. p. 61.

11 NLRK. ll. 148-152.

12 NLRK. ll. 154-158. arthopasthāpana is not the giving rise to an idea as taken by M. Dillon in his translation of the NLRK. artha is plot and arthopasthāpana is the act of introducing the plot.

13 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 13.

14 NLRK. ll. 141-143. anyastvāha/iṣṭārtha-sādhanam bijam uptam utpatram uddhatam/anviṣṭam phalitam pañcasandhiṣtham darśayet kramāt / The printed text reads utpātam and pañca-sandhisthām which may be amended as utpatram and pañcasandhiṣṭhām

16

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

pañcasandhistham respectively, as suggested by Dr Ragha-van.

Bhā-pra. p. 204. ll. 9-10 ; RS. p. 210. III. 9-10. Dhanika (DR. p. 5) also says : bijavad-bijam. Bhoja expands this

metaphor (Śr. Pra. Chap. XII. p. 482) yathā bijam

uptamankura-mūla-prakānda-patra-skandha-śākhā-praroha-pallava-puṣpādinā prakāreṇa bahudhā visarpadante phalāya kalpate tathā yo mahāvākyārtho nāyakopanāyaka ..........

sahāyādi-vyāpārabhedād bahudhā visarpannante phalāya jāyate sa bijam ityucyate /

16

RB. Abhi-śakau. p. 15. kvacit kāraṇamātraṃ tu kvacitca

phaladarśanaṃ / kvacidārambhāmātraṃ tu phalam uktvā

kriyā kvacit // vyāpāraśca viśeṣoktaḥ kvacidvā phalasādha-kaḥ / bahudhā rūpakeṣvevaṃ bijarūpeṇa dṛśyate // phale

yasya hi samhāraḥ phalabijam tu tad bhavet / vastu-bijam

kathā jñeyā artha-bijam tu nāyakaḥ // Dr Raghavan points out (NLRK. Eng Tra. p. 7) that Raṅganātha in

his commentary on the Vik-u. has quoted Mg.'s observa-tion on Bīja. But the same is found in the RB's commen-tary, as given above, and not in the commentary of

Raṅganātha on the Vik-u.

17

Bhīma is the hero of the V-Sam., though arguments in favour of Yudhiṣṭhira may also be adduced. Śāradā-tanaya supports the case of Bhīma. Cf. Bhā-pra. p. 207.

1. 2. bhīmasya veni-samhāre phalayogo'tra darśitaḥ /

18

Cf. Abhi-bhā. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 13. tatra cakra-varttiputralābho munijanāśirvacana-dvāreṇa phalasvabhāva-syaivabhijnāna-sakuntale /

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 similar type.

20

Abhi-bhā. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 13., ND. pp. 37-38.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

243

Bindu (Sign of continuity)

1 NLRK. ll. 162-163. prayojanānām vicchede yad aviccheda-kāraṇam / yāvat samāptim kāryasya sa bindur-iti kathyate //

NŚ. GOS. XIX. 23. reads the second half as : yāvat samāptir-bandhasya....... The verse is quoted in the commentary on the An-rā. (p. 11) by Rucipati, there the reading differs from that of the both above. RB. arttibutes (Abhi-śaku. p. 69) this verse to Ādi-bharata.

2 NLRK. ll. 164-165.

3 NLRK. ll. 166-172.

4 Bhā-pra. p. 204. ll. 13-14 ; RS. p. 210. III. 11, gives almost a similar definition of Bindu. The DR. also means the same in (I. 17), avantarārtha-vicchede bindur-accheda-kāraṇam / The SD (VI. 66) follows the DR.

5 Bhā-pra. p. 204. l. 17.

6 NLRK. ll. 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 occasional reference to the main motif of action etc.” Cf. LPSD. p. 86.

8 NLRK. ll. 174-182. Rāghavābhyudaya is 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. l. 1796 and SD. (below VI. 210), the illustration of the alaṅkāra Nivedana. For details of the drama see SOLRP. p. 74 ff. Rucipati (An-rā. p. 11) also points out that lākṣāgṛthānā... of the V-sam is Mānalakṣaṇo Bindu. M. Dillon (NLRK. p. 69. f.n. 2) informs us that a verse, stated by Sāgara (ll. 1660-1663) as taken from the Rāghavābhyudaya, is found to be attributed to Viśākhadatta in the Sadukti-karnāmṛta (l. 46.5). This may simply be taken to be a case of error and from this the drama cannot be assigned to Viśākhadatta.

244

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

9 Bhā-pra. p. 204. ll. 15-16.

10 NLRK. ll. 183-185.

11 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 13. prayujyate phalam yairupāyā-nuṣṭhānaih teṣām itivrtta-vaśād-avaśyakartavyatādibhir-vicchēde 'pi sati yadanu-sandhānātmakam pradhāna-nāyaka-gataṃ sandhi-dravyajñānaṃ binduḥ / 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 Abhi-bhā. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 14 ; Cf. ND. p. 41.

13 Cf. supra, f.n. 4.

14 Abhinava also seems to have partially supported this view when regarding the Bindu (NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 14) he says : tathā hi tāpasa-vatsarāje vāsavadattā-premā-nuṣandhānām rājamukhena pratyañkam darśitam /

15 NŚ. GOS. Vol. II. p. 423. pratyañkāntaṃ yo binduḥ anu-sandhānābhidhāyi-vākyam / Cf. ND. p. 31, purvottara-yorñkayor-asambaddhārthatvaṃ mā bhūd-itt pūrvāñkasyānte bindu-nibandhanīyaḥ / DR. III. 37. bindur-ante tu bijavat.

16 This also seems to be the view of Kohala. Śdt. (Bhā-pra. p. 236. l. 18) records that Kohala prescribes the use of Bindu at the close of an Añka (bindurante ca).

17 Cf. Mā-ag. Bombay Sanskrit series no. 6. 1889. NLRK. ll. 159-161. Bhoja maintains a similar idea, Śr. pra. (Vol. II), p. 482.

18 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 14, tailabinduvat sarvavyāpakatvāt / Dhanika, (DR. p. 5) bindurjale tailabinduvat prasāritvāt /

19 An-rā. p. 11, tailabinduryathā toye svasaktyā vyāpya tiṣṭhati / kāvyāñgāni tathā binduḥ sandarśya mukhyatā (ām ?) vrajet //

20 RS. p. 210. III. 12.

Patākā (Episode)

1 Dhanika DR. p. 4 ; Bhā-pra. (p. 201, ll. 11-12) Includes Patākā-sthānaka also as a subdivision of the Prāsañgika

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

245

vṛtta. The matter will be taken up in connection with

our discussion on the Patākāsthānakas.

2 NLR.K. ll. 186-188.

3 Abhi-bhā. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 15. patākāvadyogi-tvādiyam patāketi cirantanāḥ /

4 Avaloka. DR. p. 4 ; RŚ. pp. 210-211.

5 NLR.K. 189-190. yad-vṛttam hi parārtham syāt pradhā-nasyopakārakam / pradhāna-vacca kalpeta patākā sābhi-dhīyate // NŚ. GOS XIX. 24.

6 NLR.K. ll. 193-194.

7 NLR.K. ll. 195-198. According to Mg. (NLR.K. 1.465)

mitra-sampat is Patākā, but this mitra-sampat belongs to

whom has not been stated.

8 Bhā-pra. p. 201. ll. 14, 16 ; RŚ. p. 211.

9 Abhi-bhā. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 15 ; Avaloka. DR. p. 4.

Cf. also DR. II. 8, and Avaloka p. 40:

10 SD. below VI. 67, yathā-rāmacarite sugrīvādeḥ, venyāṃ-bhīmādeḥ, śākuntale vidūṣakasyā caritam / Bhīma may be

called the hero of the drama according to modern taste.

Śāradātanaya actually calls him so as has already been

pointed out.

11 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 15, parasyā prayojana-sampattaye

bhavadapi sva-prayojanam sampādayati /

12 Bha-pra. p. 201. l. 15 ; ND. p. 39 ; RS. p. 210 ; NC. p. 9.

13 DR. I. 13. prāsangikaṃ parārthasya svārtho yasya prasanggaṅ-

gataḥ /

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-āvimarśād-veti

pratimukhe garbhe yadi vā / yam artham vyāpya nivartate

patāketivṛttam tāvatyeva patākā-nāyakasya svaphalā-upa-nibandhanīyā, siddha-phalāstvasau pradhāna-phala eva

vyāpriyamānā āsino'pi bhūta-pūrva-gatyā patākā-śabda-vācyo

na mukhyatvena / .......vinipāta-pratikāra-pradhāna—(Text

reads...pratikarah pradhāna-vimarsā etc., which seems to

246

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

be currupt) vimarśa-sandhau prastutopayogaḥ patākayāḥ |

It is evident that Abhinava attaches much importance

to the Svārtha-lābha of the Patākā-nāyaka.

The correctness of the portion pratimukhe garbhe yadi

va of the text is questionable. Abhinava further says

that ān in āgarbhād etc., of the above is to be taken in the

sense of abhividhi and criticises the view that takes it in

the sense of maryādā as untenable. Cf. (p. 18) abhividhāvān |

ye tu maryādāyām tām vyācakṣate te na samyagamaṃsata |

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 muninoktam-āgarbhād-vā vimarśād-vāpatākā

vinivartate | iti tatra patāketi patākā-nāyaka-phalaṃ, nir-

vahaṇa-paryantam api putākāyāḥ pravrtti-darśanāt, iti vyā-

khyātam abhinavaguptā-padaiḥ |

19 ND. p. 39, yadā maryādāyām-ān tadā āmukha-pratimukha-

garbhān, yadā punarabhividhaụ tadā vimarśam abhivyāpya

viramati | tāvatyeva patākā-nāyakasya svaphala-siddhir-ni-

baddhyate | nirvahaṇa-sandhāvapi tat-phale nibadhyamāne tulya-

kalayor upakāryopakārakatvābhāvāt na tena pradhānasya-

pakāraḥ syāt /

20 NLRK. ll. 194-195.

21 M. Dillon translates the above statement of Sgn. as,—

"And it is completed in the garbha juncture or in the

avamarśa juncture. This is not to be carried through to

the very end. Cf, NLRK. Eng. Tra. p. 11. But syntacti-

cally the pronoun sā in Sāgara's statement undoubtedly

refers to Patākā, and etat through iti refers to saca......

nivartata. The sentence thus means,—(The statement)

that Patākā comes to an end in the Garbha or Vimarśa,

should not be taken as ātyantika, universal rule to be

observed.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

247

Prakarī (Incident)

1 NLRK. ll. 201-205. NŚ. GOS. XIX. 25, Bhā-pra. p. 201. ll. 19-20.

2 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 15. prakarṣeṇa svārthānapekṣayā karotīti /

3 ND. p. 41. patākāvad-anavaśyambhāvitvam /

4 SD. VI. 69 ; RS. p. 210. III. 14 ; NC. p. 9.

5 NLRK. l. 199.

6 Bhā-pra. p. 202. ll. 4-5. sobhāyai vaidikādīnām yathā puṣpā-kṣatādayah|tathātra varṇanādistu prubandhe prakarer-bhavet//

The RS. (p. 211) quotes the above from the Bhā-pra. but reads the second half as : tathā tu varṇanādistu prasaṅgau prakarī bhavet /

RB. also quotes from the Bhā-pra. the same passage with a different reading of the second half of the verse yielding a new meaning. Abhi-śaku. p. 168,—arthatu-varṇanādistu prasaṅge prakarī bhavet. On the authority of this reading RB. calls the description of the spring season in the Act. VI. of the Abhi-śaku as Prakarī. The contention that the description of a season in a relevant place is Prakarī is quite a new idea. But how a simple description can be taken to be an Arthaprakṛti is not known to us.

7 NLRK. ll. 205-207 ; SD. p. 353 ; Bhā-pra. p. 202. l. 1.

8 ND. p. 41.

9 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 15.

Kārya (Denouement, Object, Purpose to be achieved)

1 NLRK. ll. 209-210. yadar-the kāvya ārambhaḥ (kāvyāram-bhaḥ ?) siddhe yasmin samāpanam / ānusangika-sampannam tat kāryam iti kathyate //

The SD. (VI. 69-70, p. 353) gives a very similar description of Kārya, āpekṣitām yat sādhyaṁ ārambo yannii-

248 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

bandhanah / samāpanam tu ya siddhyai tat kāryam iti sammatam / It may be pointed out here that according to this definition, the Kārya cannot be called a prayojana-siddhi-hetu, as maintained by Viśvanātha himself (Cf. SD. p. 353). In that case the purpose and the means become the same thing.

2 NLRK. ll. 211-215. yadā bha-rataḥ :

yadādhikārikam kāryam pūrvameva prakirtitam / tadartho yaḥ samā-rambha-stat kāryam iti 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 kāryam of the NLRK. But the reading of the NLRK. is supported by one ms.(ya).

RB. quotes the verse in his Arthadyotanikā (Abhi-śaku. p. 230) and attributes it to Mātrgupta. RB's reading tallies with that of the GOS. text.

3 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 2. quoted in the NLRK. ll. 218-219.

4 NLRK. ll. 257-261.

5 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. pp. 15-16...cetanaiḥ kāryate phalam iti vyutpatyā (kāryam) / ...tena janapada-kośa-durgādika-vyāpāra-vaicitryam sāmādyupāya-varga ityetat sarvam kārye antar-bhavati / tatra param prathama-parigṭhitah pradhāna-bhūto'bhyupāya bijatvenoktaḥ /

6 ND. p. 42.

7 JOI. Vol. V. No. 4. p. 373. Cf. Abhi-bhā. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 55. bija-kāryopagamanam-ādānam-iti bija-phalasyā-samīnatā-bhāvanam; p. 57 ……atra ratnāvali-lābha-rūpa-kāryasyopakṣepād granthanam /

8 DR. I. 16 and Avaloka on it.

9 RS. p. 213 ; NC. p. 9.

10 Bhā-pra. p. 203. l. 20 ; p. 204. l. 3, p. 205. l. 3.

11 JOI. Vol. V. No. 4. p. 372.

12 JOI. Vol. V. No. 4. p. 372. Cf. the definition “kāryam nirvāhakṛt phale” PRYB. p. 107.

13 NLRK. l. 234.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

249

14. NLRK. ll. 235-236. NŚ. GOS. XIX. 27. eṣāṁ tu yasya

yenārtho yataśca guṇa iṣyate | tat pradhānaṁ tu kartavyaṁ

guṇabhūtānyataḥ param //

15 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 16…na sarvatra prāramibhādivat

sarva arthapra-kṛtayo'pi | api tu yasya nāyakasya yenārtha-

prakṛti-viśeṣeṇa prayojana-sampattir-adhikā tadeva pradhā-

nam, anyattu bhavadapi guṇa-bhūtam asatkalpam,…..bīja-

bindu-kāryāṇi tu sarvatrānupāyīni | tatrāpica guṇa-pradhāna-

bhāvah |

16 ND. pp. 27-28, 42-43.

17 RS. III. 20-21, aṅgaṁ syāt nāyaktera-ceṣṭitam | nityaṁ

patākā prakarī cāṅgaṁ bijādayaḥ kvacit // Cf. NC. p. 10.

Chapter IV

1 NLRK. ll. 456-457. samdhiḥ parasparaṁ kathārthānāṁ sam-

ghatanam /

2 NLRK. ll. 457-458. yathoktam samdhīyante arthāl paras-

param ebhir-iti samdhayaḥ |

3 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 23. tenārthāvayavāḥ sandhīyamānāḥ

parasparam aṅgaiśca sandhaya iti samākhyā niruktā'tadeṣāṁ

sāmānya—lakṣaṇam |

4 ND. I. 37. p. 48. mukhyasya svatantrasya mahā-vākyārtha-

sya aṁśā bhāgāḥ parasparaṁ svarūpeṇa cāṅgaiḥ sandhīyanta

iti sandhayaḥ |

5 DR. p. 6 ; I. 23. antaraikārtha-sambandhaḥ sandhir-ekānvaye

sati | Avaloka,—ekena prayojanānvitānāṁ kathāṁśānāṁ

avāntaraika-prayojana-sambandhaḥ sandhiḥ |

6 Bhā-pra. p. 207. ll. 11-15 ; SD. p. 355, VI. 75.

7 Abhiśaku. Ed. Godbole p. 15 ; Mu-rā. Ed. Telang. 1893,

pp. 52, 62.

8 DR. III. 26.

9 Śr. pra. Vol. II. p. 484, athaitad upādheḥ kathā-śarira-

bhāgānāṁ mukhādayaḥ pañca vyapadeśā bhavanti |

10 RS. III. 28. p. 215. NC. (p. 11) simply quotes this defini-

tion of the RS.

11 Mu-rā. Ed. Deshpande Act. VI, p. 179.

250

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

12 NLRK. I. 453 ; NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 23, XIX. 37 ;

ND. p. 48 ; Bhā-pra. p. 207.1.17.

13 NLRK. II. 440-446 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 17.

14 NLRK. II. 447-451 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 18.

15 Cf. Abhi-bhā. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 11 .. tatropakramo-

pasan்hārau tāvat sarvatrāvaśyambhāvīnau /

16 NLRK. II. 451-453. prasaṅgikasyādhikārikasyārthe varta-

mānasyā yadi vistarāt saṃdhayo vidhātum pañcāpi śakyante

tadayaṃ niyama nāvaśya-kartavyatayā abhyupagantavyaḥ |

17 NLRK. II. 454-455 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 19.

18 NLRK. II. 456. vṛttam yat tadavirodhataḥ saṃdhināṃ

prayoktavyam /

19 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 11. niyamo ya ukto niyamāt pūrṇa-

sandhi syād ityādi sa tatra na bhavet /... yad-vṛttam iti

tatrādhikārike yad aviruddham...tadeva prasaṅgike yojanār-

ham iti /. The verse (NŚ. GOS. XIX. 19) prasaṅgike

parārthatvāt etc. has been taken to refer v. no. 17, pūrṇa-

sandhi ca kartavyam etc., by Abhinava.

20 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 10. upādhyāyāstvāhuḥ :- sarvatra-

tivrṛttam pañca-sandhyeva, na hi kaścidapi vyāpāro prāram-

bhādyavasthā-pañcakam vinā siddhet .. / avasthāpañca-

kānuyāyinā sandhipañcakenāpi bhāvyameva, tena sarvaṃ

niyamāt pañcasandhi, hīnasandhitvaṃ tu kāraṇād-apūrṇān-

gatva-lakṣaṇāducyate... /

21 Abhi-bhā. NŚ. 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.

View of Mātṛgupta on Sandhis

1 NLRK. Eng. Tra. Introduction. p. 7.

2 NLRK. preface VIII, IX.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

251

3 Sañ-dā. p. 97. For the date of Śubhañkara. Cf.

introduction.

4 NLRK. ll. 460-61. Sañ-dā (p. 97) reads :— prārthanā

visayaut.../...mukha-sandhāvitiritam // The text of the

NLRK. reads,— prārthanāvisayotsukyam etc. Cf. Dr

Raghavan’s correction, NLRK. Eng. Tra. p. 72. Dr Raghavan suggests “prārthanā is viṣayautsukyam,” is the

meaning.

5 NLRK. ll. 474, 480, 481.

6 NLRK. ll. 472-481. tatra yathā māyā-madalase nātake

prathame aṅke gālavasya maharṣeh tālaketu-vadham icchatah

prārthanāyām kuvalayāśvasya rājñah tapovana gamanautsukyam ārambhah / tasyāiva samvāde ete kṣama etc. a speech

of the sage Gālava in verse). After that Sāgara adds :—

atra rāja-dharmasyākhyānād-yāgasya nispanna-śaṣṭāmśaśca

(Dr Raghavan suggests the reading as : yāgāsya niṣpattih

ṣaṣṭāmśaśca or yāgaśca niṣpannaḥ Cf. NLRK. Eng. Tra.

p. 72) me bhaviteti gamana-hetucintanam / bijam tatraiva /

devārāter etc., (a verse).

Many of the daṇḍas have been remove from the above

text according to Dr Raghavan’s suggestion. He, how-

ever, proposes to remove the danda after ārambha 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 Bhār-Ko., p. 316 where Ārambha has been taken

to be the name of the aspect.

7 According to Dr Raghavan’s suggestion,—Eagerness

(Prārthanā) i.e., the yearning for the object, the Ārambha

i.e., the reflection upon the means etc. Cf. NLRK. Eng.

Tra. ll. 460-461.

8 NLRK. ll. 472-488. The name of the Nāṭaka Māyāma-

dālasā, 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 like Abhi-bhā., DR., ND., Bhā-

pra., SD. and RS. All the illustrations of Sandhis and

their phases, as described by Mātṛgupta have been

252

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

illustrated by Sāgara with citations from this drama.

There are two more citations from the drama in the

NLRK. (l. 276 and l. 324). The entire portion of atra

rājadharmasyā .bhaviteti (quoted above) followed by iti,

does not appear to be the speech of the king as suggested

by Dr Raghavan (Cf. NLRK. Eng. Tra. p. 72). The

reference to rājadharma in Gālava'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

yāgaśca...bhavita may be taken to be the speech of the

king.

9

NLRK. ll. 462-463. The printed text reads citta in place

of binduh; the Sañ-dā. (p. 97) however, reads binduh.

In illustration (l. 501) Sāgara also reads binduh. Other

variants in the Sañ-dā. are prasṛtikriyā in place of prasṛtā-

kriyā, and matam instead of trayam.

10

NLRK. ll. 489-490. tābho madālasāyās-tasyā dvitiye 'nke

yat pāṇigrahaṇam sa eva sādhana-sampattih ll. 497-498.

prasarah kriyāyā vaira-prabhavāyāḥ prasarāt / ll. 501-502.

punarapi haraṇasyodghāto binduh / sa eva sādhana-samban-

dhah / The text reads haraṇasyotkhyāto, corrected by Dr

Raghavan (NLRK. Eng. Tra. p. 62) as above.

11

NLRK. ll. 489-494.

12

NLRK. ll. 495-498.

13

NLRK. ll. 498-506.

14

Cf. supra. Bindu.

15

NLRK. ll. 464-465. Śubhaṅkara (Sañ-dā. p. 97) reads

bhadra in place of tatra in the first foot and the second

as :-udbheda sandhi—darśanam, the ms. reading being

sannidarśanam, both yielding no sense.

16

NLRK. ll. 539-512. A verse kanthe varoru etc., here the

hero expresses his desire for amorous play. l. 513. iti

rājñah suratecchā sambhogah / tatra ca yogitā / ll. 515-

516. aniṣṭasya viyogasya udghāta udbhedah (Text reads

utkhyāta, Dr Raghavan suggests udghāta. Cf. NLRK.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRĀMA & DRAMATURGY

253

Eng. Tra. p. 62) / tat pratighātah siddhi-darśanam / ll. 517-519… arciṣi patitām madālasām na dahatā dahanena maitri darśiteti mitrasampanmitralābhah / iti triyuto garbhah /

17 NLRK. l. 514.

18 NLRK. ll. 515-516.

19 NLRK. l. 466-467. Śubhaṅkara (Saṅ-dā. p. 97) reads the verse as :

nāśaḥ kāraṇa-mādhuryaṃ kiñcit śreyasi vighnatā / etānyavamarśa-sandhau kathitāni maniṣibhiḥ //

20 NLRK. ll. 519-523. The text in the portion savighnatayā tālaketu .. seems to be currupt. Tālaketu has been described as killed in the Act. II. The ms. reads (NLRK. p. 22) pātālaketu. The Nāgari ya is very similar to pa, correct reading should be pātālaketu. A danda after savighnatā also is necessary to make the sense clear. The text, as translated by M. Dillon, seems to yield no clear meaning. The discussion above, is according to the emendation proposed here.

21 NLRK. ll. 468-469. Śubhaṅkara gives almost a separate description of this Sandhi. Saṅ-dā. (p. 97) reads :

punar-bijāsya sampattir-nānābhūtārtha-sambhavā / nirvahaṇa-sandhau kathitā suribhir-bharatādibhiḥ //

It is apparent that Śubhaṅkara collected this description from a currupt source. The first pāda of this verse is the third pāda of the verse describing Vimarsa-sandhi in the NLRK. (l. 467). Moreover Bharata nowhere describes the Nirvahaṇa sandhi in the manner stated in the above verse of Saṅ-dā.

22 NLRK. ll. 523-529.

23 NLRK. Eng. Tra. Introduction. p. 7 (quoted above). Dr S. N. Shastri (LPSD. pp. 96-97) maintains that “Mātr-gupta follows the co-ambulation theory of juncture”. It is a wrong judgement, as is evident from the above.

24 Saṅ-dā. p. l. saṅgītacūdāmaṇi-ratnakosa etc.

25 See supra. Introduction, age of Sāgaranandin

254 NATAKA-LAKṢANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

26 NLRK. 1. 472. māyāmadālāsā-nāṭake. ll. 276-277. māyā-

madālase-pañcasvapyankeṣu kuvalāyaśvah /

27 NLRK. 1. 493.

28 NLRK. 1. 324.

29 NLRK. ll. 470-471.

sādhakah sādhanam sādhyam siddhih sambhoga eva ca /

ityāhuḥ ke' pi nāṭyajñāḥ santaḥ sādhāādi-pañcakam //

30 NLRK. ll. 530-533.

It is from the NLRK. first that we come to know the name

of a drama Bhīma-vijaya of an unknown author, like

the Māyā-madālāsā, Bhīma-vijaya, perhaps was written

in a region where Sāgara lived. Dr Raghavan maintains

(NLRK. Eng. Tra. p. 70) that Bhīma-vijaya may refer

only to a theme and not to an actual play.

31 LPSD. p. 96.

32 Sāgara himself seems to have confused the issue. He in

his gloss, first explains the verses describing Sandhis

according to Mātṛgupta and then illustrates the pentad

of Sādhya etc., and at last remarks : idam mātṛguptena

saṃkṣepāt (NLRK. 1. 534) etc. It appears from this

that Mātṛgupta according to Sāgara is the propounder

of the Sādhya-dipañcaka theory. But the verse quoted

above, which enumerates the pentad, clearly shows that

this is an older view of some other theorists. Perhaps

Sāgara took the verse from the text of Mātṛgupta, but

overlooks the expression kecit and ascribes the view to

Mātṛgupta. The view has not been mentioned

anywhere else.

33 NLRK. 1. 535.

34 Abhi-śaku. p. 9. The full description is quoted, Supra,

Chap. 1. under Qualitative Analysis.

35 P. V. Kane (HSP) p. 55 ; Dr S. K. De (HSP) p. 34 ; Dr

V. Raghavan (NLRK. Eng. Tra.) p. 7.

Mukha-Sandhi

1 TSS. p. 6.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

255

2 NLRK. 1. 536-537, yatra bija-samutpattir-nānā-bhūtārtha-

sambhavā / kāvya-śarīrānugata tanmukham parikīrttitam //

NŚ. GOS. XIX. 39. Here the first half of the verse is

read as : yatra bija samutpattir-nānārthasasambhavā /

The difference of readings in the underlined portions of

the two is significant.

3 NLRK. ll. 538-540.

3a Cf. supra f.n. 2. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 23. nānābhūto

'rthavaśāt prasaṅgāyāto rasa-sambhavo yaḥ syāt.

4 ND. p. 48.

5 SD. VI. 76-77. The reading here tallies with that of the

NŚ. (GOS). Bhā-pra. p. 207. l. 18, p. 208. l. 7.

6 DR. p. 7 (I.24) Dhanañjaya simply takes up the first half

of the verse from the NŚ. describing Mukha-sandhi as

the definition of the same. The NC. (p. 11) also does

the same. RS. III. 29-30. p. 215. Here Dhanika's state-

ment has simply been versified.

7 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 24, ND. p. 48, Bhā-pra. p. 207.

l. 19, SD. p. 356.

8 Cf. Supra. under Mukha-sandhi according to Mātrgupta.

9 Bha-pra. p. 207. ll. 20-21. bijotpattirna hetuḥ syād rāsānāṃ

mukha-sandhibhāk / teṣāṃ trivarga-saṃ-bandhaḥ prāyo

yasmān na diśyate /

10 Bhā-pra. p. 207. l. 21, p. 208. ll. 1-6.

11 NLRK. ll. 545-546. sāhacaryeṇa bijasya mukha eva hi

kecana / binduna ādaye prakurvanti nātakārthavido janāḥ //

12 NLRK. ll. 547-548.

13 Cf. supra. Bindu.

14 NLRK. ll. 548-550.

15 Cf. supra ....under Bīja.

Pratimukha-sandhi

1 NLRK. ll. 634-635. NŚ. GOS. XIX. 40.

2 NLRK. ll. 636-631. Tārānātha Tarkavācaspati, in his

commentary on the V-sam quotes the following verse

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

and attributes it to Bharata. (V-sam. Ed. Jivananda.

P. 19).

ānuṣaṅgika-kāryeṇa kriyate yat prakāśanam |

naṣṭāsyeveha bijasya sandhiḥ pratimukhaṃ bhavet ||

The verse may be construed as : ānuṣaṅgikakāryeṇa

naṣṭasya iva bijasya iha prakāśanam etc., and can be

taken as supporting the view of Sāgara. The source of

the above verse is unknown but it is evident that the view

held by Sāgara 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. ll. 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. ll. 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 Sāgara (NLRK. 1,636. dṛṣṭam

kāraṇarūpeṇa kāryarūpeṇa naṣṭam). But the approach

of the both to the problem is similar. The criticism of

Abhinava however, can be applied with equal force

against the above observation of Sāgara. Abhinava criti-

cises the above views as :—na caitat samañjasam/ekaviṣyam

antareṇa sandhānājogāt, ……….nāśasyāpica dṛṣṭatayaiva

samgraha-sampatteḥ |

7 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 24. bijasyodghāṭanam tāvat

phalānuguṇo daśāviśeṣaḥ taddṛṣṭam api virodhisamni-

dher-naṣṭamiva, pāṃśunā pihitasyeva bijasyāṅkura-rūpam

udghāṭanam |

8 Cf. V-Sam. Ed. Jivananda. p. 34. Act II. V. No. 2.

9 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 24. atra pāṇḍavābhyudayasya

mukhopakṣiptasyodghāṭanam bhīṣmavadhadāḥ dṛṣṭam abhi-

manyuvadhān-naṣṭam atrāpiveditam iti kecit/tadā cārtho

na saṃgamitaḥ 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 ‘naṣṭam’

and then reads ‘atrāpi’ etc.

10 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 24.

11 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 24.

12 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 25. udghaṭitatvad bijasya stok-

matraṃ tu śaṅkukādibhi-rudāhṛtaṃ yat tad eka..........iti draṣṭavyam /

13 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. pp. 24-25. dṛṣṭaṃ naṣṭamiva kṛtvā tāvanmukhe nyastaṃ bhūmāviva bijam .....tadācchādakamapi bhūmiriva pratyudbodhakam/tasya dṛṣṭanaṣṭatulyam kṛtvā nyastasya ata eva kuṅkuma-bijasya yad udghaṭanaṃ tat-kalpam yatrodghaṭanaṃ sarvatraiva kathābhāgasamūhe tat pratimukham pratirābhi......./

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-sandhi

1 NLRK. l. 709.

2 NLRK. ll. 710-711. udbhedastasya bijasya prāptir-aprāptir-

eva ca / puṃscān-veṣaṇaṃ yatra sa garbha iti saṃsmṛtaḥ //

NŚ. (GOS. XIX. 41) reads vā instead of ca as the last

word of the first half of the verse.

Rāghava-bhaṭṭa (Abhi-śaku. p. 115) attributes this

definition to Ādhi-bharata. Ṣṛ. pra. (Vol. II. Chap. XII.

p. 485) reads kāryabijasya instead of tasya bijasya in the

first half, and the second half as : anviṣyate tu yastatra

sa vai garbha itiṅitaḥ /

3 NLRK. l. 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. NŚ. GOS. Vol.

17a

258

NATAKA-LAKṢANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

III. p. 25. phalasya garbhībhāvāt / Cf. alsa ND. p. 49.

phalaprāpti-sambhāvanā-rūpo garbha-sandhirucyate /

6 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 25. prāptir-nāyaka-viṣaya, aprāptih

pratināyaka-carite punaścānveṣaṇam ityubhaya-sādharāṇam /

7 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 25. anye tu vīra-raudra-viṣaya

evaitasyārthasya bhāvād avyāpityād evam āhuh / prāptih,

aprāptir-anveṣaṇam-ityevaṃ bhūtair-avastābhiḥ punaḥ

punar-bhavantībhir-yukto garbha-sandhiḥ, prāpti-sambhavā-

khyāyāvasthayā yuktatvena phalasya garbhībhāvāt /

8 ND. p. 49.

9 NŚ. 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-bhā and uses

udbheda and hrāsa instead of prāpti and aprāpti.

10 DR. p. 16. I. 36 ; Bhā-pra. p. 209. I. 22 ; p. 210 ; ll. 1-4 ;

SD. p. 357. VI. 78-79 ; RS. p. 225. III. 49 ; NC. p. 20 ;

Śr. pra. Vol. II. p. 485. vatra kriyāphalasyodbhedalābha-

mānveṣaṇādayo jāyante tatra garbhaḥ /

11 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 26. avamarśe tvaprāptereva pradhā-

matā prāptyaṃśasya ca nyūnateti viśeṣaḥ / The text is

undoubtedly currupt and has been rightly amended by

the editor as : avamarśe tu prāptereva pradhānata aprāp-

tyaṃśasya ca nyūnatā / The ND. supports this reading.

Cf. ND. p. 49.

12 NLRK. ll. 716-719. nātakādau vastudvayaṃ

bhavati / vidhirvā niṣedho vā / tatra prāptirūpo vidhiḥ / aprāpti-rūpo

niṣedhaḥ / prāptirūpo yathā bajam-ārabdhaṃ rākṣasam

kṣayak / nītaṃ śāntāṅgāreṇa trāmasya-vāsya-kāryatāmiti //

The word nītam is to be replaced by nītaḥ. 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 Aṅgas of the Mukha-sandhi, f.n. 40.

13 NLRK. ll. 713-715.

14 NLRK. ll. 720-723. The drama Tāpasa-vatsarāja of

Anaṅgaharṣa Mātrarāja, son of king Narendravardh-

ana has been cited once more in the NLRK. (l. 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-bhā as many as

ten times and eight times in the ND. Ānanda-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 Sri Yadugiri

yatiraja 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 Mātṛgupta.

Vimarśa or Avamarśa

1 NLRK. ll. 772-774. yadāha bharata-muniḥ | garbha-nirbhinna-bijārtho vilobhanakṛto 'pivā / tasyā vāśleṣa-samyuktah sa vimarśah iti smṛtah // The NŚ. (GOS. XIX. 42) reads

athavā in the place of apivā at the end of the first half,

and krodha-vyasanajo vāpi as the first part of the second

half. A ms. however reads kiñcid-āśleṣa-samyukta, and

thus supports the reading of the NLRK. mainly [Cf. NŚ.

GOS. Vol. III. p. 26. ms. reading 4 (bha)]. But none

of the expositions given by Abhinavagupta including

his own, mentions āśleṣa. He seems to support the

reading apivā at the end of the first half of the verse.

Cf. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 27. api-sabdād vighnanimittān-tarāṇām etc. The text of Śaṅkuka, as presented in the

Abhi-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. Śṛ. pra. (Vol. II. chap. XII. p. 485)

gives the definition as,...garbha-nirbhinna-bījārthah krodhavyasanajo 'pi vā / vipralambhakṛto vāpi vimarśa iti sañjitah // A ms. of the NŚ. (Pa) reads vipralambhakṛto

pi vā in place of vilobhana etc. of the GOS. version.

2 NLRK. ll. 770-772. namu vimarśa iti ko 'rthah | ucyate

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

260

garbheṇa samdhinā udbhinnasya bījārthasya lobhakāriṇā

āśleṣanasamyukto (yo) bhavati sa vimarśak |

3 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 27.anye tvavamarśo vighna iti vidanti|

sa ca (?) vyākhyāne bija-śabdena tad-bīja-phalam arth-āśabdena nivṛttirucyate |......nivṛttih...niṣpratyūhaprāṇatayā phalaprasūtiḥ |

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. ll. 775-777. anyastvāha / prakīrṇasyārtha-jātasya vimarśād yatra samṛtiḥ | śatrorapacayo bhūyān vimarsa sa kathyate //

Dr Raghavan suggests that śatror upacayah should be the reading in place of śatrorapacayah of the printed text. NLRK. Eng. Tra. p. 72. But it has been shown (Cf. supra under Garbha-Sandhi) that according to Abhinavagupta the Vimarśa-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 (śatru upacayak) is depicted in this Sandhi, is not known. Moreover, according to Mātrgupta also, nourishment of the Bīja (bījena sampatti) is an aspect of this Sandhi. This has been illustrated by Sāgara in the death of Pāṭālaketu (Cf. supra. View of Mātrgupta on Sandhis) which is undoubtedly a heavy loss to the enemy of the hero. So loss of the enemy seems to be a characteristic 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... phalavyāpatti-viṣayo yaḥ kartur-vicāraḥ sa krodha-vyasanaje vimarsa ityevam vimar-śana-svabhāva eva vimarśaḥ | ...... iti śrī-śaṅkukaḥ |

11 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 28.

12 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 28.

13 DR. I. 43. p. 21. Dhanika says : avamarśanam avamarśaḥ paryālocanam/tacca krodhena vā vyasanād vā vilobhanena

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

261

vā bhavitavyam | Bhoja (Śṛ pra. Vol. II. p. 485) says :—

kriyāphalāvāptaye vicāranirn̥ayo vimarsaḥ / It, however,

includes vipralambha as a cause of deliberation. Cf. supra

fn. 1 of this topic.

14 Bhā-pra. p. 211. ll, 10-11 and ll. 12-13.

15 RS. p. 229. III. 57-58 ; NC. p. 23.

16 NLRK. ll. 778-780. anyastvāha /

sampannarūpaṃ yat kāryaṃ prastāvenᾱha kimcana /

manasyāyāti sandehaṃ (sandehaḥ ?) vimarsaṃ ke’pi

taṃ viduḥ //

17 NLRK. ll, 783-790.

18 NLRK. ll. 791-792. This perhaps, refers to the fifth Act

of the Tāpasā-vatsarāja where Kuñjaraka describes how

Rumaṇvān and Yaugandharāyaṇa etc. inflict a defeat

upon the enemy.

19 NLRK. ll. 793-797.

20 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p.26. tatra sandehātmako vimarsaḥ /

21 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. pp. 26-27.

22 Cf. Abhi-bhā. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 27 …...phalaṃ yadā

valavatā pratyūhyate kāraṇāni ca valavanti bhavanti….

tadā kathaṃ na sandehaḥ|

23 ND. p. 50.

Nirvahaṇa-sandhi

1 NLRK. ll. 854-855. NŚ. GOS. XIX. 43. Here the first

half of the verse (following the commentary of Ag.) is

read as :

samānayanam arthānāṃ mukhādyānāṃ sabījināṃ |

But Ag. in his commentary on this refers to a view that reads,

mahaujasāṃ phalopasangatānāṃ ca. One ms. also (Pa)

reads the last word of the first half as, mahaujasāṃ. Cf.

Abhi-bhā. Vol. III. p. 29. Sṛ. pra (Vol II. XII. p. 485)

reads the verse as, …. yatrānayanam arthānāṃ mukhādyā-

nāṃ mahaujasāṃ / phalopabṛ̣hitānāṃ etc. //

2 NLRK. ll. 856-857.

262

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

3 Cf. supra under Arthaprakrti.

4 Cf. supra. under Nirvahana-sandhi according to Mātṛgupta.

5 NŚ. GOS. III. p. 29. mukhādyānaṃ caturnāṃ sandhīnāṃ ye' arthāḥ prārabhādyāḥ teṣāṃ sahabijibhiḥ bijavikāraiḥ kramenāvastācatuṣṭayena bhavadbhiḥ......vartamānānāṃ nānāvidhaiḥ ......bhāvaiḥ uttarānāṃ camatkārāspadatve jatotkarṣāṇāṃ yat samānayanam yasminnartharāśau samānīyante phala-niṣpattau yojyante tan-nirvahaṇam phalayogā vasthayā vyāptam /

6 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 29.

7 ND. p. 51.

8 DR. I. 48-49. bijavanto mukhādyarthā viprakīrṇā yathāyatham/aikārtham-upanīyante yatra nirvahaṇam hi tat // It is interesting to note that Sarvānanda in his Ṭīkāsarvasva attributes this verse to Dattila. Nāma-liṅgānuśāsanam with the com. of Sarvānanda. Ed. T. Ganapati Sastri. Pt. I. p. 144.

9 Bhā-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. ll. 920-922.

12 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 29.

13 ND. pp. 51-52.

14 NLRK. ll. 918-919. vipadantara-nirmāṇam kecidicchanti sūrayaḥ / jñānakyā jvalana-jvālā-praveśena vipat punaḥ //

15 Notes of Dr Raghavan. NLRK. Eng. Tra. p. 63.

16 NLRK. ll. 918-919.

17 NLRK. l. 389. devatā-darśanāntam ca bhavati hi nāṭakam nāma.

18 NLRK. ll. 390-392.......devarṣayo 'pi kvacit/te'pi devatulya eva /

19 An-rā. p. 320. devatā-darśanāntam ca kartavyam nāṭakam budhaiḥ / rājarṣi-darśanāntam vā te'pi devaiḥ samā matāḥ // iti bharatānurodhād vaśiṣṭha-darśanāntam idam /

20 Sañ-dā. p. 81.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

263

21 Cf. supra. f.n. 17.

22 NLRK. ll. 915-917. NŚ. GOS. XVIII. 43. Cf. Śr pra.

XI. p. 466 ; Bhā-pra. p. 236. l. 4 ; SD. VI. 10. p. 321 ; cf.

also the Sandhyanga Upagühana infra.

23 NLRK. ll. 913-914. NŚ. XVIII. 42. Cf. SD. VI. 11

p. 322 ; ND. I. 17. Śr. pra (XI. p. 466) reads, kāvyam

gopucchāgram kartavyam nātikādiṣu prājñaiḥ| nātikādiṣu here

seems to be a wrong reading for nāṭakādiṣu. According

to lexicons one meaning of the word gopuccha is a kind

of necklace having forty or thirtytwo strings. Cf. the

com. of Kṣirasvāmin on Amarakoṣa, Kāṇḍa II. V. No. 106

(Poona Oriental Series No. 43. p. 156). Abhidhāna-

cintāmaṇi. Kāṇḍa III. V. No. 325.

24 NLRK. ll. 910-911.

25 Cf. W. H. Hudson. An Introduction to the study of

Literature, pp. 200ff.

26 NŚ. GOS. Vol. II. p. 428. krama-sūkṣmāngam iti kecit|

The reading of the SD.(below VI. 11, p. 323) kramenāṅkāḥ

sūkṣmāḥ kartavyāḥ iti kecit is decidedly more explicit.

27 NŚ. GOS. Vol. II. pp. 428-29 ; cf. ND. p. 30 ; SD. p. 323.

Relation among the three Pentads ; the Avasthās,

Sandhis and Arthaprakrtis

1 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 14. sarvasyāiva hi kāryasya prārabdhasya

phalārthibhiḥ|etāstyanukramenaiva pañcāvasthā bhavanti hi //

2 Techniques of Sanskrit Drama, Chap. IV. (In press).

3 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 10. avasthā-paṅcakānuyāyinā sandhi-

pañcakenāpi bhāvyam eva / Cf. also p. 23, p. 62, sandhayo

hyavasthā-paratantraḥ

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 Sandhis,

f.n. 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 Avasthās with the

Sandhis. But, it has been shown above that the respon-

sibility may be pushed back to at least the preceptor of

Abhinava.

10 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 21.

11 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 12. …jñātṛā yojyā yathā-vidhi iti

tāsām auddeśikoktivad upanibandha-kramo-niyama ityarthah/

This is Ag.’s gloss on the NŚ. (XIX. 21) arthaprakṛtayah

etc., as quoted above. This statement of the NŚ. seems

to imply that the five Arthaprakṛtis 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 Bīja originates

in the Mukha-sandhi and the Kārya 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 maintains

(NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 16) that all the Arthaprakṛtis are

not essential everywhere. Moreover, the mechanical theory

of correlation among the Avasthās, Arthaprakṛtis and

the Sandhis, resting primarly on the occurrence of

their members in the same order in which they have

been enumerated in the NŚ., has been bitterly criticised

by Abhinava, as will be shown. The ND. (p. 37) follow-

ing closely the Abhi-bhā. in other relevant matters;

opposes the view that the Arthaprakṛtis occur in a drama

in a particular order. Thus, the above reading of the

Abhi-bhā. seems to be unjustified. Perhaps a ‘na’ has

been dropped. All problems become solved if the above

text is amended as,—kramaniyamo netvarthah.

12 ND. p. 37. bijam patākā prakarī binduḥ kāryam yathāruci /

(I. 28) yathārucṭi naiṣām auddeśiko nibandhakraṃaḥ

sarveṣām avaśyāṃbhāvitvaṃ vā /

13 Dr Mainkar. The TSS. p. 13 ; Dr Kulkarni, JOI. Vol.

V. No. 4. The conception of Sandhis in Ṣanskrit Drama.

p. 375.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

265

14 DR. p. 6. I. 22-23. arthaprakṛtayah pañca pañcāvasthā-samanvitah // yathā-samkhyena jāyante mukhādyāḥ pañca sandhayah / Cf. also Avaloka on this verse.

15 DR. I. 25. Regarding the aṅgas of the Mukha-sandhi it is said : aṅgāni dvādaśaitasya bijārambha-samanvayāt /, similarly about Pratimukha-sandhi is said (I. 30) bindu-prayatnānugamād aṅgānyasya trayodaśa / The DR. does not maintain that the aṅgas of other three Sandhis should be determined in the similar way.

16 Bhā-pra. p. 207. ll. 3-10. Regarding the aṅgas of the Mukha and Pratimukha, Śāradātanaya quotes from the DR. Cf. Bhā-pra. p. 208. 1. 7 ; p. 209. 1. 6 and DR., quoted in f.n. 15; RS. III. 22.26. pp. 214-215 ; NC (p. 11.15) follows the RS. verbatim. Śr. pra. Vol. II. p. 484. te (Sandhis) ca bijā-bindvādinām arthaprakṛtinām sandhānāt sandhāya (sandhaya ?) ucyante / It is a novel explanation of the word Sandhi, though based on an unsound theory.

17 Cf. Supra f.n. 11.

18 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 16. Abhinava following his preceptor, accept a coambulation between the Avasthās and Sandhis, as discussed above.

19 ND. p. 37.

20 DR. I. 36.. patākā syānnavā syāt prāptisambhavah / Cf. Dhanika (p. 16) tatra cautsargikatvena prāptayāḥ patākāya aniyamam darśayati... /

21 Bhā-pra. p. 210. ll. 10-12. abhavāstu patākāyā yathā mālavikādisu // sadbhāvo dṛśyate tasya mālatīmādhavaḍisu / tasmāt patākā syān-neti vikalpam prāha kohalaḥ // Cf. also 1. 5.

22 Bhā-pra. p. 210, ll. 6-8. tathāpyasyāḥ niveśaḥ syāt prāptyā-śāyā niyogatah // apatāke niveśaḥ syād bindor bijasya vā kvacit //

23 RS. III. 27. p. 215. Siṅgablūpāla supports the use of the Bindu only in the Garbha-sandhi in absence of a Patākā there, patākāyā vihine tu bindum vā viniveśayet /

266 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

24. RS. III. 49 (p. 225) āprāptyāśā-patākā-nurodhād angāni kalpayet / III. 58 (p. 229) prakarī-niyatāptyānugunyād atrāṅgakalpanam /

25 RS. III. 27. p. 215. patākāyāsthavāsthānaṃ kvacidasti na vā kvacit /

26 NC. p. 29. atrāṅgakalpanā kārya-phalāgama-samāgamāt /

27 Cf. supra. Arthāprakrti.

28 RB. Abhi-śaku. (Ed. Godbole) p. 115, p. 168.

29 RB. Abhi-śaku (Ed. Godbole) p. 168.

30 Mā. ag. p. 60.

31 Mā. ag. p. 98.

Anusandhi

1 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 28.

2 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 17. tathā lollatādyāstu manyante pārthe sādhayitavye patākā-nāyakasyetivṛttabhāgā anusan-dhayah /

3 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 17. patākāyām hi pūrṇa-varṇane patākāntaram syād ityanavasthā /

4 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 17.

5 ND. pp. 43-44.

6 DR. III/27. patākā-vṛttam apyūnam ekādyair anusandhibhih/| aṅgānyatra yathālābham asandhim prakariṃ nyaset // Cf. also Avaloka, p. 70.

Chapter V

1 NLRK. II. 556-557 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 69.

2 NLRK. II. 559-562.

3 NLRK. I. 558. yathā veṇīsamhāre prathamāṅke /

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 NŚ (GOS. V. 168) while

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

267

describing the Prastāvanā enjoins : nānā-vidhair upakṣe-paiḥ kāvyopakṣepanam bhavet ; this in practice is generally done through indirect hints to the central theme of the play.

In the Abhiśāku, the forgetfulness of the Sūtra-dhāra serves this purpose. So, the first Sandhyanga may be included in the prelude.

7 V-sam. Ed. Jīvananda pp. 9-10.

8 NLRK. ll. 568-569 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 70.

9 NLRK. ll. 571-574.

10 NLRK. ll. 575-581 ; Abhi-bhā. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 31 ; ND. p. 54.

11 DR. p. 9.

12 NLRK. ll. 583-585.... athavā|samśuddhārtha-bhāṣaṇam yat tat parinyāsaḥ | samśuddhaṃ tattvabhūtam yad bhāṣaṇam sa eva parinyāsaḥ | nānānu-rodhād 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. ll. 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. ll. 593-594 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 71; DR. I. 28 ; ND. I. 45 ; SD. VI. 84.

21 NLRK. ll. 596-597.

22 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 39. asyāḥ prayojanam prakāśya-prakāśanam /

23 NLRK. ll. 598-599. mukhārthasyopagamana (m ? ) prāpti-rityabhidhīyate / One ms. of the NŚ. (GOS. Vol. III. p. 39, 6 bha) reads : mukhyarthasyopa... / The ms. of the NLRK reads...khysy...(Cf. NLRK. p. 26, f.n.1). Thus mukhasyārthasyopagamana might have been the reading of Sāgara's source.

24 NLRK. ll. 601-604. Cf. V-sam. Act. I. p. 19.

268

NŚ. GOS. XIX. 72. sukhārthasyābhigamanam prāpti-rityabhisamjñitā / Abhinava supports this reading. Cf. Abhi-bhā. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 39. Dr M. Ghosh prefers the reading mukhārtha. Cf. NŚ. Eng. Tra. p. 390.

25

DR. I, 28. p. 8 ; ND. I. 45. p. 57 ; SD. VI. 84.

26

NLRK. ll. 605-606 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 72.

27

NLRK. 1. 608. This verse of Bhīma has been taken to be an example of Bheda by Abhinava. Dhanika and Rāma-candra-Guṇacandra. Cf. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 42 ; DR. p. 11 ; ND. p. 57.

28

29

NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 40.

30

NLRK. ll. 609-610. sukha-duḥkha-yukto yo artha-stad-vidhānaṃ yadāha sukha-duḥkhānvito yo arthah| etc. The NŚ. (GOS. XIX. 73) reads : sukhaduḥkha-kṛto yo'rthah| The SD (VI. 85) supports this reading.

31

NLRK. ll. 612-616. There are two other verses in the NLRK (ll. 751-753, 755-757) said to be taken from the Bālacarita and one (ll. 540-542) from the Rāmāyaṇa, which are neither from any known drama nor from the Rāmāyaṇa itself. These verses may be surmised to be taken from some text of dramaturgy like the work of Mātṛgupta or some lost play. See f.n. 40 infra. Bālacarita, in contrast to the Uttaracarita may be taken to refer simply to the first part of Rāma-story ending with the coronation of Rāma. Cf. the title Bāla-rāmāyaṇa of Rājaśekhara. There are two verses in the U.ca. (Belvalkar's edition. Act. VI. VS. 31-32) which said to be taken from the Bālacarita and actually occur in the Bālakāṇḍa of the Rāmāyaṇa (Lahore, N.W. recension, chap. 72. VS. 13-14). This also shows that the first part of the Rāma-story was traditionally called Bālacarita.

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 : kūṭūhalotta-

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

269

rāvego ... / The KM. edition of the NŚ. (XIX. 72) reads :

kutūhalottarāveśo ... /

36 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 40.

37 NLRK. I. 619. nādha kim eso khane khane etc.

38 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. pp. 40-41 ; DR. p. 10 ; SD. p. 364.

39 NLRK. I. 620 ; NS. GOS. XIX. 74.

40 NLRK. ll. 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 Anuṣṭubhas,

like the work of Mātrgupta, in which the principles and

illustrations from the themes of well-known plays are

given together in the text. For such verses embodying

both lakṣya and lakṣaṇa, see below (ll.) 707-708, 767-768,

792, 1210-1211, 1239-1240, 1242-1243, 1294-1296 ; pp.

84-89, the Anuṣṭubhas under Vyābhicārins and Sāttvikas

with illustrations of themes from Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhā

rata". The suggestion that the verses containing both

lakṣya and lakṣaṇa are taken from the work of Mātrgupta

seems to be very much tenable due to the fact that

three such Anuṣṭubhas (ll. 103-108), printed in bold type

and referring to the Rāma-story, have been attributed to

Mātrgupta by Sāgara himself (l. 102). Three other

Anuṣṭubhas (ll. 225-226, 718-719, 918-919) printed in

bold type, refer to the Rāma-story and may be said to

contain principles and illustrations. Another verse (1276-

1277. in the same metre printed in small type, may

also be included in the group of Anuṣṭubhas containing

both lakṣya and lakṣaṇa.

41 NLRK. Eng. Tra. p. 72.

42 NLRK. I. 624 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 74.

43 NLRK. ll. 623-624.

44 ND. p. 56.

45 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 75. saṅghāta-bhedanārtho yaḥ sa bhedaḥ /

46 NLRK. I. 626. saṅghātena militasyārthasya bhaṅgo bhedaḥ /

270

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

47 NLRK. ll. 628-631.

48 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 41.

49 ND. pp. 56-57. (I. 44). bhedanampātranirgamaḥ.

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 (avaśayaṃ nibandhanīyaḥ)

at the close of each Act, Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka.

Aṅgas of the Pratimukha-sandhi

1 NLRK. ll. 650-651. samīhā rati-sambhogārthā vilāsah!

sambhogovā suratotpanno vilāsah.../NŚ. GOS. XIX. 76.

There is a ms. reading : sambhogo rati-sampanno/ Cf. NŚ.

(KM.) XIX. 74 and GOS. Vol. III. p. 42. ms. bha.

2 NLRK. ll. 651-656.

3 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 42.

4 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 42.

5 ND. p. 62.

6 NLRK. l. 657; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 76; DR. I. 32; SD. VI. 90.

6a NLRK. ll. 659-662.

7 ND. p. 72. While enumerating the aṅgas the ND. (I. 47)

read Uparpa.

8 Bhā-pra. p. 209. l. 11. bijasyā diṣṭa-naṣṭānusarpaṇam |

9 NLRK. l. 663. ādāyanunayasya kṛtasyāparigrahō | NŚ.

GOS. XIX./ 77 ; SD. VI. 90. ND. (p. 62) names the

aṅga as Dhūnanā and defines it as : sāṃnyanādara and

takes anādara to mean manaāganāḍṭi.

NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 43...paścāt punaraṅgīkaraṇam iti |

11 NLRK. ll. 663-668.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

271

12 DR. p. 12. I. 33. SD (p. 367) refers to this definition as the opinion of some. A ms. of the NŚ. also gives this definition of the aṅga Vidhūta. Cf. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 43, f.n. 2.

13 ND. p. 62.

14 NLRK. l. 669 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 77 ; ND. (p. 67) reads Tāpa.

15 NLRK. ll. 669-671.

16 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 44.

17 SD. VI. 91. upāyādarśanaṃ yattu etc. p. 638.

18 DR. I. 33. p. 13. The ND. (p. 68) refers to this view. One ms. of the NŚ. reads Śama instead of Tāpana and defines it as the dispelling of that (arati) created in Vidhūta. Cf. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 43. f.n. 2 and 3.

19 NLRK. ll. 1312-1313.

20 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 78 ; ND. I. 49.

21 DR. I. 33. p. 13.

22 SD. VI. 91. p. 368.

23 NLRK. I. 672. kriḍā-vilobhanārthaṃ hāsyam /

24 NLRK. ll. 674-675.

25 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 78. doṣapracchādanārthaṃ tu hāsyaṃ narmadyutiḥ... / ND. I. 49. p. 67.

26 ND. p. 67. ete ca narma-narmadyutiḥ aṅge kāma-pradhāne-śveva rūpakeṣu nibandha-marhataḥ, kaiśikī-prādhānyena teṣāṃ hāsyocitatvād iti /

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 Śr. pra. reads Pra-śamana (Sr. pra. XII. p. 512).

30 NLRK. l. 676. uttarottaraṃ pragamananam / NŚ. GOS. XIX. 79. uttarottaravākyaṃ.../ SD. VI. 92. The defini-tion, pragamaḥ prati-vāk-śreṇiḥ found in the ND. (I. 50. p. 69) also means the same thing.

31 NLRK. ll. 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 Abhi-bhā., DR., Bhā-pra., ND., RS., SD. etc. Dr Raghavan maintains that the Nāṭaka Rāma-vikrama deals with the earlier Rāmāyaṇa story. Cf. SOLRP. pp. 96-97.

32 DR. I. 34. p. 14…anyonya-vacanenottarottarānurāgabī-jodghātānāt…/

33 Bhā-pra. p. 209. 1. 15.

34 NLRK. 1. 683 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 79 ; SD. VI. 92. p. 369.

35 NLRK. ll. 684-686.

36 DR. I. 34 ; ND. p. 62.

37 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 80 ; NLRK. ll. 687-690. The illustrations of the three aṅgas, Virodha, Paryupāsana and Puṣpa have been cited with quotations in the NLRK. from different phases of the Paraśurāma episode of the Rāma-story. The first and the last are said to be taken from the drama Jānakī-Rāghava (Cf. NLRK. 1. 684 and 1. 692). The verse : alam bhārgava etc., (ll. 689-690).

quoted as an illustration of the Paryupāsana seems to be taken from the same drama.

38 DR. I. 34. p. 14 ; ND. I. 48. p. 63 ; SD. VI. 92-93. p. 370.

39 NLRK. 1. 691 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 80 ; Cf. DR. I. 34. p. 14 ; SD. VI. 93. p. 370 ; ND. I. 49. p. 68.

40 NLRK. ll. 691-692. anyatra kriyāyāmitara-kriyādhikyam viśeṣa-vacanām /

41 NLRK. ll. 692-696.

42 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 46.. prema-vikāsi puṣpam…/

43 ND. p. 68.

44 NLRK. 697. The NŚ (GOS. XIX. 81) defines Vajra as a harsh speech uttered to one’s face, pratyakṣa-rukṣam yad vākyam, but the reading rukṣaprāyam of the NLRK. is supported by one ms. Cf. NŚ. 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 pratyakṣa, replacing only rukṣa by niṣṭhura and karkaśa respectively.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

273

45 NLRK. II. 697-699. Another reference of the Act called

Pumsavana, occur in the NLRK. (ll. 2820-2821) and the

Bhā-pra. (p. 250. ll. 20-21) also contains the same in the

same context, i.e., as an illustration of the third variety

of Kapaṭa. Dr Raghavan informs us (NLRK. Eng. Tra

pp. 62, 63. SOLRP. p. 55) that it is the opening Act of the

lost Rāma-play Chalita-rāma. The name of the author

is unknown to us. In the NLRK. (ll. 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. (NŚ. GOS. Vol. I. p. 39).

Citations from the Chalita-rāma are found in the Avaloka

(DR. pp. 22, 66, 68), ND. (pp. 86, 92, 132, 133, 137),

SD. (p. 445). The verse : āsādita-prakaṭa-nirmala-

candana-hasan etc., anonymously quoted by Dhanika (DR.

pp. 63, 65). Viśvanātha (SD. p. 332) and Bhoja (Śr.

pra. vol. II. p. 497), is 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-rāma-

carita and the Kundamālā, the Chalita-rāma also takes

up the Uttara-kāṇḍa of the Rāmāyaṇa as its subject

matter and there are striking deviations from the story

of Vālmīki. Keith seems to be in favour of placing this

drama in 1000 A.D. (Sanskrit Drama. p. 223), while Dr

K. K. Datta Sastri (Ku. mā. pt. I. p. 131) places it in

the 9th century A.D. The said scholar also remarks,

"The Uttara-rāma-carita and the Chalita-rāma seem

to have some influence of the Kundamālā on them"

(Ku.mā. pt. I. p. 134). Cf. also SOLRP. pp. 50-59.

46 NLRK. I. 700 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 81. upapattikrto yo'rthah/

RB. in his Arthadyotanikā (Abhi. śaku. p. 108) ascribes

this definition to Ādi-bharata.

47 NLRK. ll. 700-703.

48 ND. p. 71. The RS. (p. 224) follows this definition.

49 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 46. f.n. 2. (bha) sopāya-vacanāṃ

yattu sa upanyāsa ucyate/ DR. I. 35. p. 15.

18a

274

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

50 DR. p. 15. f.n. 2. prasādanam upanyāsah/ SD. VI. 93. p.

370 ; Bhā-pra. p. 209. 1. 17.

51 Śr. pra. Vol. II. p. 504. pratimukha-sandhāvapi dvāda-śāṅgāni /

52 Abhi. śaku. p. 107. Upanyāsa as prasādana ; p. 108,

Upanyāsa as upapattikṛto yo'rthah.

53 NLRK. 1. 704. varnitasyārthasyā tiraskāro varṇa-samhārah/

The Śr. pra. (vol. II. p. 513) also describes the aṅga as :

varnitārthatiraskāro varṇasamhāra ucyate/

NLRK. 11. 704-705.

54

55 NLRK. 1. 706. caturṇāṃ varṇānāṃ sammilanam api ke'pi varṇayanti /

56 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 82. cāturvarnyopagamanam varṇa-samihāra

isyate/ Cf. the ms. readidg (pa) varṇitārthatiraskāro...

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, Anusarpaṇa) of the ND. are Praśama

and Parisarpa respectively of Dhanika.

Aṅgas of the Garbha-sandhi

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 Śr. 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. citrārtha-samāyukto vitarko rūpam / NŚ.

GOS. XIX. 83. citrārtha-samanvāye tu vitarko rūpam-isyate /

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

275

6 NLRK. II. 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. vicitrārthānām samavāye sam-bhāvane sarva-viṣaya eva viruddhastarkah | ...yuktistu niyata-pratipatti-paryanteti viśeṣah .. / Thus according to Abhinava's interpretation Rūpa 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 sātiṣayavad-vākyam... /

14 NLRK. I. 738. sātiṣayam vacanam udāhāranam / This is supported by two mss. readings of the NŚ. (GOS. Vol. III. p. 48).

15 NLRK. I. 739.

16 Śr. pra. Vol. II. p 515 ; SD. p. 373.

17 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 84. bhāvatattvopalabdhistu krama ityabhi-dhīyate / Abhi-bhā. (Vol. III. p. 49) says, bhāvasya bhāvyamānasyā vastunah......ya paramārthopalabdhiḥ /

18 NLRK. I. 740.

19 NLRK. II. 741-743. The Śr. pra. (Vol. II. p. 516) cites this illustration but defines Krama as : bhāvatattvopalabdhiḥ (p. 515).

20 ND. p. 76.

21 DR. I. 39. p. 17 ; ND. p. 76 ; Bhā-pra. p. 211. I. 3.

22 DR. I. 39. p. 18.

23 ND. I. 54. p. 76.

24 SD. VI. 97. p. 374.

25 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 85 ; NLRK. I. 744 ; DR. I. 40: p. 18.

26 NLRK. I. 745.

27 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 85 ; NLRK. I. 746 ; DR. I. 40. p. 18 ; ND. I. 53. p. 74 ; SD. VI. 98. p. 375.

28 NLRK. II. 747-748. The SD. as an illustration of Anumāna (below VI. 98. p. 375) quotes the whole verse and informs : yathā jānaki-rāghava-nāṭake rāmaḥ / The

276

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

first half of the verse as quoted there is, lilāgatairapi tarangayato dharitrim ālokanairnamayato jagatām śirāṃsi |

Here Sugriva is described.

29 DR. I. 36. p. 16 ; Bhā-pra. p. 210. 1. 16 ; RS. III. 51. p. 225 ; Viśvanātha also (SD. p. 376. VI. 99) records the view.

30 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 50. bha-mātṛkāyaṃ prārthanā-lakṣaṇam nopalabhyate |

31 ND. p. 75.

32 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 86.

33 NLRK. ll. 749-750. There are three more citations (NLRK. ll. 758-760, 761-765, 1666-1670) from the Act called after Sampāti, the brother of Jaṭāyus. This is an Act from a lost Rāma-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 Rākṣasas to dupe the monkeys ; and a female character, a Rākṣasī named Māyāvati, trying her wits on Aṅgada, Hanumat and others.

34 Abhinava reads Ākṣipti, three ms. readings are recorded in the NŚ. (GOS. Vol. III. p. 50) viz., Akṣepa, Akṣipta and Upakṣipta. DR. (I. 42) reads Ākṣepa and this reading is found in the ND. (I. 54), Bhā-pra. (p. 211.1. 8), RS (III. 51). The SD. (VI. 99) reads Kṣipti.

35 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 86. Abhinava comments : hṛdayāntah sthitam (tasyā)…kutaścinnimittād udbhedanam… |

36 ND. I. 54. p. 78. ākṣepo bijaprakāśanam | It takes bijasya to mean mukhakāryopāyāsya and also hṛdaya-bhūmi-nigūḍhatvād abhiprāyāsya, as an alternative.

37 SD. VI. 99. rahasya-rthasya tudbhedaḥ kṣiptiḥ syāt |

38 NLRK. l. 751.

39 NLRK. ll. 751-753.

40 NLRK. l. 754.

41 DR. I. 42. p. 20.

42 ND. p. 78.

43 NLRK. 1. 755 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 87.

44 NLRK. ll. 755-757.

45 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 51. āvega-garbham yad-vacanam tattoṭakam|sa cāvego harṣāt, krodhāt, anyato 'pivā|bhinatti yato hrdayam tatastotaḷam /

46 ND. p. 81.

47 NŚ. GOS. 87. kapaṭenātisandhānām bruvate 'dhivalam budāh|Cf. also Abhi-bhā. (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. f.n. 2. ms. ‘pa’.

50 NLRK. 1. 758. kapaṭasya anyathākarāṇam adhibalam | Śr. pra. Vol. II. p. 517. kapaṭasyānyathābhāvam... |

51 NLRK. ll. 758-760.

52 ND. p. 79.

53 DR. I. 40. p. 19.

54 ND. p. 79.

55 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 88.

56 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p 51. ariśabdannāci (yi ? ) kādi /

57 DR. I. 42. Avaloka p 20.

58 ND. p. 77.

59 NLRK. 1. 761.

60 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 51. f.n. 3. ms. ṭa. SD. VI. 100. nṭpādijanitabhitih etc. Śr. pra. Vol. II. p. 518. bhayam nṭpādijanitam etc....

61 NLRK. ll. 761-765.

62 NLRK. 1. 766 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 88.

63 NLRK. ll. 767-768.

64 SD. VI. 100.

65 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 52. anye tu śaṅkā-bhaya-trāsaih kṛto yaḥ sa vidrava iti|tatra ca viśeṣya padam anveṣyam, samudāya eva viśeṣya iti śrī-śaṅkukaḥ |

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 aṅga 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.

Añgas of the Vimarśa-sandhi

1 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 89 ; NLRK. 1. 801 ; DR. I. 45 ; SD. VI. 102.

2 ND. p. 83.

3 NLRK. ll. 801-806. There is one more citation in the NLRK (ll. 1703-1707) from the Māyā-lakṣmaṇa Act of the Jānaki-rāghava. In the present case, the NLRK. says: yathā-Jānaki-rāghave Māyā-lakṣa-(ksma ?)ne rāvaṇah and the last line of the verse runs : kariṣyante ghoram vyasanam adhunā rākṣasapateḥ / It is evident that the verse cannot be put in the month of Rāvaṇa (as is done in the NLRK.) who is referred to in the last line in the third person. rāvaṇam prati, or rāvaṇasya, 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 Māyā or its relation with Lakṣmaṇa 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. ll. 808-812.

6 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 53.

7 NLRK. 1. 813 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 90.

8 NLRK. ll. 813-814.

9 NLRK. ll. 815-818.

10 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 53. bhartt-samnidhāne 'pi vidūṣaka-sya sāgarikā-yāśca vāsavadattayā bandhanam /...dravanam calanam mārgād iti 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 R.v. (Act. IV) where the king says that the

queen has been pacified.

15 NLRK. ll. 819-823.

16 ND. I, 60. p. 88.

17 ND. p. 89.

18 NLRK. l. 824 ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 91. vyavasāyaśca vijñeyaḥ

pratijñā-hetu-sambhavah /

19 NLRK. ll. 824-825.

20 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 54. pratijñātasyāngikṛtasyārthasya

hetavo ye teṣām sambhavah prāptiryavasāyah / Cf. ND. I.

60 ; SD. VI. 103 ; Śr. prā. Vol. II. p. 521.

21 DR. I. 47. p. 24. vyavasāyaḥ svaśaktyuktitah /

22 Bhā-pra. p. 212. l. l ; RS. III. 65 ; ND. p. 91. The

Bhā-pra. (p. 212, l. 2) gives also the definition of Vyava-

sāya as accepted by Sāgara.

23 NLRK. l. 824. aprastutārtha-khyāpanam /

24 NLRK. ll. 826-828.

25 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 54. ms. pa. aprastutārtha-vacanām

prasaṅgah parikirtitah /

26 Bhā-pra. p. 211. l. 22 ; ND. p. 82.

27 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 91. gurūṇāṃ parikīrtanam / DR. I. 46.

p. 24 ; ND. I. 58. p. 82 ; SD. VI. 104. pp. 380-381.

28 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 92.

29 NLRK. l. 829-830.

30 NLRK. ll. 830-831.

31 DR. I. 46. pp. 23-24. tarjanodvejane dyutih ; SD. p. 379.

32 ND. p. 85.

33 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 55.

34 NLRK. l. 832. manaśceṣṭā-samutpannah śramah khedah /

The GOS. version of the NŚ (XIX-92) reads,—‘manaś-

ceṣṭāviṣpanna etc. ND. I. 59. p. 85 ; SD. VI. 105. p.

35 NLRK. ll. 832-837.

36 ND. I. 59. p. 86. But it reads Nirodha (I, 56) in enume-

rating the aṅgas.

280

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

37 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 93 ; NLRK. 838 ; SD. VI. 105. p. 382.

38 NLRK. ll. 838-839.

39 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 93 ; NLRK. 1. 840.

40 Śr. pra. Vol. II. p. 523 ; SD. VI. 106. p. 382.

41 NLRK. ll. 840-843. The Śr. pra. (vol. II. p. 524) also

refers to the same situation as an illustration of the añga.

DR. p. 25. In the light of Dhanika’s illustration the ms.

reading samrambhokti seems to be better.

43 Bhā-pra. p. 212. ll. 3-4. samrabdhāināmavajnā and paraspara-

sya samgrāmah samrambheṇa.../

44 RS. III, 65.

45 NS. GOS. Vol. III. p. 55, f,n. 2. (bha) uttarottaravākyam,

(da) samrambhād-uttarottara-bhāṣaṇam, (na. ya) uttarottara-

vākyam /

46 NLRK. 1. 844. bija-kāryopagamānam ; NŚ. GOS. XIX. 94,

the reading, Ātāna here is undoubtedly an instance of

printing mistake. Cf. also Śr. pra. Vol. II. p. 524.

47 NLRK. ll. 844-847. Act IV of the R.V. has been referred

to by Palityañka 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 kāryasaṃgraha. Cf. Bhā-pra. p.

212. l. 6 ; RS. III, 66. p. 232.

50 NLRK. 1. 848. NŚ. GOS. XIX. 94.

51 NLRK. ll. 848-849.

52 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 56. apamāna-kalañkāpavāraṇācchā-

danamiti / In this sense the name chādana suits well.

53 ND. p. 84.

54 DR. I. 46. p. 24 ; chalanam cīvamānanam ; Bhā-pra. p.

212. l. 1 ; ND. p. 84. anye tvasyā sthāne chalanam avamāna-

narūpam āhuh /

55 RS. III. 64: p. 231.

56 SD. VI. 107. p. 384. kāryārtham apamānādeḥ sahanam...../

57 NŚ. KM. XIX. 93 and f.n. 9.

58 ND. p. 84.

59 NLRK. 1. 850.

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

281

60 NLRK. ll. 851-852. The whole verse is given in ll. 85-88.

61 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 95. Abhi-bhā. (Vol. III) p. 56.

62 Śr. pra. Vol. II. p. 524 ; SD. VI. 106. p. 383. In the light of the readings found in the NŚ., Śr. pra. and SD., the reading of the NLRK. may be amended as samhārārtha-

63 ND. p. 90.

64 DR. I. 47. siddhāmantranato bhāvidarśikā syāt praracanā| Bhā-pra. p. 212. l. 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. l. 20 ; p. 212. l. 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.

Añgas of the Nirvahana-sandhi

1 NLRK. l. 861. pradhānārthopakṣepah arthah / Perhaps the name Sandhi has been omitted to avoid a confusion with Sandhi, the divisons of the plot.

2 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 97.

3 Cf. DR. I. 51. p 27 ; ND. I. 62. p. 92 ; SD. VI. 110. p. 385.

4 NLRK. ll. 861-863. There is in the NLRK. only one citation from this lost Rāma-play. Śāradātanaya refers to it twice ; Bhā-pra. p. 217. l. 14, p. 223. l. 2. from the first reference we know that it was a Nāṭaka (mārīcavañcite nāṭake kṛtah) and the second pañcāñkametan mārīca-vañcitam) informs us that it was of five Acts. Cf. SOLRP. p. 96.

5 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 98. upakṣepastu kāryāṇāṃ grathanam... / The NLRK. l. 864. kāryāṇāṃ bahūnāmupakṣepo grathanam ; 18b

282 NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

Śr. Pra. (Vol. II. p. 525) quotes the NŚ. verbatim. 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 main

purpose is intended to.

7 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 57 ; SD. p. 383.

8 NLRK. ll. 864-869.

9 NLRK. l. 210.

10 Cf. supra, discussion on Kārya.

11 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 99 ; NLRK. l. 870 ; DR. I. 51 ; ND.

I. 63 ; SD. p. 386.

12 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 57 ; NLRK. ll. 870-872.

13 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 99.

14 NLRK. l. 873 ; Śr. pra. Vol. II. p. 526 ; ND. I. 63 ; SD.

p. 387.

15 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 58. anyonyāparādhoghaṭṭanam

vacanam etc. ND. I. 63. paribhāṣā svanindanam /

16 NLRK. ll. 873-875.

17 Śr. pra. Vol. II. pp. 526-527.

18 DR. I. 52. p. 28.

19 ND. p. 94.

20 Bhā-pra. p. 212. ll. 21-22.

21 NLRK. l. 876. īṛsyā-kleśopasamanam dyutih /

22 Śr. pra. Vol. II. p. 527. īṛṣyā-kopapraśamanam dyutim... /

Cf. NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 58, fn. 3. ms. pa.

23 NLRK. ll. 876-878. The name Kāmadattā-pūrti is hitherto

unheard. The RS. refers to a Prakarṇa Kāmadattā

(RS. III. 216. ganikānāyikam dhūrtam kāmadattāhvayādi-

kam). Dr S. N. Das Gupta (Hist. of Sans. Lit., Cal. Uni.,

p. 762) informs us that Kāmadattā, a work referred to in

the Bhāṇa Padma-prābhrtaka was probably a Prakaraṇa

written by Śūdraka himself. A Bhāṇikā with the title

Kāmadattā has been referred to in the NLRK. (l. 3161)

and in the SD.. (p. 458). In both the cases the name

has been cited as an example of Bhāṇikā. However,

OF ANCIENT INDIAN DRAMA & DRAMATURGY

283

it is evident that there were a Prakarana (from which Sāgara cites here) and a Bhānikā bearing the same title Kāmadattā.

24 ND. pp. 95-96. apare tu krodhādeh prāptasyā śamanam dyutim āmananti | After the illustration it is remarked, unena......ṛṣyā-kopasya śamanam |

25 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 100. labdhasyaārthasya śamanam...... | Abhinava says, sāmarthyāt praśamanīyasyā krodhāderar-thasya prāptasyāpi yat praśamanam sa dyutiḥ |

26 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 58. f.n. 5 ms. ‘bha’. The reading ‘krti’ seems to be better, as there is another Dyuti in the Vimarśa-sandhi also.

27 DR. I. 53.

28 DR. Avaloka. p. 30...ityanena prāptarājyasyābhiṣeka-maṅgalaiḥ sthirīkaraṇaṃ kṛtiḥ |

29 Bhā-pra. p. 213. 1. 2. kṛtirlabdhārthaśamaṇaṃ tat sthiri-karaṇaṃ tu vā |

30 SD. VI, III. p. 387.

31 ND. p. 95. labdhasya paripālanam kṣemaḥ |

32 ND. p. 95.

33 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 101. śuśrūṣādyupasampannaḥ prasādaḥ pritirucyate | NLRK. 1. 879. śuśrūṣādyupapannārthah prasādaḥ | Śr. pra. Vol II. p. 527. śuśrūṣādyupasampannaḥ prasādaḥ iti kīrtitah |

34 NŚ GOS. Vol. III. p. 59 ; NLRK. ll. 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. l. 22 ; SD. p. 287.

38 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 100 ; NLRK. l. 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. ll. 881-882.

41 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 101 ; Śr. pra. Vol. II. p. 528 ; DR. I. 52; ND. I. 64 ; Bhā-pra. p. 213. l. 1 ; SD. VI. 112. p. 387.

42 NLRK. ll. 883-885 ; Abhinavagupta (NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 59) also cites the same illustration.

284

NATAKA-LAKSANA-RATNA-KOSA IN THE PERSPECTIVE

43 NLRK. 1. 886. yukta-kāryānveṣaṇam anuyogah /

44 NLRK. ll. 886-888.

45 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 98 kāryasyānveṣaṇam yuktyā nirodha iti

kirtitah / The reading in the Śr. pra. (Vol. II. p. 525)

as : anyasyānveṣaṇam 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.

48 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 102 ; NLRK. 1. 889 ; DR. I. 53 ; ND.

I. 64 ; SD. VI. 112. p. 388.

49 NLRK. ll. 889-890.

50 NLRK. 1, 891.

51 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 102. sāma-dānādi-sampannam bhāṣaṇam

samudāhṛtam /

52 DR. I. 53 ; SD. VI. p. 383 ; ND. I. 65 ; Bhā-pra. p. 213.

53 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 59 ; NLRK. ll. 891-892. The read-

ing viśvabhuṅii in the NLRK. is evidently currupt and

vasubhāuti is the correct reading.

54 NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 59.

55 ND. p. 99.

56 NŚ. GOS. XIX. 103...yathokta-kārya-pradarśanam / Śr.

pra. (Vol. II. p. 529) reads : yathoktākṣepadarśanam and

this reading is supported by the ms. pa as recorded by

the editor of the NŚ. GOS. Vol. III. p. 60.

57 NLRK. 1. 893. bijodghāṭanam /

58 NLRK. ll. 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