1. Natya Darpana of Ramachandra and Gunachandra A Critical Study Trivedi K.H. L.D. Institute of Indology

Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Series No. 9

THE

NĀṬYADARPANA

OF

RĀMACANDRA AND GUṆACANDRA

A CRITICAL STUDY

By

Dr. K. H. Trivedi, M.A., Ph.D., Kovid

Head of the Department of Sanskrit and Prakrit,

N. & A. Arts College, Vallabh Vidyanagar

L. D. INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY

AHMEDABAD-9

1966

Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Series

General Editors:

Dalsukh Malvania

Ambalal P. Shah

No. 9

THE

NĀTYADARPANA

OF

RĀMACANDRA AND GUṆACANDRA

A CRITICAL STUDY

By

Dr. K. H. Trivedi, M.A., Ph.D., Kovid

Head of the Department of Sanskrit and Prakrit,

N. & A. Arts College, Vallabh Vidyanagar

L. D. INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY

AHMEDABAD

1966

A thesis approved for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Sanskrit

by the

Gujarat University

1961

Printed by Jayant Dalal, at Vasant Printing Press, Gheekanta

Road, Ahmedabad and Published by Dalsukh Malvania.

Director, L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad-9

First Edition : 750 Copies

August 1966

Price Rupees 30/ =

Copies can be had of

L. D. Institute of Indology

Ahmedabad-9.

Gurjar Grantha Ratna Karyalaya

Gandhi Road, Ahmedabad-1.

Motilal Banarasidas

Varanasi, Patna, Delhi.

Sarasvati Pustak Bhandar

Hathikhana, Ratanpoole, Ahmedabad-1.

Munshi Ram Manoharalal

Nai Sarak, Delhi.

Mehar Chand Lachhamandas

Delhi-6.

Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office

Varanasi,

FOREWORD

We have great pleasure in publishing this Critical Study of the Nāṭya-darpana (of Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra ) by Dr. K. H. Trivedi. In the middle ages Gujarat has produced some of the important works on various subjects, in Sanskrit as well as in Prakrit, to compete with Malawa. Nāṭyadarpana is one of them.

The present study gives a detailed outline of all the topics dealt with in the Nāṭyadarpana, compares the various views with those found in other works on dramaturgy and determines the place of the Nāṭyadarpana in the field of Sānskrit dramaturgy. Dr. Trivedi has drawn the conclusion from this study that from the point of view of clear, lucid and exhaustive treatment of all the important topics pertaining to Sanskrit dramaturgy the Nāṭyadarpṇa surpasses most of the earlier works. Dr. Trivedi rightly deserves our congratulations for the present study. I must also thank him for allowing us to include the work in our series.

I hope that both the scholars and the students will find this work useful and interesting.

L. D. Institute of Indology

Ahmedabad.

21-5-66

Dalsukh Malvania

Director

PREFACE

This is an humble attempt at a critical study of the Nāṭyadarpana of Rāmacandra and Gunacandra, one of the most important works in Sanskrit dealing with the science of dramaturgy. It is a valuable contribution of the Jaina writers to the field of Sanskrit dramaturgy. The present study, with certain modifications and alterations, is baised on my Thesis submitted to the Gujarat University for Ph. D. degree in Sanskrit, and I am most grateful to the University authorities for their kind permission to publish the work.

In the present study I have attempted to give a critical appraisal of all the topics dealt with in the Nāṭyadarpaṇa (which has been done in in Part-I of the present work), consider them in the light of a comparative study with other earlier Sanskrit works on dramaturgy from which it has usually borrowed and thereby evaluate the work and establish its place in and contribution to the field of Sanskrit dramaturgy (Part-II).

In Part-I of the present work a chapter has been devoted to each of the four Vivekas of the Nāṭyadarpaṇa. The chapters are named after their respective headings in the ND. As regards the treatment of topics, in the beginning I have given a detailed outline of what the ND has to say on that particular topic and this is followed by critical remarks on the same. In Part-II a critical estimate of the ND is attempted especially on the basis of its textual study. Here I have brought out the extent of the indebtedness of the ND to its preceding works, the extent of its originality and its influence, if any, on the later works on the same subject.

This critical and comparative study has led me to the conclusion that from the point of view of clear, lucid and exhaustive treatment of all the important topics related to Sanskrit dramaturgy, the ND surpasses most of the earlier works. I hope that this critical study of the ND which is rather less known but deserves to be known better will enable the students of Sanskrit dramaturgy to judge the work in its proper perspective.

My deep and hearty thanks are primarily due to Shri Dalsukhbhai Malvania, a distinguished savant and the Director of Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad. But for his kind appreciation and personal encouragement to me this work could not have seen the light of day.

I take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude towards my revered Professor Dr V. M. Kulkarni, for his valuable guidance and suggestions at a number of places. My thanks are also due to Dr. V. Raghavan for his thoughtful and scholarly suggestions. I am deeply indebted to Muni Shri Punyavijayaji Maharaj for his keen interest and assistance by providing me with the MSS of some of the unpublished plays of Rāmacandra. I am also grateful to Dr. B. J. Sandesara, the Director of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, for allowing me to make use of the rare MS of the Śṛṅgāraprakāśa of Bhoja. I am thankful to all the learned scholars whose works I have consulted and acknowledged in the Bibliography. I must also acknowledge my thanks to my students and friends and particularly to Dr. H. S. Joshi and Prof. I. B. Shukla for their help in preparing the Index.

N. & A. Arts College,

Vallabh Vidyanagar,

1-5-1966.

K. H. Trivedi

ABBREVIATIONS

Abhi. Abhinavabhāratī

Anargh. Anargharaghava

B. O. R. I. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

BP Bhāvaprakāśana

Devi. Devicandragupta

Dhv. Dhvanyāloka

DR Daśarūpaka

GOS Gaekwad's Oriental Series

H. S. P. History of Sanskrit Poetics

J. U. B. The Journal of the University of Bombay

Kaumudi. Kaumudīmitrānanda

KD Kāvyādarśa

KL Kāvyālaṃkara

KM Kāvyamālā Series

KP Kāvyaprakāśa

KPK Kāvyaprakāśakhaṇḍana

KS Kāvyānusāsana

KTR Kṛtyārāvana

Māl. Mālavikāgnimitra

MM Mallikāmakaranda

MBh. Mahābhārata

MDR Mudrārākṣasa

MRC Mṛcchakaṭika

Nāg. Nāgānanda

NBh. Nirbhayabhīmavyāyoga

ND Nāṭyadarpaṇa

NLR Nāṭakalakṣaṇaratnakośa

NLV Nalavilāsaṭaka

NS Nāṭyaśāstra

RBh Raghavābhyudaya

RG Rasagaṅgādhara

RV Raghuvilāsa

RS Rasārṇavasudhākara

RTN Ratnāvalī

Śak. Abhijñānaśākuntala

SD Sahityadarpana

SK Sarasvatikaṇṭhābharaṇa

SP Śṛṅgāraprakāśa

SR Saṅgītaratnākara

Satya. Satyahariścandra

TPV Tāpasavatsarāja

UDR Udāttarāghava

UTR Uttararāmacarita

Veṇi. Veṇīsaṃhāra

Vikram. Vikramorvaśīya

YBh. Yādavābhyudaya

CONTENTS

PART - I

(On Text)

Chapter

Pages

I Nāṭaka-nirnaya

Introduction — early references to the ND — ND, its nature

— a critical study of the Ch. I of the ND : introductory verses

— benedictory verse — Subject matter of the ND — the number

of Rūpakas — Nāṭaka — the hero — types of the hero — plot —

divisions of plot (i) Principal and Subordinate (ii) Sūcya,

Prayojya, Ūhya and Ūpekṣya (iii) Prakāśa, Svagata, etc. —

essentials of a good plot — Arthopakṣepakas — Arthaprakṛtis —

Pāṭhakasthānaka — Avasthās — Sandhis — Sandhyangas —

Sandhyantarās.

3-80

II Eleven types of Rūpakas — Prakaraṇa and others

Prakaraṇa — types of Prakaraṇa — Nāṭikā — Prakaraṇikā

— Critical Remarks — Vyāyoga — Samavakāra — Bhāṇa —

Prahasana — D̐ima — Utsṛṣṭikāṅka — Īhāmṛga — Vīthi —

Vīthyaṅgas.

81-124

III Vṛtti, Rasa, Bhāva and Abhinaya

Vṛtti — Bhāratī — Āmukha — Prarocanā — Sātvatī — Kaiśikī

Ārabhaṭī — Rasa — its nature — Number of Rasas — Varieties

of Rasa — Contradictory Rasas — Flaws of Rasas — Bhāva —

Abhinaya.

125-175

IV Miscellaneous topics common to all types of drama

Nāndī — Dhruvā — Types of characters in a play —

Qualities of the hero. — low characters in a drama — the

Vidūṣaka — the heroine — types of the heroines — qualities

of youthful women — dialects — modes of address — nomen-

clature — Uparūpakas.

176-206

PART - II

V Life, Date and Works of Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra

Personal history of Rāmacandra — co-pupils of Rāmacandra :

Guṇacandra and others — date of Rāmacandra and Guṇa-

candra

209 244

viii

candra — works of Rāmacandra — Rāmacandra, the author of

a hundred works — plays of Rāmacandra — poems of Rāma-

candra — Sūtras of Rāmacandra — a critical evaluation of

Rāmacandra's art.

VI The Relation of the Nāṭyadarpana to other works on Dramaturgy

or Poetics

245-290

(A) The ND's indebtedness to the earlier works on dramaturgy

( i ) The ND and the Nāṭyaśāstra

( ii ) The ND and the Abhinavabhārati

( iii ) The ND and the Daśarūpaka

( iv ) The ND and the Kāvyānuśāsana

( v ) The ND and the Śṛṅgāraprakāśa

( vi ) The ND and the Nāṭakalakṣaṇaratnakośa

(B) Traces of the influence of other works

(a) The ND and the Dhvanyāloka

(b) The ND and the Kāvyaprakāśa

(c) The ND and the Kāvyālankāra

(d) The ND and the Kāvyādarśa

(C) The influence of the ND on later works

VII Critical evaluation of the Nāṭyadarpana as a work on dramatic

science

291-306

APPENDICES

Appendix A Etymological explanations in the Nāṭyadarpana 307-310

" B Grammatical references in the Nāṭyadarpana 311

" C Subhāṣitas in the Nāṭyadarpana 312

" D Views of the Nāṭyadarpana on Aucitya 313-314

" E Some plays referred to by the Nāṭyadarpana 315-317

" F Jaina traits as found in the Nāṭyadarpana 318-319

" G The Nāṭyadarpana, some textual emendations 320-322

Select Bibliography 323-328

INDEX

(A) Subject Index 329-334

(B) Works and Authors 334-339

Errata 340

THE NĀṬYADARPANA

OF

RĀMACANDRA AND GUṆACANDRA

A CRITICAL STUDY

PART-I

(TEXT)

THE

NATYADARPANA

OF

RAMACANDRA

AND

GUNACANDRA

A

CRITICAL

STUDY

PART

I

(TEXT)

CHAPTER 1

NĀṬAKA-NIRṆAYA

General Introduction to the Nāṭyadarpana

The Nāṭyadarpana of Rāmacandra and Gunacandra, as we know, is an important contribution of the two Jain authors to the field of Sanskrit dramaturgy. The authors of the work have carefully studied and made use of all available earlier literature on the subject. At the same time they do not believe in following blindly. It will be seen, as will be pointed out later on, that they often differ from the earlier authorities and boldly propound their own views. The work, therefore, deserves to be studied critically.

Before we proceed to the chapter-wise study of the text of the Nāṭyadarpana (ND) it will not be out of place to give here a general introduction to the ND.

The early references to the ND :

Aufrecht’s catalogue refers to the work as Nāṭyadarpana. Peterson’s report for the year 1892 95, on the other hand, mentions the work as Nāṭakadarpaṇa.

There seem to have been more works than one with the same title as the quotations by the earlier commentators from the Nāṭya-darpana are not found in the present work. Rañganātha, for instance, in his commentary on the Vikramorvaśīya quotes the authority of the Nāṭyadarpana with reference to the type of Nāndī in the Vikramorvaśīya but the quotation is not found in the ND. Similarly Bharatamallikā in his commentary on the Bhaṭṭikāvya quotes the ND to describe Kāhala, a musical instrument, whereupon it can be inferred that there was a work with the title ND which treated ot music also. Of course, the present work strictly confines itself to dramaturgy only.1

Joint Authorship of the ND :

Joint authorship is not a very common phenomenon in the vast range of Sanskrit literature. There have been cases, where an incomplete work is completed by the later persons but it is not so usual in ancient literature to come across two scholars jointly writing a work in spite of the fact, that writing must have been a co-operative endeavour

1. Prof. S. K. De refers to the above quotations from the ND and ascribes them to the ND of Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra (H.S.P. Vol. I, pp. 308–9) but obviously he is mistaken.

4

especially in the old days when the writing material was so scarce. The

present ND is an outcome of such a joint effort.

It is difficult to comprehend what exact role Gunacandra performed

in writing this work. Still it appears that Rāmacandra had an upper hand

in writing the ND and he must have sought the help of Gunacandra in

collecting details about the various topics by carefully going through all

the important critical literature that was available to them.

That Rāmacandra was proficient in the technique of Sanskrit drama

is quite evident from the number of dramas that he has written; and so

it is likely that Rāmacandra dominated in writing the work as it is also

borne out by the fact that we find certain ideas or phrases in the ND to

be very similar to those in some of the plays of Rāmacandra1 and that

the authors of the ND refer to the plays of Rāmacandra as Svopajña.

NĀṬYADARPAṆA : ITS NATURE

The work Nāṭyadarpana, as the name suggests, treats of the science

of drama. The title literally means “ a mirror to the science of drama ”.

The title is quite appropriate. Just as a mirror gives a faithful and clear

reflection of a particular object at hand, this work too reflects or sheds

a flood of light on the science of drama. In a lucid and perspicuous style,

the authors give a clear picture of the chief principles of dramaturgy, ex-

plaining the critical points and problems that naturally confound a novice.

The work consists of two parts : (i) Kārikās and (ii) Vṛtti (in prose.)

(i) Kārikās are in the form of Sūtras in Anuṣṭubh metre which

give an outline of all the topics to be treated in the work and define

the important principles in a nut-shell. There are 207 Kārikās in all.

The Kārikās are divided into four chapters. Each chapter is called

‘Viveka’. The first is called Nāṭakanirṇaya, treating in full details the

nature and form of Nāṭaka, one of the most important forms of drama

1

(a)

परोपनीतशब्दार्थः स्वनाम्ना कृतकीतेयः ।

निबद्धारोधकुना तेन...................... ॥

ND, p. 215; MM I, 7

(b)

रসগ্রাহो हि नाट्यविधि: । वर्णैरर्थैर्नयैर्वेदैर्ध्वनिसंवासितान्तः-

करणा ये रसमपजहति, चिद्ध्रांस एव ते, न काव्यम् ।

NLV, p. 77.

रसाः पुनः प्राणाः:

ND, p. 170.

and

नानार्थवृत्तदौल्यान्तराऽऽभ्यो ये रसाग्रुतात् ।

विद्ध्रांसते कविवन्द्राणामह्निन्ति न पुनः कथाम् ॥

ND, p 22, verse 6.

(c)

न तथा दृश्यवैचित्र्ये (ना.द.- दृश्यसंपदोद्रेकः:) श्लाघ्या नाट्ये (ना.द.-काव्ये) यथा

रसः । विपाककषायमयस्यास्यामुद्रेज्जयति नीरसम्म् ॥

NLV, p. 77, ND, p. 171.

or Rūpakas. It also enumerates and defines Nāṭaka, plot (vastu), five

Avasthās (Ārambha, Yatna, Prāptyaśā, Niyatāpti and Phalāgama), five

Arthaprakṛtis (Bīja, Bindu etc.), five Sandhis (Mukha, Pratimukha, Garbha,

Avamarśa and Nirvahaṇa), five Arthopakṣepakas and 64 Sandhyangas and

with their treatment the chapter ends.

The Second chapter discusses the form and nature of the remaining

eleven types of dramas beginning with Prakaraṇa. The remaining types of

dramas are Nāṭikā, Prakaraṇī, Vyāyoga, Samavakāra, Bhāṇa Prahasana,

Dima, Utsṛṣṭikāṅka, Īhāṃrga and Vīthī. The chapter is consequently

named as Prakaraṇādyekādaśarūpanirṇaya i.e., the discussion and establish-

ment of the eleven forms of drama viz. Prakaraṇa and others.

The third chapter is named Vṛtti-Rasa-Bhāvābhinaya-Vicāra i.e.

consideration of styles, sentiments, states and gesticulation. First, the

authors describe four vṛttis-Bhāratī. Sāttvatī, Kaiśikī and Ārabhaṭī. Then

they define and explain Rasa and Anubhāvas. They also explain how

contradictory sentiments can be accommodated and point out the defects

in Rasas. Then they explain the dominant states and the resultant states.

The fourth chapter is named Sarva-rūpakasādhāraṇalakṣaṇanirṇaya.

It is a sort of miscellany. It deals with general topics whose knowledge

is useful while writing any type of play. It treats of such topics as are

common to all the twelve forms of drama. It treats of Nāndī and Dhruvā

first. Then follows the discussion of characters-males as well as females-

and there are three grades of the characters, viz, upper, middle and

lower. The authors of the ND then enumerate the qualities of the hero.

Then they give different types of heroines on the basis of their age,

particular state of mind, etc. Then follows the enumeration of the

qualities of a heroine. Then rules regarding the use of language (dialects)

and modes of address for different characters are set forth.

Vṛtti or commentary (gloss) on these Kārikās forms the most

important part of the work In Kārikās we find the principles treated

in a very brief manner, which are fully explained and illustrated in a

very lucid manner in the Vṛtti. The greatness of the work lies not in

the Kārikās which are mere reproductions of the earlier theorists like

Bharata who have already defined and explained the above topics, but

in the lucid and sufficiently exhaustive commentary. Here while explaining

a point they also mention the views of other theorists in an impartial

manner. They sometimes criticise them if they find them to be defective.

Out of all the four Vivekas, the commentary on the first is the

largest and constitutes almost half of the whole text. More than half

of this chapter is occupied by the Sandhyangas.

The authors supply the commentary with profuse illustrations. The

illustrations are meant to bring the abstract point home to the reader.

They are borrowed from different authors, sometimes picked up from

the earlier works on rhetorics, like Abhinavabhāratī, Daśarūpaka etc.

At many places the authors give illustrations from Rāmacandra's

own literary works, especially plays. Rāmacandra, over and above being

a writer on dramaturgy, is a good poet and a competent dramatist.

It is but natural that he cites illustrations from his own works which

would go to make his works well known also and give the work an air

of originality.1

A CRITICAL STUDY OF CHAPTER I OF THE ND :

The chapter I is named Nāṭakanirnaya as it chiefly concerns itself

with the complete discussion of Nāṭaka, the first and the foremost of

the twelve Rūpakas.

Introductory verses :

The chapter begins with introductory verses. The first verse is a sort

of benedictory verse and is the same as the first one in Kārikās and the

authors later on point out that the repetition of the verse in the Vṛtti

is to denote that the authors of the Kārikās and the Vṛtti are the same.2

The verse praises the speech of the Jinas, which accomplishes the fourfold

end of human life and which controls the law permeating the universe

in twelve Aṅgas.

Verse 2 proclaims the object of the work viz., to expound the

characteristics of a drama, after having studied so many plays written

by great poets.

Verse 3 points out the superiority of the drama to the other forms

of literature such as Kathā, Ākhyāyikā etc. The path of Kathā is easy

to tread being soft and smooth on account of figures of speech, while

the path of drama is difficult to tread being full of manifold billows in

the form of sentiments. The authors here seem to point out that the

essence of drama is sentiments whose depiction requires a great skill on

the part of the poet, while Kathās and such other forms of Śravya

Kāvya are concerned with mere narration which is to be decorated by

literary excellences such as figures of speech which are comparatively

easy to write.

1. In this respect Rāmacandra may be well compared with Jagannātha who also

illustrates from his own works, being himself a great poet as well as a critic ( of

course, the ND illustrates from other works also while Jagannātha does not.)

2. cf. ND, p. 25, lines 14-15.

Verse 4 describes the qualities essential for a person who wants either to enact or compose dramas. A dramatist must be well-versed in songs, music and dancing - three of the most important elements of drama.1 He must also have studied the ways of the world.2 The persons who are devoid of these qualities can never produce great works.

(Veres 5) - He is a true poet who by his piece makes even mortal beings enjoyers of nectar.

Verses 6 and 7 bring out the importance of Rasa in Kāvya. However learned a man may be he cannot be a great poet unless he is successful in creating Rasa. “ Those learned ones who are indifferent to nectar-like Rasa out of greed for striking words and meanings never deserve the title of great poets.”3 Though possessed of figures like Pun and others, if not possessed of the Rasas that are charming, the language does not please our mind just as a lady ugly in form even though adorned with ornaments cannot please or attract the mind.

The next verse is in praise of Aucitya or propriety. “ A person desirous of being a poet but having no knowledge of propriety becomes a laughing stock of the wise irrespective of his being a penniless pauper or a wealthy monarch.”

Then the authors praise the poetic talents in the subsequent four verses. Poetic talent is the soul of all lores and learning like charmingness in ladies. Even the knowers of all the three lores4 always aspire for it5. Two things are always odious to an appreciative person - undeveloped breasts in the case of a lovely damsel and absence of poetry in the case of a learned man.6 Absence of poetic talent is a great blot for the learned. But to be a poet by plagiarising the works of others is the climax of infamy.7

Finally the authors state that those who are devoid of poetic talents and still try to please the world are trying to climb a mountain having shut the two eyes.8

1. Even the great poet Kālidāsa in his Mālavikāgnimitra recognizes the importance of this musical element in a drama and points out that this drama is divided into two-Lāsya and Tāṇḍava-by Lord Saṅkara. cf. Māl. I, 4.

2. “Drama is imitation of life.” Literature in general mirrors life. So it is absolutely essential that the poet should know the ways of the world.

3. ND, I, p. 23 verse 6.

4. The three lores according to the Jainas are grammar, logic and literature.

5. ND, p, 23, 9.

6. ND, p. 24, verse 10.

7. ND. p. 24, verse 11.

8. ND. p. 24, verse 12.

8

Critical Observation :

These introductory verses are rather significant in the sense that they reveal our authors' attitude towards the essence of Poetry. The first verse which is in praise of the Jainī Vāk and is taken from the Kārikā shows their devotion to Jainism. This verse is explained at great length by the authors themselves.1

The next verse points out that the authors have studied many dramas of the great poets and have themselves written some. It is on basis of a perusal of these great works of the great poets that the authors describe Nāṭya. Here debt to great writers of the past is acknowledged. That the authors have gone through a number of works - almost all the prominent works of the day - is also evident from the numerous references to and quotations from the various sources. The authors seem to be well conversent with these.

Over and above this Rāmacandra has contributed some good plays of his own to Sanskrit literature, from which he quotes at a number of places. But we do not come across any play of Gunacandra. Even in the ND all the quotations under 'Svopajña' are the compositions of Rāmacandra only and it is quite likely that Gunacandra who was rather of sobre nature did not write any independent play at all. The verb in dual appears only to point out the joint authorship.

It is evident on a comparative study of the ND and earlier works on dramaturgy that the authors of the ND have carefully gone through earlier literature on the subject, especially the NS of Bharata. This is quite essential also, particularly while writing a book of scientific nature. They, therefore, aptly remark in the Vṛtti that they have fully scrutinized the work of the early sage i.e. Bharata. The DR, also, in utmost modesty states - Who can give new definitions of the types of plays ? I merely state briefly or summarize what has been already said.2

Verse 3 points to the difference between Drama (Nāṭya) and Kathā etc. Here the superiority of Nāṭya is shown to other forms of literature. Nāṭya is chiefly concerned with the development of Rasa while Kathās etc. are concerned with poetic narration made striking by various figures of word and sense. The authors are not unjustified in holding this view. If we look at the celebrated Kathās and Ākhyāyikās, like Kādambarī, Harṣacarita, Daśakumāracarita, etc., we shall at once find that the authors have been far carried away in showing off their pedantry in the

1. ND, pp. 24-25.

2. Cf. DR 1, 4 cd.

form of poetic fancies and figures so much so that the natural flow of

the story is considerably hampered and lost sight of. The poet goes

on describing a particular thing, sitting on the wings of fancy and

imagination, in great detail leaving the plot to take care of itself.

This type of description has little scope in a drama. In drama the

plot should not overshadow the sentiment, Of course, there are many

other points in which the two differ. The very treatment or handling

of the plot, the style, the language, etc., of a drama are totally different

from those of other types of literature. Here the characters are delineated

through their speeches and actions and the play-wright aims at deve-

loping a particular Rasa by means of these characters especially the

hero and the heroine, situations, speeches, gestures etc.1 Thus the

essential difference between drama and other forms of literature is that

in drama it is the sentiment that predominates while in the latter the

poetic descriptions.

In verse 4, the authors point out, the essential requirements of a

person who wants to write a drama or stage it. First he must be

well-versed in the science of singing, music and dancing. All these three

known as Saṅgīta2 form a very essential feature of a drama. A

playwright should know this well as music is a means of ecstatic delight

which is the chief purpose of a drama.3

Drama is called “the imitation of life.” So a poet depicts life in a

drama and that is why it touches our heart. The poet takes instances,

situations and characters from life. So it is very necessary that he

should be conversant with the ways of the world.4

Even the actor should have this knowledge. If he does not know

singing, music, etc., he cannot act. His gesticulation or acting too will

be imperfect if he has not observed the actual ways of the world. He

cannot faithfully reproduce what the poet wants to convey.

Verses 6 and 7 are in praise of Rasa. According to the Sanskrit

rhetoricians, Rasa is the most important element in literature. Kāvya

or any literary piece has to develop Rasa, fulfilment of which is its

ultimate aim.

1. Vībhāvānubhāvavyabhicārisamyogād rasanispattih– NS VI.

2. Gitaṁ nṛtyaṁ ca vādyaṁ ca trayaṁ saṅgītam ucyate.

3. Cf. KP I, 2 “Sadyah paraniṛtaye.”

4. That a poet should study or observe the ways of the world is stated in almost all

works on rhetorics :

cf. NS (KM), I, 116; KL V, 4; KD,I, 103; KP, I, 3 pp. 11–13.

2

10

Here in verse 6 there is a warning for the learned poets who are so much after the figures of word and sense. This has been the weak point of many Sanskrit writers, excepting a few like Bhāsa and Kālidāsa.

Later writers of post-Kālidāsan age, lacking in high poetic qualities, have neglected this lucidity, simplicity and natural flow of style and sacrificed Rasa, being chiefly interested in high poetic fancies, verbal jugglaries, ‘figures of words and sense’, thus rendering the style most artificial and the narration as well as description far from being realistic.

Rasa is ethereal. The enjoyment of this Rasa gives such aesthetic pleasure that it is compared to the joy which the great sages feel at the time of meditation upon supreme reality viz. Brahman (Brahmānandahodara).

The ND strictly warns such poets as are interested merely in the strikingness of word and sense that they never deserve to be called great poets. The ND boldly and emphatically asserts that dry pedants concentrating on jugglery of words and sense can never be great poets.

If these sentiments (Rasas) are unagreeable/harsh, being full of figures like pun etc., they do not please the mind like ugly ladies. In order that a lady may please the mind she should be beautiful; her complexion should be charming. External ornaments may decorate her when properly put on, but they are not all in all. Their position is subsidiary. They can decorate only when the body is charming and a charming personality will attract even without these external means1. This actually is the place of figures in poetry,

In this connection viz. the place of figures in a drama, the ND brings out the principle of propriety. Those, whoever they may be, from a prince to a pauper, who do not have the sense of propriety will be ridiculed by the learned.2 Here the ND refers to a very important principle of Kāvya. Starting from Bharata all have recognised this principle of propriety. Bharata, the earliest exponent of Sanskrit drama, defines drama as an imitation of the ways of the world,3 or representation of action of men of different natures such as Dhīrodātta and others.4 Thus when drama is a reflection of life, it should represent it in true and appropriate colours. Ornaments or decoration, increase the charm only when put at the right places. Improper placing like putting a necklace

1. Cf. Śāk. – Kim iva hi madhurāṇām maṇḍanaṁ nākṛtinām (I. 19).

2. Cf. ND p. 23 v. 8.

3. Trailokyānukṛtiḥ - NS I, 107.

4. NS I, 112, 118-9.

at the foot and anklet round the neck will tend to produce laughter.1

What is true of gold ornaments is equally true of literary ornaments i.e.

figures of speech which too should occur at the right time and right

place. Moreover, mere ornaments cannot decorate an ugly lady. Physical

beauty too is essential. Even in poetry, therefore, Rasa which pervades

the whole of the composition like the beauty in a woman, pervading

the whole of her person2, lends true charm.

The idea of propriety (Aucitya) seems to have developed gradually,

and seems to have very early origin. The origin and development of

Aucitya is brilliantly set forth by Dr. Raghavan in the chapter on

"The History of Aucitya in Sanskrit poetics." in his 'Concepts of

Alaṅkāra Śāstra'.

The next group of verses beginning from 9 to 12 is in praise of

'Kavitva' or poetic talents. To cultivate poetic talents is the chief

purpose of learning and lores. Kavitva is the soul of all learning, just

as beauty is for damsels. That is why even the knowers of the three

lores consciously try to achieve it.3

The authors in these two verses point out the necessity of poetic

talents for a learned man. Kavitva is to man what beauty or physical

charm is to woman. Thus poetic talents seem to the ND to be the

culmination of all learning. Here the ND seems to echo the view of

Bhāmaha who remarks, "What use is the proficiency in speech without

good poetry?"4 It appears that there were persons who believed that

writing poetry was the ultimate aim of all learning. Rāmacandra is

one of those. But in fact, a learned man may not necessarily be a

good poet. Poets, they say, are born and not made. For composing poetry

one requires poetic talents or Pratibhā, to use the technical word,

without which no poetry can ever be written and even if written will

be highly ludicrous.5

This Kavitva is primarily an innate quality-a mental impression.6

It is a part and parcel of one's inborn nature. It cannot be created as

the charming grace in youthful damsels. Beauty in women is natural

and does not depend upon any polish, or outward embellishments.

Ornaments and polish may add to the beauty but cannot produce it. A lady

1. Cf. NS XXIII, 69.

2. Dhvanyāloka I, 4.

3. Cf. ND verse No. 9 page 23.

4. Vide KL, I, 4.

5. KP I. 3 Commentary.

6. KP — Saṃskāraviśeṣaḥ (p.11).

12

who is physically ugly will not attract man though she may be loaded with ornaments. Kavitva is also an inborn natural gift of god. Learning and education may go to develop that quality but cannot create it. A learned literary man can be a good critic but not necessarily a good poet. The root of poetic composition Is that extraordinary Pratibhā which is so natural to great poets.1

There has been a variety of opinions regarding what actually is the cause of poetic composition - Pratibhā or Vyutpatti (knowledge). Ānandavardhana attributes greater importance to Pratibhā. He says, ‘The fault of a poet arising out of lack of knowledge is not noticed being concealed by Pratibhā, while the fault arising out of lack of the poetic talents is revealed instantaneously.’2 Some believe in knowledge and our authors indirectly seem to share this view as they belive that every learned man must be a good pəet. How far the ND is justified here is left to the discretion of the learned critics. But probably the authors mean to advise the leaned people to write poetry, as the ND thinks that lack of poetic talents is a blot on a well-read person. One must start writing as there are no means of recognising whether or not a person has the talents. In this connection the view of Dandin deserves to be noted. Even though he believes in a synthesis of natural genius, learining and practice, he states - “Even if a person may not be having that firm association of ideas or surprising genius due to merit, yet constant practice and learning will surely produce some good results.” (Lit. Goddess Sarasvatī constantly worshipped will show favour unto him).3 Our authors have this practical view in mind when they insist on poetic composition for a learned man. The reason tco is obvious. Poetic composition is the real means of acquiring public love and permanent fame. They announce, “ Those who are devoid of poetic talents and still try to gratify the world climb the mountain having closed their eyes”4, meaning thereby that to gratify people without poetic ability is as difficult as climbing a mountain with closed eyes.

Here the ND gives a warning note against plagiar ism. This craze for winning popularity and fame is likely to lead a man of inferior calibre to write even by plagiarising from the works of other learned poets like Kāldāsa, Bāna and others. But to be a poet one must possess the pəwer of original thinking. Not to write is bad but to write having plagiarised from other poems is the “ Climax of

1. Cf. Dhvanyāloka I, 6.

2. Cf. Dhvanyāloka, p 169.

3. Kāvyādarśa I, 104.

4. ND p. 24 verse 12.

infamy "1. The authors of the ND seem to echo here Bhāmaha who

states, "Not being a poet does not conduce to sin, sickness or punish-

ment; but being a bad poet (Kukavi) is directly tantamount to death "2.

Plagiarism seems to have been a social disease from time to time and so

we find many a critic condemning it. This problem has been exhaustively

treated by Rājaśekhara in his Kāvyamīmāṃsā.

Benedictory Verse

The work opens with a benedictory verse3, in accordance with the

general tradition, in praise of the favourite deity of the poet so that the

deity may confer blessings on the writer as well as the reader and

dispel evils and obstacles on the path of completion of the work.

The deity propitiated here is the ‘speech of the Jinas’. The

authors call it to be the fit and favourite deity. The propitiation of

speech in the beginnig of such a work is quite common. We find speech

praised in many works on rhetorics.4 Speech being the deity presiding

over all literature, is the fittest goddess for a work on poetics. The

praise of ‘speech’ indirectly implies the praise of the whole work-the

language and its meaning.

But the authors here propitiate not merely Vāk or speech but Jaini

vāk i.e. speech of the Jinas or Tīrthaṅkaras. "We perpetually propitiate

the speech of the Jinas, which results in the attainment of the four-

fold object of human life and which holds the universe in the righteous

path having permeated it by twelve forms."5

The Jainī Vāk can be taken as the speech of the Jinas i.e. self-

controlled or unbiased persons. Verily indeed it is an unbiased mind that

can create and give universal definitions. So the authors indirectly praise

the speech of the great sages like Bharata.

The aim of literature is, as our authors have pointed out,6 the

attainment of fourfold objects of human life viz, Dharma, Artha, Kāma

and Mokṣa. The dramatists obviously have the above four in mind. For

instance, the hero is depicted to be struggling for material prosperity

(Artha) or fulfilment of love (Kāma) or at times for moral or spiritual

1. ND p. 24, verse 11 cd.

2. Kāvyālaṅkāra I, 12.

3. ND I, 1, p. 24.

4. Cf, KD, KP, KS, and others.

5. ND I, 1,

6. Cf. Caturvargaphalām - ND I, 1. Here the ND seems to have followed Bhāmaha

( Cf. Dharmārthakāmamokṣeṣu KL I, 2) and disagrees with Dhanika who quotes

the view of Bhāmaha, criticizes it and establishes Rasa alone as the fruit of

literature. (Cf. DR : Avaloka on I. 6.)

gain (Dharma). Even when direct spiritual object is not seen the poets

indirectly suggest it by delineating the victory of virtuous characters

such as Rāma and the disaster of vicious characters such as Rāvaṇa,

which ultimately suggests that one should behave like Rāma and not

like Rāvaṇa. (It will be clear on perusal of dramatic literature that the

method of preaching of the poet is quite different from the method of

religious preachers. The writer does not give sermons like a priest but

creates characters and situations from our daily life and thus indirectly

suggests the ultimate purpose.)

Mokṣa i.e. spiritual freedom or beatitude can also be included in

the purpose as it is the final aim of Dharma and even of human life.

According to Hindu ideology summum bonum of human life is salvation

or Mokṣa-freedom from the cycle of birth and death. The practice of

Dharma ultimately conduces to Mokṣa. So Mokṣa can be called the

purpose of a play1, even though it is difficult to find dramas which

directly aim at Mokṣa.

The ND emphasises that the dramas must aim at the attainment

of the above fourfold object of human life.2

Critical Observations :

In praising the ‘Jaini Vāk’ in the verse of benediction the authors

have strictly followed their religious preceptor Hemacandra who too in

the beginning of his KS invokes the ‘Jaini Vāk’3. Though Hemacandra

takes the word in a purely religious sense the ND goes a step further

and interprets it doubly as the speech of the self-controlled sages such

as Bharata and others.

The verse establishes the total number of Rūpakas as twelve. In

recognizing the number twelve the authors of the ND have followed

their preceptor Hemacandra. But here they have attributed religious

significance to the number twelve by associating it with the total number

of their principal Āgama scriptures (Aṅgas). The idea of attributing

religious significance to the number must have been suggested to our

1. Cf, ND p. 25 Lines 1–2.

2. ND. p. 25, line 3.

3. It should be pointed out here that ND’s attitude is purely religious. While pro-

pounding fourfold object of human life as the purpose of drama Rāmacandra has

ignored here the most important aspect of it viz., the aesthetic aspect. The purpose

of literature is the instantaneous highest bliss or aesthetic delight -Sadyahpara-

nirvṛti in the words of Mammaṭa. Dharma or preaching may be there but should

be indirect, subordinate to joy. In fact, good poetry without moral is superior to

bad poetry with moral.

authors by Dhananjaya who associates the number ten of the Rupakas

with the ten incarnations of Lord Visnu (DR. I. 2).

The drama culminates in the attainment of some fruit such as Dharma,

Artha, Kama or Moksa. Usually the drama culminates in fulfilment of

love (Kama).

The authors of the ND seem to believe that literature should

convey some moral. Thus they stand not for 'Art for Art's sake' but

for 'Art for morality'. True art can never be immoral. It is a dubious

problem as to what the place of morality is in literature, It is true

that the work of a poet is different from that of a preacher. Even if a

poet preaches, he does it indirectly through suggestion. The advice

given is like that of a loving wife who makes her husband do what

she likes in such a way that the latter is all the while feeling that it

is his will that dominates. Authors of the ND seem to differ slightly

from rhetoricians like Mammata and others who consider aesthetic

delight as the principal aim of literature and uphold that "Preach

it may, please it must."

Subject-matter of the ND

Now the ND proclaims the subject intended to be defined and

discussed. The subject under discussion is the particular form of Poetry

which can be represented on the stage, i.e. drama or dramatic composi-

tion, in accompaniment with its different aspects such as sentiment,

state, heru, heroine etc.

The authors reserve their right as to what they should define and

what they should not. The field of discussion being too vast the authors

will discuss only those things in which they believe and accordingly they

do not define Sattaka etc., which are defined by Kohala.1

Again the things to be defined here are already well known being

defined by ancient sages (like Bharata) and accepted by the successors.

The opponent may ask them as to what is the purpose of writing whatever

1. Kohala has been mentioned by the NS as one of the hundred sons of Bharata (NS

(KM) I, 26.) Even in the concluding chapter Bharata brings out that the rest will

be discussed by Kohala. Cf, NS (KM)XXXVII, 18.

Kohala has been associated with dramaturgy, especially with music and dance

Kallinatha in his commentary on Sangitaratnakara gives very long quotations from

Kohala. He is recognised to be the author of 'Taladhyaya.' Markandeya in his Prakrit

Grammar refers to him along with Sakalya, Bharata and others. Thus his name is

associated with Prakrit also and so he is said to have defined Sattaka (whieh is

totally in Prakrit) also. There is a mention of a work called Dattila-kohaliya which

is suppossed to include the lectures delivered by Kohala to Dattila. Abhinava refers

to him as an actor,

16

has been already written. The authors retort that though the matter is

old, their method is not so. They do not propose to repeat or echo

verbatim whatever is already written. Their intention is to put the same

thing in a new form with various modifications such as elucidating what

is difficult and curtailing what is unimportant.

Personal Observations ;

The authors of the ND are very clear in the assertion of their motive.

They know their limitations. The subject of dramaturgy has been so

thoroughly treated in all possible aspects by Bharata and others that

there can be little scope for a new writer to contribute anything which

can be called purely original. Nor does the ND claim it. The work of

the ND is therefore to put the old thing in a new light. The NS is so

voluminous and consists of many things which are not necessary for a

dramatist to know. It treats of such topics such as theatre-building

which are not important for a young dramatist. At the same time it is

also quite likely that some points might have been treated very briefly

by the earlier writers. Take for instance the DR whose treatment at

times is so brief that it becomes almost unintelligible. The work of the

ND is to examine these works and present a lucid study, elucidating

some points or curtailing them as necessity demands.

The Number of Rūpakas :

The ND enumerates the types of Rūpakas to be defined. They are

twelve in number : (1) Nāṭaka, (2) Prakaraṇa, (3) Nāṭikā, (4) Prakaraṇikā,

(5) Vyāyoga, (6) Samavakāra, (7) Bhāṇa, (8) Prahasana, (9) Dima, (10)

Aṅka or Utsṛṣṭikāṅka, (11) Īhāmṛga and (12) Vīthī.

Out of these twelve, Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa are principal, as they

delineate the life of a great man, which is so illuminating, and wherein

all the four ends of human life are found fulfilled.1 First four of the

above twelve Rūpakas are possessed of all the five Saṃdhis and are fit

for introducing Viṣkambhaka and Praveśaka. The characters are high and

elevated. They can have all the four Vṛttis some one as principal and

others as subordinate. The remaining eight ( nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 )

have one or more of the three Vṛttis excluding Kaiśikī.2 (Bhāratī,

Sāttvatī and Ārabhaṭī ). In Vyāyoga, Samavakāra, Īhāmṛga and Dima

there is no one specified Vṛtti as principal while Bhāṇa, Prahasana, Aṅka

and Vīthī have a specific Vṛtti as principal. In the former case, any

can be made principal according to the sweet will of the author and the

rest subordinate if at all they are to be used. In the latter case one is

1. ND p. 26.

2. Cf. NS XVIII, 9 ab. Here ND has strictly followed NS,

principal; the others, if at all to be employed, are to be given a subordinate position. Kaiśikī is totally prohibited here.1

In Samavakāra, amorous sentiment is present but not the Kaiśiki,2 The ND explains that Śṛṅgāra as a sentiment does not imply simply passion. It requires the high development of amour (Vilāsa)3. This cannot be depicted in characters of furious temperament which is the case in Samavakāra. Thus there can be no Kaiśikī in Samavakāra.

The ND here differs from the general view. It has made bold to introduce two new forms of drama into the celebrated group of ten recognised by almost all Sanskrit writers on dramaturgy. Bharata, the highest and the oldest extant authority on dramaturgy speaks of ten types of Rūpaka, although he mentions Nāṭikā and defines it. The DR also speaks of ten Rūpakas which form the subject matter of the work.

The idea of twelve forms seems to be suggested to the authors of the ND by Hemacandra, their preceptor, who in his KS refers to the number as twelve by adding Nāṭikā and Saṭṭaka to the list of ten.4 The ND substitutes Saṭṭaka by Prakaraṇikā.5 The idea of associating the number of Rūpakas with twelve Aṅga texts of the Jain canonical literature might have been suggested to the authors of the ND, as already pointed out, by the DR where the number ‘ten’ is associated with the ten incarnations of Viṣṇu. Still however, it would not be correct to say that the Jainas were the first to recognise the total number of Rūpakas as twelve. Originally Bharata seems to have suggested this by adding “Nāṭisamjñā-śrite Kāvye.”6 Dhanika also refers to Nāṭikā and Prakaraṇikā in the commentary.7 The SP clearly accepts the number of the Rūpakas as twelve adding Nāṭikā and Saṭṭaka to the list of the DR. Someśvara recognizes totally 13 types of Rūpakas [eleven of Bharata (i. e. ten +

1. DR differs here. It points out that the Vṛtti in Vīthī is Kaiśikī, while in Samavakāra Kaiśikī is there but in a subordinate manner. The ND has strictly followed the NS here.

2. Cf. Abhi. II, p. 411, lines 2–3 where he points out that Kaiśikī is not there in Samavakāra.

3. This view of ND is also corroborated by the etymological meaning of Śṛṅgāra which is explained as Śṛṅgāṁ kāmasya parāṁ kāṣṭhām ṛcchati (gacchati) iti śṛṅgāraḥ, which denotes high development of love. The SD interprets the word Śṛṅga as “spring of love or sexual desire ” (III, 183).

4. Vide KS Vol. I, p. 432.

5. The authors of the ND mention Saṭṭaka as the first variety of the other forms of drama, and explain it in Vṛtti. (Vide ND, p. 213) but do not seem to attach so much importance to it as to define it in Kārikā.

6. NS (KM) XVIII, 109–111.

7. DR, p. 72.

3

18

Nāṭikā ) + two ( Troṭaka and Saṭṭaka ) of Kohala ]. The KS has followed

the SP.

Here the authors of the ND have partly followed their learned

preceptor (or the SP of Bhoja) in so far as they have recognized the

total number as twelve. But they differ from both in not accepting

Saṭṭaka (as Rūpaka) and replacing it by Prakaraṇikā.

The authors of the ND do not allot Saṭṭaka a place among the

twelve Rūpakas probably for the following reasons :

(i) It is entirely in Prakrit and hence is totally different from the

rest of the plays which are principally in Sanskrit.

(ii) In form and subject it is almost similar to Nāṭikā with only minor

differences1 and so does not have notable special features of its own.

(iii) It has not been recognized by the old sages like Bharata.

Thus according to the authors of the ND Saṭṭaka is not fit to be

included in the list of the twelve principal Rūpakas though they mention

it first in the list of other Rūpakas2 which is very probably due to

their respect for their preceptor as well as Bhoja who mention it among

the principal Rūpakas.

How far our authors are justified in recognizing Nāṭikā and Praka-

raṇikā as two of the principal Rūpakas will be discussed later on.

Nāṭaka :

The ND now starts defining the first and the most important of

the twelve Rūpakas, viz., Nāṭaka3. It represents the life of a reputed

king of antiquity. This reputation may be of three types : by name, by

action and by country.4

The hero should be a man of the past. If he belongs to the present

age, all his limitations or weaknesses also are known to people and so

possibly his life may not interest people. Similarly one cannot think

about the life of the would-be great men.

The hero should be a king and hence a Kṣatriya; thereby he should

be a mortal and not a heavenly being. One of the purposes of a drama

is to instruct. The drama of Rāma, for instance, points out that we

should behave like Rāma and not like Rāvaṇa.5 But, gods attain the

1. Vide Karpūramañjarī I, 6.

2. ND, p. 213.

3. ND I, 5.

4. Here ND follows Abhi., even the illustration of Vatsarāja is taken from Abhi. Cf.

Abhi. II, p. 411.

5. Cf. KP, I, 2, p, 10.

desired objects merely by the desire and so their lives cannot be imitated

by the mortals. They cannot instruct us nor impress us deeply. The ND

criticises those who allow a god to be the hero. A heroine, on the other

hand, can be a goddess as her character is subordinate to the hero. In

Samavakāra etc., where there is nothing to instruct even a god can

figure as a hero.

While depicting the life of the hero the poet does not always

strictly follow the actual happenings. He may add something interesting

and may as well omit things which cannot evoke any interest.

The aim is the fulfilment of one or more of the four ends of human

life. These objects are attained immediately and not in future as promised

in sacred texts.

It must be possessed of ‘Acts’, Artha-prakṛtis, Avasthās and

Sandhis. It may have a god in a subordinate position. A god can figure

as the helpmate of the hero or as a Patākā-nāyaka or Prakari-nāyaka.

The introduction of gods in a subordinate position is also meant to

make the audience realize that gods do help their true votaries.

Etymology of Nāṭaka :

The ND derives the word Nāṭaka from √Nāṭ (10 p.) ‘to please’, ‘to

make dance,’ so called as it makes the hearts of spectators dance by

providing great delight. It criticises Abhinava who derives the word

from √Naṭ which means ‘to bow down,’ pointing out that in that case

there will not be lengthening of the first vowel and the word formed

would be Naṭaka and not Nāṭaka as we get Ghaṭa (and not Ghāṭa) from

the root Ghaṭ.

Distinction Between Nāṭaka and Other Forms of Literature :

Now the ND goes to differentiate Nāṭaka from other forms of

literature. Nāṭaka differs from Kathā and the like. Though both delight

the minds the latter cannot be so delightful as the Nāṭaka for they do not

have the charming varieties of Acts, Saṃdhis, etc. It also differs from

the other types of drama such as Prakaraṇa and others as in the

former the dramatist has to delineate the king and his vast paraphernalia

such as ministers, commanders-in-chief, etc. while in Prakaraṇa and

others, the field is comparatively limited.1

The ND has very effectively argued out as to why a god should

not figure as the hero in a Nāṭaka 2 Here the authors have indirectly

1. ND, p. 28.

2. ND, p. 27.

20

emphasised the importance of ‘realism’ in drama without which a piece

is bound to fall flat upon the minds of the spectators.

The authors of the ND have given fresh etymology of Nāṭaka in

deriving it from ‘Nāṭ’ to make dance, which is, in fact, a causal form of

‘Naṭ’ to dance.1 This criticism by the authors of the ND is based on

grammatical intricacy and reveals the authors’ knowledge of grammar.

Dhanika derives the word ‘Nāṭya’ from the root ‘Naṭ’ denoting

movement (Avaspandana)2. The root ‘Naṭ’ should be taken in the sense

of gesticulation or imitation as drama is principally a mimetic art.

HERO

Now the ND takes up the topic of different types of the hero :

The heroes can be divided into four types from the point of view of

their nature.

(1) Dhīroddhata – ( haughty )

He is unsteady, furious, arrogant, imposter or a hypocrite

and boastful. Gods belong to this type.

(2) Dhīrodātta ( exalted ) :

He is very serious, just, powerful, forgiving and steady.

Ministers and leaders of the armies belong to this type.

(3) Dhīralalita ( light-hearted ) :

He is amorous, fond of art, happy and tender at heart or

by nature.

(4) Dhīraśānta ( calm ) :

One who has no pride, who is merciful, modest and just, is

known to be Dhīraśānta. Banias and Brahmins belong to this type.

The Kings can belong to any of the four types.

There can be exceptions to the rule. Though born a Brahmin, a man

like Paraśurāma may be of Dhīroddhata nature.

The ND has followed the NS.3 But the ND differs from the NS on

one point, viz., according to the NS the kings are of Dhīralalita type,

while the ND opines that they can belong to any of the four types.

It is not quite clear what Bharata actually means when he says

that kings are of Dhīralalita type. The ND very cleverly charges Bharata

with self-contradiction. viz., on one side Bharata states that the kings

1. The word Naṭ denotes many senses : (i) to dance, (ii) to act (iii) to injure- while

its causal form Nāṭayati (-te) means to act, to gesticulate or to imitate.

2. Vide DR : Avaloka, p. 3.

3. NS (Gos) XXIV, 18

are Dhīralalita while on the other he ordains that the hero of a Nāṭaka

is Dhīrodātta as well as a king.1 This clearly means that the kings are

Dhīrodātta.

The ND goes a step forward. Can the kings not be of Dhīroddhata

or Dhīraśānta nature also ? The ND says, “Yes”. A king like Bhīma is

reputed for his Uddhata nature and we do have dramas like Madhyama

Vyāyoga and others having Bhīma as the hero. Similarly Kṣatriya princes

like Buddha and Mahavīra are evidently of Dhīraśānta nature. Thus

Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra appear to be fully justified when they declare

that kings can belong to any of the four types.

In fact, Bharata’s classification of heroes into four types such as

Uddhata, Lalita etc. and attaching these types to gods, kings and others

respectively does not seem to be quite scientific. Bharata states that a

minister or a commander-in-chief are ‘Udātta’. At the same time a Brahmin

or a Bania is supposed to be ‘Śānta’. Is a minister not a Brahmin or a

Bania ? A commander of an army is also either a Brahmin or a Kṣatriya.

Thus the classification suffers from the fallacy of overlapping division.

The most important of all the characters in any literary piece are

the hero and the heroine, and Indian rhetoricians have taken great pains

to delineate them fully from top to toe. The theorists demand that the

hero who is termed Nāyaka must have particular qualities. He must be

brave, noble, dignified, pure, learned, virtuous, self-controlled, intelligent

and having handsome personality.2

The ND here criticises the view of those who hold that the hero of

a Nāṭaka must be of Dhīrodātta type only. The ND opines that they do

not comply with the theory of the sage ( i. e. Bharata ) nor have they

been supported by the actual practice, as we find, in some of the Nāṭakas,

the heroes of Dhīralalita type also. The dramas in view of the authors

of the ND are likely to be the Svapnavāsavadatta and the like, whose

hero is Udayana who is recognized as a Dhīralalita type of hero. The

criticism seems to have been directed against Dhananjaya and Dhanika

who think that the hero should be Dhīrodātta3 and the authors of the

1. NS (GOS) XVIII, 10

2. For qualities of the hero : wide DR II, 1-2.

3. It is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the ND is referring here to the DR.

Dhanika in his commentary to the DR (III, 22, 23) points out that the hero of

a Nāṭaka should be of Dhīrodātta type (p. 70), It is difficult to comprehend why

the ND says that these persons are misinterpreting Bharata. In fact Bharata

specifically points out that the hero of Nāṭaka should be known and Udātta (NS

(GOS ) XVIII, 10). The real stand of the ND seems to be practical. Authors of the

ND have before their mental eye, as stated above, some Nāṭakas like the Svapna-

vāsavadattam of Bhāsa whose hero is Dhīralalita instead of Dhīrodātta.

22

ND seem to be perfectly justified here, in so far as the actual dramatic

practice goes against their opponents' view.

PLOT

Plot is of two types - (1) Principal and (2) Subordinate.

Principal is one which pervades the entire play and whose develop-

ment and culmination is the main object of the playwright.

Subordinate plot or incidental plot is popularly known as sub-plot.

It is subordinate as it follows the main plot. It is called Prāsaṅgika as

it is introduced by way of the efforts of some one else1.

Nothing is principal or subordinate by nature : it is the writer

who makes it so. The action whose fruit is the most desired of all the

fruits will be naturally understood as principal and the rest will be

subordinate whose purpose is to help the main fruit; e.g., in Rāma story,

the bringing back of Sītā is represented to be principal and the friend-

ship with Sugriva and Vibhīṣaṇa, killing of Rāvaṇa, etc. are represented

as subordinate as they are means for the attainment of the above

principal end.

The poet (i.e. the dramatist) is not absolutely free to make a

thing principal or otherwise. He has to observe the propriety2. Whatever

fruit is the most appropriate to the nature of the hero should be made

principal, e.g., in the TPV the efforts of Yaugandharāyaṇa form Prāsaṅ-

gika to the main thing, viz., the attainment of the kingdom of Kausāmbī.

The Sub-plot is essential only when the hero requires external aid

to accomplish his end, and not always, e.g., in the Kośalikā Nāṭikā the

hero needs no help in obtaining Kośalikā and hence no sub-plot.

From another point of view the plot may be divided into four

types : 1 ) Sūcya ( to be suggested ), 2 ) Prayojya ( to be staged ), 3 )

Abhyūhya ( to be imagined ) and 4 ) Upekṣyā ( to be neglected or

left out. )

(1) This is not to be actually put on the stage, as it is either

dull and insipid or vulgar ( though interesting such as embracing,

kissing, etc. )

(2) This is to be actually staged. It should be interesting and in

keeping with the refined taste.

1. Cf. Prasaṅgāt parakīyayatanāt āgatam prāsaṅgikam, ND, p. 30.

2. Vide ND, p. 30.

(3) This can be easily imagined and is closely connected with the former two varieties of the plot, e.g., journey can be easily imagined when the person or the party is shown to arrive at the destination1.

(4) This is so repugnant and odious. It creates shame if represented on the stage and has to be totally done away with, e.g., eating, taking bath, sleeping, answering to the nature’s call, etc.

The ND makes a note here. Sometimes if this becomes necessary to be staged being an indispensable part of the plot it may be staged such as sleeping of Sītā in Rāma’s lap in the UTR.

The ND now turns to another division of plot which is popularly known as Nātyoktis ( conventions of speech ) :

Introduction :

While writing a drama, the dramatist has to face a number of dimculties. His medium is that of speech or conversation. He has to unfold the minds of the characters through their speeches and actions.

He has also to bear in mind the stage anl the audience as the drama is primarily meant for being staged. This creates a number of problems.

The entry and exit of characters have got to be made dramatic. When once a character has entered the stage, it is not possible to remove it suddenly without proper reasons. Moreover, the character might be required on the stage soon afterwards.

It may also happen that in order that the audience may fully comprehend a particular character it is necessary for the latter to reveal the innermost workings of his mind to the spectators, but this may not be desirable ( from the point of view of the playwright ) for other characters on the stage to hear as it may come in the way of the further development of the plot.

The ND considers these as “the divisions of plot” from another point of view. It divides the plot into five parts (i) Prakāśa, (ii) Svagata, (iii) Apavārita, (iv) Janāntika, and (v) Ākāśokti or Ākāśabhäṣita.

(i) Prakāśa ( Aloud ) – Generally all speeches are to be heard by ( the spectators in the theatre and ) all the characters on the stage and so this direction may sound redundant. It is, in fact, understood where there is no other direction. It is, not mentioned by Bharata and so Prof. Balbir thinks it to have been introduced later,2 This stage-direction is to be introduced only after ‘Svagata’. The DR places it under Sarvaśrāvya.

1. For instance, in the Śāk, the journey of Śakuntalā and her party at the end of Act IV is imagined when they arrive at the court of Duṣyanta in Act V,

2. A. I. O. C. Thirteenth session, Nagpur, 1946, p. 190.

24

(ii) Svagata (also called Ātmagata1) - When the speech is not meant to be heard by any other character on the stage it is known as Svagata.

This is a sort of soliloquy in which the speaker gives free vent to his inner emotions and personal thoughts.

As a matter of fact there is no distinction between Svagata and Ātmagata (both being synonyms).

But Sāgarandhin takes the two terms differently, and recommends the use of Tripatākā in either.3

But the distinction between the two is not explained. On the basis of the Anargharāghava I, p.48 Prof. Levi has wrongly tried to distinguish between the two.3

The explanation of Prof. Balbir too viz., “Ātmagata is the word that is yet in the character and Svagata that which is to be heard by that character alone who speaks it out.” is also far from being plausible.

(iii) Apavārita (or Apavāritaka or Apavārya) - When a secret is disclosed to another having turned aside from all others who are not expected to hear and having bent the body before the person to whom the matter is to be revealed it is known as Apavārita.

It is so called since the matter is to be concealed from many.4

Here the two characters come forward to a corner of the stage and talk.5

(iv) Janāntika - When the matter is to be concealed from only one character while others on the stage may hear it the above stage-direction should be used.

This is to be suggested by a technical sign of the hand called Tripatākā.6

It is so called as the speech is to be concealed from only one while it may be revealed to others.7

In explaining this the ND has strictly followed Abhinavā.8

If we look to the actual use of the terms Janāntika and Apavārita by the dramatists in their plays we shall find that there is much confu-

1. Cf. NS. (KM) XXV, 89.

2. Vide NLR - Svagataṃ ātmagataṃ caiva svayaṃ tripatākāpāninīā; yet pathet tatra somyojyam dvayaṃ etat prayoktrbhih. (p. 95).

3. Le Theatre Indien : notes to p. 61.

4. Apavāryate Bahūnāṃ Pracchādyata Ityapavāritam-ND, p. 31.

5. Cf. DR. p. 33.

6. Here all the three fingers (of the hand) except the ring-finger (Anāmikā) are kept straight while the ring-finger together with the thumb are kept bent or curved - ND p. 31.

7. उद्धृश्यवाङ्लिङ्कानामिकः कृत्विप्ताकः सोऽनन्तरमाश्रित्य प्रति व्यावृत्तानां यत्रान्येन सह जल्पो जनानामेकस्यैव गोप्यत्वाद् बहूनामन्तिकं श्राव्यत्वतया निकटं जनान्तकम् । ND. p. 281.

8. Cf. Abhi. III, p. 281.

sion and ambiguity and arbitrariness in the employment of these terms.1

One and the same dramatist uses Apavārya at one place and Janāntika

at another even though the situations are quite similar. On the other

hand a dramatist like Harṣa does not employ the term Janāntika at all

in his plays.

The purpose of Tripatākāra seems to be quite practical. How is

the audience going to know whether the speech is Apavārita or

Janāntika? Turning aside (Parāṛtti) may go to bring out this distinction

to some extent. Tripatākāra is a sure sign to distinguish Janāntika

from other speeches.

Professor R. D. Karmarkar has tried to bring out the difference as

under :

According to him in Apavāritaka, other characters on the stage are

entitled to hear the speech, barring those from whom the speaker has

turned away. In Janāntika, the persons on the stage are excluded by

Tripatākāra. He interprets Anyonyāmantrana thus : “It must be

addressed to a particular person by name, and the speech must be replied

by the person addressed, who also has to address the first by name.2

But here he does not seem to have taken Abhinaya’s remark (and the

NS) into consideration.

(v) Ākāṣabhāṣita - Here there is only one character on the stage.

The character employing this device addresses another imaginary person

who is not on the stage and himself puts the questions and answers them.

At times the question is put as though it was put by another person

while at times the answer to the question put by the character, is given

in such a way as it came from some one else.3 The obvious purpose of

this device is a practical one, viz., the economy of characters.4

The ND reckons this to be another division of plot. The DR too

gives this as a division of plot.5 The BP divides the plot into two -

1. Cf. “The Apavārita speech in Sanskrit Drama” by N. B. Purohit.

2. Annals of B, O. R. I., 1954 ; “The Dramatic Terms”, pp. 127-28.

3. ND., p. 32.

4. Cf. Anargh., p. 12.

5. DR I, 63.

Vastu

Sarvaśrāvya Niyataśrāvya Āśrāvya

(Prakāśa) (Svagata).

Janāntika Apavārita.

4

26

(1) Śrāvya and (2) Aśrāvya. The former is subdivided into Sarvaśrāvya snd Niyataśrāvya, the latter being further subdivided into Janāntika and Apavārita. The RS also accepts the above division substituting the word Prakāśa for Śrāvya and Svagata for Aśrāvya.1

The Nāṭyoktis are highly important in a drama from the point of view of its representation on the stage. It is true that each character on the stage has to speak loud enough that a person sitting in the remotest corner of the auditorium may be able to hear him but very often the dramatist has to face certain practical difficulties. Generally the characters on the stage talk among themselves. This is the usual dialogue form in which a drama is written. Nevertheless at times the occassion demands that the speech of a particular character is not expected to be heard by other characters on the stage nor is it possible to dispose of the characters who are not expected to hear. At such a juncture the stage-direction Svagata is used. Here the character is soliloquising i.e. thinking to him- self. The character in this case generally moves forward to a corner on a stage leaving other characters behind. Sometimes the speech of the character is meant to be heard only by one character and not by others. The character to whom the matter is to be reported secretly is drawn on one side of the stage and the person turns his back against those who are to be excluded. Here the play-wright uses the stage-direction Apavārya. Sometimes it happens that the speech may be heard by all other characters except one. This creates a practical difficulty namely, how the audience is to understand as to which of the characters is not supposed to hear the speech. In Apavārita the matter is to be concealed from all but one and so the two characters can come on one side of the stage and talk, which would clearly go to suggest that the remaining characters are not supposed to hear the talk, but here the case is quite different. There is only one character from whom the talk is to be concealed. Should then that character be asked to clear out silently from the stage ? But the presence of the character may be quite necessary on the stage and after a few moments the character will have to enter the stage again.

This type of sudden entry and exit is highly unnatural and defective from the dramatic point of view. Bharata has prescribed definite rules for entry and exit of characters. The characters cannot enter and leave the stage unnoticed. The character abruptly leaving the stage is bound to put the audience in a state of confusion. Similarly an abrupt entry of the character would naturally disturb the natural flow of conversation

1. RS, p. 284.

going on at that time. To remove this technical difficulty the dramatist uses the stage-direction, Janāntika. Here a special sign called Tripatā-kākara is to be made by the speaker with reference to the character which is to be excluded. When this sign is made the learned audience will automatically understand that a particular character is not supposed to hear this.

Generally, the speeches are to be heard by all characters on the stage and so the stage-direction - 'Prakāśa' is understood. This direction is specially used when it is preceded by the stage-direction, Svagata.

The discussion on Ākāśabhāṣita also suggests that there should not be too many characters on the stage. Only those who have a definite role to perform in the development of the plot should be allowed to come on the stage. The remaining may only be suggested. For effecting this economy of characters, the stage-direction Ākāśabhāṣita becomes useful.

Most of the writers on dramaturgy ordain Tripatākākara for Janāntika, but no body elucidates as to why that sign should be used in Janāntika only. The DR seems to be inaccurate when it defines Janāntika as mutual speech having brushed other characters aside by Tripatākākara. In this case the difference between Janānkika and Apavārita becomes indistinct. In fact, Tripatākākara can be practically directed to only one particular person ( or at the most a group of two or three ). Here the view of the ND seems to be more plausible.

The DR's division of the plot into three types, viz., (i) Śrāvya, (ii) Aśrāvya and (iii) Niyataśrāvya, cannot include another special important variety which is known as Ākāśabhāṣita and the DR has to treat it separately. The ND seems to be a bit more systematic when it divides the plot into five types as stated above. It is quite natural that these five varieties of plot later on bear the appelation of Nāṭyokti as they are more truly the varieties of dramatic speech rather than of the plot. They are, in fact, the stage-directions which are primarily meant for the actors.

The ND does not introduce the word Nāṭyokti probably because it believes in giving the least number of technical words which go to make at times even simple things complicated and difficult to understand. This view is corroborated when we find other instances too, where the ND purposefully avoids the technical words.

After discussing the various divisions of plot, the ND now proposes to discuss what an ideal plot should consist of.

28

The plot of a drama should mostly comprise of prose as it is in prose that the sense or import is easily caught. The prose should be short and sweet. The prose may at times be intermingled with simple and elegant verses in limited number. The prose should not be clumsy and full of long compounds.

Various incidents which bear affinity with the main story are to be introduced. They should go to develop the plot, i. e. help the attainment of fruit, e.g., entry of a monkey in the RTN, which becomes responsible for the hero obtaining the board, which sows the seed of love; or in the Satya., the fight between Kāpālika and Vidūṣaka, which is responsible for the falling down and exposure of the picture of Damayanti.

The descriptions of oceans, the sun, the moon, seasons, morning, mountains, amorous sports, etc., are not to be introduced just to satisfy the itch of poetic composition. Even if the description has some purpose it is to be given very briefly in a stanza or two, since more of description interrupts the natural flow of sentiment.

There should be only one sentiment as principal, the others ought to be subordinate. At the end there should be Adbhuta resulting from the acquisition of some extraordinary fruit. The Love or the Heroic or the Furious ultimately results in achieving an excellent damsel or land or destruction of enemies. In the absence of some extraordinary object in view, what is the use of taking the trouble of employing various means ?

Sentiment is undoubtedly a very important element of the drama, but in being too much after it one should not interrupt the easy flow of the story. The various figures of speech, Sandhyangas, other subordinate Rasas, etc. are also to be employed in such a way as they may not hinder the principal sentiment but heighten it.

The thing which has already been stated once, if required to be re-stated, should be whispered in the ear of the character to whom it is to be told together with the stage-direction “Karṇe”. This is in order to avoid the fault of repetition.

Incidents even should be like the hair on a cow's tail. Some hair in the tail are very short, some are a bit longer and reach to the middle

1. This was considered to be an essential feature of prose-writing. The authors like Bāṇa and Subandhu took pride that they could use pun at every syllable.

The ND here strikes a note of warning for a dramatist that the prose of drama should be very simple and easily comprehensible.

2. Kāvyakaṇḍuvaśāt - ND, p. 32.

of the tail and a few are longer still, going up to the end. Similarly in

a drama also some incidents are of short duration, some stretch upto

the middle of the plot and some upto the end; e. g., in the RTN the

spring-festival occurs only in Mukha Samdhi, the story of Bābhravya

and others which is mentioned in Mukha re-appears in the beginning of

Nirvahana, and the chief incidents such as the acquisition of Ratnāvalī

are to be put at the end.1

Having fully described what ought to be introduced in the plot,

the authors now go to describe what ought not to be introduced. The

matter which is improper or opposed to the sentiment or the nature of

the hero sbould be either abandoned or modified to suit the atmosphere,

e. g., for a ‘dhīralalita’ type of hero, dalliance with another’s wife is

improper, while to show arrogance in him is contradictory (or opposed)

to his nature. Similarly embracing, kissing, etc., on the stage is

improper for Śṛṅgāra while depiction of Bībhatsa is totally opposed to

it (Śṛṅgara). This type of impropriety or contradiction should vigilantly

be removed or should be changed in such a way as it may appear quite

proper, natural and concordant, e.g., in the NLV, the abandonment of

one’s own wife on the part of a dhīralalita hero was improper and so

was represented through the introduction of the Kāpālika.

Act :

Drama is a composition in Acts (just as Mahākāvya is in Cantos).

An Act is a unit of action in drama. It indicates completion of a stage

(Avasthā) or a part of it according to the need of the situation. Its

time-limit is not less than 48 minutes and not more than 12 hours2.

At the end of an Act Bindu should be employed so that the two Acts

may not seem to be unconnected with each other. This rule is to be

followed not very literally, because at the end of the final Act of a

play, or at the end of one-act plays or in a type of drama like

Samavakāra where the acts are mutually unrelated, no Bindu is necessary.

1. Bharata ordains that a piece should be composed like the tip of a cow’s tail.

(Gopucchāgraṁ - NS XVIII, 42).

The ND’s interpretation of the word agrees with the Abhi. II, p. 429. The

SD mentions this as an opinion of some and offers another explanation viz., the

each succeeding act should be smaller than the earlier one. But this explanation

does not seem to be plausible as it is highly artificial and unreasonable to arrange

the acts in such an order.

2. ND offers the justification for this time-limit. If it is shorter than 48 minutes, it

would appear as an incomplete performance being too short when represented on the

stage. If it is longer than 12 hours it will disturb the daily routine work and would

be tiresome. Vide ND, p. 35.

30

The life of the hero together with its joy and suffering should be delineated therein. Whatever would interest the spectators should only be represented in the Act, other things may be suggested or may be left to conjecture or totally left out.

Here the ND criticises those who complete an Avasthā in the middle of an Act. Against whom especially the criticism is directed is not clear. It is probable that here the ND criticizes the dramatists who do not observe the above rule viz. a new Avasthā should commence with a new Act.

An act should not contain too many extra activities which are not closely connected with the main plot. It should not have too many characters. It may generally have (seven or) eight characters. The Act should not have more than ten and less than four or five characters. If there are too many characters on the stage the four-fold histrionics will not be clearly perceptible1.

One important characteristic of Sanskrit plays is that all the characters exit at the close of an act.

Acts should not be less than five and more than ten in a Nātaka. The number may range from five to ten. If each Avasthā occupies one Act the total number will be five. If one stage is prolonged for one reason or the other upto more than one Act, the total number will accordingly increase. Sometimes one stage may occupy even three acts, e.g., in the Veni. the Garbha Sandhi (Prāptyaśā stage) spreads over three Acts (III, IV and V). In Nāṭikā and Prakaraṇī we find four Acts. There one of the Acts combines two Avasthās.

There are positive restrictions laid down by the old sages as to the nature of things to be represented on the stage, e.g., nowhere in the play, a fatal blow to the hero (by the enemy) should be shown. It may be shown in the case of the hero of the Patākā or Prakarī. If the blow is caused by the hero himself as in the Satya where the hero cuts the flesh from his own self to offer it to gods, it is no fault. Similarly in the Nāg. the blow caused by Garuḍa to Jimūtavāhana who dedicated himself for the cause of another person helps in heightening the Rasa. So also in the RV the entry of Lakṣmaṇa being struck by a missile is not faulty as he is not the hero.

In place of a deadly blow, either capturing by the enemies (such as that of Udayana in the Vāsavadattānṛttavāra ) or escape or alliance may be shown.

1. In a Samavakāra even though there are many characters it is not the fault as it is its special feature.

31

FIVE ARTHOPAKŞEPAKAS (SCENES OF INTRODUCTION)

The plot of a drama, we have already seen, is divided into four

types (i) Prayojya, (ii) Sūcya, (iii) Abhyūhya and (iv) Upekṣya. Only that

part of the plot which is interesting, captivating and suitable to the

refined taste can be represented on the stage; that which is abhorrent

and odious has to be totally omitted, but still there are certain incidents

which are insipid and unstable and yet the knowledge of which has

got to be provided to the audience, in the absence of which they can-

not fully comprehend and appreciate the plot and its future development.

Such incidents and episodes which have got to be suggested can be

made known to the audience in five ways. These are technically known

as Arthopakṣepakas.

Some incidents are not stageworthy, e.g., a long journey. A short

journey which occupies three to four Muhūrtas may possibly be repre-

sented on the stage, but a long one which would require more time

cannot be represented on stage and has got to be suggested by

Viṣkambhaka or so, as it would consist of resting, sleeping, eating, drinking

and such other actions which would naturally bore the audience. Similarly,

a seige around a town too cannot be staged as there are so many acti-

vities such as raising tents, carrying weapons, digging subterranean passages

etc. The political revolution or decline of a kingdom in a particular country

too cannot be staged as it consists of fighting and blood-shed. Amorous

dalliances such as kissing, embracing, etc., too should not be staged.

Here the playwright must resort to indirect suggestion such as entering

a secluded place or so. Similarly, death, fight, etc., which consist of

personal injury such as loss of a hand or a foot and such other. things

which are injurious should not be staged 1. The events of such nature

are to be suggested by the aid of 'Introductory Scenes.' They are five

in number, (i) Viṣkambhaka, (ii) Praveśaka, (iii) Añkāsya or Añkamukha,

(iv) Cūlikā and (v) Añkāvatāra.

Viṣkambhaka ;

Viṣkambhaka treats of that part of the plot which is insipid or even

if it be interesting is incapable of being staged in a single day; and is

thus unfit for being staged. It may be related to the past, the present

or the future. It is in lucid Sanskrit or Prakrit which does not abound

in long compounds. It is brief so that it may well connect the succee-

ding Act with the preceding one.

1. The authors here point to some exceptions. The rules are not to be blindly followed.

In the Nāgānanda, for instance, Jimūtavāhana, the hero, is shown to be deprived

of limbs.

32

Viṣkambhaka is of two types - (i) Śuddha and (ii) Saṅkīrṇa.

(i) Śuddha. - It is so called as it has no low characters.

It is performed by middle characters only, either male or female.

It is in Sanskrit. Even one person can perform it by means of Ākāśokti, Svagatokti, etc. Even a female character, if she is introduced here, will speak in Sanskrit. Middle characters mean a minister, a commander-in-chief, a merchant, a Brahmin, a queen, a leader or a distinguished person, an adversary of the hero, etc.

(ii) Saṅkirṇa - It comprises of middle as well as low characters. It may be in Sanskrit as well as in Prakrit as the low characters are not allowed to speak Sanskrit. Low characters consist of attendants and servants.

It can stand in the beginning of the first Act of a play after the prologue to suggest the needful things of the first Act. It may be placed in between the two Acts in order to connect them with each other.

Viṣkambhaka may be etymologically explained as follows :

It is so called since it supports (Viṣkabhnāti) the plot by connecting the incidents in an apt and appropriate order.1

Pravesaka has almost all the characteristics that have been stated with reference to Viṣkambhaka. The difference is in the characters. In Viṣkambhaka the characters are middle (and low also in Saṅkīrṇa) while here they all are low characters and so speak in Prakrit. These low characters are meant for accomplishing the work of the hero and have no purpose of their own.

The authors give an etymological explanation of the word Praveśaka.

The word is derived from Pra+ √Viś (causal) to make enter, i.e. to introduce. Praveśaka is so called because it ‘makes enter’ the indirect things or matters in the heart of the spectators3.

Here the authors quote a view of some who hold that ‘Praveśaka cannot stand at the beginning of the first Act’.2 This suggests that according to the ND it may stand even in the beginning of the first Act.

1. ND, p. 38, line 8.

2. ND, p. 39, line 2.

3. This is the view of Abhi. referred to as ‘Kecit’. Cf. Tatra praveśako’pi prathamopakṣpe na yojya iti yuktam. (Abhi. II, p. 434.)

But Abhinava also allows the option that it may also occur between Prastāvanā and the Act I.

Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka form a separate group of their own in these five Arthopakṣepakas. They have a good deal of similarity. Their nature is almost the same. The only important difference lies in the characters that figure therein.

They figure only in Nāṭaka, Prakaraṇa, Nāṭikā and Prakaraṇī, the four of the principal forms, rather more developed forms of drama. The reason is clear. These two viz., Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka are generally introduced to suggest events spread over a long duration of time and place. In the Vyāyoga and other one-act plays there is limited action as the plot itself is small, and consequently there is little scope for Praveśaka or Viṣkambhaka. Samavakāra, though it has three Acts, has its Acts mutually unconnected and so there is no need of such connecting links like introductory scenes, nor do the remaining two-Dima and Īhāmṛga-whose action is confined to a few days only need to introduce either of these two. They may have the remaining three, viz., Aṅkāsya, Cūlikā and Aṅkāvatāra as they are used to suggest events of shorter duration.

The authors of the ND do dot fail to give an etymological explanation too. The explanation echoes the one in the Abhinavabhāratī.1

The Abhi. states a view of some who hold that the low characters have no purpose of their own to serve but are for the sake of the hero, the heroine, etc. with the words-" Anye ivāhuh " and illustrates by 'Āṇattammi Bhaṭṭidāriyāe. ...etc.'2 The same illustration and the view are repeated by the ND.

Aṅkāsya or Aṅkamukha :

When the characters at the close of the previous Act allude to the subject-matter of the succeeding Act (which is otherwise unconnected) it is called Aṅkāsya or Aṅkamukha.3

This is illustrated by the ND from the Viracarita (that is, the Mahāvīracarita). At the end of Act II Sumantra announces the arrival of Vasiṣṭha, Viśvāmitra and Paraśurāma and the characters leave the stage to see them.4 Thus the Act ends and the new Act III opens with the introduction of the sage Vasiṣṭha, Viśvāmitra and others. Thus the

1. cf. Abhi. Vol. II, p. 421.

2. cf. Abhi. Vol. II, p. 424.

3. ND I, 26, cf. DR I, 62.

4. Here the illustration is the same as DR's, pp. 32-33 and is explained in identical terms by ND.

5

34

two Acts have been mutually connected. Here the ND seems to have

followed the DR.

The SD defines it differently. “It is a part of an Act which

suggests the subject-matter of all the Acts and which also alludes to

the central theme,” e.g., in the Mālatīmādhava the dialogue between

Kāmandakī and Avalokitā in the Viṣkambhaka of the Act I suggests the

central theme and the subject-matter of all the Acts.1

Cūlikā or Cūlā :

Cūlā or Cūlikā occurs when the sense or the coming event is

suggested by some characters-male or female-from behind the curtain.2

It is called Cūlā or Cūlikā as it resembles Cūlā i. e. Śikhā in the sense

that just as a person has a Sikhā at the back of his head so also in a

play the voice comes from behind the curtain; e.g., in the Uttararāma-

carita Act II, the arrival of Ātreyī is suggested by an off-stage

character Vāsantikā behind the scenes with the words, “ Welcome

to the one who has penance for wealth (Tapodhanā)” and then

enters Ātreyī.3

Rāmacandra gives another illustration from his own work Nalavilāsa

where Śekhara, a character off the stage, suggests the entry of Kālahamsa

by words, “ Welcome to Kalahamsa together with his attendants.”

The third illustration is given from the Ratnāvalī where the time-

keeper or the bard (Bandī) behind the curtain utters a verse to the

effect that the feudal kings were waiting for Udayana as the sun had

set in the west. This makes Sāgarikā understand that the person whom

she thought to be cupid was none else but King Udayana himself.

The definition of Cūlā agrees perfectly in sense with that of the DR.

The RS divides the Cūlikā into two-Cūlikā and Khaṇḍa-cūlikā.4

The significance of Cūlikā appears to be two-fold. First, Bharata

ordains that no character (of importance) should enter the stage without

previous introduction. A main character should be introduced to the

audience without delay, otherwise the audience will not be able to under-

stand the plot properly and that is why the playwright cleverly introduces

the main character of the play immediately after the prologue with the

1. SD, p. 181. Here the SD seems to have followed the NLR which defines it as

Sūtranām sakalāṅkānām (p. 18). The illustration also is the same.

2. ND I, 26 cd.

3. Cf. DR, p. 32.

4. RS III, 183–187.

words of the Sūtradhāra viz., “Here is so and so...” etc. By this

method not only can some of the characters be suggested but also

other things pertaining to the plot. Secondly it helps the playwright in

economizing on the number of characters on the stage by manipulating

the voice from behind the scenes:

Ańkāvatāra ( Continuation-scene ) :

When the very characters that figure in the preceding Act are also

there at the opening of the following Act it is called Ańkāvatāra.

There is hardly anything to be suggested here, since there is no gap

between the two Acts. Actually the Act is a continuation and is split

into two so that it may not be too lengthy and lose its inherent technical

unity which an Act should have.

The illustration is quoted from the Māl. of Kālidāsa. At the end of

Act I, the Vidūṣaka says: “Then both of you having approached the

audience-hall and having properly arranged the orchestra you may send

a messenger or rather the sound of the drum itself will cause us to

rise,” and after these words when the sound of drum is heard the

same caracters-all together-commence the new Act.2 Thus in fact there

is no gap.

Here the ND puts forward another view, of some (“Anye tu”) who

define Ańkāvatāra as follows :

“It is a part of an Act in which allusion is made to the subject-

matter of the following Acts and the whole plot”, as is done in the

Ratnāvalī, Act II, where love between Sāgarikā and Udayana, which forms

the central theme of the whole play is suggested by the words - “Such

an excellent girl should long for such a bridegroom only.”2

The ND remarks that this (i. e. Ańkāvatāra) is also known as

Garbhāńka which is “that part of an Act which alludes to the central

theme of the play (Bijārtha) and which appears, when staged, like an

Act within an Act”.3 The above-mentioned definition of Garbhāńka is

very much similar to (or, we may say, almost identical with) the definition

of Ańkāvatāra as given by Abhinavagupta.4 The definition of Garbhāńka

as given by the SD also resembles the above one to a certain extent.5

1. Cf. DR (p. 33) gives the same illustration and explanation.

2. RTN, p. 33.

3. Cf. ND, p. 41.

4. Cf. Abhi. Vol. II, p. 421.

5. “Garbhāńka is another Act which comes within an Act, which contains the seed

(Bīja) as well as the fruit (Phala) and which also has Rāgadvarā, Āmukha etc.”

SD VI, 20.

It appears that the definition of Abhinava which he quotes with

the words 'yad uktam' does not seem to be quite scientific for the

simple reason, that it makes no distinction between Añkāvatāra and

Garbhāñka. At the same time it is not proper to equate Añkāvatāra with

Garbhāñka. The former is an Arthopakṣepaka whose purpose is to supply

the missing links of the story. It suggests the matter which is not

stageworthy. Garbhanka which is a play within a play has nothing to do

with this.

According to the SD, it is known as Añkāvatāra where the new Act

is introduced in continuation with (as a part of) the earlier one being

suggested by the characters at the end of the act, e. g., in the Śāk. Act

VI is introduced being suggested by the characters at the end of the

Act V, as a part of the same.1

According to the NLR (p. 18) it is Añkāvatāra when at the end

of an Act (the subject-matter of) the coming Act is briefly suggested by

the dramatic speeches.2

The above discussion goes to suggest that the notions about Añkā-

vatāra are not quite clear and unanimous,3 On the one hand it is

reckoned as simply a scene in continuation of the previous one while on the

other it is called that part of the Act which makes allusion to the subject-

matter (Bija) of the following Acts. Still more confounding is the third

view where it is identified with the Garbhāñka which is an Act within

an Act or a play within a play.4

The ND further elucidates as to when and where the different

Arthopakṣepakas should be used. The first two viz., Viṣkambhaka and

Praveśaka are to be employed when a long interval of time is to be

suggested. When the time-duration to be suggested is small, Añkāsya

should be used. Cūlikā is meant to suggest still smaller duration, while

Añkāvatāra is used when the duration is extremely small or insignificant

(as at the end of Act I in the Mālavikāgnimitra)5.

1. Vide SD. VI, p. 181.

2. For further details vide present writer's paper-" The prolem of Añkāsya and

Añkāvatāra in Sanskrit Dramaturgy ", JOI, Baroda, June 1963.

3. Cf. Dr. V. Raghavan : Nāṭakalakṣaṇaratnakośa, p. 62.

4. Dr. Jackson and Dr. Ogden have discussed in detail the use of Garbhāñka in

Sanskrit drama but have not touched this controversy between Garbhāñka and

Añkāvatāra. Vide Priyadarśikā (Intro.) pp. CV-CXI.

5. The ND here seems to follow Abhinavagupta who states thus-If the time-duration

of a month or a year is to be suggested Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka may be

introduced. If the duration is limited (Parimita) Añkāsya is to be employed, if it is

small (Alpa) then Cūlikā and if it is the smallest i.e. insignificant (Alpatama)

Añkāvatāra is to be used. Abhi. II, p. 422.

Critical Remarks :

The Arthopakṣepakas beginning with Viṣkambhaka have a great

importance from the point of view of a dramatist. A dramatist must

have a vigilant mind to distinguish between the matter which will be

staged and that which has to be merely suggested, since all the incidents

cannot be staged, some of them being practically impossible to stage.

Still they cannot be omitted sometimes as they form an inevitable link

in the story. This huge amount of Sūcya type of Vṛtta has to be suggested

by Arthopakṣepakas. In other words, to reveal to the audience the events

during intervals between the Acts, the theory permits a choice of five

forms of scenes of introduction.

The earliest reference to the name Arthopakṣepaka is to be found

in Kohala.1 It is so called because it introduces some matter.2 The name

Arthopakṣepaka does not occur in the NS of Bharata. Moreover, Bharata

mentions and discusses only two of the five Arthopakṣepakas, viz,

Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka. In the NS (GOS Vol. III) Ch. XIX, vs.

110-116 (and in NS (KM) also) we get a discussion of the five Artho-

pakṣepakas. But the editor points out that those seven verses are

definitely an interpolation. The text of the NS is handled so roughly

from time to time that it is very difficult to sort out the genuine from

the spurious. These seven verses are very probably interpolated by some

later writer in accordance with the view ef Kohala or the Samgrahakāra.

Some of these have been suggested even by Bharata or the commentator

Abhinava.3 It is further stated that out of these, the last verse,

(Number 116) is definitely from Kohola. Verse No. 115 is quoted in the

Abhi. with the words - "So it is said", while commenting upon Praveśaka.4

Verse No. 111 is also found in Kohala differing only in the fourth quarter.

Abhinava in his commentary (Vol. II, p. 434) actually quotes this verse

under the name of Kohala. Verse No. 112 and 114 are taken from the

eighteenth chapter of Bharata's NS.5

This above view of the editor of the NS6 about interpolation is

again corroborated by the fact that Abhinava does not comment upon

these seven verses.

1. Abhi. Vol. II, p. 421, lines 3-4.

2. Artham upakṣipati iti arthopakṣepakah.

3. NS (GOS) Vol. III, p. 64.

4. Cf. Abhi. Vol. II, p. 421 lines 12-14.

5. Cf. NS (GOS) XVIII, 55 and XVIII, 33 respectively with the verses no. 112 and 114.

6. NS (GOS) Vol. III, p. 64.

The NS Ch. XVIII does treat of Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka but not quite systematically. The nature of Praveśaka is explained in XVIII, 26-30 and 33-37, intervened by the rules regarding time and place in an Act in vs. 31-32. Then the author of the NS begins to talk about other matters concerning an Act. Then comes the discussion about Prakarana - its definition, the hero, the heroine, the language, etc. After this there is a discussion of Viṣkambhaka and its types, viz., Śuddha and Saṅkīrṇa.

This diffuse, unconnected treatment of the two of the five Arthopakṣepakas and the absence of the remaining three altogether point out that Bharata might not have had a systematic idea about the Arthopakṣepakas and probably those ideas developed later on.1 Abhinava, in his Abhinavabhāratī on the topic of Praveśaka, treats of the subject, briefly enumerating the five Arthopakṣepakas under the name of Kohala.

The DR gives a systematic exposition of the topic considering the five Arthopakṣepakas as means of suggesting the matter which is insipid and not fit to be staged.

The ND gives a clear explanation of what things can be suggested by Arthopakṣepakas. Some details are excluded from representation for practicability, (e. g. which take long time or which can be represented with great difficulty or which are tedious and boring), some others to avoid offending the feelings of the audience and some because they may be painful and shameful. But can they be altogether dispensed with ? No. Some of them are indispensable for maintaining the continuity of the plot and the proper understanding of the events to be shown. They provide a suitable background for the coming events, without which the scenes that follow will suffer and the audience will not be able to appreciate them well. They thus form a connecting link between the two independent Acts which are separated from each other in time and place.

Out of the five the first two, viz., Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka are more important. They differ from each other in the following points :-

The Viṣkambhaka is performed by middle characters ( which is Śuddha ) or by the middle and inferior characters ( in which case it is called Saṅkīrṇa ) while the Praveśaka is carried on entirely by inferior characters. Moreover, the language of the Viṣkambhaka is Sanskrit or

1. This also finds a corroboration in the statement of Abhinava who ascribes the authorship of Arthopakṣepakas to Kohala. Abhi. II, p. 421.

mixed i. e. Sanskrit and Prakrit ( when it is Saṁkīrṇa ) while the latter

is wholly in Prakrit. Next, Viṣkambhaka may be used even in the

beginning of the play while the Praveśaka is to be used only between

two Acts. Usually there are not more than two characters in a Viṣkamb-

haka, for Praveśaka there is no such rule.

Prof. Jagirdar notes another important distinction between the two.

According to him, Viṣkambhaka was meant for summarizing important

events supposed to happen off the stage, while Praveśaka was merely a

kind of scene-shift.1

The nature of Cūlikā is very simple. It distinguishes itself from all

the rest by the fact that here the matter is to be suggested by some

character from ‘behind the scene’.

It has an importance of its own. As far as Viṣkambhaka and

Praveśaka are concerned they can come only in the beginning of an Act.

But what should be done if something has got to be suggested in the

middle of the Act ? It is here especially that Cūlikā comes to help.

Now we come to Aṅkāśya and Aṅkāvatāra. Just as Viṣkambhaka and

Praveśaka appear in the beginning of an Act, in the same way the

Aṅkāśya and the Aṅkāvatāra form the concluding part of an Act.

In Aṅkāśya, also known an Aṅkamukha, the characters of the

previous Act suggest the situation of the new Act that immediately

follows. In Aṅkāvatāra all the characters that figure in the previous

act go to commence the new one. The succeeding act is in continuation

with the previous one. It is, so to say, the extension of the closing Act.

A question may naturally arise as to what then is the sense of

creating a new Act. The playwright ought to continue with the same.

The reasons are not far to seek. There is a particular time-limit for an

Act. An Act should not be too long as it would be boring to the audience.

When the matter is too lengthy it is to an advantage to divide it into

parts. A small interval of a few minutes does good to give the audience

the necessary mental rest which will make them frseh and energetic and

at the same time curious to listen to the events to follow.

Another point also may be noted. There should be some synthetic

proportion among the Acts. It should not happen that one act is too long

while others are too short,

Thus in Aṅkāvatāra there is a continuity of the scene with a short

interruption.

1. Vide-Drama in Sanskrit Literature, p. 54.

40

ARTHAPRAKRTI

After the discussion of five Arthopakṣepakas the ND turns to another topic, viz., the means of obtaining the fruit, technically called Arthaprakṛtis. They are in all five. The ND does not call them Arthaprakṛtiś but simply recognises them as the causes or means for realising the end (Phalasya hetavah)1.

For understanding the concept of Arthaprakṛtis it should be necessary for us to bear in mind the technique of Sanskrit drama. Sanskrit drama culminates in the attainment of the desired object or fruit coveted by the hero. The whole of the play centres round this prime motive and hence constitutes a struggle on the part of the hero to obtain the desired end. But how can a single person with his human limitations achieve the end unless he is backed by other persons or favourable circumstances? In this case, he requires external help and the function of the Arthaprakṛtis is to help the hero in obtaining his end. Nevertheless, if the hero is capable of achieving the end by himself and needs no external aid some of the Arthaprakṛtis may not be introduced. The ND, therefore, has clearly stated that all of them are not indispensable and may be employed at the sweet will of the poet.2

These are five : Bija, Patākā, Prakarī, Bindu and Kārya. The ND adds in the commentary that the order is not important.

These Arthaprakṛtis are primarily divided into two : (1) animate and (2) inanimate. Either of these can be subdivided into principal and subordinate. To take inanimate first, Bija is principal being the root of all further development and Kārya is subordinate. Animate is also of two types. Here Bindu is principal as it connects the different Acts with the main one. Subordinate is of two types - (i) accompanied by one's personal interest and (ii) meant for the good of the hero only with no interest of one's own. The former is Patākā while the latter is Prakarī.3

1. ND I, 28.

2. ND p.41.

3. The same may be put in a tabular form as under :-

Arthaprakṛtis

Inanimate

Animate

Principal

( Bija )

Subordinate

( Kārya )

Principal

( Bindu )

Subordinate

With personal interest

( Patākā )

With no personal interest

( Prakarī. )

Out of these Bīja and Bindu are principal as they pervade the entire plot.

Here it should be noted that the ND has literally followed Abhinava Bīja (Seed or germ) :

The Bīja is that means which in the beginning slightly indicated culminates into fruition.2 It is like the cornseed which, though hidden in the ground when just sown, gradually develops into branches and sub-branches and ultimately yields the fruit.

The Bīja forms the beginning of the play proper. It is employed after the prologue. Bīja is the means to the realization of the fruit intended in the plot. The Prologue is the performance by the actors in order to introduce the play only and whatever speeches relating to the chief end of the play are introduced therein are meant for initiating the actual play and so even speeches uttered in the Prologue which form a part of the Bīja are repeated in the play by the character entering the stage. Just as in the RTN, the speech in the Prologue-“Destiny when favourable immediately unites one with the coveted object having brought it even from the different isle, or the middle of the ocean or from the extreme limits of a quarter”-is repeated by Yaugandharāyaṇa in the main scene.3

The Bīja assumes different forms. Sometimes it may constitute activity.4 When the removal of a particular calamity is the ultimate end, it may indicate the befalling of that calamity.5 At times it consists of an indication of the ensuing adversity or prosperity,6 or the Bīja may mark the disappearance of the danger when calamity has already befallen.7 Thus it may assume various forms.8

1. Cf. Abhi. Vol. III, p. 12. This topic has been elaborately treated by the present writer in his paper “Abhinavagupta’s Division of Arthaprakṛtis : An Interpretation” (Annals of B, O, R, I., Vol. XLV).

2. ND I, 29; cf. NS XIX, 22.

3. RTN I, 6.

4. e.g. in the RTN, the activity of Yaugandharāyaṇa viz., the depositing of Sāgarikā in the harem, which is ultimately the cause of acquisition of Ratnāvalī by Udayana.

5. The ND illustrates this by a verse uttered by Śāpa in the Māyāpuspaka, which refers to leaving of Rāma for the forest, death of Daśaratha, etc. (ND, p. 43).

6. e.g., the speech of Māṇavaka in the TPV : “The minister even while acting unfavourably towards the master is thus severely put to trouble……etc.”

7. e.g. in the MDR, Cāṇakya says, “Who, when I am alive, wants to assault Candragupta ?” etc.

8. The ND seems to have followed Abhi. while discussing these divisions of Bīja (Cf. Abhi. III, p. 13, lines 7–9). The ND has put it more systematically and elaborately adding illustrations of its own.

6

42

The definition of the Bija as given by the ND seems to echo the NS.1

The introduction of the Bija in the beginning of the play is highly necessary. It is the seed which is responsible for the further development of the plot. A seed in nature too is the origin of all creation. The apparent analogy seems here to be that of a tree. It is the seed which is responsible for the whole tree and which ultimately culminates into the fruit. In drama also Bija is at the root of all action, and it finally transforms itself into fruit (Phala).

Patakā (Episode) :

It is so called as it increases the glory and reputation of the hero, just as the banner of a chariot or a temple increases its splendour.

It is meant for helping the cause of the hero. At the same time it has its own purpose to serve; just as Sugrīva, Vibhīṣaṇa and others, being helped by Rāma, procured for Rāma fame and name and helped him in getting Sītā back by defeating Rāvaṇa and at the same time attained their object too (as both attained their kingdoms).

Patākā is not indispensable. If the hero requires the aid of other persons in attaining his object, Patākā is to be employed. If, on the contrary, the hero rests on his own strength and does not require any external aid, Patākā is not essential. The same is the case with Prakarī also.

Patākā can come in Mukha, Pratimukha, Garbha and even Avamarśa. Patākā, as we have seen earlier, has its own aim which should be accomplished within Avamarśa because if it is stretched still further upto Nirvahana it would cease to be the helper of the hero as both would have their aims achieved simultaneously. Moreover, the attention of the audience would also be divided.

Patākā and Prakarī are the two types of sub-plot (Prasangika Vṛtta)2 and the purpose of the sub-plot is to expedite the progress of the main plot. The dramatist should also take care to see that the sub-plot is not over-delineated so as to supersede the interest of the main plot or hinder its natural progress. It is meant for helping the main action.

The term Patākā is significant. Patākā i.e. the banner of a chariot beautifies the chariot and is in itself beautiful, in the same way the hero of the Patākā helps the hero of the main plot as well as himself.

1. Cf. NS (GOS) XIX, 22.

2. Vide DR I, 13.

PATĀKĀSTHĀNAKA (Pro-episode)1

The authors of the ND justify the introduction of this topic when they have already started discussing Patākā. Of course, the Patākā and the Patākāsthānaka are totally distinct but there is some element of similarity between the two. Patākāssthānaka is defined as an equivocal speech or situation which foreshadows a coming event whether near at hand or distant. The element of being helpful to the main plot is common to Patākā and Patākāsthanaka.2 Still however it is, different from Patākā and works as an embellishment of the play. It can be employed more than once and there should be no drama without it. It is employed at intervals only and not continuously as a Patākā. This is how it differs from the latter.

Types of Patākāsthanaka :

It is divided into four types :

(i) When there is an unexpected sudden gain of the desired object,3 e.g., in the RTN, act III, the King mistaking Sāgarikā, who was attempting to hang herself from a tree with a view to committing suicide, to be Vāsavadattā releases her and recognizing her by her voice cries out- ‘Oh, is it my beloved Sāgarikā ? Enough, enough of……etc.’

Here the aim was different while another motive which is highly artistic and attractive is accomplished.4

(ii) The second variety consists of speech which though seemingly hyperbolic is in fact true.9 The speech appears as a sort of exaggeration. But that apparent exaggeration is no exaggeration at all but a hard fact, e.g., in the Rāmābhyudaya, Act II, Sugrīva sends a message to Sītā :

“What more should I say ? O lustrous revered lady ! Rāma will bring you without loss of time even if you are on the other side of the ocean.”

Here this hyperbolic statement of being on the other side of the

1. Haas - Episode-indication.

2. And that is why it is called Patākāssthānaka. Cf. Patākāssthānāsya tulyam patākā-sthānakam - ND., p. 44.

3. Cf. NS (GOS) XIX. 31.

4. In this illustration the ND seems to have followed the Abhi. III, p. 19. Rāmacandra gives another illustration from the NLV, his own work, where another purpose - obtaining the picture of Damayanti-is accomplished while the king tries to prevent Vidūṣaka and Kāpālika who are prepared for a combat. For still a third illustration from the Nāg. see ND, p. 45; compare it with Abhi. III, p. 20.

5. Cf. NS, XIX. 32.

44

sea is actually true in the case of Sītā.1 This also suggests that over and above the actual purpose, the other one, viz., bringing of Sītā will also be fulfilled.

(iii) The third variety consists of speech having double meaning.2 Here by virtue of paronomasia another sense different from the one actually meant is suggested, e. g., in the RTN, “ …………. is waiting for Udayana, cause of great joy to the eyes,as one would do for the rising moon''3. Here the verse uttered to describe the evening-twilight brings out another purpose for Sāgarikā, viz., recognition of King Udayana.

(iv) When the speech uttered in reply to a person, conveys without the knowledge of the speaker another sense connected with the play and which definitely suggests as to how the things will ultimately turn out to be;4 e. g., in the MDR, Cāṇakya - “Oh, if the wretched Rākṣasa be caught !” Siddhārthaka ( having entered )–“ Sir,………..caught.”

Here the sense which was doubtful in the first sentence when taken together with the subsequent sentence is established beyond doubt and then Cāṇakya ( joyfully to himself ) – “Bravo, the wretched Rākṣasa is caught !''5 Here the peculiar co-incidence goes to suggest the future event.6

It will be easily seen that the ND has modelled this discussion of Patākāsthānaka purely on the NS and the Abhi. The four varieties of Patākāsthānaka and their definitions are in accordance with the NS with the only difference that the third variety of the NS has been put last

1. Vide ND p. 45; and Cf. Abhi. III, p. 20. Note the essential difference - an apparent contradiction -when Abhi. refers to the Act III of the play while ND mentions Act II.

2. Cf. NS (GOS) XIX, 34.

3. Cf. Abhi. III, p. 21.

4. Cf. NS (GOS) XIX, 33.

5. Cf. Abhi. III, p. 21.

6. It has to be noted here that this variety of Patākāsthānaka has an intimate similarity with the Gaṇḍa, one of the thirteen Vithyaṅgas. Gaṇḍa is explained as a speech, having a different purpose, when connected with the relevant topic, brings out a new sense which reflects upon the thing going to take place (Cf. ND II, 97 ab). ND does not refer to this point even though it has suggested the difference by pointing out that the sense contained in Gaṇḍa is bad or foul, like the foul blood in a boil. Thus the suggestion of Sitā's abondonment in Act I of the UTR though similar to the above instance (i.e. Patākāsthānaka, fourth variety), is an instance of Gaṇḍa (Cf. ND p. 138). Abhi. has done well to explain this difference correctly (Abhi. III, p. 21).

(i. e. 4th) by the ND and the fourth variety has been put as the third

one. The illustrations are all mostly borrowed from the Abhi. except

the one that Rāmacandra quotes from his NLV (1st variety). The 'DR

disposes of the discussion of Patākāsthānaka by giving a general defini-

tion of Patākāsthānaka in a verse and does not bother about entering

into its divisions. The IR defines it thus : "When a relevent thing

going to happen is suggested by irrelevent means (Anyokti) it is known

as Patākāsthānaka".1

Patākāsthānaka which may be translated into English as 'Dramatic

Irony' has a special importance in Drama. It adds charm to the situa-

tion. It occurs when there in one meaning for the actors on the stage

and another meaning quite different from it for the audience in the

theatre. The use of such irony in a drama is like sauce and salt which

makes the dish palatable. Life, as we know, is full of irony and since

drama is the imitation of life, it is also capable of ironic treatment.

Patākāsthānaka, like irony, is mostly based on double significance.

But it has to be noted with reference to the Patākāsthanaka that its

chief purpose is to be helpful in the development of plot. It is not meant

simply as a decoration.

Prakarī (Incident) :

Just as the Patākā is meant for helping the hero in his efforts, so

is also the Prakarī. But Prakarī goes one step forward in the sense

that its sole aim is to help the hero while Patākā has its own purpose

also to achieve. That is why it is called Prakarī which means " that

which helps ( √ Kr. - to do or to render ( help )) specially ( Pra )"2.

Moreover like Patākā, Prakarī is also not inevitable. It differs from

the Patākā on the point that it is highly short-lived, while Patākā

extends over longer duration. The episode of Jaṭāyu in the story of Rāma

is an illustration of this type.2

The DR does not seem to take into account the fact that in Prakarī

the Prakarī-nāyaka has no personal motive to accomplish (and thus

renders selfless help to the hero), and consequently illustrates it by the

Śravaṇa-episode in the Rāmāyaṇa4. According to the DR Patākā stretches

far while Prakarī is short-lived. Someśvara opines that Prakarī constitutes

description of the season and the like, that occurs in a composition. It

1. Vide DR I, 14.

2. Vide ND, p. 46.

3. The ND has followed here Abhinava.

4. Cf. yad alpam sā prakarī, śravaṇādivṛttāntavat.—DR : Avaloka, p. 4,

46

is meant to help others just as a small bunch of flowers ( laghuḥ puṣpādi-prakaraḥ prakarī ) is meant to decotate the bed (or the table) etc.1

Bindu ( Expansion ) :

The main purpose is often lost sight of on account of other digressions which come in the middle and are necessary too. But again that main thread should be taken up. This important work of joining the broken link once again is performed by Bindu. It pervades the whole story as an oil-drop spreads over the entire surface of water, and that is why it is called Bindu - a drop- as it has the pervading capacity.2 Thus Bindu like Bīja pervades the whole of the story with the difference that Bīja starts from Mukha Sandhi itself, while Bindu follows it.

Bindu plays an important part in the achievement of fruit. The fruit may belong to the hero, or his helpmate ( i. e. Patākānāyaka ) or both. Thus Bindu serves the purpose of linking the activities of all these. The hero, for instance, links the activities of his antagonist and vice versa, e. g., in the RBh ( Act V ), while hearing the story of Sugrīva, Rāma becomes unhappy being reminded of the abduction of Sītā. The ND also illustrates from the TPV ( Act III )3.

Kārya :-( Denouement) -It brings the seed sown by the hero or the Patākānāyaka or the Prakarināyaka to perfection by developing it into fruit in the form of achievement of the desired object. Bhoja remarks that it consists of any one of the three principal objects of human life, viz., Dharma, Artha and Kāma.4

The ND explains as to how the importance ( Mukhyatā ) or otherwise of any Arthaprakṛti is decided. The ND has stated at the outset that out of the five, Bīja and Bindu are principal and the rest are subordinate.5 This is because that the former pair (Bīja and Bindu) pervades the entire story while the remaining may be principal or subordinate according to their utility in the achievement of fruit.6 Thus in the MRC,

1. KP : Kāvyādarśasaṁketa, p. 220.

2. Cf. ND p. 46. Someśvara gives anothor explanation of the word. Just as the drops of ghee dropping gradually (one after another) cause the fire to burn continuously, in the same way Bindu (viz., Viṣkaṁbhaka, Praveśaka etc.) becomes the cause of combining the scattered threads (literally limbs) of the story or plot.

• KP, Kāvyādarśasaṁketa p, 220.

3. Vide ND, p. 47.

4. धर्मार्थकामानामन्यतमं हि पुरुषार्थ कार्यमिति आमानन्ति। SP (MS) p. 171.

5. ND, p. 41.

6. It is true that Kārya is as indispensable as Bīja and Bindu, still it is the natural consequence and hence relatively less important as compared to the cause which is Bīja.

the Patākã viz., the story of Āryaka, becomes principal and important. Even Prakarī in the Kundamālā, viz., rearing of Sītā and her two children by Vālmīki becomes principal. Both Patākā and Prakarī get importance in Rāma-story, for example, the story of Sugrīva and Vibhīṣaṇa ( Prakarī ). Where Patākā and Prakarī are not important or are completely absent, Kārya becomes principal.

When Patākā enjoys a prominent position it too has the Sandhis. They are known as Anusandhis. They are meant to help the main Sandhis. If not so, the story of Patākā would not be known as sub-plot and there would be increase in the number of Sandhis1. The Anusandhis can be two ( Mukha and Nirvahaṇa ) or more.

AVASTHĀ

There are certain stages through which a hero passes as he employs the different means while trying to achieve the end. They constitute the activities of the body, the speech and the mind.2 These are five in number : (1) Āram̉bha, (2) Yatna, (3) Prāptyāśā, (4) Niyatāpti and (5) Phalāgama. They are indispensable in a drama. In a sub-plot they remain in a subordinate position. In Nāṭaka, Prakaraṇa, Nāṭikā and Prakaraṇikā all the five stages are employed but in Vyāyoga and others all may or may not be employed.

They are to be introduced in the same order as stated above. Naturally a man with sound reason will first begin a task, then he will make strenuous efforts to achieve the object ( Yatna ), by and by he will have the hope of success ( Prāptyāśā ), then he will be sure of his success provided he succeeds in removing a particular impediment on the way ( Niyatāpti ) and finally he will achieve the object in view ( Phalāgama ).

Āram̉bha ( Beginning ). - It is the eagernes or inner urge to procure the fruit or the desired object,3 and the efforts as a result of the eagerness.4

This is the first stage of the plot-development. Drama represents the struggle of a noble man - hero - to achieve a particular, desired object. Before the efforts can actually start there must be a burning desire - an inner urge to achieve that object. A strong will is the first requirement for any task to be accomplished. The will first, and the efforts will follow automatically. Thus Āram̉bha does not mean

1. ND, p. 48.

2. ND, p. 49.

3. ND, I, 35a.

4. ND, p. 50.

48

barren desire. The hero here starts his preliminary attempts to achieve the subject.

In these Avasthās the different activities of one or more of the following viz., the hero, the helpmate, the rival or enemy, and fate are seen. Even if beginning may be caused by fate still it does not imply total negation of human efforts. Fate and ‹fforts, both combined, bring out good or evil results. Both are supplementary to each other.

Prayatna (Effort).-It means acceleration of efforts and activity to achieve the end. Here eagerness has increased considerably and a serious effort has been started. Ārambha implies simple eagerness. In Yatna the same eagerness is heightened, e. g., in the RTN, the heroine tries to paint the picture of Udayana when she thought that it was not possible to see him personally. This shows that her love has considerably advanced.1

This is a subsequent stage in the normal course. When a person thinks over a particular object he develops attachment for it and gradually becomes passionate about it. This passion does not allow him to be at rest. He pursues the object and He tries to achieve it by hook or crook. Thus the efforts start.

Prāptyāśā (Hope or prospect of success). - Here there is a hope for the achievement of the fruit on account of certain occurrence or event only. Here there is no other fruit obtainable nor does it imply the removal of all obstacles. There is a hope that the fruit will be achieved. Just as in the Veṇī. (Act III) with the killing of Duḥśāsana at the hands of Bhīma, we naturally expect that all the rest of the Kauravas will also be killed.

After efforts comes the hope. One should deserve first and then desire. What is impossible for a man who has a strong will and puts in untiring hard work ? By continuous struggle man does go near to his target. The target seems to be at hand, and there is a ray of hope that inspires him to struggle with doubled zest and vigour. Still the obstacles are equally great.

Niyatāpti (Certainty of success) : All the obstacles in the path of the achievement of fruit have been removed, and all the helping causes have conjoined together and consequently the fruit – achievement is sure (Niyata) only if a particular obstacle is overcome, e. g., in the Veṇī. the entry of Bhīma and Arjuna in search of Duryodhana with the words of Bhīma, “Where is Duryodhana, the author of deceits . in

1. Cf. RTN, p. 31 lines 11–12.

gambling, the igniter of the house made of lac......? etc. suggests the certainty of success provided Duryodhana is captured and killed.

In Prāptyāśā we have seen that by continuous efforts, the person entertains a hope that he will be able to attain his end. This is like a beacon-light which impels the man to move on and on in the direction of light. So this stage is highly essential. But the course of life -the course of high ambitions and achievements -never runs smooth. One has to meet a thousand and one impediments. By patience and perseverance one has to cross this thorny road to success. Life is a continuous struggle and drama is nothing but an imitation of life. The purpose of drama is to mirrorise life. Thus struggle or conflict becomes the essence of drama.

Here is an essential difference between the Sanskrit drama and the western drama. In western drama the hero, though trying his best, is sometimes represented as being unable to cross the difficulties beset as he is with human infirmities. Man is after all man. He is never perfect and often gives way to his personal defects which he cannot overcome, and there starts the tragedy. This is more realistic as in life good men do not always prosper. On the contrary, the good and virtuous have to suffer while the cunning and wicked take undue advantage of their goodness. Like the drama of life, English drama too often ends in catastrophe. But Sanskrit theory allows no such tragedy on stage. The Indians are highly optimistic about life. They firmly believe that good will end in good. So the obstacles do come, and the good have to pass through all the thick and thin of life, but ultimately achieve the end. Thus at this stage the impediments being cleared out the hero is sure of achieving his goal.

Phalāgama (Achievement of the fruit)... Phalāgama means the immediate achievement of the desired fruit. This achievement must be immediate and not such as may be obtainable in the other birth like other fruits such as heaven etc., that are obtained by the performance of meritorious deeds such as giving alms, etc. Phalāgama means the approach of the fruit. It denotes the beginning of the arrival and not the actual arrival. The obtainment of fruit by the hero is the chief purpose of the play. Thus these are the five stages in the course of the obtainment of fruit. Other stages may be produced by the activities or efforts of the ministers, the heroine, enemies, fate etc., but in such a way that ultimately the fruit of the play goes to the hero only.

This is the final stage of the play. The seed sown in the first stage has developed into a fruit. The efforts of the hero together with other assistants, have borne here the actual fruit.

50

SANDHIS

After having discussed the different stages (Avasthās) of the plot-

development, our authors turn to another aspect of the plot, viz., Sandhis

(junctures). The Sandhis are (five, (1) Mukha, (2) Pratimukha, (3) Garbha,

(4) Avamarśa (or Āmarśa or Vimarsa) and (5) Nirvahana.

The word Sandhi is derived from the root ‘Dhā’ with ‘Sam’ which

means ‘to join together’. Sandhi therefore literally means a joint. Sandhis

are responsible for joining or connecting harmoniously the different parts

of the story (or plot) which are linked together by their contribution

towards the same end, each part having its own secondary end, just as

the joints of the body join the different limbs of the body.

They correspond to the five Avasthās, such as Ārambha, Yatna, etc.,

i.e. Mukha corresponds to Ārambha, Pratimukha to Yatna, Garbha to

Prāptyāśā and so on.

As the Avasthās such as Ārambha, Yatna etc. are indispensable in

the same way the five corresponding Sandhis too cannot be dispensed

with in Nāṭaka, Prakaraṇa, Nāṭikā and Prakaraṇikā. In Samavakāra and

others all the five are not needed.

The Sandhis of the sub-plot are known as Anusandhis (smaller Sandhis).

It appears that the idea of Sandhis is based on the analogy of

human body1. Poetry is often compared to the human form of a male

or a charming damsel2. Word and sense are its body3. Rasa is its soul.

Figures of speech are its embellishments. Guṇas are its qualities like

beauty, valour etc., and so on. The same analogy is coutinued in the

concept of Sandhis also. Joints in the body perform the work of conne-

cting the limbs. Similarly, Sandhis, in the drama, connect the different

stages of the plot. A thing appears charming only when its parts are

properly joined with one another.

The important point that is suggested here is this that five Sandhis

correspond to the five stages (Avasthās) stated before. This will mean

that the Sandhis strictly correspond to the Avasthās. Each of them

begins with the corresponding Avasthā and ends with it.

1. Mukha (opening). - It is that part of the main plot where the

Bija originates. It corresponds with the first stage called Ārambha. Just

as the face is the most prominent part of the body so is Mukha to the

1. Cf. The idea of Sarasvati-putra or Kāvyapuruṣa as given by Rājaśekhara-vide KM,

chapter III.

2. Kavitā-Kāmini, Cf. PR. I, 22.

3. Śabdārthau śarīram-KM, p. 6.

main plot1. It marks the beginning of the play. Here the seed (Bija) is

first sown and the sentiment first depicted2, e.g. in the first act of the

RTN where we find a fusion of different sentiments such as Vīra (in the

desire of Yaugandharāyaṇa to conquer the whole of the world); Śṛṅgāra

enkindled by spring in Udayana, Adbhuta in the witnessing of the

people's festivities and again Śṛṅgāra commencing from the arrival in

the garden3. In the Satyaharīścandra too we find different sentiments

like Adbhuta, Karuṇa, Raudra, Vīra, etc., depicted in Mukha.

Here again the ND emphasizes the importance of Rasa in a play.

Rasa is the soul of dramatic performance and so the dramatist should

not lose sight of it.

2. Pratimukha (progression) is that part of the plot where the seed

which is seen in Mukha and then veiled by some secondary incident

becomes manifest. It is accompanied by the stage 'Yatna'. It is so

called because it is favourable (Prati = Ābhimukhya) to Mukha, e g, in

the RTN the seed which is sown by the utterance of Yaugandharāyaṇa :

"Destiny when favourable…." etc,4 is veiled and becomes hardly

visible in the spring-festival and cupid-worship; and is clearly unfolded

in Act II at the meeting of the King and Sāgarikā, arranged by Susaṅgatā

and hence Pratimukha5.

3. Garbha (Climax). –It is that part of the plot which is accompanied

by the stage Prāptyāśā. The seed which has been originated and manifest

further develops to a stage wherein it is gained and lost in turns by

the hero and he frequently searches every time it is lost.6

The ND illustrates from the Veni. Acts III, IV and V. At the end

it points out that in Garbha the element of loss or despair predominates

since here there is merely a probability of attainment of fruit; otherwise

the acquisition of fruit would be sure and certain. Contrary is the case

in Avamarśa where the element of gain or hope dominates, which indicates

the certainty of success in acquiring the object7.

1. Cf. Abhi. III, p. 23. ND has verbally followed Abhi.

2. ND seems to emphasize the depiction of sentiment which is the chief aim of drama

according to Sanskrit rhetoricians.

3. Cf. Abhi. III, p. 23. The illustration is the same as in the Abhi. The ND has

expanded and elucidated what Abhi. has stated very briefly.

4. RTN I, 6.

5. The ND has followed Abhi. here. The DR and others define this as that part of the

plot wherein the Bija develops in such a way as to be perceptible and imperceptible

in turns. DR I, 30.

6. Garbha is so called because fruit lies concealed in it.

7. The ND clearly echoes Abhi, III, p. 26 lines 6–8,

52

Here one point deserves attention. The ND has started illustrating from the RTN and we naturally expect illustrations from the same, in order to have a coherent, unified impression. But here we find the ND illustrating from a different work viz., the Veṇī., inspite of the fact that Abhinava from whom the ND has drawn abundantly illustrates from the RTN. (The ND probably switches over to the Veṇī. from the RTN with the conviction that the Veṇī. (Acts III to V) provides a more convincing illustration of the Garbha than the RTN. Again here each Sandhi is to be illustrated suitably. It is, therefore, not binding on the authors to illustrate all the Sandhis from one play only).

4. Avamarśa or Vimarsa (Pause) is that part of the plot where the seed which is sown in Mukha and is fast developing into fruit meets with some serious obstacle. It corresponds with the fourth stage called Niyatāpti. Vimarsa is so called because the hero here thinks (Vi + Mrś = to think), that is, reflects or doubts the attainment of fruit though it is near at hand, on account of some powerful obstruction. Thus there is a cause for despair. Nevertheless the great men when obstructed by impediments strive more assiduously and hence are sure to attain the object. These impediments must be shown to befall the hero in order to illustrate that the path to success never runs smooth. It is beset with thorns. Yet one should not slacken one's efforts for the attainment of the fruit as the fortune favours the brave. These obstacles may be of a hundred types being caused by curse, anger, selfishness, etc. The ND gives a number of illustrations from different works such as the RBh, the RV, the Śāk, the Vidhivilasita and the Veṇī1. The Abhi. points out that this Sandhi is ‘Sandehātamaka’. According to him Sandeha is possible even after Saṁbhāvanā, when some unfureeseen obstacle appears in the way of achievement of the desired object.

5. Nirvahana (Close or Denouement) - It is that part of the plot where the seed and its different stages of development together with all Avasthās, Arthaprakṛtis and Sandhis are shown to contribute to the production of fruit. It corresponds to the stage called Phalāgama. It ends with the actual attainment of fruit which marks the end of the play itself, e.g., in the RTN after the entry of the magician upto the end2.

Some opine that Nirvahana is that part of the plot where different Sandhis beginning with Mukha and different Avasthās are again briefly

1. ND, pp. 57–58.

2. Here the ND has closely followed Abhi. III, p. 29 lines 17–18,

touched or indicated one by one,1 e.g., in the Satya. Act VI the speech

of God namely, “We, desirous of testing your worth or excellence,

created all this, viz., hunting, the ascetic-girl, the Kulapati, the parrot,

the jackals, the travellers, the King of the Mlecchas, the death of a

man….” etc.

Here hunting etc., indicates Mukha, the parrot, etc., Pratimukha;

the traveller, etc., Garbha; and the man, etc., Vimarsa. Thus all these

Sandhis together with the corresponding Avasthas are mentioned here.

In fact, this Sandhi occupies a relatively shorter duration. Avamarśa

ends with the removal of the final impediment which obstructed the

path of success and accomplishment of fruit and here the Nirvahana

begins. Naturally, the drama at this stage is drawing to its close.

It is quite evident that the authors of the ND are considerably

indebted to the Abhi. for the entire discussion on this subject.

Nevertheless the ND deserves special credit for good many illustrations

which it has supplied, at times from Ramacandra's own works and which

go a long way in making the concepts concrete.

Jagirdar opines that the five stages of development mentioned above

(i.e. the five Sandhis) are just the five members of a syllogism in Indian

Logic2. But this sort of comparison is not quite correct or covincing3.

Critical Remarks :

A deeper study of the trinity of Sandhis, Avasthas and Arthaprakrtis

will make it abundantly clear that there is a string of unity of concept

running through all these three. It will not be far to realise that

Avasthas, as the name itself suggests, indicate the stages (or conditions)

of development. These stages of development are from the point of

view of the hero. These Avasthas indicate the psychological development

of the hero. First of all a desire springs in the heart of the hero. This

marks the beginning of play proper and the first stage called Arambha. The

desire, when it is a genuine one, is always succeeded by ardent efforts

in order to accomplish it. This forms the second stage known as Yatna.

But the course of victory or success never runs smooth. It is generally

infested with innumerable impediments and for a moment the hope for

success is lost. This is a state of suspense and known as Praptyaśa.

1. It is difficult to decide whose view this is. It has been referred to briefly by Abhi.

in one sentence. Vide Abhi. III, p. 29 lines 6–7. Ramacandra and Gunacandra have

lucidly put this view adding an illustration from Ramacandra's own work.

2. Drama in Sankrit Literature, p. 119

3. Cf. The conception of Sandhis in Sanskrit Dramas (J.O.I., Baroda, Vol. V, No. 4)

p. 378.

(This is known as ‘Climax’ in English Drama). But soon the mist of suspense is to be cleared, the darkness dispelled, the obstacles overcome and the attainment of the end is almost certain but for the removal of one or two obstacles. This is Niyatāpti and finally the obstacles that blocked the path are removed completely and the final object attained (Phalāgama). Thus it is evident that here we get an analysis of the plot or action purely from the view point of the hero who by all means is the central figure of the play.

Sandhis form an objective analysis of the plot from the point of view of the playwright himself. A playwright is supposed to develop the play in a fixed pattern. He cannot show the achievement of the fruit first and the efforts afterwards. This would sound awkward and absurd. The plot should develop in a very natural, realistic, psychological, dramatic way. There should be a definite aim to be achieved and all the incidents, episodes and the like represented should be ultimately conducive to the achievement of that aim. First, he should represent the seed, the germ-the motive force of the plot-development. The germ is responsible for rousing the hero to action.

These Sandhis well agree with the five stages of comedy in western drama, which are (1) cause or beginning, (2) growth or progression, (3) height or climax, (4) pause or consequence and (5) close1.

The divisions into Avasthās will obviously appear to be very logical and psychological. This concept of Avasthā very much corresponds with the five stages of plot-development according to the western critics. According to western critics conflict is the soul of drama. Drama, mirroring life, must represent, in the true sense, the conflict-the conflict of ideas and emotions, thoughts and ideals, rights and duties. These conflicts are universal. Life deprived of conflicts can never be imagined. At every step, man is confronted with innumerable difficulties. What to do and what not to do is the problem which every sane person has to face. So the climax in drama comes in the middle in the stage Prāptyāsā where the fate of the hero appears to hang in a balance. He is suffering through acute mental torture and trying to cross the vast ocean of difficulties, making his way through all the thick and thin. The curiosity as to what will happen now is at the highest here. But slowly and gradually in the course of the last two stages the hero overcomes the difficulties one by one, and the spectators' minds are proportionately relieved of the tension, and ultimately the play closes with the attainment of the object in view. The five stages (Avasthās) should invariably be present in the Nāṭaka.

1. In tragedies the last two stages are (iv) fall and (v) catastrophe.

Arthaprakrtis, on the other hand, are not, strictly speaking, the divisions of the plot. They are in fact as Bhoja and other theorists1

have pointed out, the material causes (Hetu, Kāraṇa) of the plot. In other words, they are the factors that are responsible for the smooth and gradual development of the plot. The ND is therefore perfectly justified when it calls them “means of achieving the fruit” (Phalaysa hetavah).

The development of the plot is comparable to the development of a seed into fruit. The name Bija (seed or germ), which marks the beginning of the play, appears to be significant. It is the motive force of all dramatic action. The same Bija which is sown in Mukha shoots forth, develops and ultimately transforms itself into fruit. But before that it has to pass through the three Sandhis for its full growth.

Sandhi is so called because :

(1) It properly joins the different parts of the plot into a harmonious one.

(2) It is the result of the combination between Avasthās and Arthaprakrtis (The view of the DR).

The DR, while discussing the Sandhis, lays down that the five Arthaprakrtis joined respectively to the five Avasthās give rise to the five Sandhis beginning with Mukha.

Thus Bija when joined with Ārambha will give rise to Mukha, Bindu with Yatna to Pratimukha and so on.

This view of the DR is not convincing for various reasons :

(i) Patākā and Prakarī are not indispensable in the plot as they are to be employed only if the hero requires the external aid for achieving his end2 and even in their absence all the five Sandhis are seen.

(ii) Patākā needs not occur in Garbha only. It may start with Mukha or Pratimukha and stretch upto Avamarśa even.

Similarly it is not proper to confine Prakarī to Avamarśa only.

(iii) The Bija is not confined merely to Mukha. It, in fact, pervades the entire plot as it is the Bija whose progressive development into the fruit is the ultimate aim of the drama.

Bindu also is to be employed not only once but may be employed as many times as the main thread is lost sight of and in any of the five Sandhis. It pervades the entire plot.3

1. Cf. Bhoja who explains them as-Kathāśariropādānakāraṇabhūtāḥ-SP(MS). p. 169.

2. Vide ND, P. 41; also Abhi. III, p. 16.

3. Cf. Bhoja, who explains it as-Yāvatsamāpti yadbandhah-SP (MS), p. 170.

56

Thus this mathematical formula laid down by the DR cannot be accepted literally.

If at all we want to justify the DR the statement may be understood as representing a state of idealistic perfection of dramatic technique.

Prof. K. P. Kulkarni also does not seem to be correct when he explains the Arthaprakrtis as stages in the development of the action and the five Sandhis as corresponding to the five Arthaprakrtis.1

SANDHYANGAS

The ND begins with the subdivisions of Mukha Sandhi. They are twelve in all begining with Upaksepa and ending in Paribhavana2. Out of these twelve, the first six, viz. Upaksepa, Parikara, Parinyasa, Samahiti, Udbheda, and Karana occour in the Mukha Sandhi only. Out of these six again, the first three are to be put in the same order and that too in the beginning, the fourth one in the middle and the fifth and the sixth at almost the end of Mukha. The first five of the above limbs together with Yukti are indispensable here. The remaining ones viz., Vilobhana, etc., are possible in other Sandhis also irrespective of the specified order if the plot demands it. Bheda which implies exit of characters3 has got to be employed at the end of every Act and at the end of Pravesaka and Viskambhaka as well. Sandhanagas are employed after the prologue as prologue does not form a part of the drama proper.

In this introductory paragraph about Sandhyangas the ND touches some of the note-worthy points about the concept of Sandhyangas. It points out that a particular Sandhyanga may be the Anga or part of a particular Sandhi only, but it does not mean that it is to be employed only there. In fact, most of the Sandhyangas excepting a few can be employed in any of the five Sandhis. The fact that it is a part of a particular Sandhi simply means that it is usually and more often found in that Sandhi. This does not deprive it of the right to appear in other Sandhis also. Moreover, it is possible to reduce the number of the Sandhyangas as some of them can be included in others. But the ND adheres to the old tradition.

Now the ND states the purpose of Sandhyangas. The ND points out that they must be employed because they develop the plot4; otherwise the story though possessed of all Sandhis will be too brief; e. g., the

1. Vide-Sanskrit Drama and Dramatists, pp. 37-38.

2. Cf. ND. I, 41, 42.

3. Vide ND, I, 44d.

4. Cf. ND, p. 59-60.

entire story of Rāma could be covered in a few sentences, viz., the wife of

Rāma was abducted by Rāvaṇa in the forest, Rāma made Sugriva his

friend by procuring for him in the monkey-kingdom, constructed a bridge

over the sea, killed Rāvaṇa and brought Sītā back.

Moreover, what sort of interest will such a story create in the minds

of the readers? On the other hand, even an uninteresting story when

represented strikingly through Sandhyāṅgas becomes highly enjoyable.

Even if the story is repeated when the occasion demands it, it does not

appear to be so when expressed with the help of Sandhyāṅgas. Thus the

plot is saved from being tedious.

Much of this discussion is based on the Abhi1. As regards the

purpose of Sandhyāṅgas the ND has in mind the NS and the DR. The

NS (DR simply follows it) gives sixfold purpose of Sandhyāṅgas2, and

the same has been summarized with apt illustrations by the ND.

Bharata stretches the popular analogy of Kāvya and the human body,

and points out that Sandhyāṅgas are to drama what limbs are to body3.

Now we take up individual Sandhyāṅgas one by one.

1. Upakṣepa—Sowing of the seed is Upakṣepa4. Here there is simply

a suggestion of the seed or the central motive which is to expand over the

the whole of the play, e.g., in the RTN I, 6, Yaugandharāyaṇa’s speech,

viz., “Destiny if favourable at once brings the desired object, even from

a different isle, ….” etc. suggests the course of events to follow, viz.,

the union of Udayana and Sāgarikā who comes actually from the other isle.

2. Parikara consists in a slight expansion of the central motive which

is already suggested by the previous limb, e. g., in the Veṇī, I, 10 Bhīma’s

declaration that he would break the peace as soon as it was effected

strengthens the idea that war was inevitable5.

3. Parinyāsa - When the seed which is thus expanded is specially

confirmed beyond any shadow of doubt it is called Parinyāsa6, e. g., in

the Veṇī. (I, 21) Bhīma’s assertion that he would surely break the thighs

1. Cf. Abhi. III, pp, 36-37.

2. NS XIX, 51-52.

3. Cf. NS (GOS) XIX, 53.

4. The definition is quite similar to the DR where we find “Nyāsa” instead of “Upti”

of the ND. Both the ND and the DR illustrate from RTN I, 6.

5. The same illustration is found in the Abhi. III, p. 38.

6. NS and DR define it as Tāṁsīpatti. ND’s definition seems to follow Abhinava. Cf.

Abhi. III, p. 38.

8

58

of Duryodhana and braid the hair of Draupadi clearly affirms the seed already sown1.

The ND notes that these three limbs of Mukha Sandhi should follow in succession2. The reason is quite clear. The seed has to be sown first, then expanded and then confirmed.

4. Samāhiti3 - Repetition of the briefly-stated seed in order to establish it clearly beyond doubt is Samāhiti4, e.g., Veṇī. I. 24 clearly points out that the anger of Yudhiṣṭhira, is now violently stirred and is working in all its fury against Kurus.

5. Udbheda - is the sprouting up of the seed. The seed that is sown at the commencement of the play now springs up as a young sprout springs up from the earth. The seed sown in the ground becomes swollen first. This is the earliest stage of the growth of the seed as the seed that lay hidden is slightly brought to light. Thus it is a part of Mukha only and not of Pratimukha which implies a complete manifestation or full development of the seed, e.g., in the Veṇī. (I, 26) Bhīma's declaration of his determination to kill all the Kurus and not to see Draupadi before doing it.

The ND here gives the view of some others who define it as ‘unfolding of a secret’, e.g., in the RTN the verse Astāpāsta…..etc., (I, 23) uttered by the bard reveals the identity of Udayana.

The view is evidently held by the DR5. The illustration too is from the DR.

6. Karaṇa -is commencing to do what is appropriate to the occasion, e.g., in the Veṇī. (Act I), Sahadeva and Bhima declare to proceed to fight the Kurus6.

The ND here mentions the view of some7 who define Karaṇa as removal (destruction) of calamities by blessings or other means.

But most of the works agree with the first view which the ND accepts. The NLR calls this limb as Kāraṇa though its definition and the illustration are not different.

1. This illustration is found in Abhi. III, p. 38.

2. ND, p. 61.

3. In the NS the fourth Aṅga is Vilobhana and Samāhiti or Samādhāna stands seventh. But the ND has clarified at the outset that the order of these Aṅgas, unless it is so specified, is not binding.

4. Sam (well) +ā (on all sides) + √dhā (to put or to nourish).

5. Cf. DR I, 29b.

6. The same illustration is found in Abhi. III, p. 41 and also DR, p. 10.

7. It is not quite clear as to whose view the ND refers to here.

7. Vilobhana - consists in supporting a person in his desire to do a particular thing by means of praise, e.g., in the Veni. (p. 19) Draupadi pays a handsome tribute to Bhima by saying, "What is difficult, my lord, for you to accomplish when (once) you are violently enraged ?"1

The ND has followed Abhinava here. The latter remarks that this limb and the first three (viz., Upaksepa, Parikara and Parinyasa) occur usually in the Mukha only. The NS has put it after Parinyasa and so the ND remarks that it occurs after Parinyasa only but it is not mentioned after Parinyasa as Vilobhana can occur in other Sandhis also.

8. Bhedana2 - It is the exit of the characters on the stage. When the characters (on the stage) leave the stage in pursuance of some end or the other it is known as Bhedana, e.g., in the Veni. the powerful speech of Bhima declaring the heroism of the sons of Pandu in the battle-field results into the exit of Sahadeva (and Bhima also) from the stage3.

The ND mentions here the view of others who define it as "encouraging the person"4.

The ND mentions still a third view according to which Bhedana consists of the expedient of sowing dissension among the foes who have joined together and who bar the appearance of fruit from the seed5.

9. Prapana6 - is defined as "obtainment of pleasure or what would bring happiness; e.g., in the Veni. Bhima is happy to learn from the Kañcukin, that Krsna has failed to settle the feud peacefully7.

10. ND, p. 64. Abhi. too gives the same illustration. Cf. Abhi. III, p, 38. DR gives Veni. I, 22 as the instance of this Anga.

11. The NS (also the DR) calls it Bheda.

12. Here ND has followed the Abhi. The illustration is also drawn from the Abhi. Cf. Abhi. III, p. 42.

13. The view referred to here belongs to none else but the DR. The illustration given here is also in accordance with that of DR, cf. Avaloka, p. 11.

14. It is not quite clear as to whose view exactly the ND is referring to here. The ND does nothing more but mentioning it. It does not illustrate. Shri G. K. Shrigondekar considers this to be the view of the DR (vide, ND : Preface p. 6) but the view is not found in the DR. It may probably refer to Bhoja who defines it as "Samghatarupabhedah."

The NS defines the limb as Samghatabhedanartha i.e, disruption of the union (NS (KM)XIX, 73). The word is open to a double interpretation. The ND has followed the one given by Abhinava, viz., 'dispersal of characters under one reason or the other,' while others seem have interpreted it differently (i.e. disrupting the enemies).

6. The NS calls it Prapi.

7. Veni, p. 20.

60

A particular Aṅga is at times repeated in one and the same Sandhi in order to provide striking or extraordinary speech in abundance. In the Veṇī. this same Aṅga is repeated in the words of Bhīma, viz., “Shall I not destroy through rage the hundred Kauravas in the battle ?.....etc.”,1

10. Yukti - consists in pondering over the action or the task to be accomplished with proper discrimination taking into full consideration the merits and demerits or advantages and disadvantages of the same.

The ND illustrates from the Udāttarāghava where Lakṣmaṇa ponders over the act of Kaikeyī and Bharata.2

11. Vidhāna - When happiness and misery are represented in one character or different characters we have Vidhāna. Vidhāna is of four types:-

( i ) Happiness and misery are found in one character.

( ii ) Happiness and misery are found in different characters.

(iii ) In one character there is only happiness.

(iv ) In one character there is only misery.

This Aṅga is to be distinguished from Prāpaṇa or Prāpti which also implies attainment of happiness. In fact Prāpti indicates the search for happiness or the object of happiness, while in Vidhāna the happiness is just at hand and belongs to one character only.

12. Paribhavānā - is astonishment or rather curiosity to know what a particular thing is. Just as in the Nāgānanda when the heroine is seen by the hero he begins to imagine who she is3.

Looking to the form of this Aṅga and the illustration of the ND we are immediately reminded of the figure of speech called Sandēha. It is probable that some of the Aṅgas like this later on developed into figures of speech.

Now let us consider the Aṅgas of Pratimukha Sandhi. They are thirteen in all. Here the order is not so important. The first eight Aṅgas may or may not have scope in this Sandhi, depending upon the nature of the subject-matter. The remaining five ought to be necessarily employed in this Sandhi.4

13. Vilāsa - is the desire of man and woman for the pleasure of Love. The ND illustrates from the Śāk. (II, 1-2) where Duṣyanta expresses his desire for Śakuntalā.

14. Veṇī. I, 15. The illustration seems to have been cited, following the DR. Cf. DR, p. 8. Abhi. cites another illustration, of course, from the same work viz. Veṇī.

15. Vide ND, p. 66,

16. Cf. Nāg. I, 15.

17. ND I, 46-47.

This Aṅga must be employed in the beginning of Pratimukha only.

Whatever sentiment has been delineated in Mukha, the same has to be

developed by Vibhāva, Anubhāva, etc. in Pratimukha. Thus, love that is

depicted in Mukha in amorous dramas (whose fruit is acquisition of love)

is developed in Pratimukha by the aid of Vilāsa. In dramas dominated

by heroic sentiment Vilāsa stands for energy (Utsāha).1

Here the ND criticizes the love-scene between Duryodhana and Bhānu-

matī in the Veṇī. which is a drama of heroic sentiment. The ND

has clearly pointed out that in a heroic drama Vilāsa should not be taken

to mean amorous sport as love has little scope there and so the Vilāsa

depicted in the Veṇī. in the midst of war is highly improper. The ND

quotes in support of the view a Kārikā from the Dhvanyāloka,2 viz.,

"Sandhis and Sandhyāṅgas are to be employed with a view to develop-

ing Rasa and not merely to fulfil the conditions of the Śāstra.3

The love-scene in the Veṇī. has been a subject of criticism by most of

the rhetoricians. Abhinava4 criticizes it in the particular context, so does

Hemacandra. The ND simply reproduces this criticism.

14. Dhūnana5 - is a slight disrespect shown to the request made.

The ND illustrates from the Pārthavijaya where Yudhiṣṭhira persuades

Bhīma to help Duryodhana who was captured by Citrasena but Bhīma

refuses to help him who was the doer of so many misdeeds.

The ND refers to the view of some who define Dhūnana as

despondency (Arati)6, The ND includes it under Rodha.

15. Rodha is (frustration) or despondency on account of the hindra-

nces in the way of obtaining the desired object. The ND illustrates from

the Devī. where the speech of Rāmagupta addressed to Candragupta

(disguised as a woman) giving vent to his love for him is taken by

Dhruvadevī as one addressed to a lady and she is highly distressed.

16. Sāntvana - is pacification of an angry person. The illustration is

given from RBh. where Rāvaṇa, who is infuriated by the unpleasant

1. Here the ND has followed Abhinava. Cf. Abhi - Iha ca ratigrahaṇam pumar-thopayogi

rasagatasthāyibhāvopalakṣaṇam, tena vīrapradhāneṣu rūpakeṣu ... ratirūpeṇa utsāhaḥ -

(Vol. III, p. 42).

2. The criticism of the love-scene in the Veṇī. is also found in Dhv. p. 263,

3. Cf. Dhv. III, 12.

4. Cf. Abhi. III, p. 42.

5. The NS and the DR call it Vidhūta.

6. The view referred to is held by the DR. Cf. DR I, 33a.

62

words of Mārica and therefore girds up his loins to send him to heaven,

is pacified by Prahasta. In the speech of Mārica there is another limb

called Vajra which consists in a cruel remark. Vajra is explained later on.1

This clearly indicates that the order followed does not have any signi-

ficance. One more hint that we get here is that it often happens that

one limb may go to develop the other. Limbs are often mutually conne-

cted. Thus Sāntvana and Vajra have a special relation.

Sāntvana implies pacification of anger. This anger is naturally caused

by some unpleasant or haughty talk. In this case Vajra becomes the cause

of Sāntvana. It can also be established that Vajra should generally be

succeeded by Sāntvana as Bharata prohibits the scenes of actual violence

on the stage. The playwright may suggest the battle by sending them

away from the stage in the heat of anger.

The NS ( and the DR ) calls this limb Paryupāsanā, which is defined

as pacification of the furious2.

17. Varṇasam̐hṛli - occurs when a host of characters like the hero,

the heroine, helpmates and others assemble together. Varṇa here means the

characters, so called as they are described ( Varṇyante ) ( as gathering for

the accomplishment of a particular object. )

The ND here mentions the view of others who understand the word

Varṇa as four castes, such as Brahmin, Kṣatriya, etc., and there is an

assemblance of two, three or four of these Varṇas at one and the same

place.

This view is obviously held by the DR which defines it as an

assembly of the four castes3 and gives the same illustration as given

above by the ND.

There is still a third view which defines Varṇasam̐hāra as "repudia-

tion of the described object." Here Varṇa is taken to mean ‘varṇita

artha’ (described object) and Sam̐hāra to mean (Sam + √ Hṛ to suppress

or to withdraw) suppressing, withdrawing, repudiating.

The view seems to refer to the NLR4. The illustration is cited

from the Veṇī where Bhānumatī asks Duryodhana to avert the evil

effect of the falling of the flag of the chariot by the loud recital of the

Vedas by Brahmins5.

1. ND, p. 79.

2. NS (GOS) XIX., 80.

3. Cf. DR I, 32. ed.

4. NLR, p. 30.

5. Veṇī., p. 48.

It is quite clear that theorists differ on the meaning of the word ‘Varna’. Abhinava severely criticizes the view of those who take the word Varna to mean four castes, considering it to be futile1. It can be easily perceived that a drama has more concern with the characters rather than their castes, and hence the view has to be rejected, as Abhinava remarks, looking to the secular atmosphere of drama.

18. Narma - is laughter or joke for the sake of sport or enjoyment2. Its essence is humour.

The ND gives three illustrations from the RTN (Act II) which comprise jokes between the jester and the king and between Susamgatā and Sāgarikā3. The purpose of selecting three illustrations from one and the same work is stated to be that it is possible to employ one and the same Sandhyanga again and again Similarly the ND gives three humorous illustrations of Narma from Rāmacandra’s own work, NLW, e.g., when the king asks Lambastani to take her seat, the Vidūṣaka humorously points out that the seat was too weak for her to sit and advises her to sit with care4.

19. Narmadyuti - When that particular humorous speech is meant to cover some fault it is called Narmadyuti, e. g. in the RTN (Act II) where Vidūṣaka styles gāthā as a Vedic metre in his attempt to hide his ignorance and provokes king’s laughter.5

The ND mentions another view under the phrase ‘Anye Āhuh,’ according to which it (Narmadyuti) means ‘joy produced by Narma i.e. humorous remark.’ This, again, is the view of the DR.6

The ND concludes this discussion by a useful remark, viz., these two limbs (Nos. 18 and 19) are to be employed in dramas of love only, because humour fits in them only, as their dominant Vṛtti is Kaiśikī which represents love (and humour)7.

20. Tāpa - ( NS-Tāpana ) is perceiving a calamity or danger. The illustration is given from the Pārthavijaya8 where Kañcukī cries for help

21. Yat tu brāhmaṇādivarṇacatuṣṭayamelaṅam iti tad aphalatvād anādṛtyam eva,-Abhi. III, p. 47.

22. The DR too gives a similar definition. Cf. DR I, 33c.

23. Vide ND, p. 74.

24. Vide ND, p. 75.

25. ND, p. 76. Also Cf. Abhi. III, p. 44. Mark specially the lines commenting upon that, as given by ND which agree with Abhi. almost literally (ND, p. 76, lines 7-8).

26. Cf. the definition of DR I, 33d and the illustration that follows.

27. Cf. ND III, 108.

28. Vide ND, p. 76-77.

64

to save the queen of Duryodhana assaulted by Gāndharvas and immediately Yudhiṣṭhira takes up his bow in haste.

The ND mentions another view which does not regard this Tāpana as a limb but reads Śamana instead, which is defined as pacification of anger ( or anxiety or distress ) and averting the evil or danger.

This view is found in the DR which does not recognize Tāpa but reads Śama instead and defines it as alleviation of uneasiness or anxiety or despondency ( Arati)1. The illustrations, of course, differ, the ND’s is from the Pārthavijaya and the DR’s from the RTN. Moreover, the ND gives two types of Śamana, viz., pacification of anger, etc., and alleviation of uneasiness. The DR ignores the former.

21. Puṣpa - When a sentence uttered excels the one formerly uttered that is known as Puṣpa2. Just as a flower decorates the hair, in the same way here the later sentence decorates the earlier one.3 The ND illustrates from the Vilakṣaduryodhana where Bhīṣma while describing the battle remarks - “ Formerly we who were in a great number ready to fight with our weapons saw only one (Arjuna) but afterwards we saw as many Arjunas as we were.”

22. Pragamana ( Pragayana,4 Praśamana5 ) - is a series of questions and answers. There should be two at least in the series, It ought to consist of clever arguments or witty speeches. It ought to be such as may reveal some important aspect of the plot, character or sentiment.6

This limb may be compared with the Vithyaṅga named Vākkelī which is also defined as a “ series of questions and answers - a humorous dialogue ”.

23. Vajra - is a cruel remark made to one’s face. It smashes the former speech or action of the opposite party. An apt illustration is provided by the quarrel between Karṇa and Aśvatthāman in the Veṇī. Act III.

24. Upanyāsa - is an argument or a trick in order to accomplish a particular object, The ND illustrates from the KTR where Sītā who first refused to get into the areal car of Rāvaṇa was made to do so by threatening her that if she did not obey, he would cut the heads of Brahmins in her presence.

The SD defines this limb as ‘conciliation or propitiation (Prasādana)’.

1. Cf. DR I, 33.

2. The definition echoes the NS; cf. NS XIX, 80,

3. Cf. ND p. 78.

4. DR, p. 14 F N.

5. NS (KM) , pp. 314, 316.

6. Vide NLV Act III, p. 39.

25. Anusarpaṇa - is the pursuing of a desired object, which though once seen has been lost for the time being. The illustration is given from the Pārthavijaya where Draupadi who has forgotten her insult by Duhśā-

sana with the passage of time again remembers it.

The NS mentions this limb as Parisarpa, but the definition does not differ materially from that given by the ND.

After this the ND turns to the limbs of Garbha. They are thirteen in number. The ND here notes that the first eight of the thirteen are subsidiary while the remaining five are principal.

26. Samgraha - ( propitiation ). It consists in the use of conciliatory words ( Sāma ), giving of a gift ( Dāna ), causing dispute ( Bheda ), punish-

ment ( Daṇḍa ), fraud, etc. The illustration is given from the RTN ( Act III ) where the king is pleased with the Vidūṣaka and gives a gold

bracelet in return1.

The DR too gives the same illustration from the RTN2. The ND illustrates Bheda and Daṇḍa also from the Raghuviḷāsa.3

27. Rūpa - is a statement embodying doubt regarding the true nature of something. Rūpa implies indefinite form. This is different from Yukti

( of Mukha ) which has a definite form and consists in pondering over an action or a task to be accomplished.

The ND illustrates from the KTR where Rāma, not recognizing Jaṭāyu first, says "Is it a mountain with its wings cut off by Indra or

the son of Vinatā cut off by demon kings who are his enemies ? Or is it dead Jaṭāyu…..?" etc.

It is easy to see here that this limb corresponds to the figure of speech called ‘Sandeha’ and very probably this limb might have later

on developed into the figure of speech of that kind.

This limb can very well be compared with the limb Paribhāvanā of Mukha Sandhi, where too a similar doubt arises in the mind of the

person on seeing an object of beauty. Still the difference can very well be seen from the actual illustrations quoted by the ND. In Paribhāvanā

the person is dazzled, as it were, by the extraordinary beauty of the object in front and suspects it to be some unearthly creature; while in Rūpa

is a doubt about the real nature of the thing on account of several reasons such as the distance, as a result of which the object is not very clearly

perceived. Thus this limb ( Rūpa ) is much nearer to the figure Sasamdeha.

1. RTN, p. 65. This illustration is found in Abhi. III, p, 89.

2. Vide DR, p. 18.

3. Vide ND, pp. 82-83.

9

66

The ND gives another view. Rūpa is a remark embodying a doubt or apprehension. The illustration is from the RTN ( Act III ) where the king fears that the love - affair might have been known to the queen.

Clearly enough this view belongs to none else but the DR. The DR ( p. 17 ) gives the same illustration too. This definition of Rūpa much resembles Yukti which consists of thinking over an action or a task with proper discrimination.

According to the third view Rūpa or Rūpaka means ‘a speech with striking sense’.1 The illustration that is quoted is a novel description of war as given by Sundaraka in the Venī.

The NLR defines Rūpa as a hypothesis having a striking sense, which corresponds to the above view, but illustrates it from the RTN III, 2.

28. Anumāna - is an inference or deduction on the basis of characteristic sign ( Liṅga or Hetu)2.

The ND, following the Abhi3., points out the distinction between Anumāna and Yukti, viz., in the former there is a definite conclusion or decision while in the latter there is merely a surmise or guessing. Thus the two are totally distinct4.

The ND illustrates this from the Svapnavāsavadatta of Bhāsa. Finding slab in the Sephālikā bower warm and the flowers crushed under feet Udayana infers that some one who was already sitting there has left the place instantly on seeing him arrive5.

It is easy to see that this limb later on develops into the figure Anumāna.

29. Prārthanā - is an entreaty or request for love, joy, festivity, etc., appropriate to the ultimate end or fruit to be obtained. The ND illustrates from the Devicandragupta, Act IV where the hero entreats Mādhavasenā for the union6.

The ND mentions the view of ‘others’ who define it as a mere entreaty or request of any kind7.

1. It is not quite clear as to whose view is mentioned here. NS (GOS) Vol. III too in the foot note on p. 48 mentions the same view.

It seems on a closer analysis that according to this view, Rūpa will mean a novel or graphic description, thus forming the base of Svabhāvokti.

2. The definition of the ND seems to be more scientific than that of the NS which defines it as conception of a thing on the basis of a similar one. Cf. NS (GOS) XIX, 85. Here the word Rūpa is rather confusing.

3. Cf. Abhi. III, p. 49.

4. Cf. ND, p. 84.

5. In fact this verse is not found in the Svapna. that is available at present.

6. Vide ND, p. 84.

7. The view seems to belong to the NLR (p. 32).

Some do not accept this limb as well as the earlier one, viz, Anumāna. The DR does not recognize Prārthanā but does accept Anumāna.

30. Udāhṛti1 - is an exaggerated speech. The ND, following the Abhi., illustrates it from the RTN III, 2, where Udayana wonders as to how mind which is by its very nature unsteady and difficult to be hit at is smitten by cupid by all his arrows simultaneously2.

The DR illustrates from the RTN, where Vidūṣaka says that the king will be pleased more by hearing the good news than he would be by acquiring the domain of Kauśalas3.

The word Udāharaṇa in common parlance is used in the sense of 'an illustration' but here it conveys a special sense; 'Ud' is in the sense of 'excellence' and Ā + Hṛ., means 'to speak'. This sort of exaggeration is at the root of all figures of speech4.

31. Krama - is the discovery of the feeling of another person by one's imagination and intelligence5. The ND illustrates it from the Devī-candragupta where Candragupta reads the feeling of Dhrvadevī 6.

The ND mentions the view of 'others ' who define it as 'the acquisition of an object which is already being thought of', e.g., in the RTN, Vidūṣaka arranges a meeting between the King and Sāgarikā who was already being thought of7.

The ND refers to still another view according to which Krama means acquisition of the future object. The illustration is found in the Veni. when Kṛpa points out to Duryodhana that the son of Droṇa has resolved to bear the huge burden of war. Being invested with supreme command by Duryodhana he is capable of uprooting the three worlds even, what to talk about the forces of Yudhiṣṭhira ? Clearly this view refers to the NIR8. The illustration is also the same as given by the NLR.

32. Udvega -- is fear caused by theives, kings, enemies or the heroine ( i. e. the elder queen ), etc., e.g., in the MRC Cārudatta is afraid of the king on account of the charge of theft levelled against him9. The definition of the NS runs as follows:-''The fear from King's enemies or Dasyus

33. NS & DR call it Udāharaṇa.

34. The illustration contains an element of contrast and thus forms the figure Virodha. The same illustration is found in Abhi. III, p. 48.

35. RTN, p. 64.

36. Cf. Saiṣā Sarvatra Vakroktih...etc. - KL (of Bhāmaha) II, 85.

37. ND, pp. 85-86. The definition echoes NS XIX, 84.

38. ND, p. 86.

39. The view belongs to the DR and the illustration also is the same.

40. NLR, p. 32.

41. Cf. ND, p. 87.

68

is known as Udvega". The ND has followed this. The ND in the explana-

tion adds the fear from the elder queen too. This is in accordance with the

Abhi. The Abhi. takes the word 'enemy' in the sense of 'the queen". In a

drama of love the enemies cannot have much scope. There the word should

be taken in the sense of those who put obstacles on the path of the hero in

his love-affair. The Abhi. accordingly illustrates from the RTN where the

king and the Vidūṣaka dread the arrival of the queen Vāsavadattā1. The

ND, following Abhinava, adds the word Nāyikā in the explanation.

The ND adds another instance of Udvega from the RTN where Sāgarikā

through the fear of the queen makes up her mind to commit suicide2.

33. Vidrava - is apprehension of some obstacle or dreadful object. It

is so called because it causes the heart to melt or soften. Udvega implies

the danger that has already approached, while Vidrava implies the

possibility of the attack.

The ND here criticizes the view of those who recognize Sambhrama

instead of Vidrava, defining it as fear and trembling. This view is held by

the DR3. This Sambhrama is included in the two Aṅgas, Vidrava and Udvega.

34. Ākṣepa4 - is the revelation of the germ, which is employed in

Prāptyāśā and which is the cause of the final attainment of the fruit,

e.g., in the Veṇī, the charioteer speaks, “Droṇa could not save the king

of Sindhus from the son of Pṛthā, .....etc.”6

Here the ND gives another alternative explanation, viz., when the

Bīja which is the desire concealed in one's heart is brought out it is

known as Ākṣepa, just as in the RTN the words of the king who takes

Vāsavadattā as his dear Sāgarikā and describes her beauty reveal the

secret love of the king for Sāgarikā7.

The ND adds here that 'some' do not recognize this limb4.

35. Adhibala - is defined as 'superiority of intellectual power or supe-

riority of fraud or cunningness'8. The ND explains that when of the two

persons bent upon deceiving each other if one succeeds by virtue of his superior strength, intelligence, friends, etc., it forms an instance of Adhi-

bala, so called because there is superiority ( Adhi ) of strength ( Bala ) in the matter of fraud1; e. g. in the RTN ( Act III ) the king has been decei-

ved by Vāsavadattā dressed as Sāgarikā on account of the stupidity of the Vidūṣaka2.

Others, notes the ND, define Adhibala as fruitlessness or failure of the deceit or fraud; e. g., in the RTN the king entreats the queen, “O queen ! Here shall I, who am full of shame, wipe off with my head the reddish tint of your feet…etc.,’3

Here the efforts of the king to deceive Vāsavadattā do not meet with success4.

The ND refers to still a third view according to which Adhibala consists in a sentence embodying taunt.5.

36. Mārga - is speaking out what is true6. In its gloss the ND explains it as a sentence embodying general truth applied to the relevant context. The ND illustrates from Rāmacandra's own work Raghuvilāsa. ( Act IV ) where Rāvaṇa utters the truth that path of love is peculiar and indiscriminate as Sītā abstained from Rāvaṇa, the Lord of Laṅkā, and loved Rāma who lived the life of a forester.

37. Asatyāharaṇa1 - is deception or fraud. The illustration is from the Māl. ( Act IV ) where the Vidūṣaka feigns a serpant-bite and thus deceives the people.

38. Toṭaka - ( Troṭaka-SD ) is a speech full of excitement or agitation due to anger, joy, and the like. It is so called because it breaks ( wounds ) the heart ( ‘Tuṭ’ (causal) to break )8.

39. The explanation of ND follows Abhi. III, p. 57.

40. The same illustration is found in Abhi.

41. RTN III, 14.

42. This view seems to refer to the NLR or the DR. The definition by the NLR verbally agrees with the view even though the illustrations differ (Vide NLR, p. 32). The DR supplies two definitions of Adhibala. According to one definition Adhibala constitutes deceit (Adhisaṃdhi), while according to the other Adhibala consists in overturning the plot or rendering others’ plan fruitless. The same illustration as quoted by the ND is found in the DR too. The two views do not differ substantially. According to both, in Adhibala there is an element of fraud or deceit as one party tries to befool the other and the one having superior intellect succeeds.

43. Vide ND, p. 90. It is difficult to trace whose view is referred to here.

44. The definition literally follows NS (GOS) XIX, 83.

45. NS (DR too) calls it Abhūtāharaṇa.

46. Toṭayati bhinatti hṛdayam iti-ND, p. 91; also Cf. Abhi. III, p. 51.

70

The ND illustrates from the Raghuvilāsa ( Act IV ) where Rāvaṇa is overjoyed in anticipation of Sītā’s love1.

Now the ND turns to the thirteen limbs of Avamarśa. The first nine of these beginning with Drava, are employed according to the need or occasion while the remaining four are used prominently.

39. Drava – is disrespect to a respectable person2, e,g., in the RTN, disregarding the husband who was personally present, Vāsavadattā puts into fetters Vidūṣaka and Sāgarikā3.

40. Prasaṅga – is mentioning the great ( i. e. one’s elders ) in a revered manner. Just as in the Veṇī. Yudhiṣṭhira remembers his ancestors and pays homage to them by offering them libations of water4.

The ND mentions another view according to which Prasaṅga means ‘ an irrelevant speech ’, e.g., in the Veṇī. Yudhiṣṭhira laments the death of Bhīma ( being deceived by the demon in the disguise of an ascetic ).5

It may be noted that the view referred to here belongs to Bhoja. The illustration too is the same as in the SP.

41. Sampheta – ( altercation ) is an angry speech, e.g., in the Veṇī. the passage which reports exchange of hot words between Bhīma and Duryodhana6.

42. Apavāda – is censure of one’s own faults or of others, Thus Apavāda is of two types – (i) finding one’s own fault, e.g., in the Puṣpadūṣitaka the Brahmin abhors his own self7. (ii) Finding the faults of others, e.g., in the Raghuvilāsa Act VII, Mārica exposes the faults of Rāvaṇa8.

43. Chādana – ( Sādana-NLR ) is the wiping out of one’s own insult. In the RTN Sāgarikā wished, when the magic fire blazed forth, that it was her good luck that the burning fire would put an end to all her miseries9.

Here the ND mentions the view of ‘others’ who hold that Chādana means swallowing an insult in order to attain a particular object, e.g., in a play called Anangaseharinandin ( written by Suktivasakumara ) the hero Harinandin brought ill name for himself by accepting the crime of theft with a view to saving the Brahmin.

1. Cf. ND, p. 92.

2. Vide NS XIX, 90; DR I, 45.

3. ND takes this illustration from Abhi. III, p. 53.

4. Vide Veṇī. VI, p. 184.

5. Cf. SP (MS), pp. 222-223; also Cf. NLR, p. 35.

6. Cf. Veṇī. VI, 10-11.

7. Cf. ND, p. 94.

8. Cf. ND, p 94.

9. RTN IV. The illustration seems to be taken from Abhi. III, p. 56.

This view has been followed by the SD. Bharata defines it as a statement or speech arising out of disgrace and made with some purpose.

Others do not recognize this limb and read ‘Chalana’ instead1, which is defined as ‘insult’, e. g., in the RBh, the insult of Sītā by forsaking her constitutes Chalana.

Others define Chalana as ‘infatuation’ (Vyāmohā)2, e. g., in the Venī. VI, being deceived by the demon in the disguise of an ascetic king Yudhiṣṭhira and Draupadī fall into a swoon.

44. Dyuti implies censure ( or rebuking ). The ND illustrates it from the Krtyārāvaṇa where Aīṅgada rebukes Mandodarī.

Here the ND mentions the view of ‘Some’ who define it as Tarjana ( reprimanding or threatening pointing to the contempt or ridicule ) and Udvejana ( hurting the feelings, frightening )3 and others who define it as Tarjana and Ādharṣaṇa ( hurting ) but both the views take Dyuti as any remark which is directly or indirectly meant to insult and thus are included in the above-mentioned definition of the ND.

45. Kheda - is fatigue, physical or mental, e. g., in the Vikram. Purūravas says, “Oh, I am tired. Let me enjoy the cold breezes….etc.” This suggests physical fatigue.

At times this exhaustion may be physical and mental as well4.

The ND makes a note here. In fact Śrama or Kheda, Udvega, Vitarka etc. are Vyabhicārīs, still they are mentioned in the list of Sandhyaṅgas also in order that they may go to strengthen a particular Rasa.

46. Virodha5 - is an impediment or obstacle in the way of attaining the desired aim, e. g., in the KTR Act VII the chamberlain tells Lakṣmaṇa, Vibhīṣaṇa and others that Sītā herself entered fire on seeing the head of Rāma fraudulently created by the magical powers of Rāvaṇa.

Here the ND points out that some do not recognize Kheda and Virodha and mention Vidrava and Vicalana instead6. Here the Vidrava is

1. The reference is to the DR as it does not recognize the above limb. Even the illustration from Rāmābhyudaya agrees with that of the DR.

2. It is difficult to see who hold this view.

3. Cf. DR I, 46 b.

4. Vide ND, p. 97.

5. NS & DR (I, 47b) call it Virodhana. Abhi. calls it Nirodhana. Cf. Abhi. III, p. 35.

6. It is quite obvious that by ‘Anye’ here the ND seems to refer to the DR which mentions Vidrava and Vicalana; still however one point has to be remembered here. The DRI, does not mention Kheda but does mention Virodhana which it defines as angry speech. It is difficult to understand in this case the difference between Virodha and Sampheta which also means angry speech. The illustrations of both as given by the DR do not differ in sense.

72

taken to mean an attempt to slaughter, bind etc. The resolve of killing can be

illustrated from the MRC ( Act X ) where Cārudatta is taken to the gallows.

Vidrava occurs even when haste or confusion is implied. Just as in

the Veni. Yudhiṣṭhira says, " Who, who is there ? Bring the bow together

with the quiver. Is there any attendant here ? " This clearly shows

haste and confusion.

Vicalana means bragging on account of valour, family, learning,

physical charms, good fortune, etc., e. g., in the Veni. V, 27 Arjuna waxes

eloquent over his great feat and hence it is Vicalana.

It will be easily seen that in this case Vicalana becomes identical

with Samrambha which is defined as 'proclamation of one's own power'.

47. Samrambha - is proclaiming one's own strength or power, e.g.,

in the Veni. Bhima thunders ( before Duryodhana ), " O fool ! That you

were made to give vent to your sorrow, like a woman, by means of your

tears and that you were made to witness the tearing of the chest of

of your brother-this is the reason why you, an unworthy king, were

allowed to live ( so long ), when Bhīmasena, an elephant to the lotus-pond

of your family, was enraged " There needs not be wrath or anger, e.g.

in the Veni. ( VI, 6 ) Yudhiṣṭhira's speech to Draupadi describing the

valour of Bhīma is devoid of wrath.

The ND explains the difference between Sampheta and the Samrambha.

In the former there is simply an angry speech while in the latter there

is a proclamation of one's strength also.

The DR does not mention Samrambha but its definition of Vicalana

resembles this limb.

48. Śakti - is that limb where pacification of one who is angry is made

made by one's power of intellect, or when the angry foe is completely

destroyed, e. g., in the RTN ( IV, 1 ) the king's speech shows that the

anger of Vāsavadattā standing in the way of the acquisition of Sāgarikā

in pacified.

Some define Śakti as " pacification of opposition " Some define Śakti as " pacification of opposition "4. The illustration

is from the UTR ( VI, 11 ) where Lava's opposition to Candraketu and

his army is allayed at the sight of Rāma.

1. The definition is in accordance with the DR which defines it as bragging. The

illustration that follows, also, is verbally copied from the DR; cf. DR, p. 26.

2. ND, p. 99.

3. Veni. V, 33, (ND, p. 99). The same has been quoted by the DR to illustrate Viro-

dhana (DR, p. 25.)

4. The view refers to DR. Vide DR, p. 23.

5. The same illustration is quoted by the DR (p. 23).

Here some regard another limb called Bhāvāntara which occurs when

the expressed intention is quite opposite to the real intention, e. g., in

the Tāpasavatsarāja ( Act VI) Yaugandharāyaṇa, who really wants Vāsa-

vadattā to refrain from ending her life, says, however, “Vinitaka, make

a pyre”. Here the act of making a pyre, which is opposed to his inten-

tion of saying Vāsavadattā is performed with a different view altogether.

There are others who do not recognize Śakti but read Ājñā instead,

which they define as ‘an order’ through anger without considering appro-

priateness or otherwise of the same.

The ND remarks that there are thus differences of opinion regarding

the subdivisions in all Sandhis and these different views are to be consi-

dered authentic as they have been recognized by the old authorities and

as they constitute varieties of striking speech.

49. Prarocanā - is the representation of the accomplishment of the

desired object in advance which is to follow in the Nirvahana Sandhi. It

is so called because the object of the play is shown here in bright

colours ( Pra+Ruc ). The illustration is cited from the Veṇī, where the

braiding of Draupadī’s hair and coronation of Yudhiṣṭhira are represented

in advance as accomplished when Pāñcālaka says, “Enough of doubt. Let

the jars, studded with jewels, be filled with water for your coronation.

And let Kṛṣṇā hold festivity at ( the near prospect of ) the tying of her

braid suspended for an exceedingly long time ”.

Some define this limb as “ a direction to honour persons with gifts, etc.”

Some read Yukti instead of Prarocanā and define it as ‘ Savicchedokti ’.

It should be noted here that this Prarocanā has nothing to do with

the Prarocanā, an element of Bhāratī Vṛtti or a limb of Pūrvarāṅga.

50. Ādāna - is the vicinity or the foreseeing of the accomplishment

of the desired object.

51. Vyavasāya - is acquisition of the means to accomplish the desired

fruit.

Some define this Aṅga as ‘an assertion or mention of one’s own

strength ’. This view ( and the illustration that the ND quotes ) refers to

the DR. But here the ND differs from the DR and points out that

1. Veṇī. VI, 12 (p. 160). This illustration is also found in the DR; cf. DR, pp, 25-26,

The explanation also resembles DR-Bhāvino’pi siddhatvena kalpanam,

2. ND, p. 102. This view partly belongs to Bharata who defines this limb as ‘Savicchedam

vacah’ (XIX, 96), But Bharata recognizes Prarocanā as well.

3. Cf. NS XIX, 94 ab. and Abhi. III, p. 55.

4. Cf. Veṇī. VI, 6.

10

74

assertion of one's own power is called Samrambha ( which is defined in

the same terms ) and it includes this kind of Vyavasāya.

The ND notes here that ' some ' hold this Sandhi as well as the

Garbha Sandhi to have been comprised of twelve limbs only as they drop

any one out of the above thirteen1. This point is suggested in the Abhi2.

Now we come to the fourteen limbs of Nirvahana, all of which are

equally important.

52. Sandhi - The seed sown in Mukha Sandhi reaches the stage of

fruition after undergoing the gradual development ( such as sprouting etc. ),

e. g., in the RTN Vasubhūti says, " Bābhravya, this girl extremely resem-

bles the princess"; and Bābhravya too says, " I too have the same (idea)

in my mind "3. Thus the seed sown in Mukha is brought near fruition.

This limb must be introduced.

53. Nirodha - is searching for the desired object which had been lost.

The DR calls this limb Vibodha and defines it as " Vibodhaḥ Kārya-

mārgaṇam "4, i.e. ' The seeking after the end '. The ND here follows the NS.5

54. Grathana - is the perception of the fruit of the ultimate aim, e. g.,

in the Veṇī, Bhīma speaks, " Pāñcālī, I myself will bind up your hair-

braid ". Here the final aim, viz., tying of Draupadi's braid is perceived.6

55. Nirṇaya - is narration of one's own experiences7. The illustration

is cited from the Yādavābhyudaya where Vasudeva informs: Samudravijaya

of the hardships he had to suffer while concealing Kṛṣṇa in Gokula8.

56. Paribhāṣā9—is condemning one's own self. The person here intro-

spects and makes a clear confession of one's faults10. The ND illustrates

from the NLV ( Act VII, 9 ) where Nala condemns himself for his cruel

deed of abandoning Damayantī in the lonely forest.

The ND mentions the view of ' some ' who define this limb as ' the

1. The DR too mentions twelve omitting Vidrava.

2. Cf. Abhi. III. p 56.

3. Cf. Abhi. III, p. 57.

4. Vide DR I, 51 and DR, p. 27.

5. Cf. Kāryasyānveṣaṇam yuktyā nirodha iti kirtitaḥ - NS XIX, 98,

DR has the same illustration, Cf. p. 28.

6. Cf. NS XIX, 92.

7. Vide ND. p. 105.

8. NS (and DR )-Parit hāṣaṇa.

9. NS defines it as mere sensure or condemnation (Parivāda) but Abhinava's commentary

explains that the faults confessed belong to the person himself.

conversation of persons with one another ' and adds that the passage

referred to above can serve as its illustration1.

This limb has a special significance of its own and is highly essential

at this juncture. Here the persons themselves who have done something

wrong or who have been in one way or the other responsible for the

obstacles against the union of the hero and the heroine regret and repent.

Thus this is a sort of happy reconciliation between the two rival parties

which is utterly essential in order to bring a happy end. As for instance

in the Śāk. Act VII the king repents and falls at the feet of Śakuntalā,

or in the Māl. Dhāriṇī repents and willingly consents to the union. Thus

the limb is important from various points of view. First it suggests the

end of the play. Secondly it also suggests that the end in a Sanskrit

drama should be happy. Thirdly it indicates that the dramatist has not

to be satisfied merely by the attainment of the object coveted by the

hero but there should be a complete psychological reconciliation between

the opposite parties.

Thus this limb must be employed.

57. Upāsti2—is service to others3, e.g., in the Veṇī, Bhīma congratulates

Draupadī that the enemies were destroyed. Here Bhīma delights Draupadī

and hence this limb.

The ND here mentions the view of those who read Prasāda in lieu

of Upāsti, which is defined as ‘propitiation arising out of the performance

of pleasant and benevolent deeds to the beloved person’. The limb is

illustrated by the TPV, where the king appreciates the benevolence, and

loyalty of Rumaṇvat and Yaugandharāyaṇa, his two able ministers4.

58. Krti - is maintenance ( i.e. protection ) of the acquired thing, e.g.,

in the RTN Vāsavadattā asks her husband to act in such a way that

Ratnāvalī may not remember her kinsmen who live far away in Siṁhala-dvīpa.

The ND points out here that some read Dyuti, instead of Krti, and

1. The view referred to is that of the DR. It appears that the view of the DR is not

so convincing. Mutual talk or dialogue is essential to a drama. There is no speciality

about it and, moreover, it becomes totally inexplicable as to why this limb should

come at this stage only. Moreover the illustration that the DR gives embodies personal

condemnation as defined by the ND. Thus the view of the ND is naturally preferable.

2. The NS and the DR do not mention this but read Prasāda instead, which has the

same sense. Cf. NS XIX, 98 and DR I, 52b.

3. ND, p. 109.

4. The illustrations of Abhī. and DR as well differ,

76

define it as ' removal of things unfavourable to the object acquired '1.

The illustration is cited from the MDR (Act VII, p. 208 ) where the causes that are unfavourable to accepting the ministership on the part

of Rākṣasa who was already under control are removed and thus he is compelled to accept the ministership in order to save the life of his

friend Candanadāsa.

There are others who define Dyuti as 'removal of anger etc. which might have occasionally arisen'. The ND illustrates it from the RTN,

where Yaugandharāyaṇa informs the king and the queen of the foretelling of a Siddha, viz., one who marries Ratnāvalī will be a sovereign

king and that she was the sister of the queen2. This pacifies queen's jealousy and anger for Ratnāvalī. It appears that the ND here anonymously

refers to Abhinava who explains the NS XIX, 100 as stated here by the ND.3

59. Ānanda - is the attainment of one's desire, e.g., in the RTN, Vāsavadattā4 requests the king to accept Ratnāvalī and the king, over-

joyed at the offer, replies, "Who will not honour the gift of the queen ?"5.

60. Samaya - is 'escape from misery'6. It is the time when misery or misfortune comes to an end. The ND illustrates from the MRC (Act X)

when Śarvilaka comes by the order of Āryaka with the words, " Get away, get away, O rogues..." etc.7

61. Parigūhana - is ' the experience of something wonderful '. The ND illustrates from the RBh. Sītā repudiated by Rāma enters fire and

behind the curtain we hear the sound and uproar of astounded people and there enters the god of fire carrying Sītā. All stand up in wonder

and bow to him. Here we find Adbhuta as Sītā who once entered fire is again brought to life. Illustrations are cited also from the RV and the

Puṣpadūṣitaka. In the latter the ND points out that as many as nine limbs are contained in a single verse8.

1. 'Apare' here seems to refer to the NS. The NS does not regard Krti; of course, there is not much of difference (in sense) between the two (Dyuti and Krti). DR

regards Krti but the definition faithfully echoes the one of Dyuti as found in NS. Vide DR I, 53a.

2. Vide RTN, Act IV, pp. 110-11.

3. Abhi. III, p. 58, lines 11–12.

4. Cf. NS XIX, 100 Cd.

5. The illustration agrees with that of Abhi. III, p. 58.

6. ND I, 64.

7. MRC, p. 109.

8. Cf. ND, pp. 110-111.

62. Bhāṣaṇa - is speech accompanied by sweet words, gifts and the like. This is illustrated from the MRC1 (Act X) where Śarvilaka, at the instance of Āryaka, confers favours on Cārudatta, Vasantasenā and others. This limb is absolutely essential in the construction of a play.

63. Pūrvabhāva - ( Prāgbhāva2 ) It is the anticipation or foreseeing of Kārya, e.g., in the RTN Yaugandharāyaṇa says, "Having realised this, your honour ( the queen ) is the authority in doing whatever you like to your sister", and then Vāsavadattā's sarcastic comment, viz., " Why don't you clearly say, 'Give Ratnāvalī to the king?'" Here Vāsavadattā perceives the Kārya undertaken by Yaugandharāyaṇa3.

Some read Pūrvavākya instead of this limb and define it as a speech similar to the earlier one already spoken in the earlier Sandhis such as Mukha etc. The illustration is cited from the MDR (Act VI) where Cāṇakya says, "Let the bonds of all except those of horses and elephants be untied. I only who have made good my vow, will tie up my tuft of hair," as it contains words which had earlier been uttered in the Mukha Saṃdhi.

Here it may be noted that the NS also reads Pūrvavākya which it defines as reproducing what has already been said earlier by a character. By 'Kecit' the ND probably refers to the NS.

64. Kāvyasaṃhāra - is the desire to give a boon. This is represented by the question, " What may I do to please you further ?" This indicates the fulfilment of the desire of the hero and the eagerness of the speaker to render service or help to the hero still further. This attainment of the end marks the end of the play and hence this limb is known as Kāvyasaṃhāra i.e. conclusion of the play.

The ND points out that this limb must be employed and should precede Praśasti.

Here we see a simple but an important trait of the Sanskrit drama in general. All dramas end with this type of remark or rather query ( where a man of superior ability expresses a desire to do good to the hero.)

65. Praśasti - is a prayer for good things. This is uttered by the hero or some other important character. The ND illustrates from the KTR and the YBh4, both of which contain good wishes for all.

66. ND, pp. 111–12.

67. The ND clarifies this point at the end of the discussion, viz., that this difference of name while actually defining is due to the metrical demand. Cf. ND, p. 113.

68. The same illustration is found in the Abhi, as an illustration of Dyuti (Abhi, III. p. 54).

69. The ND, p. 115.

This limb has got to be used. This is also known popularly as Bharatavākya, probably because it was uttered by all the actors. The play should 'always end with such a desire of common good. It is regarded by some as a part for the story or plot itself and not as a limb of Nirvahana. This is how the number will be sixty four and not sixty five1. The first three limbs of this Sandhi viz., Sandhi, Nirodha and Grathana and and the last three, viz., Pūrvabhäva, Kāvyasamhära and Praśasti are used in this Sandhi only, while the rest of the limbs may be used in other Sandhis also according to the needs of the plot-development. Here also they are used only if they are required.

The ND points out the purpose of the Sandhyangas once again. They are employed in order to maintain the continuity of the plot, which is highly essential for developing (Puṣṭi) a Rasa. If the story breaks or does not flow in continuity the dominant states etc. will also lose their corresponding continuity with the result that the audience will not be able to enjoy Rasa.

The ND thus lays stress on the point that the purpose of the Sandhyangas is ultimately to develop Rasa which is the ultimate aim of a dramatist. But while achieving this aim a dramatist should see that the limbs are employed so naturally. They should not give an appearance of artificiality or labouredness on the part of the writer him- self. in some how introducing them to satisfy the requirements of Sanskrit drama and then only the Sahṛdayas can enjoy them.

The ND adds that the Angas are of the nature of the Sthāyi bhāva, Vibhāva, Anubhāva, and Vyabhicāri bhāvas2. They are employed in the different Sandhis in keeping with propriety. This sense of propriety is mastered by great poets whose aim is to develop Rasa only and not by inferior poets who indulge themselves in the employment of striking words and sense only.

Moreover, in order to achieve the above-stated end a dramatist may employ one and the same limb twice or thrice or even more, e.g., in the Veṇī. Sampheta and Vidrava are employed again and again in order to develop Vira and Raudra. So also in the RTN Vilāsa is often employed to develop Śṛṅgāra. But, beware ! Avoid extremes. Do not use a particular Aṅga over and over again in your zest to develop a Rasa as too mush of every thing creates insipidity. A dramatist should be economical.

1. ND, p. 115 lines 12-13.

2. Ibid, p. 115 lines 19-20.

The principle of economy is important not merely in life but in literature too.

A playwright should not employ two limbs where one serves the purpose1,

The problem of employing the Sandhyangas is left to the artistic

sense of the playwright. It is he who has to decide as to when, where,

how and how many times a particular limb should be employed. There

can be no hard and fast rule which can dictate its use. Poetry is an art

and cannot be bound by rigorous rules. It is the outcome of natural

talents which cannot be fettered by blind rules. Thus sense of propriety

i.e., the theory of Aucitya is rightly esteemed by the ND.

The ND's view about the place of the Sandhyangas in the plot is

equally clear and apt. These limbs are means to an end ( and not an

end in themselves )-means to develop Rasa. Rasa reigns supreme in a

drama and all other paraphernalia is meant to develop that supreme

Rasa only. The ND, therefore, strikes a note of warning for those lesser

poets who give undue importance to the external beauties of word and

sense and ignore the chief element, Rasa2.

The above discussion of Sandhyangas makes the following points

quite clear :-

1. The order of Sandhyangas, excepting at a few places where it is

specifically laid down, is not important.

2. One and the same Sandhyanga may be repeated twice, thrice or

even on more occasions.

3. Sandhyangas of a particular juncture need not be employed in that

Sandhi only. They may occur at any suitable situation. The fact that

they are the limbs of a particular juncture simply indicates that they are

more usually found in that particular juncture.

4. All Sandhyangas need not be employed in one drama. Only those

which are relevant and useful to the plot-development ought to be

employed.

5. The chief purpose of drama is to develop Rasa. The Sandhyangas

should be employed as a means to the above end ( and not as an end

in themselves ).

1. The ND illustrates from the Pratimāniruddha where the author does away with

Parikara as its sense is understood in the Upakṣepa. Similarly, in the Rādhāvipra-

lambha Parikara and Parinyāsa are not employed, both being included in the

Upakṣepa (ND, pp. 115-16).

2. It unluckily happened that the rules which were originally meant as an aid to the

dramatist were followed rigidly by the later playwrights and they took pride in

exhibiting their knowledge of the same. The result was that the dramas lost their

individuality and appeared as a cast in the same mould.

80

At the end the ND refers to a view of ‘Some’ who accept twenty

one other Sandhyantaras over and above the sixty four. These limbs are:-

(1) Sāma (2) Bheda (3) Danda (4) Dāna (5) Vadha (6) Pratyutpan-na-

matitva (7) Gotraskhalita (8) Sāhasa (9) Bhaya (10) Bhī1 (11) Māyā

(12) Krodha (13) Ojas (14) Samvarana (15) Bhrānti (16) Hetvavadhāraṇa

(17) Dūta (18) Lekha (19) Svapna (20) Citra (21) Mada.

The ND does not accept these twenty one as independent limbs. Out of these, Sāma, Bheda etc. are not separate limbs by themselves as they

can be included in Saṅgraha, a limb of Garbha Sandhi, which comprises

of Sāma, Dāna, etc. Pratyutpannamatitva etc. are of the nature of the

Vyabhicāris2. Dūta, Lekha, Svapna, Citra etc., are of the nature of the

plot and the rest can be included in some limb or the other ( amongst

the above-mentioned sixty four ), e.g., in the Udāttarāghava, Upakṣepa

is of the nature of Hetvavadharana, in the Pratimāniruddha it is of the

nature of Svapna, in the Rāmābhyudaya, of Bhaya, in the Veṇī., of

Krodha. Similarly, the rest also can be included in some or the other of

the remaining limbs.

These twenty one Sandhyantaras have been originally mentioned by

Bharata3. The ND has bodily lifted these verses from the NS. The ND

simply mentions these “other varieties of Samdhis ” without giving their

definitions. The NS also does not define them.

The ND does not recognize the so called ‘Sandhyantaras’. It states

the grounds for rejecting them. They are based on the Abhinavabbārati4.

Abhinava, however, rightly remarks : These are the Vibhāvas etc.. meant

for guiding the playwright.

1. Originally the ND reads ‘Dbhī’ which the editor corrects as ‘Bhī’ in the bracket,

But in view of the NS from which these verses appear to have been quoted the

correct reading seems to be Hrī ( Cf. NS XIX, 106 ) and not Bhī. Morover Bhī

would be as good as Bhaya which immediately precedes it.

2. In fact Bhaya and Krodha are Sthāyi bhāvas of Bhayānaka and Raudra Rasas

respectively.

3. Vide NS (KM) XIX, 104-7.

4. Abhi. Vol. III, pp. 63-64.

CHAPTER II

ELEVEN TYPES OF RŪPAKAS-PRAKARANA AND OTHERS

In Chapter I the ND deals with Nāṭaka and the various topics connected with it and which are common to all forms of drama, such as Avasthās, Arthaprakṛtis, Sandhis, Sandhyangas, etc. The Chapter II treats of the remaining eleven of the twelve types of drama.

Next to Nāṭaka comes a similar type of drama, viz., Prakaraṇa with whose discussion the chapter opens.

1. PRAKARAṆA :

At the outset, the ND gives an etymological explanation of the word Prakaraṇa. The word is derived from Pra + √Kr = to make or create completely (i.e. creating independently by one's own imagination). It is so called as the hero, the plot and the fruit - all or one or two of them are the playwright's own creation, created by his own imagination.1 The main point of difference between Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa lies here. Nāṭaka derives its plot, hero and ultimate fruit from the old works of history or legends while in Prakaraṇa all these or some at least are imaginary, and that is why it is called Prakaraṇa.2

Now, about the hero. The hero in a Prakaraṇa should be a merchant, a Brahmin, a minister or a master (swāmi). Any one of these can be the hero but not all, as happens in the case of Samavakāra. Technically, the hero must be of Dhīrodātta or Dhīrapraśānta type. Here the authors of the ND criticize those who propound that the hero must belong to Dhīrapraśānta type only even though he is a minister. They point out that this view is incorrect and contradictory to the old tradition or theory,3 and they quote the lines from the NS :- “The commander-in-chief and the minister are called Dhīrodātta”4. The authors further point out that they have specifically mentioned minister (Saciva ) in the Kārikā even though he may be included under a Bania/merchant or a Brahmin, specially to point out that the hero may be Dhīrodātta too for the latter two, viz., a merchant and a Brahmin are reckoned to be Dhīrapraśānta.5

1. Cf. Abhi. II, pp. 429-30.

2. Cf, ND, p. 117 line 6.

3. Cf. Vṛddhasaṃpradāyavandhya-ND, p. 117.

4. Cf. NS XXIV, 4.

5. The criticism seems to be levied against the DR. The DR points out that the hero can be either a minister or a Brahmin or a merchant of Dhīrapraśānta type ( Cf. DR III, 39-40) but this goes against the dictum of the NS (NS XXIV, 4) which demands that a minister ought to be Dhīrodātta.

11

82

The hero is a middle ( Madhyama) character technically. He is the

creation of the poet's mind. The Brahmins and ministers are high

( Uttama ) as compared with their own state of society but are not so

as compared with the Kings.

Under no circumstances a divine character can be introduced here

even in a minor rôle. In Nāṭaka a divine character can figure in a minor

role. The ND provides a rational and logical reason for this. The

Prakaraṇa is a drama depicting ordinary human persons and is thus

more related to the actual life of the middle and low strata of society

which is more full of misery and less possessed of happiness1, while

quite opposite is the case with a divine character.

Heroine :

The heroine is from the lower strata of society ( Mandagotrā )2 or

of low character. In that case the hero too should be from low strata.

Thus it is not unnatural if the hero suspects some sin in the heroine.

This actually happens in the Puṣpadūṣitaka (prakaraṇa) where Samudra-

datta suspects Nandayantī by hearing the name of Aśokadatta uttered;

but this is no fault. In cases of low-born ladies this type of suspicion

with regard to their relation with a stranger is not improper; on the for-

a other hand, it is highly improper in the case of high-born characters

father-in-law to expel the daughter-in-law from the house when the

son is away and equally improper is for that expelled lady to dwell in

the house of a Śabara-chief.

That the plot is imaginary should not be taken to mean that any-

thing can be represented at the sweet will of the dramatist. All the

actions, movements, behaviour, dress, attendants, etc., should be befitting

the character. They should not be such as may be expected of a king

or a very low-born character.

If the heroine is a harlot, even immodest reference may be made

to her, e. g., in the play Devīcandragupta of Viśākhadatta prince Candra-

gupta addresses Mādhavasenā, a prostitute, rather indecorously -

"O charming-faced lady, somebody who caused tears of joy in your

eyes having the brilliance of white lotuses and perspiration in each

limb full of horripilation, making expanse of your hips which are already

perfect, has untied the knot of your lower garment without touching it"3.

1. Cf. ND II, 66.

2. Cf. Sukhaduhkhamohasvabhāva-KP I, 1.

3. The verse is quoted in the same context by Abhi. II, p. 433.

The minor characters or attendants that figure here also should correspond to the social status of the hero and the heroine. A king has Kañcukins, here instead of a Kañcukin we have a servant ( Dāsa ).

Instead of a minister who advises the king in serious matters we have a merchant. In lieu of the Vidūṣaka here we have Viṭas who are equally witty1. Similarly other royal paraphernalia too have no scope here, the hero being an ordinary man.

The life depicted here is that of a middle class man for whom the path of life never runs smooth. It is beset with a number of difficulties, calamities and catestrophes through which the hero has to make his way. Thus Prakaraṇa is a drama full of hurries and worries of life as against Nāṭaka where the hero and the heroine have no other business but to love and pine for each other.

Types of Prakaraṇa :

Firstly, Prakaraṇas can be divided into seven types on the basis of the nature of the hero, fruit and plot, according as one or more of them are invented or uninverted. If one of these is invented and the remaining two are uninvented it will totally give us three types. Three more types can be had on the basis of two of the three being invented and one uninvented. There can be one more variety where all the three are invented. Thus in all there will be seven types.2

Each of these seven varieties can further be subdivided into three according to the types of the heroine, viz., whether the heroine is born of a high family or a prostitute or both. The total varieties, therefore, will come to be twenty one (7×3). If the family life of a householder is to be depicted then the heroine must be a high-born lady only. In case the writer has no intention of depicting the family life then only a prostitute should be made a heroine. If the author introduces both of these heroines then the hero can be none other than a Viṭa ( a paramour ).

The play which consists of a high-born lady as well as a harlot is known as a mixed type of Prakaraṇa (Saṅkīrṇa) The Prakaraṇa which

1. Cf. Abhi. II, p. 431.

2. The following table will make the point clearer –

Hero (Netā)

i ) Invented

ii ) Uninvented

iii ) Uninvented

iv ) Invented

v ) Invented

vi ) Uninvented

vii ) Invented

Fruit (Phala)

Uninvented

Invented

Uninvented

Invented

Uninvented

Invented

Invented

Plot (Vastu)

Uninvented

Uninvented

Invented

Uninvented

Invented

Invented

Invented

84

consists either of the two only i.e. either a high-born lady or a harlot

is called a pure type of Prakarana ( Śuddha ). Thus Śuddha will have two

varieties :-(i) where the heroine is Kulajā only and (ii) where the heroine

is a harlot. In all there will be three varieties and each will have seven

varieties as mentioned above. Thus fourteen varieties of Śuddha Prakarana

and seven varieties of Saṅkīrṇa Prakarana will ultimately give us twenty

one varieties of Prakarana7.

The authors of the ND add that there can be further varieties of

Prakarana on the basis of the heroine being invented ( Kalpitā ) or

uninvented ( Akalpitā ); but these have been ignored because they are

not found in any Prakarana.

The ND refers to the view of “some ” who consider the Mṛccha-

kaṭika being full of rogues ( Dhūrta ) as a “ Mixed ” type of Prakarana

despite the fact that the hero is a merchant. According to the ND the

MRC is Śuddha type having a prostitute as the heroine. The view referred

to here appears to belong to the DR who mentions the MRC as a

Saṅkīrṇa type2. According to the ND in the mixed type of Prakarana

there is a mixture of a high-bred lady and a prostitute, but at the

same time the hero should be a paramour ( Viṭa ).

The ND adds that all the rest of things in a Prakarana such as the

number of Acts, Sandhis, Vṛttis, Rasas, etc., correspond to those in a

Nāṭaka, excepting the predominance of Kaiśikī Vṛtti that we find in

Nāṭaka, the reason being that in Prakarana there is abundance of misery

and, therefore, love and humour get a subordinate position as happens

in the MRC, the Puṣpadūṣitaka, the Taraṅgadaṭṭa and other Prakaraṇas.

The ND here criticizes Bhavabhūti for employing Kaiśikī in exuberance

in his Mālatīmādhava, which, as the ND remarks, is against the opinion

of the Vṛddhas.

Then the ND, by way of summarizing, remarks that one who is

interested in the historical ( or well-known ) personages may compose a

Prakarana

Śuddha

Saṅkīrṇa

Kulajā nāyikā

Veśyā nāyikā

( 7 varieties )

( 7 varieties )

( F. N. 2, p. 83 )

( F. N. 2, p. 83 )

( 7 Varieties )

( F. N. 2, p. 83 )

In giving this large number of varieties of Prakarana the ND has followed the Abhi.

though the ND is more clear and systematic. Cf. Abhi. II, p. 433 lines 10-11,

Cf. Kitavadyūtakarādidhūrtasaṁkulam tu mṛcchakaṭikādivat saṁkīrṇaprakaraṇam

iti.-DR, p. 74.

a Nāṭaka with high type of hero such as a king and the like while the

one who is interested in an imaginary story may undertake to write a

Prakaraṇa with a middle class hero such as a merchant and the like.

The ND finally remarks that the purpose of all dramatic composi-

tions is to keep the evil-minded or stupid persons on the righteous path.

Critical Remarks :

The criticism of the Mālatīmādhava as given by the authors of the

ND is not unjustified. In a Prakaraṇa the purpose of the poet is to

portray society as it is in its rank and file. Prakaraṇa is purely a social

play. It mirrors the vicissitudes-the weal and the woe-of a common man

who is the hero of the play. ( All the characters also are the true

representatives of the common masses. ) And for a common man especially

the path of life is full of ups and downs. Prakaraṇa should, therefore,

reflect both these aspects of life, as we find in the MRC. Prakaraṇa is

thus not a play of love and laughter only but it is a play of real conflict,

and that is why the ND prohibits the exuberance of Kaiśiki in it.

The authors of the ND here once again reiterate that the purpose

of art is ( not simply recreation but ) to lead the immoral persons to

to the path of morality. Art should not only be moral but also be

capable of inspiring morality in others1.

The Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa are two of the full-fledged perfect forms

of Sanskrit drama. But in the Nāṭaka the dramatist draws the plot from

epics or mythology, while in Prakaraṇa the story is invented, The latter,

therefore, gives full scope to the creative art and the imaginative faculty

of the poet.

There is another important element which distinguishes the Nāṭaka

from the Prakaraṇa. Nāṭaka has an atmosphere of kingly grandeur. Both

the hero and the heroine come from noble ( royal ) families. The hero

is of the sublime type ( Dīrodātta ). The characters also are usually

drawn from the upper classes of society. Contrary is the case in the

Prakaraṇa. There the hero is an ordinary man. The heroine is more

often a prostitute rather than a high-born woman. The other characters

also are drawn from the lower strata of society. It depicts coarse and

more popular side of life2 while in the Nāṭaka, the poet presents what

is conceived as the highest type of human personality.

1. The point has been brought home by the ND while explaining the benedictory verse.

2. In this respect it can be well compared with Bhāṇa or Prahasana, even though the

latter, on account of their utter gross elements which entirely pervade the story,

did not get sanction from the cultured upper class of society.

Prof. Wilson in this connection remarks that " the Hindu writers multiply species very gratuitously and make distinctions where no difference is discernible "1.

2. NĀṬIKĀ :

After the discussion of Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa the ND takes up another type of Rūpaka, viz., Nāṭikā. Nāṭikā in fact has not been recognized by most of the authors as an independent form of drama but as a minor play (Uparūpaka) derived from the principal types of drama, viz., Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa. As the very name suggests Nāṭikā may be taken as a diminutivo form (as the feminine gender suggests smallness, together with delicacy and tinyness) of Nāṭaka. Nāṭaka is a full-fledged drama in five to ten Acts with historical theme furnished with all Avasthās, Sandhis and also Sandhyangas. Nāṭikā is a short piece with only four Acts. The hero is a king as in Nāṭaka. But the king is to be described as Dhīralalita. As the principal sentiment is Śṛṅgāra and the corresponding Vṛtti Kaiśikī, it is essential that the hero too ought to be of Dhīralalita type. Theme also requires preponderance of female characters, who present graceful and delicate Abhinaya.

Nāṭikā is a combination of both, Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa. If the hero is taken from Nāṭaka the plot is derived from Prakaraṇa and has, therefore, to be imaginary. The development of the plot as also the fruit and means of achieving it rests on the inventive genius of the poet himself. Other Vṛttis may occur but Kaiśikī should dominate. Songs, dancing, music, humour etc. should be in abundance.

There are two heroines simultaneously in a Nāṭikā, one is the queen who is the married wife of the hero while the other is an unmarried girl2. Each of the two may be either well-known or not so well-known. This will lead to the four varieties of Nāṭikā3.

The principal heroine i. e. the queen who deserves importance on account of her noble birth, serenity, married state, etc., should herself bring about the union of the hero and the virgin heroine at the end of the play. Till such time, i. e., before this approval of the queen takes place, the growth of love between the hero and the heroine is to be

1. Dramas, p. 28.

2. The DR remarks that she should be a Mugdhā.

i) Not well-known Well-known

ii) Not well-known Not well-known

iii) Well-known Well-known

iv) Well-known Not well-known

shown by arranging secret meetings at a rendezvous but all the while the hero is afraid of the queen.

The queen should be intelligent and shrewd. The maiden heroine should be depicted as innocent, bashful and devoid of shrewdness; of course, both are born in high Kṣatriya family and are possessed of noble qualities such as love, justice, modesty, bashfulness, dignity, serenity, etc. The queen gets angry as she comes to know of the King’s fascination for the maiden, the King consequently pacifies and propitiates her, The queen puts obstacles in the way of the meeting between the King and the heroine, who secretly love each other. Thus all try to deceive one another.

Nāṭikā is explained etymologically by the ND. The root is Naṭ or Nāṭ (Causal) to make dance + Ī (i.e. ‘Ī’) termination which ultimately gives the word “Nāṭī” - ‘that which makes the minds of the learned dance with joy’. Then termination “Kap” is affixed in the sense of smallness or diminutive which gives the word Nāṭikā as the plot of Nāṭikā is small. The feminine noun suggests preponderance of ladies and exuberance of delicacy and tenderness.

Remarks :

The characteristics given below by the ND are the same as given by the NS1 and the DR2. The Abhi. states that four Aṅgas of Kaiśikī should be there. The ND states that Aṅgas of Śṛṅgāra, viz. song, dance, music, humour, etc., should occur.

The varieties of Nāṭikā seem to be on the basis of the theory of Saṅkuka who divides it into eight types on the basis of the fact whether the queen or the heroine is well-known or otherwise. The view is quoted by the Abhi.3 These varieties evidently appear to be unessential. It reflects the mind of an Indian theorist who has a great fascination for the divisions and subdivisions even on the basis of apparently minor points probably to give the subject an air of serenity and scientific treatment.

As regards the Sandhis of Nāṭikā the NS is silent. Hemacandra writes in his own commentary on the KS that one of the Avasthās may be included in some other Avasthā i.e. there should be four Avasthās (as the acts are four)4. The BP opines that there should be four Sandhis excluding Avamarśa5. The ND holds that it should have all the five Sandhis. The RS refers to the view of those who believe that Nāṭikā

1. NS XVIII, 59–60.

2. DR III, 43–48.

3. Abhi. II, p. 436.

4. KS, p. 437.

5. BP, p. 244.

88

does not have Avamarśa and refutes it by pointing out that the RTN has all the five Sandhis1. The SD admits of Vimarśa in Nāṭikā but points out that it should be short-lived2.

4. PRAKARANĪ OR PRAKARANIKĀ

Prakaranī has been disposed off with only one line of a Kārikā3 and a brief discussion on that line. After the discussion of Nāṭikā the ND points out that Prakaranī is also just like Nāṭikā except that the hero is from Prakarana. Prakaranī has the same number of Acts, Sandhis etc., as Nāṭikā. But the hero is a merchant or a Brahmin or a minister as in Prakarana. The heroine should be appropriate to the caste and creed. Fruit should be attainment of wealth and woman as a merchant or a Brahmin has little interest in obtaining and conquering kingdoms which will be the aim if the hero were a King as in Nāṭikā4,

Kaiśikī should dominate here as in Nāṭaka. Thus here too there is a combination of characteristics of both Nāṭaka and Prakarana.

Etymologically Prakaranī is so called because the plot is wholly created i.e. invented here5. The suffix ‘Kap’ when attached to Prakaranī gives Prakaranikā.

Both Nāṭikā and Prakaranī are derived from the mixture of Nāṭaka and Prakarana, the two main Rūpakas. The ND points out that there can be several such types by the admixture of two, three or more of the main Rūpakas but they are not well-known and not interesting.

Critical Remarks :

The above discussion clearly suggests that the authors of the ND are fully aware of this derivative nature of both, Nāṭikā6 and Prakaranī. The ND actually considers them as derived from the mixture of the two main types of drama. The names Nāṭikā and Prakaranī too attest to their derivative nature from the full-fledged dramas Nāṭaka and Prakarana respectively. Though the word Nāṭī occurs in the NS which points to its

1 RS III, 220–223.

2 SD VI, 272.

3 ND II, 73b.

4 Cf. Stri-mahi-phalā.......ND II, 5.

5 Prakarṣeṇa kriyate kalpyate asyām arthah iti......ND, p. 122.

6 Dr. A. N. Upadhye opines that Nāṭikā is derived from Saṭṭaka. Saṭṭaka on account of its graceful elements of dance, love-intrigue, marvelous sentiment, etc., attracted the attention of the cultured classes (and court circles) and it was made to conform to the orthodox canons of Nāṭaka, and the result of such an effort was the Nāṭikā. “Thus Nāṭikā is an orthodox edition of the popular Saṭṭaka.” - Candralekhā (Introduction) p. 31.

early origin still its dependence on Nāṭaka is obvious from the very

name which appears as a dimunitive of Nāṭaka, having its plot, hero,

heroine, etc., on the basis of Nāṭaka.

From the above discussion it is evident that Nāṭikā as a form of

drama was as old as the NS of Bharata but at the same time it was

not recognized as an independent form of drama probably because it was

recognized as a variation of Nāṭaka1 and that is why the NS ( and the

DR too follows ) treats of it under Nāṭaka.

But this derivative nature should not lead us to the undervaluation

of the Nāṭikā. We are not so much concerned with the origin of a

particular type of drama as with the actual type. In that case all the

types of plays can be said to have originated from one type. D. R.

Mankad on the same line propounds that Bhāṇa is the origin of all

the ten types of plays2. There is some similarity of theme, characters,

sentiments etc., between one of the ten types of plays and the rest.

Hence it is not improbable that one might have originated from the other.

Nāṭikā is included by some of the theorists like Viśvanātha in

Uparūpakas. They are, however, not quite justified. If we scrutinize the

general nature of all the Uparūpakas we find that it differs considerably

from that of the Nāṭikā and Prakaraṇikā. Uparūpaka is the term first

used by Viśvanātha. Originally they were known as Geya rūpakas.

If we have a glance at the Nāṭikās that are available to us such

as the RTN, the Priyadarśikā and others we find that there is nothing

in them which should deprive them of the honour of being recognized

as a Rūpaka. From the point of view of the plot, characters, dialogues,

etc , they can be well compared with any of the other types of Rūpakas.

The definition of Nāṭikās will show that it is not simply a dimunitive

form of Nāṭaka. Even though the hero in the Nāṭikā is a well-known

king as in a Nāṭaka, still however, the handling of the matter ( i.e. the

plot ) is mainly based on the poet's imagination, while in Nāṭaka the

theme is purely historical or legendary. Nāṭaka can have Vīra also

as its dominant sentiment. Nāṭikā, on the contrary, is dominated by

Śṛṅgāra only. Preponderance of women characters, exhuberance of Kaiśikī

Vṛtti, along with the total absence of Avamarśa Saṃdhi according to

some3, are some of the further features which go to distinguish it from

Nāṭaka. Thus it will not be quite correct to say that Nāṭikā is simply

a Nāṭaka in miniature.

1. Vide RS, III, 218.

2. Vide 'The types of Sanskrit Drama', pp. 77-87, on "Evolution of Rūpakas".

3. Vide NLR, p. 114.

12

90

The SD puts Nāṭikā (and Prakaraṇikā too) under the Uparūpakas but does not explain the grounds for doing so. Preponderance of music should not lead us to put it under the minor Rūpakas especially when it includes all other elements which are essential for a Rūpaka. Nāṭikā is certainly not of the nature of Rāsaka or Hallīsaka.

On the other hand, music has a very important place in drama. A poet like Kālidāsa has used the element of music in all his plays. In his Māl. he arranges a charming dance-performance by the heroine. In the Śākuntala the song has been introduced twice very effectively. In the Vikramorvaśīya the major part of Act IV is full of song and music.

The theorists who include it amongst the Uparūpakas-minor plays—on the basis of the length or the number of acts are equally unjustified as Nāṭikā (as well as Prakaraṇikā) consists of four Acts while not less than fifty percent of the ten types of the so called ‘major’ Rūpakas are simply one-act plays.

The above arguments will justify the stand of the ND when it follows the theorists like Hemacandra and Bhoja who especially mention Nāṭikā as one of the principal Rūpakas. The other works like the DR and the NLR follow Bharata in treating it along with Rūpakas but not mentioning it independently among them.

Similar is the case with the Prakaraṇikā also. The early origin of Prakaraṇikā is vaguely suggested by the reference of the NS to two types of Nāṭī1. Abhinava refers to the view of ‘some’ who held that Prakaraṇikā was also found with a merchant, a minister, etc. as the hero and dominated by Kaiśikī Vṛtti (II, p. 436). Dhanika also quotes the above reference from Bharata and refers to the view of those who regard Prakaraṇikā also as a type of drama and refutes it on the ground that Bharata has not mentioned or defined it and that it is not different from Prakaraṇa as the plot, the hero and the sentiment of Prakaraṇikā are not essentially different from those of Prakaraṇa2.

The ND seems to be the first to discuss the nature and characteristics of Prakaraṇī in detail. The SD mentions it as an Uparūpaka3 but does not mention any illustration of the type.

The above discussion suggests that there was a group of theorists even in early days, who recognised Prakaraṇikā as a type of drama.

1. Prakhyātas tvitaro vā nāṭisaṃjñāśrite kāvye—NS XVIII, 57.

2. Prakaraṇikām api manyante. Tad asat. Uddéśalakṣaṇayor anabhidhānāt. Vasturasa-nāyakanām prakaraṇābhedāt prakaraṇikāyāḥ. DR, p. 72.

3. “Prakaraṇī is Nāṭikā only with a merchant etc. as the hero. The heroine also is of the family which is on par with that of the hero.” —SD VI, 306.

But it appears that this type of drama could not obtain so wide

popularity as Nāṭikā did. The reason possibly seems to be that the Hindoo

dramatists probably believed that in order that a work may be ever-

lasting, its hero and its subject-matter must be dignified. And that is

why great Sanskrit dramatists like Kālidāsa and others have selected

the celebrated kings usually from the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata

as the heroes of their plays. It is therefore that we find a very insignificant

number of Prakaraṇas ( whose hero is a middle-class man ), as compared

to a very vast number of Nāṭakas. Most of the dramatists of high order

have exhibited their art in this variety (Nāṭaka) of drama1. Thus when

we find that even Prakaraṇas are few and far between the scarcity of

Prakaraṇis can very well be understood.2

Moreover, theoretically it is quite possible to have this variety viz.,

Prakaraṇī from Prakaraṇa. Prakaraṇa. as we know, is a gigentic play

usually in ten Acts (cf. MṚC of Śūdraka and Mālatīmādhava of Bhavabhūti).

So a miniature form of this voluminous play was necessary and this

should have given birth to this new type with only four Acts.3

Some of the theorists have ignored this type of drama probably

because they did not have concrete illustration of this type before them4.

It is, however, possible to find an illustration of this type in the

Daridracārudatta of Bhāsa (discovered by T. Gaṇapati Śāstrī, Trivendrum ).

It is exactly in four acts and satisfies all the requirements of a Prakaraṇī.

That we do not find the mention of this work as a play of this type

may probably be due to the fact that Bhāsa's plays were not easily

available to the later theorists, except the Svapnavāsavadatta which

alone could stand the test of time5. Those who recognize this type must

1. A similar view is expressed by Dr. Raghavan when he observes that “The prevailing

Indian attitude being however more attuned to the epic and the heroic the Prakaraṇa

did not keep the attention of literary men in a pronounced manner”. Dr. V. Raghavan

further remarks…….“this led to a neglect of the type, not only on the production

side, but also on the side even of preserving the manuscripts of the specimens

produced”. The social play in Sanskrit, p. 5.

2. That the Prakaraṇī could not win wide popularity or prominence may also be

inferred from Bharata's vague remark that out of the two types af Nāṭīs one was

eminent (प्रध्यात) and the other was not. (NS (KM) XVIII, 109 )

3. Apart from the number of Acts the ND points out another distinguishing feature

of Prakaraṇikā. In Prakaraṇikā there should be abundance of Kaiśikī whiḷe in

Prakaraṇa Kaiśikī should be scarce.

4. The SD admits this difficulty when it remarks that the illustration is to be searched.

(SD; p. 223 ).

5. Cf. Rājaśekhara : “The critics threw the plays of Bhāsa into fire in order to test

their worth. But the fire could not burn the Svapnavāsavadatta”. Vākpatirāja also

refers to him as “Jvalanamitra Bhāsa”. Vide Gauḍavaho, verse 800. (p. 221.)

have this or some similar plays in view.1 Dr. Keith, therefore, is not

perfectly justified when he says that "It (Prakaranikā) is due merely

to false desire for a symmetry".2 Prof. D. R. Mankad also remarks :

"Prakaranī seems to have enjoyed quite a temporary existence, there

being found almost no example of this type. And the very fact that it

has been recognised by such a late work as ND and no earlier work,

goes to prove that it was a futile attempt on the part of the later

theorists to create a new type, perhaps on the analogy of Nāṭikā "3.

But here the statement of Dhanika quoted earlier on p. 90(F. N. 2), which

clearly implies that there were theorists, even before Dhanika, who

recognized Prakaranikā as a type of Rūpaka, taking a clue probably

from Bharata's dubious remark, viz., Nāṭisaminjñāsr̥te Kāvye, seems to

have escaped the notice of Prof. Mankad.

It appears that Nāṭikā had started developing as an independent

form of drama ever since the times of Bharata but was generally included

in the Nāṭaka. Bhoja seems to be the first to grant it the position of

one of the principal Rūpakas. Prakaranikā, on the other hand, could

not be so popular as the Nāṭikā and so the old theorists like Dhanika

did not recognize it. The ND seems to be the earliest among the extant

works on dramaturgy to give the Prakaranikā also the status of a Rūpaka.

The authors of the ND deserve appreciation for raising these two types

which even though derived from the two of the full-fledged dramas

developed their individual characteristics, to the status of principal Rūpakas.

Especially the attempt of our authors to include Prakaranikā in the

principal Rūpakas is unique. Here they have ignored the view of even

Hemacandra, their preceptor, who does not mention this type at all.

4. VYĀYOGA :

The remaining eight of the Rūpakas beginning with Vyāyoga differ

from the earlier four which have all the five Avasthās and Sandhis.

While the Vyāyoga and the succeeding seven types do not have all of

the five Avasthās, Sandhis, etc., but are deficient in one or more. The

authors of the ND start with Vyāyoga because it has a human being

as the hero4.

1. Rāmacandra and Gunacandra remark that there can be many varieties of Rūpakas

by combining the characteristics of two or more Rūpakas but they are not mentioned

as they are not to be found and are not interesting (p. 108) suggesting thereby

that these two, viz., Nāṭikā and Prakaranī are actually found and are also interesting.

2. Sanskrit Drama, p. 350.

3. The Types of Sanskrit Drama, p. 94.

4. Manuṣyanāyakaprātyāsattyā prathamam vyāyogam lakṣayati — ND, p. 123,

Vyāyoga is a one-act play and the action extends not over a day.

There are only three Sandhis excluding Garbha and Avamarśa1. The

main sentiment being Vira the hero should be full of fury and heroism.

He cannot brooke delay, and through fear of obstacles his efforts are

vehement immediately after the stage of Ārambha and at once he runs

towards Phalāgama only. The same is the case with the hero of Ihāmṛga

too. The heroes of Dima and Samavakāra have the state of Prāptyāśā

as their aspirations are many but do not have Vimarsa as they do not

suspect frustration. Bhāṇa, Prahasana, Utsṛṣṭikāṅka and Vīthī have

only two stages beginning and close specially because they treat of very

limited plot. The heroes of Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa (as well as Nāṭikā

and Prakaraṇikā ) have to pass through all the stages as they are capable

of enduring, as they take every step after proper consideration, as they

have to remove the impediments etc; as their task is beneficial and

embodies manifold results. So Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa have all the five

Sandhis.

Here also when the two Sandhis Garbha and Avamarśa are absent

the corresponding Avasthās, viz., Prāptyāśā and Niyatāpti too are absent.

In Vyāyoga, there is a battle but not for obtaining a woman, e. g.,

in the Jāamadagnayajaya the fight between Paraśurāma and Sahasrārjuna

is shown but not for a woman. There should be combats, competition

and rivalry. All these inflame Vira. It has no Kaiśikī Vṛtti and has less

of women characters and more of males.

The plot is well-known.

The principal sentiments are Vira and Raudra and so even prose as

well as verse is full of Ojas.

The hero cannot be divine. He must be a commander-in-chief or

a minister.

It has no heroine, the sentiment being heroic.

The ND also gives an etymology of the word Vyāyoga which is

derived from Vi+Ā+√Yuj, the prefix ‘Vi’ signifies speciality ( Viśeṣaṇa ),

‘Ā’ signifies “on all sides” (Samantāt). It is so called as here vigorous

fights take place on all sides.

The ND mentions the view of ‘some’ who hold that the Vyāyoga

has twelve heroes2. The ND here practically repeats what the NS has

already stated.

1. The NS does not mention this but the DR does. Hino garbhavimarśābhyām (III, 61).

NLR says that there should be only two Sandhis – Mukha and Nirvahana (p. 116).

2. Cf. DR. - Vyāyogo bahubhir naraiḥ : III, 62; also NS XVIII, 41.

94

The illustration of Vyāyoga given by the ND is the Jāmadagnyajaya where the fight between Paraśurāma and Sahasrājuna is described and ultimately the former kills the latter1.

Remarks :

The ND at the outset points out why it treats of Vyāyoga first, the reason being that the hero here is human. It is really difficult to grasp what the ND means here. No work on dramaturgy mentions Vyāyoga immediately after Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa but the ND does so and points out that this early mention is deliberate because of the reason given above. Do the authors of the ND mean to say that in other types of drama the hero is not a human being ?

About the hero of the Vyāyoga, Dr. Keith remarks that he should be "a god or royal sage but Dhananjaya allows a man".2 But it should be noted here that it is not Dhananjaya alone who allows a man as the hero. The ND asserts that the hero must be a man3. Even the NS reads that ‘the hero should not be divine’4. But here Dr. Keith seems to have followed another reading which is just the opposite5.

The NLR adds that its hero should be well-known. ‘The act should not describe love in union or it may describe the wedding with a hermit-girl... . It should not have much of Tragic (Karuna) or Love (Śṛṅgāra)’6.

It appears that among the one-act plays in Sanskrit this type had been fairly popular with the dramatists and the cultured audience, as we find it to have been attempted by such an old and reputed dramatist as Bhāsa whose Madhyamavyāyoga7, Ūrubhaṅga etc., are so well-known and the later playwrights also did try it occasionally.

5. SAMAVAKĀRA :

Next to Vyāyoga comes Samavakāra. The ND begins with the etymological explanation. Samavakāra is so called because it is created (Kriyate) by means of attaining threefold end, either combined (Saṅgata)

1. The same illustration is found in the DR, p. 7.

2. Sanskrit Drama, p. 347,

3. BP opines that heroes must be well-known kings or gods of Dhīrodātta nature (p. 248).

4. Na ca divyanāyakṛtah—NS (GOS) XVIII, 92.

5. Sa ca divyamānusa...etc. NS (GOS) VOL. II, p. 445 F. N.

6. NLR, pp. 115-6,

7. Prof. D. R. Mankad does not recognize the Madhyama as a Vyāyoga as there is a meeting with the heroine but puts it under Īhāmṛga type but here he seems to have ignored the statement of Bharata that in Īhāmṛga, as the very name suggests, the fight should take place for the sake of a divine lady (NS (GOS) XVIII, 78), while it is not the case in the Madhyama.

or individually (Avakirṇa)1. The root is √Kr prefixed by Sam+Ava.

The etymology is correct but the interpretation though ingenious is far

from being acceptable. The DR interprets it as ‘Samavakiryante Arthāḥ

Yasmin’2. Abhinava gives a similar etymology ‘Sambaddhāḥ Avakirṇāśca

Yatrārthāḥ Samavakārah’3. The word may also be explained thus : it is

so-called because here the scattered purposes of the twelve heroes are

combined (Sam)4.

The plot is well-known. It has four Sandhis excluding Vimarsa.

Hero :- The hero is either a god or a demon5. The ND here remarks

that the gods are called Dhīroddhata as compared to human beings. If

compared to the beings of their own class they should be Dhīrodātta.

There are twelve heroes. These twelve heroes may be in each of

the three Acts6 or each Act may have a group of four viz., the hero,

the hero’s rival (Pratināyaka) and a helpmate to each. If the number

is more or less under certain circumstances it is no fault. The fruits of

all these twelve heroes should be differently stated, e.g., in the Payodhi-

mathana Viṣṇu and others get Lakṣmī, and others individually. Thus

even the helpers such as Sugrīva and others are termed heroes.

The chief sentiments are Vīra and Raudra. Even though the

Samavakāra is supposed to delineate three-fold Śṛṅgāra the principal

sentiments should not be other than Vīra and Raudra. Since the gods

and demons are of haughty and arrogant nature, Śṛṅgāra can come

only subordinately.

There are three Acts and three tppes of Śṛṅgāra. Each of the three

Acts is characterised by all the three Śṛṅgāras and not that each Act

will have only one type of Śṛṅgāra with the result that each Act would

have a different type of Śṛṅgāra. The dramatist should also introduce

Vithyangaś such as Vyañjana, etc.

There should be three Acts. The duration of its three Acts should be

six Muhūrtas or twelve Ghaṭikās, two Muhūrtas or four Ghaṭikās, and one

Muhūrta or two Ghaṭikās respectively. Thus the total time for the whole

play should be nine Muhūrtas or eighteen Ghaṭikās, i. e. about seven

hours and twelve minutes7.

1. Cf. ND, p. 124.

2. Cf. DR, p. 75.

3. Cf. Abhi, II, p. 438.

4. ND clearly states that the purposes of the heroes are different.

5. Viśvanātha differs. He allows gods and men. Cf. SD VI, 235.

6. Cf. NS (GOS) Vol. II, p. 438.

7. ND, pp. 124-125. Here the ND has followed the NS. Cf. NS (KM) XVIII, 116-120.

96

Here the ND refers to another view of some under the name ‘Eke’ who ordain quite double the duration given above for each of the three Acts.1 The view obviously refers to the DR.

The NS gives the precise duration of three Acts as twelve, four and two Nāḍikās respectively2. Bharata further goes to explain what the word Nāḍī or Nāḍikā means. A Nāḍī is the same as Nāḍikā and is equal to one half of a Muhūrta. Now one Muhūrta is equal to two Ghaṭikās and so a Nāḍī will be equal to a Ghaṭikā. And this is exactly what the ND has stated. The ND instead of giving the time in Nāḍīs prefers a simpler and current word Muhūrta following the instruction of the NS, viz, 1 Nāḍī = ½ Muhūrta. Thus the first Act will be equal to 6 Muhūrtas ( = 12 Nāḍīs of the NS).

The DR follows the NS when it points out the time just as the NS has done in the measurement of Nāḍikā which it calls Nālikā. It states that the First Act should be of 12 Nālikās3 and the rest of 4 and 2 Nālikās respectively but adds that one Nālikā is equal to two Ghaṭikās4. This changes the entire length of time. Now 12 Nālikās of the DR will mean, not 6 Muhūrtas ( as according to the NS or the ND ) but 12 Muhūrtas or 24 Ghaṭikās; thus the time becomes actually double the one stated in the NS or the ND. Similarly the rest of the two Acts will also have double the time. Thus the total time for performing the whole play will be 18 Nālikās i.e. 36 Ghaṭikās i.e. 14 hours and 24 minutes.

The explanation of the DR will mean that the drama will continue for 14 hours e.g, if it starts by eight o’clock at night it will continue for the whole night and upto ten o’clock of the next day morning. This is quite improbable if not absurd. One can easily comprehend how boring it would be to the audience when a drama lasts so long. Over and above the fact that it will be a waking for the whole night, it will engage the whole of the morning and thus greatly disturb the usual routine, which a drama is not supposed to do under any circumstance (Āvaśyakāvirodhena)5.

Thus the explanation of the ND is more reasonable. We know that in ancient times the performance of dramas often went on past mid-night. A dramatic performance which lasts for six to seven hours, though it may sound pretty lengthy to us, was not unusual in old days.

The dictionary of V. S. Apte interprets Nālikā as equal to 24 minutes or one Ghaṭikā. Thus the DR’s interpretation of Nālikā = 48 minutes

1. Cf. Eke tu pratyankaṁ yathoditadviguṇaṁ kālamānam āhuḥ-ND, p. 125.

2. NS XVIII, 64-66.

3. DR III, 65 cd.

4. Nālikā ghaṭikādvayam - DR III, 66b.

5. Vide NS (KM) XVIII, 24–25.

is rather arbitrary and not supported by any source nor by reason

or logic.

Every Act is complete in itself. The object, the fruit and the means

of attaining it with regard to one Act have no concern with those of

the other Acts. Thus all Acts stand unconnected and independent of one

another so far as their own objects are concerned. They are connected

at the end in the accomplishment of the ultimate fruit of the whole

play. Thus the development of the plot is rather singular and unique.

Immediately after the end of Āmukha or Prastāvanā, the Bīja suggesting

the object or fruit of all the three Acts must be first introduced. Then

the first two Acts must be shown as unconnected, each accomplishing its

own personal end and leaving aside the main object of the play1. Then

the three Acts with a common motive, which were otherwise unconnected

being concerned with the fulfilment of their own private motives. Since

the Acts are not mutually connected2. Bindu is not to be employed.

Sandhis are four excepting Vimarsa. The first Act will have two Sandhis

viz., Mukha and Pratimukha. The second Act will have Garbha and the

third Act will have Nirvahana.

There are three types of Śṛṅgāra, Kapaṭa ( fraud ), and Vidrava

( retreat or running away ) each.

The three types of love ( Śṛṅgāra ) are as under :

( i ) Having ' Dharma ' or religion as the fruit and cause e. g.,

Śṛṅgāra, arising out of the union with one's own wife, has for its fruit

religion viz., abstinence from another's wife and which has religion i. e.

religious performances as its cause ( Hetu ) such as giving alms etc.,

which also may result in the attainment of a lady and the like.

( ii ) Having love ( Kāma ) as the fruit and cause. Both Kāma and

Śṛṅgāra mean love or pleasures of love. Kāma in the form of sexual

pleasures may be recognized as the fruit of Śṛṅgāra and Kāma in the

form of man and woman who represent love is the cause of Śṛṅgāra in

the form of sexual pleasures. When this Kāma-Śṛṅgāra is to be depicted,

the heroine should be another's wife ( or a maiden, and not one's own

wife nor a harlot ) as Ahalyā in Indra's case. If the heroine is one's own

lawfully married wife, the love depicted ceases to be purely sexual but

becomes a part of religious duty also.

1. ND, p. 125. Avāntaravākyārthena parasparavicchinnam āyojyam.

2. The point has been referred to earlier also by the ND, when it denies Viṣkambhaka

and Praveśaka for Samavakāra as its Acts are not interrelated ( p. 39 ).

13

( iii ) Having material gain ( Artha ) as the fruit and cause. Material

gain would mean kingdom, gold, wealth, grains, clothes, etc. The love

between prostitutes and wealthy people has wealth for its fruit, as the

prostitutes show love for any ordinary man and as a result get money.

In the same way the cause of love is also money. The love with harlots

is based on money.

' Kapaṭa ' or fraud or cheating is defined by the ND as a contrivance

which is based on falsehood but appears to be true. It is of three types :

( i ) Cheating a person who is guilty.

( ii ) Cheating a person who is not guilty and as a result of inten-

tional mischief by the fraudulent person.

( iii ) The deceit or fraud which is just accidental ( by Kākatālīya

Nyāya as the ND puts it ). The person deceived is not guilty nor has

the deceiver intended it. It is a mischief of fate.

Vidrava signifies ' tumult '1. The ND explains it as Anartha i. e.

calamity. It too is of three types :

( i ) Caused by animate entities such as elephants, etc.

( ii ) Caused by inanimate entities such as weapons, etc.

( iii ) Caused by animate as well as inanimate objects e. g. siege

to a town where both elephants and weapons are at work.

Now the three types of Love, fraud and calamity are to be depicted

in the three Acts one after the other separately.

Metres should be lengthy such as Sragdharā, Śārdūlavikrīdita etc.,

and not such simple ones such as Gāyatrī and others2. But the ND refers

to the view of ' some ' who allow Gāyatrī and other Vedic metres as

well as other Viṣama and Ardhasama metres.

Here the ND differs from Bharata ( and Abhinava ) who does allow

Vedic metres such as Gāyatrī, Uṣṇik and others3. Abhinava refers to

the view of Udbhata who opines that only lengthy metres such as

Sragdharā should be employed and not those which consist of lesser

1. The ND gives the etymological meaning of the word vidrawo 'narthah. p. 126.

asmād iti Vidravo 'narthah.

2. The propriety of the above statement can easily be perceived. As the dominant

sentiment is Vira or/and Raudra, lengthy metres which provoke the heroic or the

furious sentiment should be employed.

3. Cf. NS (GOS) XVIII, 76 and Abhinava's commentary over it ( p. 441 ).

number of syllables ( like Gāyatrī and others ). The DR is silent on this

point. The BP1 and the SD2 follow the NS.

The use of Vedic metres in the Samavakāra might be to create an

air of divinity3 as the characters are all divine. This may also suggest

that in the early times the practice of employing Vedic metres was in

vogue which may have been discontinued in later times.

The ND concludes the discussion by pointing out that a play of

this sort which is full of humorous love, fraud, excitement, magic, fights

between gods and demons which is carried on by supernatural powers,

being far from realism is meant for entertaining the common ‘masses’ by

arousing their sense of curiosity, suggesting thereby that such a type of

drama is not meant for the cultured strata of society.

6. BHĀNA :

Etymology:—Bhāna is derived from the root √Bhan ( to speak) and

is so called as the hero narrates his own or another’s adventures by

resorting to speaking in the air4.

Sentiment : Since the story pertains chiefly to one’s heroic exploits

and good fortune, the principal sentiments are Śṛṅgāra and Vīra. Hāsya

can be introduced in a subordinate manner.

Sandhis :—There must be two Sandhis only – Mukha and Nirvahana –

the first and the last.

The action extends over a day only and so it has only one Act.

Ten elements of Lāsya are to be introduced here. They are :

(1) Geyapada, (2) Sthitapāṭhya, (3) Āsīna, (4) Puṣpagaṇḍikā, (5)

Pracchedaka, (6) Trigūḍha, (7) Sainḍhavākhya, (8) Dvigūḍhaka, (9) Uttamo-

ttamaka and (10) Uktapratyukta5.

1. BP, p. 250 verbally follows the NS.

2. SD VI, 237.

3. Cf. Abhijñānaśākuntala IV, 10 where the blessing is showered by Kaṇva in Vedic

Triṣṭubh metre.

4. Cf. Abhi. Vol. II, p. 449 Also cf. DR (Avaloka)–Bhāritivrttipadadhānatvāt bhāṇaḥ

– p. 73.

5. This seems to have been borrowed from Bharata. The NS enumerates the ten

Lāsyāṅgas and defines them. The DR simply mentions them. The BP adds Bhāvita

to the above list and makes the total number eleven (pp. 245–46).

Dr. M. Ghosh interprets the word Lāsyāṅga as a one-act play which requires

Lāsya or a gentle form of dance for its representation. The term is explained as

Lāsyam aṅgam yasya sabh’ (that which has Lāsya as its principal element). But

this interpretation though ingenious seems to be far-fetched.

This topic has been elaborately discussed by Dr. Raghavan in his paper on

Lāsyāṅgas and Bhāṇa.

Generally Bhāṇa is for the recreation of the common people as it deals with the life of Viṭas, rogues, harlots, etc.

Now the ND discusses the nature of Bhāṇa which is highly peculiar. The hero or the person who comes on the stage to narrate his life or that of others is a Viṭa (libertine or paramour of a harlot) or a rogue, or a thief or a gambler. He describes the incidents of his own life or of a harlot, or of a woman of low character.

The main Vṛtti here is Bhāratī i.e. verbal. Though Vīra and Śṛṅgāra are principal sentiments, as the character resorts to Ākāśokti, the verbal gesticulation (Vācika Abhinaya and not others) predominates; therefore Sāttvatī or Kaiśikī come only subordinately1. Here the story mainly concerns as to how a Viṭa deceives others, thereby warning the audience against such pitfalls.

Here another view is mentioned with the word ‘Kecit’ according to which the plot should be imaginary and the hero should be a Viṭa only. The view refers to the DR.

Critical Remarks :

The DR ordains that the hero should be a Viṭa who narrates the life of a rogue or a thief which he himself or some body else might have experienced.2 The DR also points out that the subject-matter is invented by the poet3. The apparent contradiction in the statements of the DR when it is stated on one side that Bhāṇa delineates the actual experiences of a person and on the other that the story is imaginary, can be resolved easily. What the DR means is that the plot here is neither historical nor legendary. It is imaginary but is represented as if it were one’s personal experience.

Even though the story described may be related to some actual incident which one might have come across in life, it should be described on the basis of one’s imagination only. Because here the object is not to give the factual account of an experience which is likely to be boring and insipid. This is true not only of Bhāṇa but of other forms of drama also. Around the nucleus of certain incidents or episodes whose root may be in history or in day-to-day life, the poet erects the artistic structure by means of his creative imagination and poetic talents.

1. Kohala seems to differ here. He believes that the Vṛtti here is Kaiśikī as the chief sentiments are Śṛṅgāra, Vīra and Karuṇa. But Abhinava vehemently opposes this view. Cf. Abhi. Vol. II, p. 452.

2. DR III, 49.

3. DR III, 51.

Thus Bhāṇa is a monologue in one Act in which the performer narrates dramatically a variety of occurrences. “Love, war, fraud, intrigue and imposition are appropriate topics and the narrator may enliven his recitation by suppositious dialogue with an imaginary interlocutor”.1 Prof. Wilson also points out that it should begin and end with music and singing.

Among all the Rūpakas Bhāṇa stands out unique in the sense that it is carried on only by one character. The conversational form of drama requires that it should have at least two characters, in the absence of which no dialogue is possible. But peculiar is the state of affairs in Bhāṇa where only one person carries the thread of drama. This would naturally turn into a sort of Kathā or story-telling which is prevalent even at present in villages of India. This peculiar form of Bhāṇa leads Prof. D. R. Mankad to think that Bhāṇa must have been the earliest form of Sanskrit drama2. Of course, this one-act play by one character only seems to remind us of some early primal stage in dramatic development3. Still it is possible to argue that the representation of sentiments, emotions, situations, etc., by a single person may reveal a high development in dramatics.

The peculiar nature of Bhāṇa clearly suggests, as Prof. A. B. Keith has pointed out, its “ popular character and origin.”4 Prof. S. K. De has elaborately discussed this point in his article on “ Sanskrit Monologue Play ”5. From the actual Bhāṇas that are available at present one can easily see that Bhāṇa, like Prahasana, was meant for entertaining the masses and not the intelligentzia or the higher aristocratic class for whom the refined types of dramas like Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa were primarily written6. Thus Bhāṇa does not seem to have enjoyed a dignified status.

7. PRAHASANA :

The chief purpose of Prahasana, the ND states, is to acquaint the common people with the ways of rogues, scoundrels, etc., and thereby make them turn away their faces from them. The plot delineates ridiculous or abhorrent social customs or hypocrisy by falsely showing

1. H. H. Wilson : Dramas, p. 22.

2. Cf. The Types of SK. Drama, p. 78.

3. Also Cf. “We have here a formal version of a primitive mimetic performance” - Sanskrit Drama, p. 348;

4. Sanskrit Drama, p. 348; also Indian Theatre, p. 143.

5. Vide Aspects of Sanskrit Literature, pp. 1–25.

6. Cf. Abhirūpabhūyiṣṭhā pariṣad iyaṁ; also, Ā paritoṣād viduṣāṁ, etc. (1–2).

102

oneself to be a person of very good character, e. g., the Śākyas condemn

the illicit affairs with a woman but not theft.

Vīthyaṅgas should be introduced wherever suitable.

As the very name suggests, the principal sentiment is Hāsya1.

There are two Sandhis, Mukha and Nirvahana, as in Bhāna. It

has but one act2 . The Vṛtti is Bhāratī. In spite of Hāsya being dominant

the Vṛtti is not Kaiśikī because Kaiśikī is principally used to depict

Śṛṅgāra. But in Prahasana the dominating sentiment is simply Hāsya

and there is no Śṛṅgāra which being so refined and elevated a sentiment

is not fit to be depicted with reference to such low characters as rogues

and scoundrels and Kaiśikī is principally meant for Śṛṅgāra. Consequently

Lāsyaṅgas also here are few and far between.

Prahasana is divided into two types : 1) Pure (Śuddha) and 2)

Mixed (Saṅkīrṇa or Miśra).

1. Pure - Here the characters are despicable such as Śākyas,

Bhagavattāpasas i. e. Śaiva ascetics3 etc., or Brahmins by birth only

who are not learned but attain their livelihood on the strength of their

birth in respectable families. But the life that is depicted here is

completely devoid of shameful or contemptuous vulgar action. The purpose

is to create humour only and this variety is therefore full of humorous,

witty and ridiculous speeches. Thus the plot being unmixed with harlots,

etc., this type of Prahasana is called Pure.

2. The other type (mixed) is so called as it combines in itself the

lives of a variety of people. It has a number of attendants, varied costumes,

speeches and actions. The characters are arrogant, immodest ( Uddhata )

and low such as procuresses, rogues, eunuchs, old persons, scoundrels,

Brahmins ( by birth only ), paramours, spies, warriors, etc. having odd

dresses, speeches and actions which are contemptuous and ludicrous.

In this type of Prahasana through one character such as a harlot

many others are mocked at. Thus the subject here is the life of raisce-

llaneous people, while in Śuddha only one, such as a hypocrite is laughed at.

The ND quotes another view according to which Saṅkīrṇa, is one

where the conduct of naturally innocent people and heretics is mocked at4.

1. Prakarṣeṇa hāsam் hasanaṁ vā vartate yasmin tat prahasanam்.

2. SD holds that there can also be two acts, VI, 267.

3. The phrase Bhagavattāpasaviprāḥ which occurs in the NS is explained by Abhi. as

Yativānaprasthagṛhasthāḥ. The word ‘Anya’ in NS is taken by Abhi. to mean

Śākyas and others. The Avaloka on DR refers to Nirgranathas i. e. Jainas along with

Śākyas. The authors of the ND are silent on this point.

4. ND p. 129. This view has been referred to by Abhinava as the view of ‘some’. Cf,

Abhi, Vol. III, p. 448,

There is still another view which holds that Saṅkīrṇa or mixed type of Prahasana has many Acts.1

The object of Prahasana is to make children, ladies and fools who are incapable of appreciating serious plays, take interest in drama, which the poet creates by resorting to cheap humour. For the cultured types of people who can enjoy serious plays, other forms of drama which represent Dharma, Artha, and Kāma are composed. Here in both the types of Prahasana the life of rogues, knaves, paramours, etc., is depicted so that a common man may beware of them.

In short, Prahasana, like Bhāṇa, is a drama for the common masses. Dr. Keith rightly remarks that it has “every sign of popular origin and vogue”2. Nāṭaka and similar other types of dramas were written primarily for the higher classes of society, for the assembly of the learned critics without whose approval a drama would stand no where. “It is in such types as Prahasana that the masses would get their familiar figures, the rogue, the scoundrel, the vagabond, the courtesan and such things as love-intrigues, quarrels, fights and violence all in their Prakrit speech and wrapped up in such fun as would split their sides with laughter”3.

9, ḌIMA :

The word Ḍima or Ḍimba means fight, being derived from the root ‘Ḍim’ to kill or to injure. The principal sentiment here is fury. It has four Sandhis excepting Vimarsa. The sentiments of Sānta, Sṛṅgāra or Hāsya are excluded. Even Karuṇa cannot be introduced. The characters being divine, the sentiment of pathos and others which are unpleasant cannot have any scope here. The ND rightly justifies this4. It has mostly sixteen heroes like gods, demons, Piśācas, Yakṣas, Rākṣasas, Nāgas, etc. These heroes are of the haughty type and exhibit different states (Bhāvas).

The principal sentiment being Raudra there must be such scenes and incidents as may go to heighten the Rasa. Thus falling of a meteor, an earth-quake or thunder-stroke, solar or lunar eclipse, etc., should be shown. It abounds in combats and magic.

There are four Acts and four Sandhis and hence the action should not spread over more than four days.

The purpose of this type of play is to entertain the votaries of gods and so there must be a god as the hero or the plot should be

1. This view is also mentioned by Abhi. (Vol. II. p. 449).

2. Sanskrit Drama, p. 348.

3. Preface to Mṛcchakaṭikā, p. 5.

4. Cf. ND, p. 129-130.

104

concerning divinity just as we find in Samavakāra and Īhāmṛga. The plot is renowned, states the NS1.

Etymology - The ND derives the word from the root ‘Ḍim’ to kill or to injure ( Samighāta ). Here the ND seems to have followed Dhanika who also derives the word from the same root2. Abhinava remarks that Ḍima, Ḍimba and Vidrava are all synonyms ( meaning ' riot ' ) and Ḍima is so called because it includes riots, fights, etc.3 Abhinava refers to some who give another etymology of the word. It is so called because it abounds in haughty persons ( Ḍī = one who flies i. e. moves vigorously )4.

Dr. Keith points out that “ the origin of the name is unknown for no root ‘ḍim’, ( to wound ) is found in the language, though Dhanika asserts its existence ”. But here Keith does not seem to be justified as not only Dhanika but Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra also assert the existence of such a root. Moreover, the root Ḍim ( Ḍemati ) “ to hurt, to injure ” is found in the dictionary also5. This shows that the root ‘Ḍim’ did exist in language from which the noun ‘Ḍima’ has been derived.

10. UTSṚṢṬIKĀṄKA :

This is so called because it is marked ( Ankita ) by sorrowful ladies ( whose lives are inclined to depart )6. Here the hero is a human being and not divine as the drama is dominated by pathos. The plot which mainly deals with fighting may be well-known or imaginary. Like Bhāṇa Vṛtti is Bhārati, as the play mainly consists of lamentations of women. It abounds in mere verbal fight amongst arrogant heroes and so there is no Raudra. The speeches should be such as may create despondency in the heart of the audience. Males are to be depicted as having retired from fight, etc. The agitating actions such as falling on the ground, whirling round, beating of breasts or head, plucking one’s hair, etc., ought to be represented. Here the women only should weep and not men, as it is to be made known that fortune favours those firm persons who remain unagitated even at the time of calamities.

It should have only one Act as the action must be over in one day.

1. NS (GOS) XVIII, 84.

2. Vide DR : (Avaloka ) - Ḍima Samighāte - p. 74.

3. Abhi. Vol. II, p. 443; also Cf. KS, p. 440.

4. Abhi. II, pp. 443-4.

5. Vide V. S. Apte’s Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary.

6. Vide ND, p. 130.

This piece is also known as Añka ( in short ) but it is called Utsṛṣṭikäñka in order to distinguish it from an act ( Añka ) of the normal drama. The ND quotes the Śarmisṭhāyayāti as an example of this type.

11. IHĀMRGA :

Here there is an effort or desire ( Ihā ) to procure a lady which is difficult to obtain 'as a gazelle (Mṛga).1 It has all Vīthyañgas. The hero is divine. The human characters are proud and arrogant. It comprises of one act or four acts. The plot may be partly derived from legends and partly from the poet's imagination. The plot consists of fighting in order to procure a lady. If there is one act only the plot should be such as it refers to the incidents which have taken place on the same day. If it has four acts, its action should not spread over more than four days. The ND makes a note that all the four acts should be intimately co-related with one another and should not be detached like those of Samavakāra. Here there is a war for a celestial lady. The rival-hero ( Prati-nāyaka ) forcibly abducts her and the result is a combat between the hero and his rival. It should be replete with rashness, competitions and calamities. But all these centre around a woman or may have some other purpose. Under some pretext such as fleeing away or the like the fighting should be avoided when the man is on the point of being slain or killed. Not only that the killing is not to be staged, but it is not to be suggested even from behind the curtain. The sentiments are vigorous such as Vira, Raudra, etc. Sandhis are three excepting Garbha and Avamarśa. Vṛttis can be any of the four excepting Kaiśikī and there can be Ratyābhāsa too as the love of the villain is depicted with reference to a lady who does not love him. The NS wants that the hero should be divine but the DR states that he may be divine or human. Forbidding of Vadha is in accordance with the dramatic conventions established by Bharata. The SD gives Kusumasekharavijaya as an example of this type.

12. VĪTHĪ :

Vīthī is treated the last of all the 12 types of plays. The heroes can be of all types Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. There may be all types of sentiments too such as Love, Humour, etc. Here the ND quotes a verse under the name of Kohala : 'Vīthī is staged by one or two actors and is of three types according as it has Uttama, Madhyama or Adhama type of hero '.2

1. ND here follows Abhi. II, p. 442; also see DR, p. 76.

2. Vide ND, p. 132.

14

106

The ND here criticises the view of Śaṅkuka who does not allow a low type of character as a hero of Vīthī. The argument of the ND is that even then he accepts a low-born hero such as a Viṭa for Prahasana and Bhāṇa which have humour as the principal sentiment. In that case there is no reason why Vīthī which has a certain similarity with Bhāṇa should not have a low-born hero like Viṭa. Śaṅkuka therefore is inconsistent here and so his view is not acceptable.1

It is a one-act play and so the action or plot extends over one day only. The number of characters may be one or two. If one character is there, Ākāsābhiṣāṣita may be resorted to.

Sandhis are only two viz. Mukha and Nirvahana. It has thirteen limbs known as Vīthyaṅgas. They can be used in other types of drama also.

Vīthī is full of thousands of Vakroktis ( indirect speeches or equivocations ). Here the speech dominates and the sentiments of love and humour are merely suggested. So the Vṛtti is not Kaiśikī but Bhāratī.

Critical observations :

"It is a love story carried on in a comic dialogue, consisting of equivogue, evasion, enigma, quibble, jest, repartee, wilful misconstruction and misapplication, ironical praise, extravagant endearment and jocose abuse."2

The NS, the DR, the ND, etc., admit of one or two characters. If it has only one character it will be a sort of monologue very much similar to Bhāṇa. D. R. Mankad in his "The Types of Sanskrit Drama" tries to bring out the remarkable similarity between the two, one being a mere variant of the other, and thereby concludes that Vīthī has evolved from Bhāṇa3. The points of similarity are not far to see. Both are one-act plays, having Love as the principal sentiment and are accompanied by Lāsyāṅgas. The difference is that in Vīthī the coarser element of Bhāṇa is dropped. Śaṅkuka does not allow even a low-born character as the hero. Here in Vīthī the dialogues are more witty. The speeches are indirect, evasive, interesting and intelligent. Thus the drama rises in its literary qualities, does not remain simply as a repartee for the unintelligent masses:but becomes a feast for the learned few also. This nature of Vīthī is brought out by its very name. The ND gives the etymology as - "Vīthī is so called as it adopts the path of Vakrokti like a crooked street not going straight "4. The DR too gives a similar explanation, viz., Vīthī is

1. ND, p. 133 lines 1–2.

2. H. H. Wilson ; ‘Dramas’, p. 27.

3. The Types of Sanskrit Drama, pp. 78–79.

4. Vakroktimārgeṇa gamanāt vīthīva vīthī – ND, p. 132.

like a Vīthī i. e. a street as it has a series of subdivisions. Dr. Keith

remarks: “It is suggested that the several sentiments are gathered into

it as into a garland ”1.

According to the DR the principal sentiment to be suggested is

Śṛṅgāra and Vṛtti is Kaiśikī. The ND on the other hand takes the same

point into account and points out that Śṛṅgāra is merely to be suggested

(as the DR too states) and so Vṛtti is not Kaiśikī but Bhāratī as the

charm of Vīthī consists in the Vīthyaṅgas which are all varied types of

jocular and witty speeches. The ND here differs from she DR and seems

to correct it. The DR specifically points out that Śṛṅgāra is to be

suggested only. Moreover, the DR itself has treated the Vīthyaṅgas

(which form the quintessence of Vīthī) under the treatment of Bhāratī

Vṛtti. Thus Vīthyaṅgas constitute Bhāratī and so Vīthī too is dominated

by Bhāratī and not Kaiśikī. It appears that the ND is quite correct and

logical here.

General remarks :

We have offered our critical remarks regarding the particular type

of the Rūpaka at the end of the discussion on the same. Here are

mentioned only a few points in general.

It is clear that the ND recognizes these twelve only as the principal

Rūpakas. A question naturally arises as to what the criteria or

determinants for the classification of the ten or twelve Rūpakas are.

All these Rūpakas have grown from Vṛtti, says Bharata2. He calls

Vṛttis the mothers of all poetry (especially drama). Vṛttis, as the

theorists have defined, denote action. Thus if we take Vṛtti as the criterion

for the classification of Rūpakas, it would mean that the principle

governing drama is action3.

The classification of the Rūpakas, according to the DR, is on the

basis of the three things - the plot, the hero and the sentiment4. It is

the prevalence of one or more of the three that distinguishes one type

from the other.

According to the authors of the ND, the only principle underlying

all the principal Rūpakas is Rasa5 (the principle accepted by almost all

the theorists after Bharata) as against the Uparūpakas which are not

1. Sanskrit Drama, p. 349.

2. NS (KM) VI, 26.

3. Cf. ‘Drama signifies action’ En. Bri. VII, p. 39.

4. Vastu netā rasas teṣāṃ bhedakah, DR I, 11.

5. Vide ND, p. 23, verses 3, 5, 6, 7, also Cf. Rasaprāṇo hi nāṭyavidhiḥ - NLV, p. 77.

108

dominated by Rasa (Apradhānarasa) and other forms of literature which

are dominated by descriptions and figures of speech of various kinds.

Dr. V. Raghavan gives a novel type of classification of dramas :-

(i) Heroic drama - Nāṭaka and others (ii) Social drama - Prakaraṇa,

Prahasana, Bhāṇa and Vīthī1.

VĪTHYAṄGAS

Vīthyaṅgas, which literally mean subdivisions or limbs of Vīthī

constitute thirteen in number. They may be enumerated as under :

(1) Vyāhāra (2) Adhibala (3) Gaṇḍa (4) Prapañca (5) Trigata (6) Chala

(7) Asatpralāpa (8) Vākkelī (9) Nālikā (10) Mṛdava (11) Udghātyaka

(12) Avalagita and (13) Avaspandita.

The ND treats of this topic of Vīthyaṅgas at considerable length

supplying each of them with numerous illustrations. At the outset, the

ND points out that these Vīthyaṅgas are to be included in Bhāratī style

as they are primarily connected with speech, since they represent

various types of strikingness of words and sense. The DR, too, treats

them as divisions of Bhāratī while discussing the four Vṛttis.

Now let us take up these divisions one by one :

(i) Vyāhāra :

Vyāhāra means humorous speech which has some different purpose

or which indirectly suggests some future event.

Elymology - It is called Vyāhāra as it carries different senses ( Vividha

Artha ). The root is Vi+Ā + √ Hṛ.. Ā + √ Hṛ means to carry. 'Vi' has the

sense of 'Vividha' i.e. various ( senses ).

In the DR we find 'Hāsyalobhakaṛam vacaḥ' instead of 'Hāsyaleśagīḥ,'

of the ND. 'Leśa' is replaced by 'Lobha'. The SD defines it as "Hāsya-

kṣobhakaṛam vacaḥ "2. The illustration of the ND is the same as that of

the DR and the ND. It is cited from the Māl. (Act II ), where the

Vidūṣaka makes the heroine tarry on the stage by pointing out that

there was a serious flaw in the performance, viz., it did not commence

with the adoration of a Brahmin. This causes laughter on the stage3.

Of course the ND gives the full incident while the DR and the SD give

it rather summarily4.

The ND also adds Bhāvidṛṣṭi i.e. foreshadowing of future events,

1. The Social Play in Sanskrit, p. 1.

2. SD VI, 263.

3. See ND, pp. 133-135.

4. DR, p. 69.

which is not found in the DR. The type is illustrated by the Ratnāvalī

( Act II ) where the King says : “Today I shall certainly make the

queen’s face red with anger, gazing upon this garden-creeper, as upon

another woman in love, that has instantly displayed a profusion of buds

( a powerful longing ), has a pale complexion, has its buds opening up

( has commenced to yawn ) and has been manifesting the disturbance by

the ceaseless puffs of wind ( by constant heavings of the sighs )'1.

The definition of the ND very much agrees with that of the NS.

The NS too calls it as ‘ Hāsyaleśārtha '2.

The NS does not mention Anyārtha and so the object is to suggest a

future event only. The illustration of the ND is the same as that of Abhi3.

This, in fact, is also an illustration of Dramatic Irony or Patākā-

sthānaka. The only difference is that in Vyāhāra there is essentially

a tinge of humour.

The ND gives another view under the name “ Anye,” according to

which Vyāhāra means a humorous speech which describes or speaks

something about some object present before one’s own eyes;4 e. g., in

the Mṛcchakaṭikā the Vidūṣaka’s remark with reference to the mother

of Vasantasenā that if she dies she will suffice for a hundred jackals

and his inquiry whether the door was constructed after placing her in

the hall or whether she was anyhow thrust into the hall5.

Another illustration is from the author’s own work Nalavilāsa wherein

the Vidūṣaka inquires of the Kāpāliki-named Lambastanī whether she

is the same as the mother of his wife, who has bulky breasts and who

lives in Pāṭalīputra6.

In both these illustrations there is humour about a particular object

in front and the only purpose is to mock or cut jokes at the particular

object. There is no other purport or suggestion of the future in it. ( BP

follows DR ). A similar view is found in the NLR7. According to this

view, Vyāhāra would mean simple humour usually created by the

Vidūṣaka in Sanskrit drama. The humour may be gross or subtle.

( ii ) Adhibala :

It is a dialogue where a person establishes his own view in course

1. Ratnāvalī II, 4.

2. NS (GOS) XVIII, 125.

3. Abhi. II, p. 458.

4. The view appears to belong to Bhoja. Cf. SP (MS), p. 147.

5. MRC Act IV, p. 89.

6. NLV, p. 25.

7. Pratyakṣānubhavarūdhe vyāhāro hāsyaleśakṛt -NLR, p. 124.

110

of the mutual discussion. The ND explains it etymologically too. ‘Adhi’ is used in the sense of ‘Adhika’ i. e. superior; ‘Bala’ means force or strength. It is so called because here is established the superiority of one’s strength ( physical or mental ).

The ND gives an apt illustration from the KTR ( Act I): Here Sūrpaṇakhā disguised as Sītā scolds Lakṣmaṇa for not running to the aid of Rāma. Lakṣmaṇa tries to defend himself by saying that Rāma had kept him there for her sake whereupon Sūrpaṇakhā retorts that it was not so, as she was already protected and that she suspected some evil intention of Lakṣmaṇa therein. Thus the arguments of Lakṣmaṇa are totally refuted and the other view is established.

Another illustration is cited from the author’s own work RV where Maya tries to argue that the abduction of Sītā is vigorously condemned by the people of Laṅkā. But Rāvaṇa establishes his own view as correct.

The ND mentions the view of ‘some’1 who hold that Adhibala consists in a dialogue where one vies with the other in establishing one’s view. But the ND remarks that there is no remarkable difference in this view. It is contained in the above one.

The two views are very similar, the only minor difference being that the latter emphasises the element of competition which is already implied in the former.

This ‘Aṅga’ would be highly useful in any type of drama for the employment of forceful dialogue. Here we find interesting arguments by both sides wherein either of the two wins. This has a special importance in the depiction of the heroic sentiment.

This ‘Aṅga’ can be well compared with the Sandhyaṅga of the same name which occurs when a person deceives the other on account of his or her superiority of intellect. Both are similar so far as the establishment of the superiority of one person over the other is concerned. But while one ( Sandhyaṅga ) is related to the deception of the inferior by the superior one, the other ( Vithyaṅga ) is related to outvying or overpowering the inferior by the superior person.

( iii ) Ganda :

When a relevant speech suggests, all of a sudden, some other sense it is called Ganda.2 The definition is better elucidated in the commentary. The speech is uttered all of a sudden with a view to conveying a

1. This view belongs to none else but the DR. The ND has even retained the wording used by the DR.

2. Cf. ND II, 97ab.

particular idea. But the words or rather speech is arranged in such

a way that it conveys indirectly some other sense suggesting some

catastrophe to befall in near future. It has some unhappy sense hidden

in it and that is why it is called Gaṇḍa which means a boil, or a pimple.

Just as a boil has impure or foul blood inside, in the same way Gaṇḍa

has some evil import inside it.1

A popular and appropriate illustration is found in the UTR of

Bhavabhūti :

Rāma-“ ..but unbearable is her separation”.

Door-keeper - “Lord, (it) has approached”.

Rāma - “I say, who ?”

Door-keeper - “Durmukha”.

Here the door-keeper wants to convey a particular sense, viz., a

spy named Durmukha has come. This Durmukha is intended to be the

subject of the verb “has approached ” (Upasthitah). But if this is

connected with the present speech of Rāma it will convey an altogether

different sense, viz., his impending separation from Sītā.

The ND quotes another example from Bālikāvañcitaka where Kaṃsa

speaks - ....”Who can assail such powerful Kaṃsa ?” and the very

moment a voice comes from ‘behind the scenes’ -

“That Kṛṣṇa [(i) black. (ii) Kṛṣṇa, the killer of Kaṃsa] Parapuṣṭa

[(i) Cuckoo (ii) brought up by others, viz., Nanda and Yaśodā]... kills

and nobody stops.”

Here the relevant or intended sense is that referring to the cuckoo

but the words have a double meaning and thus when understood in the

context with the speech of Kaṃsa it reveals Kṛṣṇa to be the killer

of Kaṃsa.

Here the voice ‘behind the scenes’ when connected with the speech

of the character on the stage gives anothor sense which is, of course,

not auspicious. This is called “Cūlikā Gaṇḍa ”.

The first instance that the ND gives from the UTR is also found in

the DR2. Even the definition given by the ND is substantially the same

as that of the DR3.

Gaṇḍa bears a great resemblance with the fourth variety of

Patākāsthānaka discussed by the ND4, (or the third variety given by

1. The ND has followed here the Abhi. II, p. 458.

2. Vide DR, p. 67.

3. ND p. 137 & DR p. 67.

4. ND, pp. 45-46.

112

Bharata1 ). The passage illustrating this fourth variety is quoted from

the MDR, in accordance with the Abhi.2; and curiously enough the SD

quotes the same passage as an example of Patākāsthānaka ( third variety )

as well as Gaṇḍa.3 This may lead us to think that the SD does not

consider that there is any distinction between the two but then the SD

does not clarify it. Abhinava seems to have felt this difficulty earlier

and points out the distinction as follows :

" The Patākāsthānaka serves to fulfil the desired object ( as in the

illustration quoted from the MDR ) but Gaṇḍa has no such purpose

to serve. On the contrary, Gaṇḍa has always some evil implication in it ".

The ND has already clearly brought out this point following the Abhi.

This evil import of Gaṇḍa, it asserts, is suggested by the etymology of

the very word ‘Gaṇḍa’ .

In his article on “The Problem of Patākāsthānaka”,4 Dr. V. M.

Kulkarni brings out another point of difference. He scrutinizes the defini-

tion of Gaṇḍa given by the DR as well as the ND, both of which lay

stress on suddenness of speech5. Thus Gaṇḍa has an element of abruptness.

The ND mentions another variety of Gaṇḍa called Cūlikā Gaṇḍa.

It differs from ordinary Gaṇḍa only in one respect, viz., in Cūlikā Gaṇḍa

the character does not come actually on the stage, but the matter

is suggested by the voice ‘behind the scenes’ ( usually by use of

paranomastic words ).

( iv ) Prapañca :

Prapañca is defined as a humorous conversation ( between two persons )

that is untrue and becomes advantageous to one6. The ND does not comment

upon this definition given in the Kārikā being quite simple and straightway

illustrates it from the Ratnāvalī. When the king and the Vidūṣaka are

engrossed in seeing the portrait of Sāgarikā, Susamaṅgatā approaches and

tells that she knew the whole matter and was going to convey it to

the queen; whereupon the King being alarmed that lest the cat would

1. Vide NS (GOS) XIX, 33.

2. Vide Abhi. III, p. 21.

3. The illustration quoted is from the Veṇi. (Act III) where the word “Bhagna” when

connected with ‘Ūruyugma’ suggests the future event, viz., breaking of the thighs

of Duryodhana by Bhīma, SD, pp. 179, 219.

4. J. U. B. Vol. XXIV, Part 2, p. 92.

5. DR- ‘Sahasoditam’- III 18; ND Akasmāt, p. 137.

6. ND II, 97 cd. Abhinava remarks that Prapañca is so called because it consists of

speaking in a different way ( or manner ) (Anyathābhidhānāt prapañcaḥ)-Abhi. II,

p. 456.

be out of the bag, coaxes her by pointing out that it was simply a

pass-time and should not be told to the queen and then offers her the

ear-ornament1.

The ND gives another view under ‘Kecit’ according to which

Prapañca consists in mutual praise based one noble (!) qualities such as

skill in seducing others’ wives which constitutes, really speaking, a vice

and consequently arouses laughter. The illustration is from the Karpūra-

mañjarī of Rājaśekhara where Bhairavānanda indulges in a similar self-

eulogy. He admires his sect by saying, “ Who does not appreciate this

law of Kaulas where a widow was the lawful spouse, flesh was to be

eaten and liquor drunk, the meals were obtained by begging and bed

was made of leather-piece ?

Clearly enough the view refers to none else but the DR. Even the

illustration is quoted from the DR. It is not easy to say whether the

ND agrees here with the DR.2 The BP literally copies the definition

of the DR and illustrates it from the Nāg. III, I. The verse is in praise

of Baladeva and Cupid.

The ND mentions still a third view which holds that Prapañca

means vain humour accompanied by eulogy which does not bring advantage

to any of the two. The illustration is from Prayogābhyudaya. Here a

maid-servant tries to tease Vidūṣaka who often becomes the laughing

stock of maids by calling him a servant (Ceṭa) whereupon the Vidūṣaka

retorts that he was the lord of the wretched maids (Ghaṭadāsīs ); but

after teasing the Vidūṣaka she tries to pacify him by calling him

‘Bhaṭṭaputra’ and the Vidūṣaka in his turn pacifies her by calling her

Āryā. Thus it becomes ridiculous much more when the maid begins to

praise the intellect of the Vidūṣaka and the latter praises her beauty

by calling her very beautiful, and we are reminded of the popular Sanskrit

maxim “ Aho rūpaṁ. aho dhvanih ”.

It is difficult to decide whose view is referred to here under the

name ‘Anye’. Of course, the view differs from Bharata only in so far as

it does not require that the humorous talk should bring advantage

to any party.

1. RTN, pp. 51-52.

2. The NLR does not recognize this Aṅga and mentions Añcita instead, which occurs

when many senses are introduced or where there are paronomastic words. This is

nothing but Pun or a figure based on Pun. The two illustrations support this, both

of which constitute Upamā based on Śleṣa.

NLR adds a note that some read Prapañca instead of Añcita, The definition is

practically the same as that of the DR.

15

114

Bharata defines this limb as Asadbhūta vacana1 consisting of mutual praise which causes humour and brings advantage to one. Abhinava explains the word ‘Asadbhūta as ‘false’ (Asatya)2. The SD also seems to interpret it similarly3. Dhanika interprets the word as immoral relations with others’ wives etc. (Pāradāryādipunyādi)4.

( v ) Trigata :

Trigata is to find out, from a word or a sentence, a sense which is quite different from what is actually meant. This is because a word can convey a variety of meanings5.

To illustrate the point the ND quotes a very long passage from the Devicandragupta, Act II, where there is an interesting dialogue between the King Rāmagupta and the prince Candragupta disguised as Dhruvadevī6. Here the speech uttered in one sense is taken in a different sense by Dhruvadevī as the words carry double meaning.

Trigata is possible even when one sentence which in the form of a question carries one meaning while the same an account of the similarity of sound when understood in the form of on answer conveys an altogether different meaning. The example quoted is from the Vikram. The King asks the hill - “O, you King of all hills ! Did you see the lovely damsel charming with all limbs, separated from me in this lovely forest ?” The same sentence being echoed by the hill forms the answer, as it were, from the hill - “Oh, you King of all kings ! I have seen the lovely damsel charming with all limbs, separated from you in this lovely forest.”7

Thus one and the same sentence forms the question and the answer as well.

The ND gives a third definition of Trigata. When different senses are conjectured from some word or sound which are ambiguous in character we have Trigata. The ND quotes an illustration from the Vithī called Indulekhā. The King hearing some jingling sound thinks - “Friend, is it the sweet cooing of the royal swans ? Or is it the humming of the bees ? Or is it the jingling sound of the anklet on the foot of the goddess of my heart ?”

1. NS (GOS) XVIII, 120-121.

2. Abhi. Vol. II, p. 456.

3. SD, pp. 217–218.

4. DR, p. 66.

5. ND, p. 141.

6. ND, pp. 141–142.

7. Here the two meanings are available by means of “Kāku.”

115

A rhetorician would immediately exclaim, “This is nothing but the figure Sandeha - ( or Sasandeha )”.

( vi ) Chala :

Chala consists in speech which is uttered with a different purpose and which causes different reactions, such as humour, deceit, anger, etc., to different persons.

The illustration runs as under :

‘ Who is not furious seeing the lower lip of the beloved wounded ?

May you who smelt a lotus with a bee ( inside ) even though prevented now bear the consequences.

This is a speech apparently addressed to a Nāyikā, by her clever friend. The Nāyikā has indulged in an illicit loves-portwith a paramour, and as a result has received a wound on the lip. The clever girl-friend knows this and in order to free the Nāyikā from the suspicious eyes of her husband and others utters this warning note so that the lady may refrain from such rash dalliance and at the same time to assure the husband that the Nāyikā is quite chaste and the wound was caused by a bee as she was smelling a lotus. This ingenious speech serves so many purposes over and above the direct one, viz., it assures the husband of his wife's chastity, arouses laughter among the learned audience, deceives the girl's father-in-law and others, and infuriates the co-wife.

The definition of the ND strictly follows Bharata's NS.1 The illustration too seems to have been borrowed from the Abhinavabhāratī2.

The DR defines it as deceiving a person by the use of the words of seeming courtesy but boding ill.3

( vii ) Asatpralāpa :

Asatpralāpa is beneficial advice in fact but which is not understood to be so by persons who are devoid of judgment and are stupid, on account of their lack of judgment and stupidity. Thus to them the prattle sounds to be bad, and so it is called Asatpralāpa4.

The ND gives one illustration to elucidate Avivekatva and two to explain Maurkhya. The first illustration is from the Rāmābhyudaya, Act II5. There Mārica, in fact, gives a very beneficial piece of advice to Rāvaṇa

1. Cf. NS XVIII, 123 cd.

2. Vide NS (GOS) Vol. 2, p. 457–58.

3. DR III, 17. Also cf. ND VI, 258.

4. ND, pp. 143–144. ND here follows NS XVIII, 119.

5. ND, p. 144.

116

warning him that Rāma ought not to be considered as an ordinary person or a hermit. But Rāvaṇa who is blinded by pride and lacks in judgment on the contrary rebukes him so severely. Thus Rāvaṇa out of lack of judgment does not believe the speech of Mārīca to be beneficial.

Another example based in foolishness is from the Manoramā-vatsarāja of Bhīmaṭa where the spirit of the speech of Rumaṇvat is grasped by Yaugandharāyaṇa but is not understood by Vāsavadattā and Saṁbhramaka, a servant of Yaugandharāyaṇa, on account of their foolishness.

The ND gives still another exemple to illustrate the point. A prince who is addicted to vices asks the minister’s son as to what brings happiness, whereupon the latter replies1, “He alone acquires the abundance of money and pleasure who is always the conquerer of Akṣa (i.e. dice, and also, sense-organs) and is eager for ‘Surāseva’ (i.e., drinking of wine, and also, the worship of Gods )”. There the apparent and pleasant meaning of playing dice and drinking liquor is accepted by the prince on account of folly and the other meaning of conquering one’s sense-organs and worshipping gods which forms good advice is thrown away. Here the two totally different senses arise on account of the use of paronomastic words viz., Akṣa and Surāsevana.

The ND gives another view on this point according to which Asat-pralāpa means ‘irrelevant prattling of a child or an anxious man ( Utkaṇṭhita ) etc.’ That this view is held by the DR is clear from its definition along with the commentary on it2. Even the illustration is from the DR itself3. “May the speech of Kārtikeya, viz., one, three, nine, eight, seven, etc., which maintains no order due to childhood bring you welfare”. Another illustration is from the Raghuvilāsa where Rāma separated from Sītā addresses ( like an insane person ) a deer and a parrot. The DR quotes a similar illustration from the Vikramorvaśīya where Purūravā, separated from Urvaśī, goes on addressing birds etc. in the same way.

The SD seems to synthesize both the views when it mentions three types of Asatpralāpa : ( i ) irrelevant speech, ( ii ) irrelevant answer and ( iii ) benevolent advice to a fool who is not going to accept it. ( viii ) Vākkelī

Vākkelī, as the very name suggests, consists in play on words.

1. This illustration is borrowed from the Abhi. Vol. II, p. 456.

2. Cf. DR III, 20 ab.

3. DR, p. 68.

Vakkelī is of two types: (i) a single reply to one or two or many

questions or (ii) a humorous and witty dialogue.

(i) This is a sort of riddle or Prahelikā where the answer is

contained in the verse itself. Here one or more questions have only one

answer; e. g.,

"How do the rivers appear after the monsoon has passed away ?

Who should be perfectly conquered internally and externally as well

by a wise or virtuous man ? (The answer is) 'Arayah' "1 which has

two meanings : (a) devoid of speed i. e. slow and (b) enemies.

Here there is only one answer to two questions.

(ii) Here there is a series of questions and clever answers. The

ND quotes a famous verse as an illustration :

"Who is at the door ?"

"I am Hari." [(i) Kṛṣṇa (ii) monkey]

"What has a monkey to do here ?"

"I am Kṛṣṇa" [(i) Kṛṣṇa (ii) black]

"Oh then I excessively dread a black (Kṛṣṇa) monkey."

"Oh simple one, I am Madhusūdana." [(i) Kṛṣṇa (ii) sucker of

honey i. e. a bee]

"Go then to a tender creeper full of honey."

May Hari who is thus silenced by his beloved protect you.

The DR holds a different view. According to it Vākkelī consists in

interruption of a sentence (leaving the sense incomplete). The ND mentions

this view of the DR under the usual phrase 'Kecit'2 and quotes the

illustration given by the DR. The illustration is from the UTR where

Vasantī refrains from her speech.3

A student of the Alamkāraśāstra will easily see that this is nothing

but the figure "Ākṣepa".

Another type of Vākkelī, according to the DR, is a humorous dialogue4.

The illustration is from the RTN5 where the Vidūṣaka makes pun on the

word 'Khaṇḍa' taking it as 'sugar.'

1. This illustration is found in the Abhi. Vol. II, p. 456. The Abhi. merely quotes this

verse but does not explain. The ND explains it a little and so the point becomes

quite clear.

2. ND, p. 146.

3. UTR III, 26.

4. DR III, 17; also cf. SD VI, 259.

5. RTN, p. 16.

118

This variety is the same as the second variety of Vākkelī mentioned

by the ND. The above illustration of the DR is also very similar to

that of the ND ( second variety ).

( ix ) Nālikā :

Nālikā may be defined as ' a deceitful answer concealing the real

sense which causes humour '1. The ND illustrates from the Ratnāvalī

where Susaṅgatā makes fun of Sāgarikā by saying, " Here is the object

for whom you have come " and when asked as to for whom she had

come, her reply is not 'the King' which is the true and intended one

but ' the picture-board '2. Thus the latter is silenced.

The ND mentions a view of others ( Kecit ) who take Nālikā as an

enigmatic answer to a question concealing the (real) sense under

joking words.

This view is not different from that of the DR which defines it in

almost identical words.3 But the illustration of the DR is from the MDR4

where the riddle arises out of pun on the word " Candra " ( which means

the ' moon ' as well as King Candragupta). Moreover the DR obviously

seems to follow the NS which considers Nālikā to be a Prahelikā5." But

Abhi. while explaining the definition given by the NS takes the word

' Prahelikā ' not in its ordinary sense, viz., a riddle but as a 'highly

jocular speech ' which is the etymological sense of the word6.

In fact, there is not much of distinction between the two views.

According to both Nālikā contains an element of humour and is likely

to deceive others as the real sense is concealed. The only difference is

that in the latter view the enigmatic nature of Nālikā is emphasized,

while in the former view, ( i. e. of the ND ) it is simply for humour.

That is why probably the authors of the ND have quoted the same

illustration from the RTN to illustrate the Sandyaṅga Narma also which

is defined as " Kriḍāyai hasanam "7.

( x ) Mṛdava :

' When merits are turned into demerits and vice versa it is called

Mṛdava '. The word ' Mṛdava ' consists of two words ' Mṛd ' to destroy,

to refute + ' Av ' to protect or to support. Mṛdava is so called because

1. Here the ND has clearly followed the Abhi.

2. RTN, p. 50. The same illustration is quoted by Abhi. also.

3. Vide DR III, 19 cd.

4. DR, p. 68.

5. NS (GOS) XVIII, 118.

6. Prakarṣeṇa helikā narmādikṛdārūpaṁ yasyāḥ sā prahelikā. Abhi. II, p. 455.

7. ND, p. 74.

there the view of the opposite party is refuted ( Mṛd ) and one's own

view or proposition is maintained and supported ( Av )1. Thus Mṛdava

is of two types : ( i ) where merit is represented as fault and ( ii ) where

fault is represented as merit. The first variety is illustrated from the

Veniśambāra ( II, 25 ), where Duryodhana derides Arjuna, the wielder of

the Gāṇḍīva bow, who kept mum when Pāñcālī was shamelessly pulled by

Duhśāsana in the presence of all kings.

Here the merits viz., holding a bow etc., are represented as fault.

The ND illustrates this variety further from two of Rāmacandra's works,

the Nalavilāsa2 and the Sudhākalaśa3.

( ii ) Where fault is represented as merit, e. g., in the NLV the

hero says -

" How is it possible that all would have lovely damsels in their

houses ? A just king punishes a person who seduces others' wives. Cupid

commands even Prajāpati. Where would a man tormented by passion go

if there were no harlots ? "4

Here prostitution which is a vice is represented as a virtue and a

social necessity.

The ND illustrates also from the Sudhākalaśa wherein too being

virtueless which is a fault is represented as a merit5.

A third variety is possible by a combination of the earlier two

varieties i. e. a merit is represented as a fault simultaneously with a

fault being represented as a merit. The illustration is found in the next

verse6. Here goodness which is a virtue is represented as a fault and

ordinariness which is a fault is represented otherwise7. It may be noted

here that this very Vithyaṅga develops into a figure of sense called

Vyājastuti which consists in apparent praise or censure while the purport

is quite otherwise, by representing fault as merit and vice versa8.

( xi ) Udghātyaka :

Udghātyaka consists in a dialogue in the form of questions and

1. ND follows Abhi. in giving this etymological explanation. Cf. Abhi. (GOS) Vol. II,

p. 457.

2. NLV III, 26.

3. ND, p. 148.

4. NLV III, 13.

5. ND, p. 148.

6. ND, p. 149 (lines 1 to 6).

7. The very illustration is found in DR too: vide DR, p. 69.

8. Cf. Definition by Mammata : Vyājastutih mukhe nindā stutir vā rūḍhir anyathā

-KP X, 26.

120

answers in explanation of something not easily understood1.

Here even though the person who puts the question is, in fact,

capable of giving the same answer still he asks in order to verify as to

what he thinks is correct or not.

The illustration is from the prologue of the Pāṇḍavānanda where

there is a dialogue between the stage-manager and the actor2.

"What is an ornament of the brave?"

"Forbearance."

"What is an insult?"

"Which is given by one's own kinsmen."

"What is misery?"

"Dependence upon others."

"Who is to be admired in this world?"

"The person who is resorted to by others."

"What is death?"

"Misfortune."

"Who are not unhappy?"

"Those who have conquered their enemies."

"Who know this well?"

"Pāṇḍavas who live in disguise in the city of Virāṭa."3

The NS defines this ‘Aṅga’ as under :

‘If in order to explain them men connect words of obscure meaning

with words other than ( those intended by the speaker ) it becomes

Accidental Interpretation (Udghātyaka)’.4 The ND has verbally followed

the definition of Bharata. The DR gives two varieties of Udghātyaka:-

(i) Gūḍhārthapadaparyāyamālā (ii) Praśnottaramālā5. The ND seems to

have ignored this first variety of the DR.

(xii) Avalagita :

(i) Avalagita occurs when a desired object is obtained under the

pretext of doing something else. It is so called because one clings to

1. The ND appears to have followed Abhi. here.

2. Vide ND p. 149. This example is probably borrowed by the ND from Abhinava, Cf.

Abhi. Vol. II, p. 454. The same example is found in the DR too. Cf. DR, p. 65.

3. It will easily be seen that this is the second variety of the figure "Uttara."

4. M. Ghosh ; Nāṭyaśāstra, p. 374.

5. DR III, 13.

another work for accomplishing a particular one ( ava + lag = to cling to ),

e.g., in the UTR Sītā who had a pregnancy-desire to go to the forest

for pleasure was abandoned in the forest through the fear of public

scandal under the pretext of satisfying her pregnancy-desire1.

( ii ) The ND mentions the view of ‘some’ who define it as doing

some other work having entrusted one’s own work to some other character2.

The illustration is cited from the prologue of the Kṛtyārāvana where the

stage-manager being fed up with his profession of acting decides to

work for the welfare in the other world having entrusted his present

job to his wife and others3.

( iii ) There is still another view which the ND mentions under

" Apare ". According to this view Avalagita occurs when some work is

automatically accomplished while some other is actually started. The

point is illustrated from the Chalitarāma. When Rāma, while entering

Ayodhyā, descends from the areal car thinking that it was not proper for

him to enter Ayodhyā devoid of his father, in car and as he alights from

the car he happens to see a person with matted hair and rosary of Akṣa

and a chowry in the hand, standing before the pair of sandles under the

throne, who is none else than Bharata. Thus another action, viz., the

meeting with Bharata has been accomplished automatically while descend-

ing for another reason4.

The DR5 divides this Aṅga into two – (i) where another action is

accomplished being included in one. (ii) when one is started ( or is

relevent ), another is accomplished.

The first variety of the DR corresponds to the view of the ND ( 1st

view ); even the illustrations are common. The second variety of the DR

also corresponds to the third view of “Kecit” mentioned by the ND.

The illustrations also are the same in both6.

Udghātyaka and Avalagita seem to form a pair. The NS considers

these two as two of the five divisions of Āmukha or Prastāvanā7. Of

course all the Vīthyaṅgas have their importance in a Prologue as both the

NS as well as the DR ascertain the necessity of their use in the Prologue8.

1. ND, p. 149.

2. The view evidently belongs to the SP (MS) p, 185.

3. ND, p. 150.

4. The view is held by the DR,

5. DR III, 14.

6. DR, p. 66, ND, p. 150.

7. NS (GOS) XX, 33.

8. NS (GOS) XX, 31 and DR III, 8-9.

16

122

Still the NS gives a special importance to these two by considering them as types of Prastāvanā.

It will be noted that the illustrations quoted by the ND for explaining this pair are from the prologues of the dramas while it is not so in the case of the rest of the Vithyaṅgas.

( xiii ) Avaspandita :

When a particular thing which is uttered only for description or so suggests some other sense, it is called Avaspandita ( The root is √ Spand with Ava (to throb), so called because it suggests some internal sense like the throbbing of eyes, etc., e.g.,

The Dhārtarāṣṭras ( i.e. the swans) having charming wings, who deck the quarters ( as they fly along ), whose activities are wild through joy descend on the earth on account of the particular season1.

Here the description of swans at the time of autumn is taken in a different sense altogether ( by the actor ) foreshadowing grave misfortune of Kauravas, the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra.

There is another illustration from Chalitarāma2.

In the first illustration the second meaning is provided by Abhidhā-mūlā Vyañjanā.

The second example appears to constitute Vyājokti. Here Sītā tries to conceal the fact ( by modifying the statement a little ) which has been revealed unconsciously.

These thirteen Vithyaṅgas are to be used in all plays and in all Sandhis. They can be introduced also in the Prologue. This is why they are treated differently from Sandhyaṅgas3.

The above remark suggests that essentially there is little distinction between Sandhyaṅgas and Vithyaṅgas so far as the nature of both is concerned. Hence the purpose of both of them is also the same. The ND, therefore, does not treat separately the purpose of the Vithyaṅgas but takes it as understood in the six-fold purpose of Sandyaṅgas mentioned earlier4.

1. Veṇī. I, 6.

2. Here Sītā advises Lava and Kuśa to go to the King (Rāma) and greet him with modesty. Lava asks the reason for it, whereupon the truth escapes Sītā’s lips, viz., he was the father of them both, but soon she corrects this slip by saying, “He is not your father only but he is the father of all his people.”

3. ND, p. 151, lines 7–9.

4. Vide ND, p. 115.

Critical Remarks :

It is clear from the earlier discussion of Vīthī and the examination of its definition as given by the ND and others, that the chief purpose of Vīthī is to provide a drama full of witty speeches. It has only one or two characters only. Thus we can imagine that it cannot emphasize the elements of drama such as action, forceful dialogues, deep sentiments etc. This will almost be a monologue just as Bhāṇa is. Thus the chief Vṛtti will be Bhāratī only, and the Vīthyaṅgas which are based on strikingness of speech will have a very important place in this type of drama.

It has been already stated that the Vīthyaṅgas are not to be taken as the limbs of Vīthī only. Like the Sandhyaṅgas which too should not be taken as limbs of a particular Sandhi, they can be employed in any type of Rūpaka. The reason why they are called the limbs of Vīthī is simply this that they are predominantly found in Vīthī1. Vīthī, as the name suggests, centres round such crooked striking speeches only and so the Vīthyaṅgas become a part and parcel of it. For other Rūpakas such speeches are welcome but they are not all in all ( as in Vīthī ); and that is why the ND points out that Vīthī is helpful to all other Rūpakas.

Unlike the Sandhyaṅgas, the Vīthyaṅgas can be employed in Prastā-vanā also. Bharata admits of only two of the Vīthyaṅgas in the prologue, but the DR improves upon the NS by pointing out that any of the Vīthyaṅgas can occur in Prastāvanā. Prastāvanā being the opening scene of the play should be made as interesting and captivating as the playwright can. “ Well begun is half done ”. The first impression is often the last impression. It has, therefore, been ordained that Prastāvanā should consist of witty and interesting speeches2.

The Vīthyaṅgas can be supposed to have something common with the Alamkāras. The Vīthyaṅgas are based on Vakrokti or indirect speech3. The root of all the figures of speech is also nothing but an indirect striking way of representing simple things4. Thus Vakrokti is the root of both Vīthyaṅgas as well as Alamkāras. Moreover, it will be seen that some of the Vīthyaṅgas are very similar to the figures, e. g., Mṛdava which is representation of virtue as vice and vice versa5 is as good as

1. Cf. Prādhānyena vyapadeśal bhavati. Similar is the case with many of the Sandhyaṅgas which though incorporated in a particular Sandhi can occur in other Sandhis as well.

2. Citraih Vākyaih.............................. - SD VI, 32.

3. Vakroktimārgeṇa gamanāt vīthīva vīthī - ND, p. 132.

4. Cf. KP-Saiṣā sarvatra vakroktiḥ anayā arthaḥ vibhāvyate...etc. p 744.

5 Vyatyayo guṇadoṣayoḥ - ND, p. 147.

124

Vyājastuti Alamkāra1. Similarly Vākkelī which is defined ( by some ) as 'refraining from saying a thing desired to be said ' is in no way different from the figure Ākṣepa2. Moreover, Trigata which is defined by some as “ applying different senses to a word or sound on accout of similarity or semblance ” often turns into the figure Sandeha which is clear from the illustration itself as given by the ND.3 The illustration of Vākkelī also which is defined as humorous discourse ( questions and answers ) resembles Prahelikā4.

The illustration of Udghātyaka too which is defined as secret parlance between the two cannot but remind us of the figure Uttara5.

Avalagita is also near to the figure Samādhi ( when one object is accomplished by another cause ) or Viśeṣa when the limb is explained as ' accomplishment of an object automatically when another task has been undertaken.' The definition of Avaspandita is almost the same as that of Vakrokti given by the SD6. It is also very much similar to Chekā-panutī, in so far as both consist in clever concealment of what has been unknowingly given out.

Thus it will be clearly perceived that the Vīthyāṅgas bear a considerable resemblance with some of the later Alamkāras. It is very likely that some of these Vīthyāṅgas themselves might have later on developed into figures of speech.

They can be said to contain early seeds for certain figures of speech.

But apart from this, there is some distinction between the Alamkāras and Vīthyāṅgas. Vīthyāṅgas are of the nature of question and answer ( or a witty dialogue ) while the Alamkāras consist of striking speech only. Similarly, some of the Vīthyāṅgas may resemble some of the Sandhyāṅgas in the outward form. But here too the two are to be distinguished from each other as the latter are meant to help the plot primarily, they being in fact, the divisions of the plot.

1. For definition read KP, X, 26.

2. For definition read KP, X, 20-21.

3. Kim nu kalahamsanādo madhuro madhupāyinām nu jhaṅkāraḥ...etc . ND, p. 143.

4. Nadinām meghavigame kā śobhā pratibhāsate; Bāhyāntarā vijetavyā ke nāma kṛtinā rayah—ND, p. 143.

5. Vide ND, p. 149.

6. SD X, 9.

CHAPTER III

VṚTTI, RASA, BHĀVA AND ABHINAYA

Vṛtti1 :

In chapter III of the ND the authors take up some of the topics

which are vitally connected with poetry, such as Vṛtti, Rasa, Bhāva,

and Abhinaya. The chapter commences with the discussion of Vṛtti.

The authors, at the outset, explain the term Vṛtti as "activity

with a view to obtaining a cherished end".2 Vṛttis are reckoned to be

the "Mothers of Drama"3. Action is the soul of drama. It is through

action that plot develops. In the absence of action the drama would

come to a stand-still. Thus Vṛttis are rightly called the mothers - the

birth-place - of drama. The Vṛttis are not independent but are inter-

related and intimately associated with the sentiment (Rasa), Bhāva,

and Abhinaya, as action is always in keeping with the sentiment or

emotion to be conveyed.

Activity can theoretically be divided into physical, verbal and

mental4. But all these three types of activities cannot be separated from

one another since they are so much interrelated. Physical activity is

inevitably blended with vocal and mental ones. Thinking too is mental

speaking, in the sense that though we do not speak loudly, in mind we

do utter the words which imply a particular thought. We have to think

always when and before we act. Similarly mental and verbal activities

are dependent on physical one. When one speaks, one has to take

assistance of the vocal organs of the body, viz., tongue, palate, etc.

Mind too can work only when the body in the form of breath etc.,

functions properly.

Thus the authors of the ND point out that these activities are

interrelated. One of these activities is more prominent and the others

are subservient to it. And that is how the division into the four types

of Vṛttis takes place, based on the prominance of one over the other.

1. This topic has been elaborately discussed by Dr. Raghavan in his learned paper on

'Vṛtti'. The present treatment is based chiefly on what the ND has stated about

the same.

2. Puruṣārthasādhako vicitro vyāpāro vṛttiḥ. ND, p. 154.

3. Vide ND III, 103.

4. Abhi. (III, pp. 20-21) declares that Bhāratī indicates verbal activity; Sāttvatī

refers to the mental and Ārabhaṭī to physical one. Whatever is graceful is Kaiśikī.

The word Vṛtti ls variously explained by different scholars. It can be derived

from the root 'vṛt' to be. Thus Vṛtti means "a state of being". It is also used

in the popular language in the sense of mental state or disposition. Cf. SK II, 34.

126

In fact there is only one Vṛtti comprising of so many activities. So Vṛttis are rightly called "Mothers of Drama". They are equally important even in other forms of literature.

The Vṛttis are divided into four types : Bhāratī, Sāttvatī, Kaiśikī and Ārabhaṭī. The ND describes the nature of each of these in their order :

(1) BHĀRATĪ-

In the Kārikā No. 104 the authors of the ND describe the nature of Bhāratī from which the following points may be easily deduced :

(a) It is primarily connected with speech1.

(b) It can be introduced in all types of drama.

(c) It specially occupies Āmukha and Prarocanā.

(d) Generally speaking it is in Sanskrit and can represent all types of Rasas. Sometimes it can be used in Prakrit also.

(e) Other Vṛttis namely Sāttvatī, Kaiśikī and Ārabhaṭī have gesticulation i. e. Abhinaya as the most important element, while Bhāratī is essentially verbal i. e. related to speech only. Verbal gesticulation will be Sāttvatī.

The authors of the ND here rightly criticize Bharata. Bharata’s definition (NS XXII, 25) is open to criticism. Bharata divides the eight Rasas among the four Vṛttis and points out that Bhāratī represents Bibhatsa and Karuṇa sentiments. The authors of the ND differ on this point and propound that Bhāratī can represent or convey any sentiment. Bhāratī refers to speech and all the dramas and sentiments are primarily concerned with speech. So the restriction which Bharata has imposed upon Bhāratī cannot be literally accepted. The DR seems to have understood this difficulty earlier and hence declares that Bhāratī Vṛtti is present everywhere2.

The ND finds out another contradiction in the NS. The NS restricts

1. The word Bhāratī literally means language or speech. The ND does not try to give any further etymology of the word. Clearly enough Bhāratī can be associated with Bharata and will mean "of or belonging to Bharata". It is so called because it is invented by sage Bharata or it is the Vṛtti of the actors (Bharatas). Bharata himself gives this etymology. Vide NS (KM) XX, 25.

Bharata gives another rather strange derivation of Bhāratī from Bhāra. While giving the mythological origin of Vṛttis at the time of a combat between Viṣṇu and the demons, the earth felt the burden (bhāra) and thus Bhāratī was created (NS XX, 11). Abhinava has rightly remarked that this etymology is based solely on the basis of similarity of sound. Bharata might have been misled here by Yāska, the author of Nirukta, who allows a word to be derived even on such verbal similarity.

2. Vṛttilḥ sarvatra bhāratī.....DR II, 62.

Bhāratī to Bibhatsa and Karuṇa1 only but while discussing its nature Bharata points out that it can be introduced in Vīthī which has all the sentiments in it and Prahasana which is dominated by the sentiment of laughter ( Hāsya ). It can also come in Bhāṇa which has love or heroic as the principal sentiment. In fact, Vīthī and Prahasana are considered to be the two of the Aṅgas of Bhāratī.

Here the attack is not specified against any special work but it appears to be directed specially against the NS The ND also disagrees with the NS and points out that Bhāratī can be introduced in any of the twelve types of drama.

Āmukha2

Bhāratī is specially found in Āmukha and Prarocanā. Āmukha is the introductory dialogue between the Sūtradhāra and his wife Naṭī or Vidūṣaka or other actors. They introduce the subject-matter, the title of the drama and the dramatist to the audience and eulogize them. Here no special sentiment is to be conveyed. The actual drama starts after Āmukha is over. Here no special Abhinaya ( except Vācika ) is essential. It is really the speech that dominates here. Āmukha is expected to suggest the relevant matter by simple or striking speeches. The speeches can be rendered striking by introducing any of the thirteen Vithyaṅgas.

Sūtradhāra is at times replaced by Sthāpaka.

The definition of Āmukha given by the ND seems to echo the NS3. The ND brings out the same thing in a compact form. It includes in one verse what Bharata states in two verses. The ND has taken care to see that no point is missed. The ND uses the word ‘ Mārṣa ’ instead of ‘ Pāripārśvika ’ of Bharata and explains the word in the commentary as Pāripārśvika.

The ND explains the word ‘Āmukha’ in two ways from the point of view of etymology –

(1) The word Āmukha can be split up into two parts : Ā and Mukha.

1. Association of Bhāratī with Karuṇa can easily be understood. Karuṇa which chiefly consists of lamentation is replete with pathetic utterances and does not approve of much of physical action but it is difficult to understand Bhāratī’s special association with Bibhatsa. Moreover, other Rasas like Adbhuta, Śānta, etc. are also related to speech. Dr. Raghavan has correctly pointed out that Bhāratī cannot be limited to prologue or a particular sentiment only. No drama can stand without it ( J. O. R. Vol. VI, part IV, pp. 367-68 ).

2. It is also known as Prastāvanā or Sthāpanā.

3. Cf. NS XX, 30-31.

128

'Ā' is a prefix in the sense of 'upto' denoting 'limit'1. Āmukha therefore will mean "Upto Mukha". It is so called because it spreads upto the beginning of Mukha Sandhi. Āmukha ends where Mukha commences.

(2) 'Ā' can also be interpreted as 'slight.'2 Āmukha is 'slightly Mukha' i.e. it suggests Mukha. Āmukha should suggest the Mukha Sandhi or plot. It gives background of the story which is very essential to understand and appreciate the story fully. It also introduces to the reader or spectator the nature of Mukha with which the play starts. It is called Prastāvanā because it introduces Mukha.

Āmukha starts at the end of Pūrvaranga. The authors of the ND point out that in the stage-direction "Nāndyante tataḥ praviśati sūtradhāraḥ", the word Nāndī stands for the whole of Pūrvaranga3.

Authors now treat the problem as to how the characters of the drama should enter the stage at the end of Āmukha. The rules of dramaturgy demand that a main character should not enter abruptly without any introduction. So Sūtradhāra or Sthāpaka should directly or indirectly announce the entry of a character. The following are the devices which may be resorted to in order to make the entry of a character natural and dramatic :

(1) The character enters, having caught the words (either a word, or a phrase or a sentence) uttered by the stage-manager or others, as it happens in the RTN where Yaugandharāyaṇa enters having caught the actual words of the stage-manager, viz., "Propitious fate brings at once the desired object even from a different isle....." etc.4

(2) The last words of the stage-manager or other actors are heard by the character which enters. The character catches the sense which becomes the cause for his introduction on the stage, e.g., the entry of Bhīma in the Veṇī. with the words, "Can the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra remain at peace when I am alive?" by catching the sense of the stage-manager's speech.

(3) By reference to time or season. The character is mentioned in comparison to some season by the stage-director. The ND (also the DR and the ND) illustrates from the Chalitarāma where the stage-manager,

1. The same explanation is found in Abhi. in a similar language. Vide Abhi. III, p. 93 line 2.

2. Vide Amarakośa, p. 272.

3. In English this is known as a figure of speech called Metonymy i.e. a part for the whole.

4. Vide RTN I, 6.

as he describes the autumn season, impliedly heralds the entrance of Rāma

on the stage. The description of autumn brings in a reference to Rāma wh

o destroys Rāvaṇa as autumn destroys ( i. e. supersedes ) the rainy season.

(4) By personal reference to the character. In order to connect drama

and its Āmukha the character is actually mentioned by name by the

stage-manager with the words : "Here is Mr. so and so, etc." The

Āmukha of the Śāk. is of this type.

Critical Observations :

Here the ND seems to have improved upon the earlier divisions of

Āmukha. To begin with, Bharata divides Āmukha into five types : (i)

Udghātyaka, (ii) Kathodghāta, (iii) Prayogātiśaya, (iv) Pravṛttaka and ( v )

Avalagita'. It can easily be seen here that Udghātyaka and Avalagita are

in fact two of the Vīthyaṅgas and it is not clear why they should be taken

as the limbs of the Āmukha also. The NS points out in this context that

the Vīthyaṅgas may be used in Āmukha². So it is but natural that

Vīthyaṅgas may be introduced in the prologue so as to render it strik-

ing and fascinating. But it is no use considering them as special types

or limbs of prologue. Moreover, it is rather queer as to why only two of

the thirteen Vīthyaṅgas are selected and reckoned as the types of Āmukha.

The DR seems to have thought about this problem and consequently

omits these two and gives us only three of the five types of Āmukha given

by the NS, viz. Kathodghāta, Pravṛttaka and Prayogātiśaya. The DR,

however, observes that any of the thirteen Vīthyaṅgas can occur in Āmukha.

But the ND goes a step further than the DR. Is it necessary to

have this type of division of Āmukha or prologue at all ? In fact, the

types of Āmukha do not reveal the true inherent nature of Āmukha.

These types are based merely on the problem as to how the main character

may be introduced on the stage for the first time.

Āmukha, in fact, has many more purposes to serve, viz., introduc-

tion of the play, its subject-matter, name (and brief history, if the

author feels like giving ) of the playwright, the praise of the learned

audience, etc. The introduction of a character forms the end of Āmukha

which should be well connected with the drama proper, otherwise

Āmukha would appear to be quite segregated. This is, in other words,

one of the purposes but not the sole nature of Āmukha.

The ND therefore thinks that this type of classification is of little

use, and treats it as the method of introducing a character, which, of

course, forms an essential part of Āmukha (Āmukhaṅgabhūta ).

1. Vide NS (GOS) XX, 33.

2. Vide NS (GOS) XX, 31.

17

130

Out of the above-mentioned devices for the entry of a character the first two are what Bharata calls Kathodghāta type of Āmukha1. The instance cited by the ND to illustrate the entry of the character having caught the sense (Artha) of the words uttered in Āmukha is also the same as the one of the DR for Kathodghāta. No. 3 is the same as Pravṛttaka of the NS and the DR. The illustrations also are common in the ND and the DR. No. 4 is identical with Pravogātiśaya type of the NS and the DR. Both the DR and the ND give the same illustration from the Śak.

Another reason for the above-mentioned change of the ND may be ascribed to the authors' keenness for simplicity. The authors aim at making the work as simple as possible and avoid unnecessary divisions. The ND introduces new technical words only when it is indispensable to do so.

What is more noteworthy here is that the ND does not follow the traditionnl divisions and subdivisions. All the Sanskrit dramaturgists have followed Bharata in this case with the exception of the ND which refuses to accept any authority blindly.

PRAROCANĀ :

Prarocanā is defined as a means of attracting the audience by praising the merits (of the poet, the work and the audience).

The Pūrvaraṅga consists of preliminaries on the stage before the actual drama begins. This is divided into 19 parts : nine to be performed inside the curtain and the remaining ten to be performed outside the curtain. The performance of these has been ordained by the old preceptors. But the authors of the ND neglect it, advancing the following reasons :

(1) They are quite self-evident among the masses.

(2) The order of their performance is futile.

(3) Their purpose viz., gratification of the various gods is merely deceiving the credulous people.

The Prarocanā, though a part of Pūrvaraṅga, in defined here as it has a special importance in Nāṭya.

Now the authors give the reason as to why it is so called. Prarocanā is so called because it makes the particular subject-matter highly agreeable,2 by arousing eagerness to see and hear among the audience by praising the merits of the play. The authors then illustrate it from the prologues of the Abhinava-rāghava, the RV and the NLV.

1. Bharata's NS (GOS Vol. III) XX, 35.

2. Prakṛto 'rthaḥ prakarṣeṇa rocyate...anayeti prarocanā,-ND, p. 155.

The nineteen Aṅgas of Pūrvaraṅga are given in the N.S. Prarocanā is the last of these 19 Aṅgas. The ND refuses to accept the remaining ones taking them to be useless and redundant. It also severely criticizes the whole of Pūrvaraṅga describing it to be meant for deceiving the innocent votaries.

Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra state that Prarocanā is a part of Pūrvaraṅga ceremony. But, in fact, the illustration that is given is from Prastāvanā or Āmukha. Here the authors seem to confuse the two Prarocanās - one of Pūrvaraṅga and the other of Āmukha.

From this it may be inferred that in the times of the ND, the distinction between the Prarocanā of Pūrvaraṅga and that of Āmukha ( i. e. of the poet ) was lost and in fact the long procedure of Pūrvaraṅga was being curtailed.

SĀTVATĪ :

Sātvatī is that Vṛtti which is born in Sattva i. e. mind. It pertains to the mental activity which should be revealed by mental, verbal and physical gesticulations. Although there are all the three types of gesticulations, mental one alone is principal, other two being subordinate. It must have simplicity, joy, insult or humiliation, forbearance, etc. Its principal sentiments must be Vīra, Raudra, and Sānta. As it constitutes joy it has no Karuṇa. It also includes forbearance and so no Autsukya or Śṛṅgāra. It also includes Adbhuta.

The etymological explanation of Sātvatī is in accordance with the Abhi. (Vol. III, p. 96). The explanation of the word Ādharṣa too is identical with that of the Abhi. (III, p. 97).

It is rather strange that the ND does not give a single instance of this Vṛtti, especially when it illustrates all the rest. The Abhi. illustrates it from the Veṇī1.

The NS (and the DR following the NS ) divides the Sātvatī Vṛtti into four subdivisions : Utthāpaka, Parivartaka, Sallāpaka and Saṅghātya. This division is not so essential and points only to the ancient Hindu mentality which is so fond of giving divisions and subdivisions. The ND with its particuliar bent for simplicity avoids this without any loss of essential information.

But it is difficult to understand as to why only two Rasas-Vīra and Adbhuta-should be included in this Vṛtti. It may also be suggested that Satva may be taken here to mean ‘spirit’. Sātvatī therefore is to be employed when spirited action has to be represented.

1. Vide Abhi, III, pp. 97-99.

132

KAISIKI :

Etymologically the word means that which is dominated by or chiefly concerned with Kaisikās i. e. women, who are naturally possessed of long hair1. The chief sentiments are love and humour. On account of the preponderance of these two sentiments the dress should be appropriate to this sentiment and amorous gestures. It must also have dramatic elements such as dance, music and Narma ( which consists in humour, refined mocking in order to attract the beloved by speech, refined action or dress2. )

The ND illustrates each variety, viz., how humour can be created by speech, garment and action. It gives illustrations to explain each of these three kinds of Narma, viz., by speech, dress and action. All these illustrations are borrowed from the DR. Over and above these identical illustrations, the definition of Narma as given by the ND is almost the same as that of the DR.

The authors have put in a concise form what the NS describes in so many words. The NS, for instance, says ‘Bahumṛttagītā’, for which the ND puts one word only and that is Nāṭya and explains the word Nāṭya in the commentary as Nṛtta, Gīta and Vāditra. Thus the ND gives in only one line all necessary elements of the particular Vṛtti. Bharata’s Kārikās are explanatory, hardly concise. The ND tries to make its Kārikās as brief, pointed and perfect as possible.

The NS3 divides the Kaiśiki into four – Narma, Narmasfun̄ja, Narmas-foṭa and Narmagarbha and explains each. The DR follows the NS but the ND ignores these divisions.

Here too all the three types of activities are present. Śṛṅgāra which means love, signifies mental activity. Hāsya and other forms of Narma suggest vocal activity, and Nāṭya (i. e., dance, music etc.) signifies physical activity.

ĀRABHAṬI :

The Abhi. explains this as follows - Where the qualities of Ārabhaṭas, viz., fury, violence, insolence, wildness, etc. dominate, the Vṛtti is known

1. This etymology seems to have been suggested by Abhinava who derives it from Keśa, i. e. hair which are meant chiefly for decoration. The word is similarly derived by many later scholars. It is possible that Bharata's explanation of Kaiśiki being born out of graceful movement of Viṣṇu's hands while trying to tie the dishevelled locks of hair might have suggested the etymology mentioned above. Dr. Raghavan ridicules this etymology and suggests that it should be derived from Krathakaiśika or Kaiśika, the capital of Vidarbha.

2. Agrāmya iṣṭāvarjanarūpaḥ parihāsaḥ narma - DR, p. 57. Narma is a Sandhyaṅga also.

3. Cf. NS XX, 56 to 62.

as Ārabhaṭī. The ND clarifies it still further by explaining the word

Ārabhaṭī : " Which abounds in Ārabhaṭa i. e. arrogant people "1.

This Vṛtti portrays untruth, fraud, magic. There are also battles

with missiles, duals, etc.

There are all types of Abhinayas and all types of activities. Abhinava

calls it a Kāyavṛtti probably because it is a Vṛtti of force and violence

which indicates physical activity.

It is possessed of Dīptarasas i. e. Raudra, Bibhatsa etc.

It is opposed to Kaiśikī which indicates grace and tenderness.

Critical Observations :

The authors of the ND choose their illustrations as usual from Abhinava.

The illustrations from the Veṇī. and the RBh are mentioned by the

Ābhi. ( Vol. III, p. 104 lines 1–2 ). The illustration from the KTR has

also been verbally borrowed from the Abhi. by our authors ( Abhi. Vol.

III, p. 104 lines 11. tu 14.).

The authors here ordain Dīptarasas i. e. Raudra and Vīra especially.

Now Vīra is the dominant sentiment of Sāttvatī also. This is really confus-

ing. The characteristics are overlapping and so the definitions are defective.

The NS also is not clear about this point. The NS makes the division

of sentiments into four groups, each comprising of two Rasas. Thus,

Kaiśikī has Śṛṅgāra and Hāsya. Sāttvatī has Vīra and Adbhuta. Ārabhaṭī

has Raudra and Bhayānaka. Bhāratī has Bibhatsa and Karuṇa2.

But here too there is a good deal of apparent inconsistency. Bharata

while discussing Rasas3 points out that out of the eight sentiments four are

principal and other four are derived from these principal four. Accordingly

Śṛṅgāra, Vīra, Raudra and Bibhatsa are the principal Rasas out of which

are born Hāsya, Adbhuta, Karuṇa and Bhayānaka respectively. So

naturally we expect that these subordinate sentiments should be connected

with their respective principal ones. This is seen in the first two viz.

Kaiśikī and Sāttvatī, where Śṛṅgāra and Vīra are associated with Hāsya and

Adbhuta respectively. But when we come to Ārabhaṭī it is associated with

Raudra and Bhayānaka which is a subordinate Rasa to Bibhatsa according to

Bharata himself. Similarly Bibhatsa and Karuṇa are mixed in Bhāratī

when Karuṇa is connected with Raudra. Though it is true that this

division of Bharata regarding Rasas being principal and subordinate is

1. Ārena pratodakenā tulyā bhaṭā uddhatāḥ puruṣā ārabhaṭās te santy āsām iti......

ārabhaṭī. ND, p. 158.

2. Cf. NS XX, 73–74.

3. Cf, NS VI, 40.

134

not scientific and universally acceptable1, Bharata should have taken note

of this point. The DR has correctly borne this point it mind and does

not mention the subordinate Rasas at all. It points out that Kaisiki

depicts Sṛngāra, Sātvati depicts Vira, Ārabhaṭi denotes Raudra and

Bibhatsa while Bhāratī permeates all Rasas2. Here the so called subordinate

Rasas are not mentioned at all. Only the principal ones are mentioned,

they being the representatives of their subordinate ones.

The DR's division seems to be more acceptable as it is more scientific.

It has understood the nature of Bhāratī Vṛtti which literally means

' pertaining to speech ' which underlies in fact the whole range of literature.

Bharata restricts it to Bibhatsa and Karuṇa only, both of which

have less of physical activity and more of verbal one. But Bhārati is

ordained in Prahasana which has humour as its principal sentiment. The

ND therefore seems justified when it levies an attack on the NS pointing

cut this discrepancy.

But the ND itself is not quite clear in pointing out the distinction

between Sātvati and Ārabhaṭi both of which have Dipta Rasas.

The DR seems to be quite logical and reasonable when it divides

the different Rasas explicitly for the particular Vṛtti.

The concept of Vṛtti seems to have been quite clear even in the

times of Bharata. Bharata gives a mythical account of the origin of

Vṛttis3. Of course, it is not possible to understand the account literally.

The whole account makes it clear that Vṛtti is related primarily with

activity. The three activities of mind, body and speech are interrelated.

Vṛtti is primarily related with physical activity while Riti is related

with speech4.

The high place ascribed to Vṛtti in drama clearly points out that

the Indian dramaturgists were not ignorant of the importance of

action in a play. According to the western critics drama comprises of

action and they think that Indian classical writers have not taken any

note of this point. They charge Sanskrit dramas for not having speedy

action. But here we see that they are mistaken. Indian theorists call

Vṛtti which signifies action as ' the mother of drama '.

Abhinava explains the four Vṛttis in terms of action (Ceṣṭā ) or

Abhinaya. Thus Bhāratī refers to Vākceṣṭā or Vācikābhinaya. Sātvatī

1. The point has been discussed later in this chapter.

2. Vide DR II, 62.

3. NS (GOS) XX, 1-25.

4. Cf. Vilāsavinyāsakramo vṛttih, vacanavinyāsakramo ritiḥ. -Kāvyamīmāṃsā, p. 9.

refers to Manaśceṣṭā or Sātvikābhinaya and the remaining two refer to Kāyaceṣṭa or Āṅgikābhinaya; the Kaiśikī suggests graceful action while Ārabhaṭī implies wild action both being two aspects of Āṅgikābhinaya.

Prof. Gupta defines it is “ the mental disposition of particular personages in particular situation.”1

It should be noted here that Bharata gives four subdivisions ( Vṛttyaṅgas) of each of the four Vṛttis. In these divisions he is followed by the later works like the DR, the SD, etc. The ND seems to have purposefully omitted these subdivisions probably because they do not appear to be so scientific.2

RASA :

After the discussion of Vṛttis the ND turns to what is reckoned by Indian rhetoricians as the very essence of poetry, viz., Rasa or Sentiment. Rasa3 is defined by the ND as “Permanent state brought to a high pitch by means of Vibhāvas and Vyabhicāri-Bhāvas and perceptible through Anubhāvas.”

In the commentary the ND explains the terms Bhāva,4 Vibhāva, Anubhāva etc.

Sthāyī is that dominant state which remains permanent even when other states incessantly come and depart. It is called Bhāva since it becomes ( √ Bhū to be or to become ) Rasa when brought to a high pitch. Vibhāvas which are the causes of Rasa are of two types ( i ) Ālaṁbaua ( ii ) Uddīpana5.

Vyabhicārīs go to nourish the dominant state.

The ND has followed here the celebrated dictum of the NS of Bharata,

1. The Indian Theatre, p. 16.

2. In writing this topic I have made use of Dr. V. Raghavan’s article on ‘Vṛttis’.

3. The word Rasa is used in a variety of senses:-

(1) In Vaiśeṣika philosophy Rasa means a quality to be cognized by the organ of taste. Rasas are six, e.g., bitter, sour, sweet etc. This is the meaning ascribed to Rasa in common language.

(2) In Āyurveda it stands for semen or constituent fluid of the body.

(3) It also stands for so many other things such as water, drink, juice, desire or liking, love, pleasure, essence, mercury, mineral substance etc.

(4) In Poetics it stands for the sentiment or aesthetic pleasure.

4. The NS explains it thus -- ( i ) Bhāvas are so called because they reveal (Bhāvayanti) the Rasas being united with the different types of Abhinaya, NS (KM) VII, p. 104. ( ii ) It is so called as it reveals the internal purport of the poet ( NS XXII, 8.)

5. All these have been treated in detail later on,

136

the oldest exponent of Rasa School, viz., "Rasa is produced by the unison of Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Sañcāri Bhāvas"1. The relation between Sthāyī and Rasa is very clearly brought out. Rasa and Sthāyī are not essentially different. Rasa is another name of Sthāyī2.

The sentiments are nine in number. The NS of Bharata refers to eight only3. But later theorists (including Abhinavagupta) include Śānta as the ninth one. The ND also includes it and takes it as an independent Rasa.

The ND divides the sentiments into two -

(i) those that bring joy i. e. pleasant. These are five : Śṛṅgāra, Hāsya, Vīra, Adbhuta and Śānta.

(ii) those that bring pain i. e. painful. These are four : Karuṇa, Raudra, Bībhatsa and Bhayānaka.

The ND here differs from the majority of Indian rhetoricians who hold that Rasa is always pleasant. The joy that the experience of Rasa gives is compared with the joy that arises out of the realization of Brahman. (Brahmānandasahodara). Even though the emotions of sorrow, fear, fury etc. as we experience in our ordinary life do not produce joy, the experience of the same in literature does produce aesthetic delight. The experiences of life are quite different in that way from those of literature. The Nāṭyadarpana is possibly the earliest to specifically divide the sentiments as pleasant and painful. The ND offers a very systematic series of arguments in support of its theory.

The ND's arguments run as under :

1. The Vibhāvas of the pleasant sentiments are agreeable and pleasant, while those of unpleasant ones are unpleasant, e. g., the two types of Vibhāvas-Ālambana and Uddīpana-of a pleasant sentiment like love will be a king and a princess or some beautiful damsel, a garden, the spring, flowers, fragrant breezes, sweet notes of the cuckoo, lotus-tanks, etc., while those of the unpleasant like Bībhatsa and Bhāyānaka will be demons, ghosts, war, blood-shed, death etc.

2. To say that all the sentiments are pleasant is against the actual experience. In actual life the sentiments like Bhayānaka, Karuṇa, Bībhatsa or Raudra are highly painful and that is why people turn their faces

3. Kaver antargatam bhāvam bhāvayan bhāva ucyate - NS (KM) XXII, 8.

4. NS VI, 43 also Cf. Abhi. I, p. 278. Sthāyī exalted by Vibhāvas etc. is Rasa. He also quotes the authority of Daṇḍin. Cf. Rati assumes the form of Śṛṅgāra, and Krodha of Raudra (Kāvyādarśa II, 281, 283).

5. Cf. NS (KM) VI, 16.

6. This point will be elaborated later.

away from Bhayānaka etc. Not to talk of the actual Bhayānaka or Karuṇa

but even that represented in poetry, (i.e. even the imitation of the

sentiment) produces indescribable pain.1

3. If we experience a sort of strikingness even from these sentiments

it is due to the talents of the poet and/or the actor in representing a

thing vividly in a realistic manner. The heroic persons exhibit amazement

at an enemy who cuts off the head at one stroke. Thus deceived by the

strikingness caused by the art and skill of the poet and/or the actor

the wise people experience high ecstatic delight even in the painful

sentiments like Karuṇa and others. And with a view to tasting this the

audience or spectators also turn towards them.2

4. Moreover, the poet while delineating the life of a character

depicts it as intermingled with joy and sorrow in accordance with the

actual human life which is a mixture of both. Literature is defined as

mirror of life and in order that it may rightly reflect life it should

have joy and sorrow as well.3

5. There is another reason for introducing the sorrowful sentiments

in poetry. Pleasures become really more enjoyable when put in contrast

with the experience of sorrow just as the sweetness of a drink becomes

more enjoyable after some chilly taste.4

6. Moreover, what sort of joy can the Sahṛdayas experience as they

witness such scenes as abduction of Sītā, pulling of hair and garments

of Draupadī, Hariścandra serving a Cāṇḍāla, death of Rohitāśva, Lakṣmaṇa

being struck by a missile, commencement of killing Mālatī, etc., being

enacted on the stage? The tragic states of the above-mentioned noble

souls when imitated on the stage shall naturally produce sorrow in the

hearts of the sympathetic spectators.

१. यत् तु पुनः सर्वरसां सुकवासक्तमुच्यते, तत् प्रतीतबाधितम् । आस्तां नाम मुख्यविभावोपचितः

काव्याभिनयोपनीतविभावोपचितोऽपि भयानको वीभत्सः करुणो रौद्रो वा रसास्तादृशतामनाश्रयेयां

कार्मि कलेśदशामुपनयति । अत एवं भयानकादिरहितेऽपि समाजे न ताम सुख्यास्ता-

दुदृश्यो घटते ।

— नाट्यदर्पण, पृ. १५९

२. यत् पुनरेभिरपि चमत्कारो हृद्यते, स रसास्वादविरामे सति यथावस्थितवस्तुप्रदर्शकेन कवि-

नट-शक्ति-कौशलेन । विस्मयते हि शिरः-श्छेदकारिण्यपि प्रहारकुśलेन वैरिणा शौण्डीरमानिनः ।

अनेनैव च सर्वज्ञाह्लादकेन कवि-नट-श्रृङ्गारजननया चमत्कारेण विप्रलब्धाः परमानन्दरूपतां

दुःखात्मकेष्वपि करुणादिषु सुखेभ्यः प्रतिजानते । एतदास्वादलोभ्येन प्रेक्षका अपि एतेषु प्रवर्तन्ते ।

— नाट्यदर्पण, पृ. १५९

३. कवयस्तु सुखदुःखात्मकरससरणानुरूप्येण रामादिचरितं निवन्धनतः सुखदुःखात्मकसविधमेव

प्रथयन्ति ।

— नो द०, पृ० १५९

४. पानकमाद्यमिव च तीक्ष्णास्वादेन सुतरां सुखायि स्वदन्ति इति ।

— नो द०, पृ० १५९

18

138

If, on the other hand, these sorrowful events produce joy when imitated it cannot be called a faithful imitation. There should be definitely something wrong with the imitation itself as it appears quite differently ( Imitation should be of the same nature as the original ).1

7. Some miserable souls deploring the death of their beloveds derive apparent joy when tragic is being staged. But in the true sense that is a feeling of sorrow only. An unhappy man alone will feel joy ( or satisfaction ) at the story of an unhappy man and will be unhappy on hearing some joyful story.2

Thus it can be concluded that Karuṇa etc., produce sorrow only.

Critical Observations :

The authors of the ND appear to be the foremost among the rhetoricians to present the view forcefully that all sentiments do not go to produce joy. This view of the dual nature of sentiments is not however totally new. While commenting upon the Rasa-sūtra of Bharata Abhinava points out that according to the Sānkhyas Rasa is pleasant as well as painful. Abhinava also fefers to the view of 'some' who assert that by "Ādi" in "Harṣādin cādhigacchanti"3 Bharata means "pain, etc."4. (Of course, Abhinava does not agree with the view ). The same view is expressed in Rasakalikā of Rudrabhaṭṭa who holds that Rasa is capable of producing pleasure as well as pain5 and propounds that even Śṛṅgāra is not purely pleasant if we take into account Vipralambha.

Vāmana also gives a verse to the effect that in tragic plays there is a mixture of pleasure and pain6. The verse has been quoted by Hemacandra in his own commentary on the KS called Viveka.

१. अपि च सीताया हरणं, द्रौपद्या: कचाम्बरकरुणं, हरिचन्दनद्रव्यालदास्यं, रोहिताश्वस्य मरणं, मालव्या व्यापादनारम्भणमित्यादिभिनीयमानं पदयतां सहहृदयानां को नाम सुखास्वादः ? तथाडनुकार्यंगताश्र करुणादयः परिदेविभानुकायंगताश्चात्। तावत् दुःखात्मका एव । यदि चानुकरणे सुखात्मनः स्युत्र सम्यगनुकरणात् स्यात्, विपरीतलक्षणात् मोहनात् । — नाट दर्पणे, पृ० १५९

२. योजयिष्यादिविनाशदुःखवतः करुणे वण्ण्यमानेदभिनीयमाने वा सुखास्वादः सौदपि परमार्थतः दुःखास्वाद एव।

३. Yathā, hi nānāvyājanasaṃskṛtam annam bhuñjānā rasān āsvādayanti.......tathā......sthāyibhāvān āsvādayanti.......harṣādin cādhigacchanti — NS (GOS) Vol. I, p. 289.

४. Anye tvādiśabdena śokādinām atra saṅgrahah, sa na yuktah-Abhi. Vol. I. p. 289.

५. Rasasya sukhāduḥkhātmakatayā tadubhayalakṣaṇatvena upadadyate — Rasakalikā (Mad, MS) pp. 51-52 quoted by Dr. V. Raghavan in 'The Number of Rasas'.

६. Karuṇaprekṣaṇīyeṣu saṃplavaḥ sukhaduḥkhyoh; Yathānubhavataḥ siddhas tathāivojahprasādayoḥ.

—Kāvyālankārasūtra III, 1, 9 p. 26.

139

Dr. V. Raghavan has also mentioned the view of Haripāla who takes

Vipralambha as painful1. Madhusūdana Sarasvatī in his Bhaktirasāyaṇa

points out that there is a difference of degree in the pleasure arising

out of different Rasas. That is to say that all Rasas do not yield the

same type of pleasure2.

Thus it appears that there was a school of thought which believed

that all Rasas were not pleasant3. Yet Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra

seem to be the first (and also the foremost) to discuss elaborately,

extensively and systematically this view offering their arguments for

their theory. They certainly deserve credit for holding out strongly

against all the prominent theorists (including their own preceptor to

whom great reverence is shown in the concluding verses of the ND )

who unanimously believe that all Rasas produce nothing but joy. Rasa

by virtue of its definition implies that it must be enjoyable, agreeable

and pleasant4 irrespective of its kind and the joy that is derived is of

the supreme quality fit to be compared with the joy that sages derive

at the time of the realisation of Brahman5. Hemacandra also, following

Mammaṭa, calls this joy as Parabrahmasvādasodara6.

The ND, therefore, is unique in making bold to chalk out a new

path setting aside the old and established one. Dr. Rakesha Gupta has

well appreciated this boldness and showers praises for the same. He

states, “In the whole range of Sanskrit Poetics there is, however,

one work, viz., Nāṭyadarpana, the authors of which had the courage to

maintain, even against the tradition, that the end of all poetry is

not to please...”7. Dr. K. N. Watve also gives credit to our authors

for their independent thinking and boldness8. Still it has got to be

1. J. O. R. Madras Vol. XII pp. 113-114, 107.

2. Bhaktirasāyaṇa, p. 22.

3. Prof. Deshpande opines that there were two schools of thought regarding the nature

of Rasa. According to one which he calls Paripușțivāda, the Rasa is the same as

Sthāyibhāva (Sthāyī eva rasaḥ). Its followers were Daṇḍin, Vāmana, Lollaṭa, Śaṅkuka,

Sāṅkhyas, Bhoja and Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra. The other school was known

as Abhivyaktivāda or Carvaṇāvāda or Kevalānandavāda which believed that Rasa

was quite different from the dominant state (sthāyivilakṣaṇo rasaḥ) and the

followers of the school were Ānandavardhana, Bhaṭṭatauta, Abhinavagupta, Mammaṭa,

Hemacandra, Viśvanātha, Prabhākara, Madhusūdana Sarasvatī and Jagannātha.

4. Rasyate āsvādyate iti rasaḥ.

5. Cf. KP IV, p. 93.

6. KS, p. 88.

7. Psychological studies in Rasas, p. 68.

8. Rasavimarśa, p. 177.

140

accepted that the theory of the ND could not win much of popularity

on account of some of its obvious drawbacks. All the same, it did have

an impact on some of the later writers. Siddhicandragani refers to a

view ascribing it to the ‘moderners’ who accept only four Rasas and

are not prepared to grant Karuna, Raudra, Bhayānaka and Bibhatsa

( including Śānta ) the status of “Rasa” at all1. According to them to

say that tragic (Śoka ) etc. produce joy like love ( Rati ) and others is

a mad man’s prattle2. The reason why the lamentations of Aja and

others are described is to unfold their great affection for their beloved.

Similarly Śānta is represented to show the complete detachment of the

persons striving for beatitude. In the same way, Bhaya is described to

show the tenderness of the person. The real fact is that poet, by delineat-

ing different sentiments, wants to exhibit his skill in the delineation of

the various Rasas3.

Inspite of all the vigour and enthusiasm with which the authors of

the ND have argued out their theory it could not be generally accepted

by a majority of critics on account of its several defects notwithstanding

the fact that there were some who were influenced by the theory and

voted for it.

Let us then try to analyse the above-mentioned arguments of Rāma-

candra and Gunacandra. The first argument clearly points out that the

authors have made no distinction between the objects of actual life and

those depicted in poetry. In life there is a personal affinity to things. For

instance, if there is a beautiful flower. the moment one sees it one will

try to pluck it, smell it, and possess it, similarly at the sight of a

ferocious animal one runs away from it, avoids it, hates it. Thus our

worldly experiences are always accompanied by this instinct of love or

hate, possess or avoid ( Hānopādāna ).

The experiences of literature are totally of a different nature. In

drama if we see a flower we do not try to possess it, nor do we run

away from the theatre when a dreadful ghastly scene is represented. We

know in the heart of our hearts that this is after all a play and not

real. That is why in life if we see a damsel harassed by some person

we may instantly run to her aid but in drama when we see Sītā being

abducted by Rāvaṇa and crying for help we remain fixed in our chairs

knowing it in deep conscience that it is drama after all.

1. Kāvyaprakāśakhaṇḍana ; Navīnās tu śṛṅgāra-vīra-hāsyādbhuta-saṃjñāś catvāra eva rasāḥ. Karuṇādināṃ yathā na rasatvaṃ tathā vaksyate (p. 16).

2. Yat tu śokādayo ’pi ratyādivat svaprakāśajñānasukhātmaka iti tad unmattapralapitam.

ibid., p. 21.

3. Ibid., p. 22.

141

In advancing the second argument also the ND stands on the same footing. Even though we do not feel happy of tragic or fierce occurrences in life because of our being directly or personally involved in them, still we appreciate the same in literature when they are depicted purely in a general and impersonal way. If the incidents of literature were to affect us in the same way as those in actual life do we would never go to witness tragic plays. On the contrary, it is the tragedies that have made a greater and deeper appeal to the humanity at large than the comedies. Shelley, seems to give vent to our own experience when he, in a succinct and apparently paradoxical manner, states, "Our sweetest songs are those that tell of the saddest thought."

The third argument is in reply to the common question viz. "If karuṇa and others produce pain why should we go to see such a drama at all ?" The ND's reply is that the strikingness is due to the talents -art and skill (Pratibhā) - of the poet and the actor. It is true that we do appreciate the art of the poet in a realistic delineation of the whole thing and the skill of the actor in representing it, but is it all? In fact, the appreciation of the poet or the actor comes afterwards and not at the time when we are being dragged into the torrents of emotion.

The next argument, though highly ingenious, suffers from the same fallacy. Drama does reflect joys and sorrows of life. It is true that in life the incidents of misery to not bring joy. But the same when represented in literature have a different reaction. Even the depiction of sorrow tends to be pleasant, just as in actual life also one often rejoices in the memory of even sorrowful incidents that may have occured in the past.1 There is a joy even in weeping. As Shelley has put it, "The pleasure of sorrow is more pleasant than the pleasure of pleasure itself."

The argument that follows cannot be reckoned to be an independent argument. It is in fact a corroboration of the view with concrete illustrations. But let us remember that it is the tragic scenes such as the lamentation of Aja or Rati or Purūravas or the repudiation of Śakuntalā in the Śāk. and tragedies like Hamlet, King Lear or Othello that have won appreciation of one and all and belong to all times and climes. When we witness a pathetic scene such as lamentation of a mother on the sad demise of her only son, the feeling that arises in our mind is not that of miserableness but that of pity or sympathy. The aim of the poet in delineating the noble characters' sufferings is to arouse that sympathy in us and we are not unaware of the joy of sympathizing with others. Man by his very nature demands sympathy from others. A man with none to sympathize with

1. Cf. प्रास्तु दुःखान्यपि दुःखाय सांवेदनस्य मानानि सुखानि भूवनम् । - रघुवंश.

142

him will find the life not worth living1. For him the life will be a drudgery. But man not only requires sympathizers he is also anxious to extend sympathy to others. There is a joy in giving sympathy as well. It is this sympathy, the inner urge of human heart, that compels him to enjoy even the pathetic scenes. In fact, that piece will have a greater overwhelming effect on the mind which will succeed to the utmost degree in arousing our sympathies. Tragedies are capable of arousing this feeling much more than comedies and that is why they have a greater appeal.

In the last argument the ND has tried to touch a problem concerning human psychology. Life is more replete with misery2, so we, in fact, are eager to see as to whether the mountains of miseries that fall on us do fall on others too. Thus if we find that others too sail or sink in the same boat as we do, our unhappy, dissatisfied soul finds some relief. Prof. K. S. Sabaḷ quotes from Dr. Johnson to the above effect. But this argument of the ND does not seem to be psychologically faultless.

Here the ND could have added one more argument. If Karuṇa too gave pleasure why do we weep and shed tears, when a pathetic scene is being staged ? To say that they are the tears of joy and appreciation is being too far from the actual experience. But the fact is that just as there are tears of joy in the same way, there can be joy in tears as well3.

There have been various attempts to explain how joy is derived from a tragedy or tragic scenes. In fact, tragedies, from times immemorial, have been the causes of the universal delight. Great poets like Shakespeare have been immortal for their tragedies. The appreciation of the Act IV of the Abhijñānaśākuntala, the master-piece of Kāḷidāsa, as the best Act4, also clearly indicates that it is the pathetic scenes which have made universal appeal and won the admiration of all. To deny tragic in literature or pathos will be tantamount to denying some of the best and the finest therein.

It is a matter of general experience that there is pleasure in the

1. Śak. III, ślṣṭadṛṣṭānusam vibhṛtam hi duḥkhaṃ sadṛvedanaṃ bhavati । p. 49.

2. Cf. KP, the creation of Brahman is Sukhaduḥkhamohasvabhāvā (I, 1).

3. Dhanika while explaining the the totally different natures of the pathos in literature and that of life compares this peculiar experience of a pathetic scene which causes tears and also delight to the peculiar state which a lady experiences when she receives beating, tooth-bite, etc. from her lover in amorous sports. (DR : Avaloka, p. 98).

4. Tatrāpi caturtho 'nkah.

tragic too1. Some may call it “Katharsis” (Purification or purgation);

psychologists may call it sympathetic feeling; the Indian theorists call it

Karuna Rasa. Some critics try to account for this by reference to the

human instinct of imitation which is so natural to man from the early

childhood. He learns by imitation and naturally enjoys the works of

imitation, and so even though the objects themselves may be painful

to see, one delights to view the most realistic representation of them

in art2.

Prof. K. Sahal while discussing the view of the ND remarks that

the authors of the ND have failed to comprehend the distinction between

pain and pity. When we feel a personal loss, e. g., the sad demise of

our own kinsmen, we experience pain. But when we hear of a similar

loss of others we feel pity3. But the analogy does not seem to be perfect

as pity by itself can hardly produce joy.

K. N. Watve tries to explain rather differently how one derives

pleasure out of Karuna Rasa.4 According to him Soka or sorrow is not

the Sthāyī Bhāva of Karuna since sorrow is a derived emotion. It pre-

supposes the existance of some sentiment of love or attachment. “What

a sorrowing person does in his woe is that he dwells on his object of

attachment, remembers the many occasions of affection, recollects his

virtues and admires his excellences that evoked his attachment for him.”

This becomes the chief object of Carvanā or aesthetic enjoyment. Thus

Soka becomes merely a Sañcārī bbāva and not a Sthāyī bhāva which

is love.

Rasa, in fact, is a peculiar state of mind where one forgets for some

time ego or self-consciousness and is submerged into a blissful state. This

state is reached by an absolute concentration of mind. The life-like

realistic acting (gesticulation) of the actor, his dress, make-up etc.,

stagecraft etc., go a long way in producing this mental concentration

It is this mental concentration which causes one to forget everything

else in life5 and experince Rasa or aesthetic delight. The different types

of states or sentiments are the different means of bringing out this

higher mental state which is dominated by Sattva and may be rightly

compared to the state at the time of beatitude.

1. In the words of Cowper - There is a pleasure in poetic pain which only poets know.

2. Vide - Aristotle on the Art of Poetry pp. 28-29.

3. Alocanāke patha para (in Hindi) pp. 48-55 also compare, Psychological Studies in

Rasas p. 84.

4. Vide ‘The Problem of the Karuna Rasa and its Solution (Prof. P. K. Gode

Commemoration Vol., pp. 468-70 )

5. Cf, KP - Vigalitavedyāntara (p. 9).

144

The ND then points out the difference between Vipralambha Śṛṅgāra and Karuṇa. Vibhāvas and Anubhāvas of both are common. The former also has fever, burning, anxiety, etc. as its Anubhāvas like Karuṇa. But Karuṇa ends in disaster. The fate of Karuṇa is dark and gloomy while Vipralambha ends in reunion. Here there is a hope of meeting again though there is separation for the time being. Thus the hope of reunion decreases the intensity of pathos. In other words Śoka is the dominant state ( Sthāyī ) in Karuṇa, while it is a momentary state ( Vyabhicārī ) in Vipralambha.

The next problem tackled by the ND is "To whom does the sentiment really belong ?" The ND states that the Rasa primarily belongs to the actual human life and secondarily to the spectators ( or readers in case of poetry ).1

The ND now proceeds to comment further. It now explains the function of Anubhāvas or consequents. Anubhāvas are the external manifestations of a feeling. They are so called because they convey to us the feelings that really belong to others. They are expressed in numerous ways such as side-long glances, paralysis, perspiration, tears, horripilation and the like.

According to the ND the process by which the spectators experience Rasa seems to be as follows :- The Rasa originally resides in the actual character i. e. Rāma, for instance2. This sentiment is made known clearly to the spectators by means of Anubhāvas.3 As a result the same type of sentiment arises in the hearts of the spectators also. This experience of Rasa is not directly perceived as it belongs to the province of mind which is beyond the reach of the organs of sense. In other words it is a variety of Alaukika Pratyakṣa as some others would call it.4

The authors of the ND now launch upon another interesting problem as to whether or not an actor experiences Rasa. The ND's view is as follows. It is true that generally an actor does not experience the aesthetic delight. His business is to imitate, act or gesticulate inspite of the fact that he might not be actually experiencing that emotion. He

1. Vide रसस्थ मुख्यलोकगतः प्रेक्षकगतः काव्यस्य श्रोतृनुसन्धाय कदर्थयगतो वा । - ND, p. 159.

2. इह तावत् सर्वलोकसिद्धं परस्थस्य रसस्य प्रतिपत्तिः । - ND, p. 160.

3. परस्थानपि रसानुवेध्यान्तीनांनुभावा: । - ND, p. 160.

4. This view of Rāmacandra may very well be compared with that of Lollaṭa who also believes that Rasa originally resides in Rāma and others and being superimposed on the actor it gives delight to the spectators. Vide Atra lollaṭādayaḥ rāmādāv anu-kārye sthito rasah - Rasacandrikā, p. 44.

may have to act weeping when acting the role of a lover in separation,

even though he may be delighted at heart. So also perspiration, paralysis,

etc. are possible even when the actor himself may not be experiencing

the particular feeling. The external manifestations by the actors cause

the rise of the dominant emotion in the heart of the spectators which

may result in similar expressions such as weeping etc. in the case of

the Sahṛdayas.

The ND here points out that it is not that he never experiences

Rasa. At times he may. It is here. that the ND differs from the

majority of critics. The ND corroborates its view by citing a couple of

instances from the actual life. A harlot, though entering into amorous

dalliance for the pleasure of others, may herself enjoy the pleasure at

times. A songster, though singing for delighting others, sometimes

experiences supreme pleasure himself. Similarly an actor while playing

the role of a character may be totally one with it and experience

aesthetic delight.1

The problem viz., whether or not an actor experiences Rasa is

a debatable one. Some scholors are of the opinion that an actor is

required to present a life-like, real and actual state of the character

whose role he is playing. In order to achieve this object he should

forget himself and be one with the character of the play. He should

merge his individual personality into that of the character and should

deem the feelings and emotions, states and sentiments of the character as

his own. In this case he is likely to experience the sentiment. There

are others, on the other hand, who opine that the business of the actor

is simply to act. He is required to imitate verbal, physical and mental

actions of the character whose role he is playing. He should be perfectly

conscious of his duty. If, on the contrary, he forgets himself and

establishes complete identity with the character it is quite likely that

he would forget what he is required to speak or act and thus would

totally fail in creating the desired effect on the minds of the spectators.

As for instance, if an actor who is playing a tragic role on the stage

starts actually weeping and shedding tears, it will not be possible for him

to continue his speech with proper expressions on the face with the

1. न च नटस्य रसो न भवतीत्येकान्तः। पण्यङ्गियो हि धनलोभेन पररतस्थ्य रतादि विप्रलम्भनस्यः

कदाचित् स्वयमपि परां रतिमनुभवन्ति। गायनाश्च परं रञ्जयन्तः कदाचित् स्वयमपि रज्यन्ते।

एवं नटोडपि रामादिगतं विलम्भाद्यनुकुर्वाणः कदाचित् स्वयमपि तन्मयीभावमुपयात्येवेति।

— नाट्यदर्पण, पृ. १६०.

146

result that the beauty of the whole situation will be marred1.

It appears, therefore, that even though the actor has to merge his personality into that of the character still however he should bear in mind that he has to imitate successfully and his concentration should be for realistic representation.

In fact, he has not to identify himself completely with the character but he has to make a show of complete identity with the character. In order to appear natural and realistic he has to make special efforts. It comes after constant practice and considerable training. There lies the art of the actor, and art, it is rightly said, lies in concealing art. Still however, if on certain occasion the actor completely forgets himself, and himself experiences the state and sentiment which he is required to represent he ceases, for the time being, to be an actor and belongs to the category of the Prekṣaka or Bhāvaka.

After reiterating the statement that the Anubhāvas ( consequents ) in the case of an actor are the determinants or Vibhāvas in the case of the spectators being the cause of producing Rasa in them ( while those of the spectators are the after-effects of Rasa ) the ND turns to bring out the essential difference between the causes in actual life and those of literature.

In actual life the Vibhāvas etc. are real and so arouse a Sthāyibhāva to the state of Rasa2 with reference to a particular object only, e. g., a young man who loves a particular lady enjoys the sentiment of love ( Śṛṅgāra ) with reference to that lady only. But when the sentiment of love is aroused by seeing a lady loving another man ( as happens in literature ) that sentiment is not related to a particular individual but is of the general nature; similarly, the pathos arising out of seeing a woman lamenting the loss of some dear one is of a general nature; similar

1. Coquellin, a great French actor, in his book on the art of acting quotes an instance from the life of another great actor Edwin Booth, who was, one evening, so much absorbed in the part which he was playing that real tears flowed from his eyes, his voice broke with emotion, real sobs chocked him. He thought that he was acting even better than usual but the fact was that he had acted very badly. Coquellin then points to the moral that in order to call forth feeling in others we ourselves must not experience it. He remarks that in all circumstances the actor must retain complete self-control. - M. Belgion : Reading for Profit, quoted in Sāhitya-mīmāṃsā, pp 32-33.

2. ND, p. 160. It appears that the ND has wrongly used the word Rasa here. In actual life what we experience is no Rasa at all. It is at the most a feeling or an emotion which, though akin to Rasa, is much different from it which is confined to literature. It should also be noted that the terms Vibhāva, Anubhāva etc. are terms of literature only and should not be confused with ordinary causes and effects.

is the case with other sentiments also. Thus the emotion ( or state )

which is aroused in the hearts of the audience or the spectators on

reading, hearing or witnessing a literary piece by the determinants which

are not real but which appear as real1 is always general, e. g., when one

sees Rāma making love to Sītā, the sentiment of love arising in the

spectators is not with reference to Sītā ( the daughter of Janaka and

the wife of Rāma ) but with reference to a woman in general.

Not only the characters but even the emotions, etc. also are general-

ised and that is why all the spectators feel a sort of oneness with the

emotion that is depicted which ultimately results in the experience of

aesthetic joy.

This is how the ND explains the important principle of literary

criticism called Sādhāraṇikaraṇa.

The ND now explains the place of Vyabhicārī Bhāvas. Their task is

to stimulate and to intensify the dominant state. The Sthāyī bhāva,

aroused by the fundamental ( Ālambana ) and excitant ( Uddīpana ) detar-

minants, made perceptible on account of the consequents, needs to be

fed and raised to a hig̣a pitch in order that it may generate the senti-

ment. The suitable transitory states are essential for the creation of Rasa.

For instance, Sṛṅgāra might require anxiety ( Cintā ); Karuṇa, dejection

( Viṣāda ); Raudra, wrath ( Amarṣa ); Bhayānaka, terror ( Trāsa ) and so on.

The ND opines that Rasa cannot exist without Vyabhicārīs even

though it may happen that on account of certain causes, ( e.g. subtlety

or speed of action ) the Rasa may be generated even without the Vyabhi-

cārī. This implies that mostly there is some Vyabhicārī concealed even

though it may not be easily detected for one reason or the other. One

common illustration from the actual life would make the point quite

clear : the sight of a lady by itself cannot produce love in the heart of

a man who is attached to some other lady or who is totally dispassio-

nate. That is to say, the transitory states as anxiety, restlessness, etc.

are requisites for love.

It is again pointed out that Vyabhicārīs and Anubhāvas seen in the

case of an actor are, in fact, the Vibhāvas in the sense that they are

the elements which go to produce Rasa in the heart of the spectators.

The ND finally treats of the relation between Kāvya and Rasa. Or

in other words where does the Rasa reside? Rasa resides not in the

1. Cf. Shakespeare - " And as imagination bodies forth

The forms of things Unknown, the poet's pen

Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothings

A local habitation and a name......"

148

poem or literary piece even though we call it ‘Sarasa’ i. e. possessed of Rasa. It is obvious that an inanimate thing as Kāvya is, cannot be the substratum of Rasa which is "Cetana". Then why is it that we experience Rasa while reading or witnessing a literary piece ? The answer is simple. We experience Rasa because that piece has a capacity to produce Rasa, even though it by itself does not contain it since if it were so, any ordinary man will experience the same type of Rasa on reading a poem as a learned man. But it is a fact that an illiterate person will not enjoy the poetry at all however great it may be. Rasa is experienced only when the reader or the spectator understands the meaning. Moreover, the reader experiences the Rasa not as an external object as one does when one enjoys the sweet taste of the sweetmeats. The enjoyment of the sweetmeat is totally different from that of poetry.

Rasa is the dominant state of the mind of the reader himself lying dormant in the subconscious region of mind and brought to consciousness when a similar situation is represented1. When a piece is read conveying the determinations of horror or pathos, the corresponding dormant emotion is roused and it results into the experience of Rasa. And hence a person who does not possess the required dominant state in his heart cannot enjoy that Rasa. As for instance, a child will not be able to appreciate the story of love because it has never experienced what love is. And that is why in order that one may be capable of enjoying poetry one has got to be a Sahṛdaya.

Now the ND establishes the relation of Anubhāva, Vibhāva and Vyabhicārī Bhāvas to the dominant state (Sthāyī) or Rasa2.

Anubhāvas (Consequents) : They are the effects (Kārya) of the dominant state or sentiment. They are so called because they indicate the sentiment. They are the external manifestation of a Bhāva. They are thousands in number such as Stambha, Sveda, Vepathu and others3.

Vibhāva (determinants) : They are the causes (Hetu)4 of Bhava or Rasa. They are so called because they cause the sthāyī (which already resides in the minds of the spectators as impression (Vāsanā) and which ultimately transforms it into Rasa) to be clearly perceived.

They are of two types :-

(i) Ālambana vibhāva (fundamental determinant) comprises of

1. Cf. ND III, 109.

2. ND III, 110.

3. Vide ND III, 147 and the Vṛtti over it.

4. Cf. NS : Vibhāvaḥ, kāraṇaṃ, nimittam, hetur iti paryāyāḥ—VII, 5.

characters such as the hero, the heroine and others without whom sentiments cannot arise at all.

( ii ) Uddipana vibhāva ( excitant determinant ) are the conditions of place and time and circumstance, which go to develop ( or foster ) the Rasa, e. g., the garden, cool breezes, the moon, the cry of the cuckoo etc. for the development of Śṛṅgāra.

It will be clear, therefore, that what we call causes and effects in ordinary life are termed Vibhāvas and Anubhāvas respectively when they are treated in literature.

Vyabhicārī Bhāvas ( transitory states ) are the states that accompany the Sthāyī Bāva or Rasa.

The word Vyabhicārī is derived from the root ' car ' to move with ' vi ' and ' Abhi ' ( towards ). It can be explained in two ways :-

Sthāyibhāvas denote the instincts or emotions deep seated in human mind. The Vyabhicāribhāvas are those that emerge from the Sthāyibhāvas and again submerge in them as the waves in an ocean. Their effect is immediate and temporary while that of the Sthāyīs is rooted in the character of man.

The Number of Rasas

According to the ND there are nine principal Rasas. They are :-

(1) Śṛṅgāra (2) Hāsya (3) Karuṇa (4) Raudra (5) Vīra (6) Bhayānaka

(7) Bībhatsa (8) Adbhuta (9) Śānta1.

The ND here tries to bring out the underlying relationship among all these.

Out of all the Rasas Śṛṅgāra tops the list as love is pleasant to one and all irrespective of caste and creed. Hāsya follows Śṛṅgāra. Then comes Karuṇa being opposite to Hāsya. Kāma i. e. love or desire is based on wealth. So there comes Raudra having wealth as its principal aim. Vīra is related to Bhayānaka as the essence of Vīra is granting protection to persons who are struck with or overpowered by fear. Spirited persons despise such cowards and so arises Bībhatsa having contempt as its dominant state. Despise is removed through surprise and thus Adbhuta ( based on astonishment )2. And lastly Dharma is based on restraint and peace and therefore Śānta based on restraint ( Śama ).

1. The ND literally follows the NS (GOS) VI, 15.

2. The ND here differs from the Abhi, and the KS. The above explanation of the ND may not appear to be so convincing here as Adbhuta is primarily related to Vīra ( as heroism breeds wonder ) and not to Bībhatsa which is rather contrary to it. Abhinava (and Hemacandra follows) reckons Adbhuta as the result of Vīra. ( Abhi I, p. 267; vide also Bharata - Vīraścādbhutotpattih - NS (GOS) VI, 39)

150

Only these nine types of Rasa are proclaimed by Pūrvācāryas ( ancient preceptors ) as they are specially charming and more useful to human activities. But other Rasas also are possible such as Laulya ( greediness ) having greed as its dominant state, Sneha having compassion ( Ārdratā ) as its dominant state, Vyasana with attachment ( Āsakti ) as its dominant state, Duhkha and Sukha having pain ( Arati ) and satisfaction ( Santoṣa ) as their respective dominant states.

Some include these in the above nine only.

Critical Remarks

This is an attempt to bring out a connecting link between the various types of sentiments. The ND makes an effort to establish unity in the vast diversity. In fact, there is a thread of unity passing through all these various sentiments. All these sentiments whether Śṛṅgāra or Vīra, Hāsya or Karuṇa, Adbhuta or Bībhatsa, Raudra or Bhayānaka are all Rasas i. e. they are capable of being enjoyed1. They go to produce aesthetic delight which is often compared with the joy derived through the experience of the supreme bliss2. These different sentiments such as Śṛṅgāra, Vīra, etc. are the different phases, in fact, of one Rasa like the different shapes of gold. The underlying principle is the same as gold in gold-ornaments or clay in earthen pots.

But the problem arises as to whether the explanation regarding this unity as given by the ND and others is justifiable or correct. The NS reduces the eight sentiments into four principal sentiments and the remaining four as derivative ones. Accordingly, Śṛṅgāra, Vīra, Raudra and Bībhatsa are principal sentiments which give rise to Hāsya, Adbhuta, Karuṇa, and Bhayānaka respectively3. The NS also explains the reason for calling the second group as derived one. Hāsya, the NS points out, is an imitation of Śṛṅgāra. Śṛṅgāra itself when improperly and unworthily imitated produces humour and ridicule, like the Śṛṅgāra of rogues and hypocrites. Similarly the action of heroism ( Vīra ) produces wonder, a feeling of awe and amazement among the spectators ( Adbhuta ). An action of violence ( Raudra ) will give rise to Karuṇa or pathos as a bound to bring tragic results. A phenomenon of Bībhatsa in the same way goes to produce fear in the heart of the spectators ( this is Bhayānaka ). Thus the rest of the four sentiments are the results or modifications of the first four principal sentiments.

But this, it will be seen, is not so convincing. Is Hāsya a modifica-

1. Rasyate āsvādyate iti rasah. ND, p. 159.

2. Brahmāsvādasahodara - SD III, 2.

3. NS (GOS) VI, 39,

tion of Śṛṅgāra only ? Do we not find humour even in the absence of

Śṛṅgāra or love ? Again, is Adbhuta generated from Vīra only ? Does the

sentiment of pathos originate from violence or fury only and fear from

Raudra alone ? The answers are not naturally in the affirmative. Humour

has a field vaster than that of Śṛṅgāra and cannot be included only

therein. Improper representation of any Rasa may tend to produce

laughter or Hāsya. Similarly wonder can arise even in the absence of

Vīra. Fear need not be the result of Bibhatsa only. Raudra also may as

well cause fear. Thus the four derivative sentiments can develop indepen-

dently of their respective principal sentiments. Moreover, the NS lacks

in consistancy when it combines Raudra and Bhayānaka ( a subordinate

sentiment of Bibhatsa ) with Ārabhaṭī and Bibhatsa and Karuṇa under

Bhārati¹.

The DR also follows the NS in this matter². Dhanika actually quotes

lines from Bharata³. The ND here goes a step forward. It does not rest

satisfied with Bharata's division into principal and subordinate Rasas.

It establishes a connecting link among all the Rasas. But here the

authors of the ND do not stand original. They have almost verbally

borrowed from their learned preceptor Hemacandra who gives a just

similar account of the interrelation of Rasas and who in his turn appears

to have borrowed it from Abhinava⁴.

The general conception of Rasa as we have seen is that it is one

and uniform like the Brahman of the spiritualists⁵; consequently there

have been efforts by various theorists to propagate that there is only

one principal sentiment and the others are subordinate to it or are mere

variants of it⁶.

A slight suggestion to think on these lines seems to have been

1. NS ( KM ) XX, 62-63. Some may try to defend this classification of Bharata by

pointing out that by calling the four sentiments principal Bharata only means that

they occur more frequently than the other ones. But the defence can hardly be

convincing. Karuṇa and Hāsya can be equally dominant. Bhavabhūti goes to the

extent of considering Karuṇa as the only sentiment. Hāsya is the dominating

sentiment of Prahasana. It is also difficult to understand the propriety in calling

Bibhatsa as a principal sentiment.

2. Cf. DR IV, 43-45.

3. Vide DR, p. 97.

4. Vide KS, p. 106; also cf. Abhi. I, p. 267.

5. Upaniṣads describe Brahman as Rasa. cf. Taittirīyopaniṣad - Raso vai saḥ

( Brahmānandavalli, p. 116. )

6. Vide Dr. Raghavan : Number of Rasas.

152

dropped by the early sage Bharata who recognises four sentiments as

the principal and the remaining four as being derived from them.

But all such efforts to reduce all the sentiment to one are not likely

to meet with much success as the human mind is full of states and

emotions which are complex at times and even contradictory, so that to

find out unity in the bewildering diversity is a very hard nut to crack.

And even though Rasa by itself, in principle, is one and homogeneous,

the states (Bhāva) to which the different Rasas correspond are of

varied nature.

The number of Rasas has differed with the different authorities. Just

as there was a school which believed in one Rasa only and tried to

explain all other Rasas in terms of that Rasa in the same way there were

theorists who did not find the number eight to be sufficient enough to

include all the diverse sentiments and added to the number. It is very

probable that Bharata mentioned only eight Rasas1. The ninth, viz.,

Śānta was a later addition; but Śānta has been accepted as the ninth

sentiment, by many of the later poeticians. Ānandavardhana and Abhinava

consider it as the principal sentiment in the MBh2.

Some of the writers on dramaturgy, on the other hand, refuse to

accept Śānta in drama. Dhanañjaya, for instance, admits of Śānta as a

ninth Rasa in poetry but does not recognise it in drama3. Dhanika

refers to the view of some who do not believe in the existence of Śānta

for the following reasons :

(i) The Ācārya i.e. Bharata has not mentioned its Vibhāva, Anu-

bhāva, etc.

(ii) Śānta is not capable of human experience as it implies annihi-

lation of love and hatred which have made a permanent abode in the

human mind from times immemorial and are impossible to destroy.

(iii) It can be included in Vira and Bibhatsa as Bibhatsa whose

dominant state is Jugupsā gives rise to dejection, discontent (with the

worldly pleasure) which ultimately results in Śama.

But these arguments can easily be refuted. It is not proper to adva-

nce the theory only on the basis of the authority of the text of the

NS which has been so corrupt and mishandled from time to time.

1. Even Abhinava who was a strong propounder of Śānta Rasa, while commenting upon

that portion of the NS regarding Śānta Rasa, feels that it was an interpolation

as can be inferred from his remark- Ye punar nava rasā iti paṭhanti tanmate

Śāntasvarūpam abhidhīyate (Abhi. I, p. 332). Kālidāsa aḷso refers to eight Rasas

mentioned by Bharata. Vide Vikram. II, 18.

2. Vide Dhv. IV, pp. 467-470.

3. Śamaṁ api kecit prāhuḥ puṣṭir nāṭye tu naitisya-DR IV, 35.

Moreover it would not be right to argue that Śānta does not exist because Bharata does not mention it. The second argument which is based on human psychology is likely to be severely opposed by the Mokṣavādins, who will address these theorists as materialists (Cārvākas). According to Indian philosophy Mokṣa is the highest ideal of human life and so it is heretical to deny it.

Similarly the argument of some who say that Śānta which implies annihilation of Kāma and Dveṣa cannot be represented by the actor who is not free from those dualities, is also invalid as the actor has simply to gesticulate. He does not experience Rasa at all1.

The third argument also does not appear to be quite sound as even though apathy for worldly pleasures may be a cause for Śama, still however Śānta or Śama is not similar in nature to Bibhatsa or Jugupsā; neither it is proper to include it in Vīra which has Utsāha i. e. vigour as its dominant state. In fact both Jugupsā and Utsāha can come as transitory states of Santa but neither of them can be the dominant state of Śānta. Dhanika, following Dhananjaya, holds that Śama cannot have a place in drama as Śama which implies cessation of all activity cannot be represented on stage in drama which is full of action.

The later theorists increase the number of Rasas. Rudraṭa enumerates ten Rasas adding ‘Preyas’ (with Sneha as the dominant state) to the celebrated nine2. Bhoja refers to ten Rasas accepted by the learned, adding Vatsala to the old list of nine3. Some add Bhakti. Viśvesvara refers to Māyā as a sentiment with Mithyājñāna as its dominant state4.

Varieties of Rasa

1. Śṛṅgāra

The ND, at the outset, divides Śṛṅgāra into two types —

(i) Sambhoga i. e. love in union

(ii) Vipralambha i. e. love in separation.

The principal Vibhāvas are man and woman. Vibhāvas are music, song, dance, seasons like spring, garland, betel leaf, peculiar dress and ornaments, accompanied by desirable persons and objects such as the Vidūṣaka, the moonrise, Cakravāka, swans, etc.

1. Cf. Aṣṭāv eva rasā nātyeṣv iti kecid acūcudan; Tad acāru yataḥ kañcin na rasam svadate nataḥ – RG p. 37.

2. KL, p. 166.

3. SP, – Āmnāsiṣur daśa rasā sudhiyo (p. 1). But Bhānudatta does not recognize Vatsala Rasa and includes it in Karuṇa, Vide Rasataraṅgiṇī V, p. 125.

4. Vide Rasacandrikā, p. 68.

20

154

It also includes sports such as plucking of flowers, moving in a garden, water-sports, etc.

The dominant state is love ( Rati ).

It is to be represented by the different types of gesticulation. It should also have vigour ( Utsāha ) etc.1

Its Anubhāvas are mental or physical torture, anger, dancing of eyes, knitting of eyebrows, etc. ( in Sambhoga ), and torture, tears, lamentation, etc. ( in Vipralambha ). In the former pleasant states such as Dhṛti etc. are introduced; in the latter only painful ones such as Nirveda.

Bharata divides Śṛṅgāra into three varieties caused by speech, by dress, and by physical action. Hāsya and Raudra too are similarly divided. But this division is applicable to all other Rasas also as the above three refer to the three types of Abhinayas which are essential in arousing the sentiments.

2. Hāsya

Hāsya arises out of the distortion in behaviour, speech, body and dress and other awkward gestures like blowing one’s nose, imitating others, etc, It is represented by the peculiar movement of the nose, lips, eyes, holding of the belly or sides.

Dissimulation ( Avahitthā ), vigour, wonder, etc. are its transitory states.

Hāsya is divided into six types :-

1. Vihasita; 2. Upahasita; 3. Smita; 4. Hasita; 5. Apahasita; 6. Atihasita.

First two are for middle characters, the next two for high-born persons and the last two for low persons.

This sentiment, as also Karuṇa, Bhayānaka, Bībhatsa and Adbhuta, is freely and abundantly used in the case of low characters or women as they too are deemed low as compared with men. A low man excessively laughs, weeps, fears, likes slander of others, and is astounded even by an ordinary speech .

The ND has followed here the NS. From the relevant discussion in the NS, the DR, the ND, etc. it is found that Hāsya arises out of distortion or awkwardness in speech, action, dress, facial expressions, etc.

1. Here the ND discusses an interesting point about the state of Utsāha (i. e. vigour). Vigour is the dominant state of Vira and still forms a part of Śṛṅgāra. But the point is that in Śṛṅgāra vigour does not dominate. It comes as a transitory state. And a dominant state of one sentiment can likewise become a transitory state of other sentiments.

This is obviously, a very low kind of humour. Consequently the sentiment itself was looked down upon a little. The statement of the ND that this sentiment is to be freely used in the case of low characters and women, goes to corroborate this view. This particular theory may be held responsible for the lack of intellectual humour in Sanskrit drama. The Indian theorists were rather unaware of the finer type of humour, wits, intelligent jokes which could win applause from the intelligentzia. That is why excepting a few works like the Śākuntala, the Mṛcchakaṭika, etc. we find very little of delightful humour in the whole range of Sanskrit drama. Whatever humour is there is stale and stereotyped, mainly caused by the stupid speech and ugly gestures of the Vidūṣaka.

The definition is too narrow also because it does not take into consideration the humour arising out of the impropriety of sentiments such as Śṛṅgāra and others.

Bharata divides Hāsya into two – ( i ) Ātmastha, when a person laughs all alone ( ii ) Parasthe, when he makes others laugh though he himself may be perfectly serious. The DR over and above this two-fold division divides each into three, viz., belonging to high, middle or low characters, resulting thereby in six divisions.

3. Karuṇa

Karuṇa arises out of death, imprisonment, loss of wealth, curse or calamity. These are the Vibhāvas. Śoka is its dominant state. Its Anubhāvas are tears, paleness of face, loss of memory etc., scolding one’s fate, weeping, lamenting, beating one’s breasts etc. Nirveda, Glāni, anxiety, eagerness, fatigue, paralysis, tremor, paleness, tears, change of voice etc. are its Vyabhicārīs1.

4. Raudra

The furious arises out of striking with weapons, falsehood, jealousy, treachery, bad policy, committing offence such as criticizing one’s knowledge, action, country, caste, etc., depriving one of one’s kingdom or wealth etc. It is represented by killing, blood-shed, cutting or breaking of limbs, pressing of lips or teeth, shivering of lips, cheeks, pressing, the hands, etc. Distraction, ardour, avarice, inconstancy, fierceness, perspiration, horripilation, tremor, etc. are its transitory states. The ND here points out that even the Sthāyī Bhāvas also may sometimes come in as transitory states2.

1. Here the ND includes the Sāttvika Bhāvas, which are in fact Anubhāvas, in Vyabhicāris.

2. Cf. ND, p. 168

156

5. Vīra

The heroic ( Vīra ) arises, out of valour, strength, ( physical as well as of army, wealth, etc.), justice, reputation due to qualities like heroism which causes terror in the minds of the foes, and determination of the facts ( Tattvaviniścaya ). Its dominant state is Utsāha which may be regarding different matters such as war, religion, alms-giving, merits, valour, etc.

It is represented by courage, steadfastness, inspiring the army, condemning the foe, giving alms, horripilation, etc. Patience, intellect, pride, anger, memory, horripilation etc. are its transitory states.

Here the ND marks out the distinction between Vīra and Raudra. Both are martial sentiments and in both fight occurs. But the essential distinction is that the former is dominated by enthusiasm and justice while the latter is dominated by infatuation, pride and injustice.

6. Bhayānaka

Bhayānaka or dreadful is caused by fearsome creatures like evil spirits, owls, etc., killing or fighting with weapons, a lonely place or forest, a thief or a robber, the offence against an elderly person or a king. On seeing, hearing, or even thinking about the above-mentioned causes, Bhayānaka with Bhaya ( or dread ) as its dominant state arises. It is to be represented by paralysis, horripilation, tremor, change in facial expressions, drying up of the throat, paleness, swoon, etc. Doubt, infatuation, terror, epilepsy, death, perspiration, tremor, paleness, etc. are its Vyabhicārīs.

7. Bībhatsa

It arises out of the perception, seeing or hearing of objects which are highly contemptible or disgustful as they may be dirty or rough or emitting foul smell. It also includes eulogy of the enemy. It has Jugupsā ( disgust ) as its dominant state. It is represented by splitting, shaking of one’s limbs, despising, contracting the body, showing signs of hatred on the face, shutting the nose or ears, heart-ache, etc. Disease, distraction, confusion, epilepsy, death. etc. are its transitory states.

8. Adbhuta

It arises out of direct or indirect hearing or perception of divinities, magic, charming objects like architecture, beauty, fragrance, dance, song, and the like, acquiring of one’s cherished object, etc. Vismaya or wonder is the dominant state here. It is represented by praising the object, horripilation, indication of joy and wonder such as expansion of eyes, gazing with a steady eye, shaking of garments or fingers, inarticulate or

faltering speech, tremor, perspiration, etc. Confusion, paralysis, tears,

horripilation, etc. are its transitory states.

9. Śānta

It is caused by the fear of the cycle of birth and death, disgust

for the worldly objects, contemplation of the Absolute, perusal of scrip-

tures, etc. It has Sama as its dominant state which implies a mental

state of equipoise free from worldly desires, greed, anger, etc. It is to

be represented by forbearance, meditation, steady glances, kindness,

impartiality, joy, etc. Nirveda ( depression ), Mati ( intellect ), memory,

Dhṛti ( forbearance ) etc. are its Vyabhicārīs.

The ND here refers to the view of some who do not believe in

Śānta on the ground that drama represents action while Śānta aims at

Mokṣa ( which implies emancipation from all miseries and which consti-

tutes cessation of activity.).

Critical Remarks :

The above view apparently seems to refer to the DR. The DR asserts

that Sama is also reckoned as one of the Rasas by some but it cannot

have any place in drama1.

Dhanika also refuses to accept Śānta on the ground that love and

hatred which have firm grip over our minds from times immemorial cannot

be annihilated. But this view does not seem to be quite acceptable for

the reasons stated earlier2.

After establishing the position of Śānta as a Rasa we naturally face

another problem, viz., what is the Sthāyin of Śānta ?

There are various views regarding the Sthāyī of Śānta3. The SR4

gives five views -

1. Nirveda or despondency.

This Nirveda arises on account of the thought that I did not make

efforts for attaining salvation - the highest end - in my earlier births. A

sense of remorse and repentance for wasting invaluable human life ( or

lives ) results in Nirveda.

Mammaṭa gives another reason for considerating this as a Sthāyī of

1. DR IV, 35.

2. The view of Dhanika and its criticism has been discussed in detail in this chapter

under 'the number of Rasas.'

3. The controversy about the Sthāyī of Śānta is suggested also by the DR when it

refers to " Nirveda and others " as the so called Sthāyī of Śānta ( DR IV, 36 ).

4. SR VII, 1374 p. 816.

158

Śānta, viz., it is mentioned first among Vyabhicārīs by Bharata even though its import is not auspicious1.

2. Jugupsā i. e. contempt for the sensual pleasures (Viṣaya) without which man would not try for Śama.

3. Utsāha (energy or zest). This implies mental effort to practise the Sādhanacatuṣṭaya.

4. Sama i. e. abstinence from all sensual activities (Indriyavyāpāra).

5. All the above four combined together.

Ānandavardhana considers ‘Trṣṇākṣayasukha’ i. e. annihilation of sensual desires as the Sthāyī of ‘Śama2’.

Over and above these, Samyag-jñāna, Dhṛti, Rati, Nirviśeṣaṇa-cittavṛtti, Sarvacittavṛttipraśama, any of the eight Sthāyīs or all the eight Sthāyīs together are considered to be the Sthāyīs of Śānta.

According to the ND the Sthāyī of Śānta is Śama only. It criticises Mammaṭa for considering Nirveda as the Sthāyī of Śānta3.

Place of Rasa in Poetry

Word and sense constitute the body of poetry4 but Rasa or sentiment forms the very soul (of poetry). And having Rasa as its soul it enters the hearts of the appreciative reader or critic. Hence the poets are mainly interested in Rasa. And only that figure of speech enchants the heart, which is introduced in order to bring out Rasa. To make the point quite clear the ND gives as many as four illustrations (two from Rāmacandra’s own works and two from others) where figures of word and sense are introduced for Rasa only5. The ND then explicitly points out that in poetry figures of speech are not so important as Rasa. A drama or a literary piece replete with figures of speech but devoid of Rasa is compared to a ripe but dry (with no juice) mango which may be attractive in appearance but tastes insipid. Just as such a mango-fruit displeases us, even so does such a poem. Hence some poets who do not go beyond strikingness of word and sense introduce alliteration, pun, etc. This may be appreciated in other forms of poetry but not in drama which is chiefly concerned with sentiment only. The ND condemns such poets as ‘dry poets’.6

1. KP, p. 116; also cf. Rudraṭa’s KL, p. 214.

2. Dhv., p. 300.

3. ND, p. 177. This point has been discussed later.

4. Arthaśabdavapuḥ kāvyam (ND III, 123a). Here the ND seems to follow the definition of Bhāmaha who gives equal importance to word as well as sense in Kāvya. His definition of Kāvya is ‘Śabdārthau sahitau kāvyam’.

5. Vide ND, pp. 170-171.

6. Śuṣkakavī - ND, p. 171.

159

Here the ND touches one of the most vital points about literature.

From very ancient times there had been a problem of discussion as to what should be the most important element in poetry? What is, in other words, the soul of poetry? Or what forms the guiding principle in poetry? Different rhetoricians propounded their own personal views as a result of which came into being five different schools of poetics.

The ND here points out the importance of Rasa in poetry. Rasa is the very soul of poetry. It is to poetry what fragrance is to a blossomed flower or what sweet juice is to a ripe mango fruit.

Here there is a warning to the poets who indulge themselves merely in ingenious play of word and sense. That is no true poetry. Scholorship in different sciences like Logic and grammar is different from poetic talents. A true poet does not care for the words but rather concentrates on Rasa. Words are merely a medium to convey the particular idea or sentiments. Words are thus means to an end and not an end in themselves. It will be a serious unpardonable blunder on the part of the poet if he neglects the end viz. Rasa and is too much attached to the display of his mastery over vocabulary and grammar.

The influence of Bharata and Abhinava is visible here too. The ND sides with the view of Bharata, viz., Rasa is the soul of poetry, the view which is merely slightly modified and widened by the propounders of Dhvani school viz. Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. This view grew more and more popular by the advent of time and we find it accepted by almost all later writers on dramaturgy as well as poetics.

Contradictory Rasas1

When rasa is accepted to be the summum bonum of dramatic art, it becomes obligatory on the part of the playwright to take utmost care with regard to the development of Rasa in order that it may create a healthy emotional effect on the mind of the spectators. Rasa is so delicate that it demands serious attention of the writer while depicting it. One of the most important points that the dramatist should constantly bear in mind is that he should not fuse together those Rasas which are

1. The following Rasas are generally contradictory Rasas :-

Śṛṅgāra - Karuṇa, Bibhatsa, Raudra, Bhayānaka.

Hāsya - Bhayānaka, Karuṇa.

Karuṇa - Hāsya, Śṛṅgāra.

Raudra - Śṛṅgāra, Hāsya, Bhayānaka.

Vīra - Bhayānaka, Śānta.

Bhayānaka- Śṛṅgāra, Vīra, Raudra and Hāsya.

Bibhatsa - Śṛṅgāra.

Śānta - Śṛṅgāra, Vīra, Raudra, Hāsya, Bhayānaka,

160

contradictory to each other such as Śṛṅgāra and Bībhatsa, Vīra and Bhayānaka, Hāsya and Karuṇa and so on1. Coexistence of such contradictory Rasas is very likely to mar the unified effect and so must be avoided.

The ND here states the conditions under which such contradictory Rasas can be fused together and the seeming contradiction removed.

The contradictory sentiments sound contradictory only when (i) they are put at one place, (ii) they are independent and (iii) they are equally powerful. So if this contradiction is to be removed the writer may use the following devices :-

The substratum or Āśraya of the two Rasas should be changed. If Vīra is depicted in the case of the hero, Bhayānaka will not strike contradictory if depicted in the case of his rivals.

Moreover contradictory sentiments can stand together under different contexts. Thus Śṛṅgāra and Śānta which are mutually contradictory will not appear to be so when understood in different contexts, e. g., with reference to a lascivious man and a sage, as is possible in the verse —‘Dantakṣatāni karajaiś ca vipāṭitāni….’ etc.2

Moreover the sentiments appear contradictory specially when they are independent and equally powerful. But this contradiction is removed if one sentiment is made independent and the other one dependent upon it or they should be made subordinate to one principal Rasa. In the former case one sentiment will work as a helpmate to the other. Thus Śṛṅgāra may go a long way to heighten the effect of Karuṇ1. Thus the recollection of the pleasures with the dead lover heightens the pathos.

Another way of removing the contradiction is to make the contrdictory Rasas subordinate to some thing else. This is very easy. Even if they are made subordinate to another their contradiction disappears just as the cowives can stay together happily under the supremacy of their lord even though they are rivals.

Again even when residing at one place the contradiction appears only when the sentiments are of equal strength and it would be instantly removed provided one is stronger than the other.

Lastly contradiction appears only when the contradictory sentiments are described simultaneously but not so if they are intercepted by a sentiment which is contrary to neither. Thus in the Nāgānanda Śānta

1. Certain Rasas are not contradictory, for instance, Śṛṅgāra and Hāsya, Śṛṅgāra and Vīra, Vīra and Adbhuta, Śṛṅgāra and Adbhuta, etc.

2. Vide ND, p. 172.

which is reflected in the words of the hero "......though contemptible,

this youth will secure the fruit of my desire, if it passes away thus

while I am serving my parents with devotion"1 when followed by its

contradictory sentiment, viz., Śṛṅgāra, is mediated by Adbhuta which is

contradictory to neither, being represented in the surprise expressed by

the hero on hearing the charming song and music too2.

In case of Vibhāvas and Vyabhicārīs also the contradiction can be

removed in the manner as explained above with reference to Rasa.

The authors of the ND appear to be considerably indebted to the

Dhvanyāloka where we find a systematic treatment of this topic for the

first time.

Flaws ( Doṣas ) of Rasas

The above discussion implies that the first flaw in the depiction of

sentiment which is regarded as the very quintessence of drama by Indian

theorists is to represent the contradictory sentiments simultaneously.

Here there are other noteworthy flaws which a dramatist must scrupulously

avoid. They are as under :-

( 1 ) Impropriety

It is of various kinds :

( a ) Introducing the Vibhāvas of a contradictory ( or unfriendly )

Rasa, e. g., "Abandon pride. Enough of quarrels, Youth once passed

will never return."-being thus exhorted by the cuckoo birds, the young

ladies indulge themselves in amorous sports. Here the fickleness of youth

is the Vibhāva of Śānta which is unfriendly to Śṛṅgāra3.

( b ) Untimely representation, e. g., in the Veṇī. in the time of war

which caused the destruction of lacs of heroes along with Bhīṣma and

others, the love-scene between Duryodhana and Bhānumatī is represented.

In fact under this martial situation of the play a love-scene has no

scope. But Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa-has committed a great artistic blunder while

slavishly trying to follow the dramaturgic rules4.

1. Nāg. I, 5.

2. Ibid. I, 14.

3. The verse quoted is from the Raghuvaṃśa ( IX, 47 ) of Kālidāsa. Critics do not

spare even the greatest of poets. But here it is possible to defend Kālidāsa. What the

lover wants to argue is this. As youth is so very evanescent every moment is highly

precious. One cannot afford to waste it. So the purpose is not to create Vairāgya

but to induce the beloved to enjoy to the full every second of life.

4. This scene is severely criticized by almost all writers on poetics; Cf. Dhv. p. 292.

The ND seems to have drawn upon the Dhv. here.

(c) Cutting off (the prevailing sentiment) all of a sudden, e. g., in the Mahāviracarita when the heroic sentiment has fully developed by the exchange of hot speeches between Rāma and Paraśurāma, the former suddenly bursts out, "I am going to untie the marriage-string."

(d) Misrepresenting the nature and temperament of high, middle and low characters. This can be of various types:-

(i) The comic, tragic, terrible and marvelous sentiments are quite unsuitable to high characters and so are decent love, furious and calm sentiments to the middle and low characters.

(ii) Delineation of love in union in the case of divine, high characters as in the case of Pārvatī and Saṅkara in the Kumārasambhava (Canto VIII), which is intolerable like the depiction of amorous sports of one's own parents.

(iii) Depiction of anger bearing immediate result, going to heaven or nether region, crossing of ocean etc. in case of non-divine high characters while delineating the heroic sentiment.

(iv) Depiction of sentiments quite contrary to the nature in case of the four types of heroes.

(v) Exuberance of heroism etc. in the case of middle and low characters.

(e) Inappropriateness of language. The words should be appropriate to and in keeping with the emotion or sentiment to be conveyed. For instance, in the case of vigorous (Dipta) sentiments like Vira and Raudra harsh consonants such as ṭ, ṭh, ḍ, ḍh, v, or conjuncts should be abundantly used. Moreover, there ought to be long compounds. In case of delicate sentiments like Śṛṅgāra, Karuṇa, etc., the words should be soft. The dramatist should also avoid long compounds. In either case the words should be well-known, unambiguous, refined, and endowed with grace.

(f) Improper behaviour such as a fault or fraud committed by a high-born lady, or the hero getting irritated on being kicked by the heroine.

(g) Action which is incompatible with the age or dress, time and clime, state or stage.

(h) When figures of words such as Yamaka, Śleṣa, etc. predominate or detailed descriptions of natural phenomena, seasons, ocean, sun-rise, are given, they hinder the development of the sentiment proper.

(2) If a subordinate thing which is, in fact, meant to develop the main sentiment is described again and again it becomes a fault, e. g., in

the KTR Rāma's weeping over and over again at the news of Jaṭāyu's

death, Lakṣmaṇa's injury caused by the missile and Sītā's distress carry

pathos too far. A subordinate sentiment ought not to be raised so high

lest it should overshadow the principal one.

Here the ND criticizes the opinion of 'some' who illustrate this by

the description of Hayagriva in the Hayagrīvavadha. But according to

the ND this is a fault not of Rasa but of the plot itself as the hero of

the plot is not delineated in detail. There the heroic sentiment is

developed specially by the description of the prowess and pomp of the

victim ( Vadhya )1.

(3) Not carrying the dominant sentiment to a high pitch. Here the

sentiment which deserves development is not so developed.

(4) The development of a sentiment again and again even when it has

already reached its acme is reckoned to be another fault, e. g., lamenta-

tion of Rati in the Kumārasambhava ( Canto IV ). If a sentiment which

has been fully developed is touched again and again it fades and loses

its charm like a withered garland of Mālatī flowers.

(5) Now in a play which includes a number of sentiments, the

main sentiment should be connected or linked every time when it is

interrupted by other sentiments. This linking is the essence of the

development of Rasa. It should be remembered or brought to mind again

and again, otherwise it will remain undeveloped and cause a serious flaw,

e. g., in the RTN Sāgarikā is totally forgotten on account of the entry

of Bābhravya.

The ND at the close of the discussion points out that all of the

above-mentioned flaws in fact, can be included under impropriety but

they are treated separately, with a view to elucidating by way of illustra-

tion as to how many types of improprieties are possible.

The ND then criticizes the view of some who hold that the

Vyabhicārīs, Rasas, and Sthāyīs should not be mentioned by name.

Their verbal mention is a flaw in Rasa2. But this is not correct, says

1. Clearly enough the ND has criticized here the author of the KP ( This criticism is

equally applicable to the KS which almost literally follows Mammata, p. 171 ).

2. The view referred to here seems again to have been directed against the KP of

Mammaṭa. In the enumeration of Rasadoṣas in Ch. 7 ( p. 434 ) of the KP this one

tops the list. Mammaṭa takes this as a fault, of course he points out that it may

not be so in all cases. When a particular gesture ( Anubhāva ) is incapable of

suggesting only one specific state of mind then the Vyabhicārī may be mentioned in

order that there should not be a shadow of doubt as to the emotion to be conveyed,

e. g., haste ( Tvarā ) may be caused by eagerness and fear as well which are Vya-

164

the ND. Vyabhicārīs and others even though mentioned verbally may develop the dominant state ( and ultimately Rasa ), e. g., 'The eyes of

that proud lady became eager when the lover was far, tremulous as he approached nearer, expanded as he talked, reddish as he embraced, with

the brow slightly bent as he caught hold of her garments, full of tears when he bowed at her feet and sharp as the lover committed an offence '1.

Here there is no Rasadoṣa but there is no strikingness or Vakrokti.

Similarly at times the Vibhāvas mentioned are common to two sentiments and consequently it is difficult to make sure as to which of

the two is intended by the poet. This type of dubious apprehension or lack of perspicuity is a fault not of the Rasa but of the construction or

expression. The illustration is -

'He ( or she ) does not relish any thing, his intellect has faded, commits faults ( or stumbles at every step ), rolls in the bed at night.

Thus his body has forcibly fallen in a sad state. What can we do here ?'2

Here detachment from all objects etc. are possible in case of Karuṇa also and thus there is a doubtful state about Śṛṅgāra being the chief

sentiment. This according to the ND is a fault of expression.

This discussion of Rasadoṣas is mainly based on the Dhvanyāloka of Ānandavardhana upon whom most of the later writers on poetics

draw in the treatment of this and some other topics.

Bhāva

After the discussion of Rasa the authors of the ND turn to Bhāva.

Bhāvas are of two types :-

(i) Sthāyi bhāvas.

(ii) Vyabhicāribhāvas. The ND firstly treats of Sthāyibhāvas i. e., dominant states. They are nine in number corresponding to the nine

Rasas; ( i ) Rati ( Love ), ( ii ) Hāsa ( Humour ), ( iii ) Śoka ( Sorrow ),

( iv ) Krodha ( anger ), ( v ) Utsāha ( vigour ), ( vi ) Bhaya ( terror ), ( vii ) Jugupsā ( hatred ) ( viii ) Vismaya ( wonder ) and ( ix ) Śama ( tranquillity )3.

bhicāris. It will not be a fault even if the Vyabhicārī which is the cause of this haste is mentioned. It may be noted here that the KS too has followed the KP here

and points out that verbal mention of Rasa, Bhāva, etc. is a fault but at times a similar mention of Vyabhicārīs may not be faulty ( pp. 159-61 ) and illustrates it by

this very verse.

1. ND, pp. 175-6.

2. This again is mentioned by the KP as a Rasadoṣa ( KS follows it ) where Vibhāvas and Anubhāvas do not clearly suggest one sentiment. The same illustration is cited

( p. 264 ). Thus the attack seems to be directed against Mammata.

3. The order very strictly corresponds to the NS of Bharata ( cf. NS VI, 18 ) with the difference that while the NS mentions eight, the ND adds Śama as the ninth.

Rati consists in mutual attachment between a man and a woman. This attachment or affection is totally distinct from the one to be found in a wanton woman who is prompted merely by passion and her sole interest is the fulfilment of lust. It is also distinguished from the love or regard towards the good, elders, kinsmen, etc., or the attachment towards attractive things. Hāsa is the feeling of joy. The feeling of Śoka consists of pain mingled with dejection. Utsāha is spiritedness or non-slothfulness in the religious activities, alms-giving, fighting etc. Bhaya implies confusion ( Vaiklavya ). Jugupsā is aversion or disgust. Vismaya is the emotion produced by seeing or hearing of anything surprising. Śama consists in desirelessness. These dominant states are the causes ( Pariṇāmikāraṇa ) for the rise of their corresponding sentiments. In the cases of other sentiments these Sthāyīs serve as transitory states of consequents (Anubhāva), for as soon as they become momentary they lose their Sthāyitva. If they come as accompanying states or helping ones they are transītory. If they come as effects they are consequents ( Anubhāvas ). Their transitory states and the consequents are the same as those of their respective sentiments.

It is rather strange to find that the ND should treat this important topic so summarily. While Bharata devotes considerable space to this topic the ND disposes of that treatment in a small paragraph in the commentary. The Kārikā 126 simply enumerates them but does not explain them at all. Even in the commentary they are explained in a short sentence at times in a word1.

Here again a question may arise, " Why then is this distinction of Sthāyī and Vyabhicārī ? Can the Vyabhicārins also be Sthāyīs?" The answer is in the negative. It is true that both Sthāyīs as well as Vyabhicārins are Bhāvas, i. e., mental states. But all these states are not capable of being permanent ones in literature. Dream, sleep, jealousy, sickness etc. are bound to be momentary. They cannot be raised to a high level of Sthāyī. So the ancient poeticians, taking into consideration the poetic and psychological factors, selected only a few out of the big number-just eight or nine-which could be developed into Rasa.

Vyabhicāri Bhāvas

The ND then turns to transitory states ( Vyabhicāri or Sañcāri Bhāvas ). They are thirty three in number. They are as under :- 1. Nirveda, 2. Glāni, 3. Apasmāra, 4. Śaṅkā, 5. Asūyā, 6. Mada, 7. Śrama, 8. Cintā, 9. Cāpala, 10. Āvega 11. Mati, 21. Vyādhi, 13. Smṛti,

1. Cf. ND-Vaiklavyam bhayam, nibsprhatvam śamah......p. 176.

166

15. Amarśa, 16. Maraṇa, 17. Moha, 18. Nidrā, 19. Supta, 20. Augryā,

16. Hṛṣṭi, 22. Viṣāda, 23. Unmāda, 24. Dainya, 25. Vṛidā, 26, Trāsa,

17. Tarka or Vitarkaṇa, 28. Garva, 29. Autsukya, 30. Avahitthā,

18. Jāḍya, 32. Ālasya, 33. Vibodhana.

But this list is not exhaustive. There can be even more transitory

states such as - Kṣudh ( hunger ), Tṛṣṇā ( thirst ), Maitrī ( friendship ),

Muditā ( mirth ), Śraddhā (faith), Daya (compassion ), Upekṣā ( in-

difference ), Arati (hatred ), Santoṣa (contentment ), Kṣamā ( patience )

Mārdava (tenderness), Ārjava ( straightforwardness ), Dākṣiṇya ( courtesy ),

etc. Moreover, even the Sthāyī Bhāvas and Anubhāvas may occur as

Vyabhicārīs.

They should be used with propriety. Some of them are common to

more sentiments than one, while others are not.

The authors of the ND appear to be quite correct when they say

that Vyabhicārī Bhāvas are not thirty three only but that they can

be many more.

The ND then goes to define each of the above-mentioned Bhāvas -

1. Nirveda ( Discouragement ) is disinterestedness or dissatisfaction

caused by affliction such as poverty, disease, insult, jealousy, beating,

separation from the beloved, etc.1 This causes mental agony and sighs.

This is not invariably fixed for a particular sentiment and is to be

occasionally employed and so is called a transitory state and not a

dominant one. The same is the case with the remaining states too.

The ND here criticizes Mammaṭa who considers this as Sthāyī

Bhāva of Śānta on the ground that, though inauspicious, it has been put

first in the list of Vyabhicārīs by Bharata and thereby asserts that it

is a Sthāyī2. The ND finds here a self-contradiction.

Of course the argument of Mammaṭa, though ingenious, cannot be

called to be really intended by Bharata. It is clear that Bharata neither

recognizes Śānta nor defines it3. Had Bharata intended Nirveda to be a

Sthāyī of a new sentiment he should have clearly stated it. It is difficult

to understand why Bharata should put it in the list of Vyabhicārins, if

he really thought it to be a Sthāyī.

Still however the way in which the ND has argued does not seem to

be quite fair to Mammaṭa. Mammaṭa is aware of the transitory nature of

1. Literally adopted from the NS (GOS) Vol. I, p. 357.

2. Cf. Nirvedasya amaṅgalaprāyasya prathamam anupādeyatve 'pyupādānam vyabhi-

cāritve 'pi sthāyitābhidhānārtham—KP, p. 116.

3. Vide Comparative Aesthetics, vol. I, pp. 178-185.

Nirveda. What he means to say is simply this. When a list is given,

the one which is the most important or auspicious among all the members

should naturally top the list (Just as Rati, Śṛṅgāra, etc. top the list of

Sthāyibhāvas, Rasas, etc.). Why then should Nirveda, which is really

inauspicious in sense, be placed first in the list of the Vyabhicārīs ?

Mammaṭa believes that probably Bharata wants to attach more importance

to it as it can be a Sthāyī of the ninth Rasa viz. Śānta.

2. Glāni ( weakness ) consists of agony, both mental as well as

physical, caused by diseases, vomitting, hunger, thirst, etc. or by

disability due to labour, journey, love-sport, old age etc.

3. Apasmāra ( Epilepsy) is the loss of discrimination as to what

is fit to be done and what is not. It is caused by the influence of some

evil spirit or some evil place.

4. Śaṅkā ( apprehension ) is the confused fickle state of mind on

account of the misdeed done by one's own self or by others.

5. Asūyā ( Jealousy ) is the feeling of intolerence of others' good

qualities or virtues.

6. Mada ( infatuation) is the joy as a result of intoxication.

If a character enters intoxicated, the intoxication should be removed

by terrifying it otherwise there would be chaos (Kāryavyāghāta ).

7. Śrama ( weariness or fatigue) is the exhaustion of the limbs

on account of sexual enjoyments, a long journey, physical exercise, etc.

8. Ciṅlā ( anxiety ) is mental affliction on account of not obtaining

the desired object or obtaining the undesirable object.

9. Cāpala ( rashness ) (or inconsistency-Haas ) is the feeling of

venture on account of love, hatred, stupidity or dullness.

10. Avega - ( agitation ) is the feeling of agitation at the unexpected

advent of the desired object.

11. Mati ( apprehension ) is the talents ( Pratibhā ) as a result of

the study of scientific treatises, which destroys false cognition or doubts.

12. Vyādhi ( sickness ) is the feeling of physical and mental pain

on account of the disorder of the three humours of the body.

13. Smṛti ( recollection ) is the memory of the thing previously seen

or apprehended, as a result of similarity of the thing recently observed1.

14. Dṛḍhi ( contentment ) is the feeling of satisfaction on account

of knowledge, learning, attainment of the desired object, observance of

purity, devotion to gods, special power, etc.

1. This Bhāva very much resembles the figure of speech called Smaraṇa.

168

15. Amarṣa (Indignation) is the desire to wrong a person who committed offence by insulting, showing contempt, etc. It constitutes a desire to pay one back in one's own coin and thus differs from Krodha which is possible even when there is no wrong done by the opposite party1.

16. Maraṇa (Demise) consists of the determination of death as a result of diseases such as disorder of the three humours of the body, fever, itch (or scab), boils,2 the wound caused by weapons, drinking of poison, snake-bite, attack by wild animals or an elephant or a horse, falling down from a carriage or a lofty place, etc. The person loses all hopes for survival as he considers the evil to be irresistible.

Here actual death that is departure of soul from the body should not be staged.

It is to be noted here that the word Maraṇa does not indicate death proper, for which the word actually stands, as actual death was forbidden on the stage.3

17. Moha (Distraction) is the loss of senses as a result of a blow on a vital part of the body, unbearable pain, irresistible attack by a thief, a king, a snake, a tiger, etc., revolution in the country, danger of fire or water, seeing (or hearing about) the foes.

18. Nidrā (drowsiness) consists of inactivity of sense-organs as a result of fatigue, slothfulness, feebleness, waking at night, over-eating, intoxication, worrs, drowsiness, etc.

19. Supta (sleep) it is a higher stage of Nidrā. In the latter only sense-organs become inactive and not the mind but here even the mind slightly ceases to function. The Vibhāvas are the same as in Nidrā.

20. Augrya (cruelty) is becoming merciless towards a wicked man who is cruel, untruthful, deceitful.

21. Harṣa (Joy) is the mental delight caused by the obtainment of the agreeable thing (or beloved person). It implies abstinence from inagreeable things.

22. Vide ND, p. 180.

23. This itch and boil ought to be of a very serious nature. Otherwise they cannot cause death. But at least the person suffering from them prefers death to unbearable suffering.

24. Here we find an improvement upon Bharata who takes Maraṇa as actual death and gives two types of it : (i) caused by disease and (ii) caused by a blow or striking. The DR (IV, 21) remarks that Maraṇa is not discussed as it is well-known and inauspicious. Hemacandra also takes the word as a stage prior to death (Mrteḥ prāgavasthā mrtiḥ - KS, p. 143,)

22. Viṣāda ( despair ) consists of mental agony and dejection as a result of not obtaining the desired object or obtaining just the reverse.

23. Unmāda ( insanity ) is the feeling of mental perplexity and unsteadiness as a result of evil spirit, disorder of the three humours of the human body, etc.

This comes as a transitory state of Vipralambha (love in separation ) in the case of a high - born character. In case the character is low, it figures as a Vyabhicāri of Karuṇa.

The ND tries to bring out the distinction between Unmāda and Apasmāra. The latter figures in Bibhatsa or Bhayānaka only. While the former implies just the unsteadiness of mind the latter signifies the non-existence or incompetence of the brain.

24. Dainya - ( depression ) is the feeling of mental feebleness ( inferiority-complex ) which is due to the hard times, poverty, contempt of others, etc.

25. Vṛīdā – ( shame ) is lack of boldness before the elderly persons on account of remorse for unworthy deeds.

26. Trāsa ( fright ) is a dreadful surprise at the terrific sight such as a hurricane or a fall of lightning, or seeing of a ghost etc.

This is to be clearly differentiated from Bhaya where there is a loss of spirits owing to the anticipation of some evil.

27. Tarka ( deliberation or surmise ) is the decision of one matter in the case of differences, doubts, etc.

28. Garva ( pride or insolence ) is a feeling of over-estimating one’s own self accompanied by contempt towards others as a result of one’s high clan, family, achievement, intellect, power, etc.

It will not be difficult to see that this feeling of pride is just contradictory to the one mentioned before, viz., Dainya. In terms of psychology we may call it superiority-complex.

29. Autsukya ( Impatience ) is the eagerness or longing to see the beloved caused by recollection, desire to see or embrace etc.

30. Avahitthā ( Dissimulation ) is veiling or concealing one’s mental disturbances or outward manifestations like knitting of the eye - brows, reddening of the face, etc. This concealment may be due to boldness, fear, bashfulness, dignity or crookedness.

31. Jāḍya - ( Stupor ) is the inability to determine as to what one should do as a result of seeing or hearing of a desired object or an undesired one.

22

170

This is different from Apasmāra and Moha which represent high excitement (loss of discrimination) and total loss of senses respectively.

32. Ālasya (slothfulness) is lack of enthusiasm in doing a thing as a result of fatigue, satiety (Sauhitya), nature (or temperament), disease, pregnancy, etc. This is to be shown chiefly in the case of ladies and low characters.

Here Srama or fatigue which itself is a Vyabhicārī becomes a Vibhāva of Ālasya. But there is nothing wrong in this. Such a relation of cause and effect between Vyabhicārīs is quite possible. Similarly a Vyabhicārī can also come as an Anubhāva of the other. Of course, one Vyabhicārī cannot come as a Vyabhicārī of the other because in that case that one will go up to the level of a Sthāyī.

33. Vibodha (waking) is interruption in slumber on account of some sound (or noise), touch, dream etc.

These Vyabhicārī Bhāvas are temporary or short-lived as compared to the Sthāyī Bhāvas which are permanent or long-lived. They come and go like the pictures of the cinematograph. They are meant to help the development of the dominant state.

The enumeration and the explanation of the thirty three Vyabhicārīs is in keeping with the NS of Bharata. All the theorists have usually followed the same.

The ND turns now to Anubhāvas. They are the effects (Kārya) of the (Rasas), or Sthāyibhāvas or Vyabhicārī bhāvas or other Anubhāvas.

They are as under :-

1. Vepathu (tremor) is the quivering of the limbs (or body) on account of fear, disease, joy, cold, anger, touch of the beloved, etc.

2. Stambha (Paralysis) is paralysing (becoming motionless) of the limbs on account of excessive joy, surprise, dread, intoxication, disease, etc.

3. Romāñca (horripilation). It is called Romāñca when the hair stand erect on account of the sight of the beloved, disease, cold, anger, etc.

4. Svarabheda (change of voice) is the change of voice owing to intoxication, fear, joy, anger, love, old age, etc.

5. Aśru (tears) is shedding of tears on account of sorrow, looking intently at one object, fury, smoke, applying of collyrium, yawning, terror, pain, laughter, etc.

6. Mūrchana (swoon) is losing control over one’s senses (i.e. fainting), on account of heavy beating, anger, intoxication, etc.

7. Sveda ( perspiration ) is the excretion of liquid from the body on account of exertion, terror, joy, shame, disease, affliction, heat, etc. It is represented by holding a fan in one’s hand, desire for breeze, etc.

8. Vaivarnya ( paleness ) is loss of one’s lustre on account of condemnation, agony, terror, wrath, disease, cold, exertion, etc. It is represented by looking in the directions, pricking one’s nails, blushing, etc.

There are thousands of Anubhāvas such as tranquillity, breathing a sigh of relief or pain, crying, lamenting, scratching the ground, turning on the other side, throwing side-long glances, looking downward, admiration, laughter, giving alms, flattery, reddening of the face, etc.1

Bharata ( and the later theorists) calls these ‘Sāttvika Bhāvas ’2. They are so called because these are caused by the concentration of mind. They cannot be imitated by an absent-minded person. They require great attention and care on the part of an actor. They, in fact, are not actual mental states but are the external manifestations of the same. Hence it would be more correct to call them Anubhāvas or consequents of mental states rather than Bhāvas or states. Bharata also seems to be aware of this particular nature of the so-called Sāttvika Bhāvas and that is why he difines ‘Sattva’ not as ‘mind’ but as arising out of the mind3 or mental concentration.

The DR also follows Bharata but understands this dual nature of these Bhāvas4. Dhanika, following Bharata, tries to explain that they are Bhāvas because they are born of mind. But the explanation does not seem to be so convincing. Here there is an attempt to defend Bharata. The ND refuses to accept Bharata ( or the authority of the DR and others ) and boldly puts them in the category of the Anubhāvas.

It appears that the authors of the ND are perfectly justified here as these eight are of the nature of consequents and not states. We can differentiate them from other consequents which are innumerable, as the ND points out, by calling them Sāttvika Anubhāvas since the representation of these Anubhāvas requires a very high type of mental concentration.

ABHINAYA

Drama is primarily a mimetic art. It is defined as ‘mode of imitation ’5 and in order that the imitation may be realistic, histrionic art

1. ND, p. 186.

2. NS ( KM ), pp. 129-31.

3. Vide - Iha hi satvaṁ nāma manaḥprabhavam - NS ( KM ) p. 129.

4. Cf, prthag bhāvāḥ bhavanty anye ‘nubhāvatve ‘pi sāttvikāḥ - DR IV, 4.

5, Aristotle on the Art of Poetry, p. 1.

172

or gesticulation becomes absolutely essential. Thus drama is basically histrionic art and a treatise on dramaturgy would be called incomplete if it does not discuss this very important element of drama.

After discussing the sentiments and states the ND turns to Abhinaya. Abhinaya is derived from the root Ni ‘to lead’ with the prefix ‘Abhi’ meaning ‘towards’ or ‘near’, so called because it leads the Artha or sense towards the spectators. The ND takes ‘Abhi’ in the sense of vividly (graphically or pictorously). So Abhinaya conveys the sense very graphically to the spectators1.

Abhinaya is of four types :

1. Vācika, 2. Āṅgika, 3. Sāttvika, 4. Āhārya.

2. Vācika - (verbal) is so called because its burden is to imitate speech. Drama is intimately associated with speech. The actor is supposed to imitate the speech of the character in keeping with the sentiment or state to be conveyed. While representing the heroic or the furious sentiment the speech should be vigorous. It ought to be mild and soft if the sentiment is Śṛṅgāra and so on. Thus speech should convey properly the different states such as anger, pride, etc. or shivering, horripilation, etc. and that is why the playwright often puts some stage-direction such as “angrily”, “with agitation” etc. If the speech is imitated without any Bhāva, it is merely recitation and not Vācika Abhinaya.

Here the ND touches a subtle problem connected with the concept of Abhinaya. Is it really possible for the actor to imitate the mental or physical conditions of a person, say Rāma, who lived before centuries and whom he has not seen personally ? Even the spectators have not seen Rāma in person and so cannot assert whether or not an actor is truly representing the states of Rāma. So the imitation in this respect cannot be real. The actor, on account of the intense study of the life of Rāma depicted by the dramatist and continuous practice, feels as if he has personally seen Rāma and imitates him. In fact, he imitates the ways of the world. The spectators superimpose the actual Rāma upon the actor being deceived, as it were, by the realistic and life-like four-fold Abhinaya of the actor, and being spell-bound by highly attractive music and hearing the conventional usage of the names Rāma, Sītā, etc. with reference to the actor or the actress and they feel one with the pleasant or painful conditions of the characters.

The spectators superimpose Rāma and others upon the actor irrespective of the fact whether they have seen Rāma or not; otherwise they

1. ND p. 188.

would feel that all this is artificial and would not be able to be one

with the states of Rāma and others. Drama thus creates a world of

illusion, nevertheless it is possible to enjoy Rasa even out of illusion,

e. g., a man experiences Rasa even if he sees a damsel, an enemy or a

thief even in dream ( which is really untrue ); otherwise how could the

consequents of Rasas, such as Stambha and others be seen in such cases ?

The ND here points out that the poets describe the life of Rāma

as visualised by the great seers ( Rṣis ) by their extra-ordinary power of

omniscience1 and so what the poet describes is not false but perfectly

true, more true than what is seen by one's own naked eye.

In fact the poet's business is not to depict the historical truth. He

is not a historian. From history he borrows merely the names of the

characters and certain incidents or episodes connected with them. It is

he who has to furnish the lifeless skeleton with flesh and blood and

new spirit. His work is not a faithful reproduction but a new creation.

As Aristotle puts it, " The poet's function is to describe, not the thing

that has happened but a kind of thing that might happen."2

2. Āṅgika - ( Bodily gestures )

It means gesticulation by limbs of the body such as head, hands,

breast, waist, sides, feet, eyes, eye-brows, lips, cheeks, chin etc. This

bodily action or gesticulation should be such as would convey the emotion

such as anger, love, enmity, joy etc3 And thus there are several types

of movements of limbs. Consequently, the movements of the head are

of 13 types such as Ākampita, Kampita, etc. There are 36 types of

glances and various types of looking4. There are many types of eyelid-

movements5. There are seven types of eye-brow movements6. The ND

then refers to six types of nose-movements7, six types of cheek-move-

ments8, six types of movements of lips ( rather lower lip )9 many types

of chin-movements10, and nine types of neck-movements11.

1. In fact a poet himself is a seer ( cf. kavís tu krāntadrṣṭā ). One who does not have

a vision of life cannot aspire to earn reputation as great poet.

2. Aristotle on the Art of Poetry, p. 48.

3, For detail refer to NS VIII, 17-38.

4. ibid. 43-110.

5. ibid. 111-118.

6. ibid. 119-129.

7. ibid. 130-136.

8. ibid. 117-140.

9. ibid. 141-146.

10. ibid. 147-152.

11. ibid. 170-175.

174

3. Sātvika - ( Tempermental ). The gesticulation for which concentra-

tion of mind ( Sattva ) is indispensable is caled Sātvika. This is essential

at the time of representing the Sātvika states such as Svarabheda,

Stambha, etc. or such actions as emitting foam from the mouth, etc.

This is different from verbal gesticulation as this does not form

any speech. Nor this is physical as we do not find a clear and evident

movement of limbs.

The ND adds that this is to be represented in keeping with the

nature of the character1 which may be Uttama, Madhyama or Adhama.

4. Āhārya - Extraneous representation - ( dresses and make-up ).

This is an imitation of colour ( such as white, black, etc. ), taṣte,

fragrance, dress, weapons, carriage, etc.

In short, this differs from the earlier three as they were primarily

related to body, while Āhārya is different from physical gesticulations

as it depends on external objects such as garments, make-up, etc. This

is in keeping with the place ( region or country ), time, family, nature,

conditions, sex, etc.

Tho ND does not admit of Citra Abhinaya as it can be included in

Āṅgika. Sāmānya Abhinaya too can be included in Vācika etc.

Crilical remarks :

After the discussion of Rasa and Bhāva, the ND turns to another

important problem of dramaturgy viz., Abhinaya. The ND does not

treat this topic at length as does the NS. The latter devotes several

chapters2 to the discussion of gesticulation or histrionic art whose

value in a drama can never be over-estimated. Drama is a spectacular

form of Poetry ( Drśya Kāvya ) as against all other forms of poetry which

are only to be read or heard ( Śravya Kāvya ). The success of a drama

lies in its successful representation on the stage. Even some of the best

dramas fail on the stage. The dramatist has, therefore, to be very vigilant

about this aspect of drama and so long as its representation fails to

gratify the learned critics the dramatist can never sit at rest3. The

success of this representation depends mostly upon the actors. Actors

are not supposed to repeat the dialogues of a drama in a parrot-like

cold way but have to reproduce with appropriate gestures of hands and

1. ND. p. 191.

2. Ch. VIII treats of gestures of minor limbs, Ch. IX of hands, Ch. X of other limbs;

Ch. XI, XII. XIII treat of other movements; Ch. XXI treats of Āhārya Abhinaya,

Chs. XXII, XXIV, of Sāmānyābhinaya, and Ch. XXV of Citrābhinaya.

3. Cf. Śāk. – Ā paritoṣād viduṣāṁ – I,2.

feet, modulation of voice ( in accordance with the emotion to be conveyed ) and appropriate expressions on the face, without which the drama will fail to make the emotional appeal to the spectators or give them aesthetic delight ( Rasa ) which is the 'summum bonum ' of drama or any form of literature1. Abhinaya is, therefore, a means for creating Rasa. Thus the art of acting forms "the indispensable adjunct of dramaturgy"2.

This actually is the scope and importance of Abhinaya. But it will easily be seen that it is primarily the concern of the actor and not the dramatist. Nevertheless, the dramatist cannot ignore this aspect. When he writes a play he has always to keep before his mental eye the demands of the stage and that is why he supplies the dialogue with various stage-directions ( such as "angrily" " gesticulating shame or love-torment or pity " etc.)

Among these four types of Abhinaya, Vācika is the most important, the others (i.e. Āṅgika, Sāttvika and Āhārya) being meant for helping it.

Bharata has devoted two complete chapters3 on Sāmānyābhinaya which he divides into three types, viz., arising out of speech, physical action and mind and includes therein the qualities or natural characteristics ( and types ) of the various dramatic personages such as the hero, the heroine, their helpmates, the actor, the stage-manager, etc. The ND does not recognize it independently as that Abhinaya consists in a fusion of two or more of the four Abhinayas.

Bharata has also devoted one chapter4 to Citrābhinaya which he defines as the occasional peculiarities in the physical and other gestures5. But this again, according to the ND, can be included in Āṅgika Abhinaya.

1. Cf. Na hi rasād ṛte kaścid arthah pravartate.

2. Encyclopaedia Britanica No, VII, p. 391.

3. NS (KM) XXII, XXIV.

4. NS (KM) XXV.

5. NS (KM) XXV, 1.

CHAPTER IV

MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS COMMON TO

ALL TYPES OF DRAMA

Chapter IV of the ND deals with miscellaneous topics concerning

Sārvaprakāsaṇdhāraṇalaksana i.-e. a chapter dramaturgy. It is named

defining and explaining some miscellaneous features which are common

to all forms of Rūpakas. After discussing the nature, form, structure and

peculiarities of all the Rūpakas the authors here take into consideration

miscellaneous things that a playwright ought to be conversant with.

The chapter begins with the discussion of Nāndī.

A drama should invariably begin with Nāndī. It consists of blessing

or propitiation of a god, a king, an assembly, a master, the goddess of

speech (Sarasvatī), the poet, etc. It consists of six or eight pādas1.

Nāndī is indispensable. Other Aṅgas of Pūrvaraṅga such as Utthāpana

and others are not so. They may or may not be introduced.

Then the ND quotes Nāndī verses from Bharata’s NS by way of an

illustration2. The four verses in Anuṣṭubh metre quoted here constitute

12 subordinate sentences pronouncing blessings.

The ND points out here that the length of Nāndī differs according

to the nature or shape of the theatre. In a triangular theatre the Nāndī

can consist of maximum of 12 pādas and minimum of 3 pādas. In a

quadrangular theatre it consists of sixteen pādas ( at the most ) or four

'pādas' minimum. This would mean that in a triangular theatre ordinarily

it should consist of 6 pādas while in the quadrangular one it should

consist of 8 pādas3.

The ND then explains the place of Nāndī in Pūrvaraṅga. Nāndī

forms an essential part of Pūrvaraṅga. It is the twelfth out of the

nineteen Aṅgas. But all these nineteen are not indispensable. The ND

discusses only Nāndī and does not discuss the rest because some of them

are too obvious or well-known, some are futile, while some are voluntary

( not indispensable )4. Nāndī, on the other hand, is indispensable and a

1. The word 'pada' in the definition is ambiguous. Pada may mean a word or a quarter

of a stanza. According to some 'pada' does not mean a full sentence but a subordinate

sentence or a clause (Avāntara vākya).

2. NS (GOS) V, 110-113.

3. It is not quite clear as to why the length of Nāndī should vary according to the

shape of the theatre, There is hardly any causal relation between Nāndī and the

shape of the theatre.

4. ND, p. 193, lines 4.

good act should be preceded by some utterance; that is why Nāndī alone is discussed. The poets also at the commencement of the play invariably put the stage-direction viz. “ Then enters the stage-manager at the end of Nāndī ”.

In case the Nāndī by the poet is not found1 even then the Nāndī by the stage-manager must be performed. The Nāndī is to be recited by the stage-manager and actors.

Critical Observations

Nāndī forms a very important part of Pūrvarañga. But here a few points about the conception of the ND regarding the Nāndī and the Pūrvarañga of which it forms a part2 deserve to be noted.

The NS of Bharata gives a detailed treatment of the Pūrvarañga ( the preliminaries of a play )3. These preliminaries are, in fact, so lengthy that they are apt to exhaust the patience of any human being-actors as well as the spectators4. Their performance involved practical difficulties. Naturally enough, therefore, slowly and gradually these apparently useless limbs of Pūrvarañga began to be dropped one by one.

Bharata himself is not unaware of the tediousness of this lengthy and complicated religious ceremony and lays down that the lengthy pūrvarañga-ceremonies may be curtailed so that it may not try the patience of the audience5. This practical difficulty Bharata himself might have felt in his own time. This hint of Bharata's NS was taken very seriously by the dramatic companies after the time of Abhinavagupta, and the process of the curtailment or graudal dropping of all the items of Pūrvarañga began6. In the days of the ND it is quite possible that other Aṅgas of Pūrvarañga were not popular and only the Nāndī had survived.

The word Nāndī has been variously explained. It is commonly derived from ‘ Nand ’ ( to please ). It is so called because it pleases gods7 as it eulogizes them. It pleases the spectators too as it confers blessings upon

1. Here our authors seem to have Bhāsa in their mind whose dramas began with the entry of the Sūtradhāra.

2. The problem has been discussed in detail by Prof. R. B. Athavale in his article “ The Problem of Nāndī and Pūrvarañga ”.

3. Vide NS, chapter V.

4. The words like ‘ Alam ativistareṇa ’ ( i. e. enough of the formalities ) clearly point to this.

5. Cf. NS (KM) V, 162-164.

6. R. B. Athavale : The Problem of Nāndī and Pūrvarañga.

7. Nandanti devatā asyām iti nāndī.

178

them1. The BP tries to derive it from Nandī, the bull of Lord Śiva,2

merely on the basis of verbal similarity being permitted by Yāska to do

so when it is not possible to do otherwise3.

DHRUVĀ

After Nandī, the ND takes up the topic of Dhruvā. Dhruvā here

dealt with is the Dhruvā of the poet and is different from Raṅgadhruvās4

and Gānadhruvās5 discussed by the NS of Bharata6, which form a part

of the stage-performance.

Dhruvā is defined as a metrical composition which is fit to be sung

and which has strikingness of sense7 consisting of the various descrip-

tions of lakes, forests, etc., or of day, night, twilight, etc. or of animals,

such as an elephant, a horse, a lion, etc. or of some sentiment such as

love, pathos, etc. But the sense should be such as would help the

relevant plot.

Types of Dhruvā

Dhruvā can be divided mainly into five types :-

1. Prāveśikī, 2. Naiṣkrāmikī, 3. Ākṣepikī, 4. Prāsādikī and 5. Āntarī.

2. Prāveśikī - When a particular song ornamented by the figures of

speech like Paronomasia (Śleṣa ) and speech of brevity (Samāsokti ) is

sung in keeping with the sentiment, state (Bhāva), nature, condition,

etc. of the character that actually enters the stage, that Dhruvā is known

as Prāveśikī i. e. having entry as its purpose. The illustration is from

the Anargharāghava where the arrival of Viśvāmitra ( with a view to

taking away Rāma for the sake of protecting his hermitage ) is suggested

under the pretext of the description of the sunrise8.

1. Cf. NS V, 24 Āśirvacana...etc. The BP too explains it similarly (I, 179).

2. BP, p. 196.

3. Cf. Nirukta --------अक्षरवर्णसामान्यादिच्छन्तीत्यादि -------- 1 ( पृ-५७ )

4. By Raṅgadhruvās the ND seems to refer to those Dhruvās which were employed in

the lengthy Pūrvaraṅga ceremony where Bharata ordains the use of various Dhruvās

(NS, Adhyāya-V).

5. By Gānadhruvās the ND seems to mean those Dhruvās which were introduced

merely for the purpose of music, at the time of enacting the play. Dr. V. Raghavan

in his article ‘Music in Ancient Indian Drama’ observes, “In the great classical

period, when the prose-verse dramatic master-pieces were produced, stage artists

had their own composers who wrote the Dhruvā-music, using the poet’s contextual

verses for guidance.” (The Journal of Madras Music Academy Vol. XXV p. 864. )

6. ND, p. 154.

7. Citrārtha geya rūpaka - ND, IV, 155. Here Rūpaka is taken in a peculiar sense, viz,

a metre which has a specific number of syllables, Cf. Rūpakam niyata-mātrākṣaram

chandah-ND, p. 195.

8. Vide Anargh. I, 13.

The ND gives another illustration from the Devīcandragupta1 where the entry of Kumāracandragupta is suggested under the pretext of the moonrise.

2. Naiṣkrāmikī - When a song is introduced with a view to suggesting the exit of a character from the stage for some reason at the end or the middle of an Act, it is known as Naiṣkrāmikī, i. e. having exit as its purpose.

The ND illustrates from the Devī. (Act V). “The moon (Candra) is going to assault the planet in the form of the sky...etc.” suggests the going of Candragupta towards the palace.

3. Ākṣepikī - This is to be introduced when a new sentiment is brought to rise having subdued the one already present. It suggests the introduction of a sentiment other than the prevailing one, e. g., in the UDR, having brushed aside the sentiment of love, the heroic is introduced by the verse uttered from behind the scenes, “O, you hermit, holt, where are you going now ?” etc.

4. Prāsādikī - It is introduced to strengthen a particular Rasa by developing its Vibhāvas, etc. or to inform the audience of the mental state of the character which has entered the stage.

The ND adds here that according to the old tradition this type must be introduced after the introduction of Prāveśikī and Ākṣepikī.

5. Āntarī - It is meant to fill up the gap2. When there is a shocking news such as the loss of wealth, or when in the case of a violent performance, there is a possibility of the person falling into a swoon or the like, out of fatigue, or the falling down of the garment or an ornament, this is sung in order that the person may get time to recover and that the adverse effect of the unexpected occurrence on the mind of the spectators may be wiped out. This Dhruvā is sung by an actor or an actress from “behind the scenes.” It is in keeping with the current sentiment or the coming one.

This five-fold division of Dhruvās cannot be taken very rigorously because there can be other divisions too but they are not so much used. The above-mentioned five divisions are very commonly found in literature and hence only five are mentioned.

Critical Remarks

Dhruvās may be well compared with the lolk-songs. They appear to have evolved from the Vedic metres. Just as Vedic Sanskrit is reckoned

1. Vide ND. p. 194.

2. Antaraṁ chidraṁ tatra bhavā āntarī - ND, p. 195.

180

to be the origin of the classical Sanskrit as well as Prakrit in the same way Vedic metres may be reckoned to be the origin of the classical metres on the one hand the Dhruvās on the other. These metres were not rigid like the Sanskrit Vṛttas which therefore were not so fit for being sung.

The different types of Dhruvās indicate the different functions that Dhruvās perform in drama. They may be used to suggest the entry or exit of a character. The proper music on the stage behind the scenes is bound to enhance the dramatic effect of the entry or exit of a character. Similarly apt and appropriate music behind the scenes goes a long way in creating a proper psychological mood in the audience to enjoy different Rasas.

The NS XXXII treats exhaustively of the nature of Dhruvā and its various types. Dhruvā has more purposes than one. The NS discusses them in detail. It was employed in Pūrvaraṅga. Pūrvaraṅga was a very elaborate procedure and the author of the NS requires Dhruvās in that procedure at some intervals. Moreover, Dhruvās were specially employed to introduce the element of music in the play. There can be many types of Dhruvās according to their metre and nature.

The Sārṅgadharapaddhati begins the topic of Dhruvās with the verse-" Just as there can be no knowledge without discrimination ( Viveka ), no meditation without spiritual interest, no alms without faith, in the same way there can be no song without Dhruvaka "1; and then discusses its sixteen divisions2. It appears that these Dhruvās are particular metres governed by the number of syllables or by their quantity ( Mātrā ) and by the rythme ( Tāla ).

On a close observation of the works, on dramaturgy we find that Dhruvās were mainly connected with song and music3. Music plays an important part in drama4. Ancient rhetoricians were not ignorant of this magical effect of music and song. From the early times literature was usually meant to be sung, and so we find most of our ancient

1. Sārṅgadharapaddhati, verse No. 1965.

2. Ibid, verses 1976–1995.

3. Prof. D. R. Mankad writes, "In the actual practice of the performance of a drama, there was a musical programme gone through. At the entrance of particular characters in particular scenes, certain songs were sung declaring their entrance. They were called Dhruvās". The Types of Sanskrit Drama, p. 181; also compare Sanskrit Drama, p. 339.

4. Dr. V. Raghavan has elaborately treated of this topic in his article "Music in Ancient Indian Drama".

literature to have been composed in verse1. We know thereby how

intimate was the relation between song and literature in old days.

Bharata gives a number of such Dhruvās. But Dhruvās of the ND

are rather different from those of the NS in the sense that Bharata

mentions them as forming a part of the elaborate ceremony to be

performed before the drama is actually staged ( i. e. Pūrvaṅga ) or they

are introduced by the stage-manager in the play at his own descretion,

while those of the ND form a part of the play proper. The Sarasvati-

kaṇṭhābharaṇa mentions Dhruvā as one of six divisions of Śravya Kāvya2

and points out that its purpose is the entry of a character or depiction

of a sentiment3.

The use of Dhruvās is mostly found in ancient plays. Rājaśekhara

and Murāri too have used them ( In the prologue of the Bālabhārata,

Rājaśekhara points out that Dhruvās are the very essence or spirit ( lit.

soul) of Drama). They are songs which serve a triple purpose in the play4.

Firstly, they reveal a part of the plot. Secondly, they entertain the

spectators, and thirdly, they combine the different sentiments. The early

origin of Dhruvās is significant. Music and dance have played a very

important role in the origin and development of Sanskrit drama. Even

today in primitive societies singing and dancing have been the chief

means of entertainment. The very fact that our most ancient literary

works were in verse also indicates the importance of song.

In the Bālabhārata the meeting of Vasiṣṭha and Vālmīki is suggested

by Prāveśikī Dhruvā. The Prakrit verses of the Vikramorvaśīya ( Act

IV ) furnish us with a number of Dhruvās. The song of Haṃsapadikā in

the Śak, Act V, may also be taken as an illustration of Dhruvā.

The illustration of Ākṣepikī Dhruvā as given by the ND forms a

purely classical Sanskrit metre. It is written in Sanskrit too. Thus it

would not be correct to say that Dhruvā should be in Prakrit only.

Prakrit might have been usually selected by the poets simply because

Prakrit, because of the flexibility of grammar and phonetic variations,

its simplicity and sweetness, was more suited to song than classical

Sanskrit which is so rigid and bound up by rules of grammar and

composition; classical metres also are highly regularised by rigid rules

of metrics and so are more fit to be recited than sung.

1. Compare the early Sanskrit name for literature, viz., Kāvya ( i. e. which is fit to

be sung). And the poet is known as Kavi - one who sings.

2. Cf. SK II, 140-141,

3. Seyam pātraprasraveśarasāṃdhānādiprayojanā dhruvā -ibid. p.307.

4. Dhruvā hi nāṭyasya prathame prāṇāḥ - Bālabhārata (prologue).

182

The BP discusses the topic of Dhruvās in about twenty verses. Here

it is pointed out that the language in which Dhruvās are written is

Śauraseni while in the case of divine characters it may be Sanskrit1.

From the illustrations of the Prāveśikī and other Dhruvās it appears

that the Dhruvās are generally symbolical (especially when the entry

or exit of a character is to be suggested). Thus in Dhruvās cited by

the ND the entry of Viśvāmitra and Candragupta is suggested by the

rise of the sun and the moon respectively.

From the above discussion we can come to the following conclusions -

1. Dhruvās were originally particular metres. These metres were

governed by the quantity (Mātrā) of syllables or merely by the number

of syllables (Akṣara).

2. They were sung.

3. They were employed at different places with various purposes -

(a) They were employed in the religious ceremony called Pūrvaranga.

(b) They were at times introduced in a play merely with a view

to creating a musical effect.

(c) They were introduced with the dramatic purpose of helping the

plot-development.

4. They were usually in Prakrit especially when the purpose was

to create a musical effect2.

Still however, there is no specific rule as there have been Dhruvās

in Sanskrit too3.

While discussing the relation between Greek and Sanskrit drama

Prof. K. B. Dhruva remarks that the Dhruvās have something in common

with the chorus in ancient Greek drama which was used to develop

action and join the different parts of the plot, the essential difference

being only this: ‘Greek chorus was related to the plot while Dhruvās

were to the hero’4.

1. BP, p. 303, lines 17-18.

2. This is further corroborated by the fact that Dhruvās seem to have developed in

provincial languages. In this connection it may be noted that the word Dhruvaka or

Dhruvapada in Gujarati seems to have been derived from Dhruvā. The term

Dhruvaka is used for a line which is to be repeated every now and then in a song

(usually a folk-song).

3. Vide the illustration of Ākṣepikī Dhruvā as given by the ND (p. 194).

4. Cf. Sāhitya ane Vivecana, Part I (in Gujarati), pp. 103-6.

But if we look to the various types of Dhruvās there is nothing to prove that Dhruvās must be related to the hero only, even though a large majority of Dhruvās that we find in Sanskrit dramas to have a direct or indirect relation with the hero.1

Types of characters in a play

After the discussion of Nāndī and Dhruvā, the ND turns to one of the most important elements of Drama, viz., characters. In a typically Indian manner a detailed classification of characters is given. This classification is made from different angles. The first is the classification on the basis of sex according to which characters are primarily of two types: (i) Men characters and (ii) Women characters.

On the basis of their qualities each of these can be subdivided into :- (i) High or Uttama. (ii) Middling or Madhyama. (iii) Lower or Nica.

(i) The male with excellent character (Uttama) possesses the following qualities: He is a protector of the refugee, courtious, sacrificing, well-versed in the ways of the world and all sciences, possessed of poise, courage, sense of honour and justice.

(ii) The male of the middle type has all these qualities in a mediocre degree.

(iii) The male of the lower type is sinful, slanderous, slothful, ungrateful, quarrelsome, impotent, greedy of women, harsh-tongued and a dullard.

Similarly, a woman with an excellent character has the following virtues : She is bashful, tender, calm, serene, gay, modest, born of a high and noble family, skilful, and affectionate. The remaining two types of female characters are not discussed but they resemble the corresponding types of males. That is to say, the middling one will have the above qualities to a mediocre extent and the lower woman will have all the vices belonging to a male of the lower type.

The authors of the ND give another classification of character on the basis of their nature or temperament as compared to their age and state -

i. Appropriate. ii. Inappropriate. iii. Befitting the role.

1. Vide Dhruvās of Vikram. or Śak.

184

The appropriate indicates apt mental condition looking to the age, position, sex, etc. of a character. A male character must exhibit masculine qualities while a female must have feminine grace. Inappropriate variety will occur when an old man exhibits childishness and vice versa. The last variety will include a state when a male will show womanliness when he has taken the part of a woman and vice versa1.

Qualities of a hero

Usually the hero must be of the high (Uttama) type but occasionally even a low one can figure as a hero as in Bhāṇa and Prahasana where the chief purpose is to provoke laughter and ridicule. They are an exception to the general rule that only a high or a middle (as in Prakaraṇa) character can stand as the hero.

The ND now defines the hero and explains his qualities -

The hero is one who achieves the fruit and never suffers a catastrophe. He must possess the following inborn qualities at least -

i. Tejas is the sense of honour which shall retaliate any kind of insult or offence even at the cost of one's life.

ii. Vīlāsa is vivacity which implies a firm step and a firm glance and a laughing voice.

iii. Mādhurya is the grace manifested in the display of but slight change of demeanour in trying circumstances.

iv. Sobhā indicates brilliance at the time of showing competition, heroism, etc.

v. Sthairya - is steadfastness in accomplishing one's objects inspite of the impediments or misfortunes.

vi. Gāmbhīrya - is impassivity or superiority to emotion even at the time of great mental agitation.

vii. Audārya - is the nobility exhibited in sacrificing one's own life for the sake of the good.

1. The above classification may be represented in a tabular form as under :-

Characters (18 Types)

Male (9 types)

Female (9 types just as males)

viii. Lalita - or sportiveness includes the natural innocent expressions

of love such as side-long glances, striking speeches, self-decoration, etc.

Critical observations

Characters form an important part of drama. The dramatic develop-

ment of the plot is possible through characters only. Thus the treatment

of this topic becomes necessary in a treatise on dramaturgy. The characters

have been usually divided into (i) High, (ii) Middle and (iii) Low.

There is another type of division given by the ND on the basis of the

nature of the characters into (i) Anurūpa, (ii) Virūpa and (iii) Rūpānurūpin.

The eight qualities of a hero are in accordance with the NS and the

DR. Materially there is no change in the definitions of the qualities too.

Only the wording is slightly different. The NS (Ch. XXII) treats of the

topic at full length. The DR in the beginning of Chapter II treats of

the qualities of a hero. The DR is more informative and exhaustive in

the treatment of the topic.

The DR illustrates each quality in the commentary by Dhanika but

the ND does not think it necessary to do so probably because in that

case the work would be unnecessarily lengthy. The topic is also simple

and requires little of explanation.

The Hero of the Patākā or the Prakarī

After the discussion of the hero, the authors of the ND discuss

very briefly the nature of the hero of the Patākā or the Prakarī, i. e.,

the hero of the sub-plot (Gauna nāyaka). He is a companion to the

hero and is not directly concerned with the achievement of the main

fruit. He is concerned with the fruit of the sub-plot. He is depicted to

be inferior in qualities to the hero, so that the personality of the hero

may not be overshadowed by him.

Pratināyaka

He is the opponent or the enemy of the hero. He is avaricious,

stubborn, criminal, vicious, and ultimately meets with disaster. He corres-

ponds to the villain of a modern drama. His object is to create obstacles

in the path of the hero. In the story of Rāma, Rāvana works as Prati-

nāyaka against Rāma. Duryodhana may be looked upon as a Pratināyaka

against (the Pāṇḍavas or) Yudhiṣṭhira.

The Pratināyaka should have the qualities opposite to the hero. He

symbolizes the wicked (or devilish) elements trying to harass the good

and virtuous. But ultimately truth becomes triumphant.

186

Low characters in drama

The authors of the ND now turn to the low characters such as the Vidūṣaka, eunuchs, the Śakāra, the Viṭa and attendants.

The Śakāra is the brother-in-law of the king. He is the brother of the royal concubine who is of low caste1. He is meant to produce humour.

The Viṭa is the knower of any one2 of the fine arts such as singing, etc. which would entertain the king. The word is derived from the root ‘vid’ to know. The word will thus mean ‘one who knows’ i. e. cultured. He is ‘a perfect man of the world with literary and artistic culture to boot.’

His position in drama is usually subordinate, but in a Bhāṇa he plays a very important part where he describes his adventures or those of others. He usually accompanies a courtesan. In the MRC he is also related to the Śakāra.

Bharata describes him thus : He is found with gaudy clothes and ornaments. He is easily excited and easily pacified. He speaks Māgadhi Prakrit and belongs to Adhama type of characters.

The character of Śakāra finds a very important place in the MRC of Sūdraka where he acts as a villain and makes the audience laugh at his stupid speeches and awkward actions. He has earned this title on account of his overuse of ‘Sa’.

The Vidūṣaka (Jester)

He holds an important place in the Sanskrit drama. His chief purpose is to produce laughter. It may be produced in three ways ( i ) by physical deformity such as baldheadedness, crippledeness, having long protruding teeth, misshapen face, etc. ( ii ) odd and unusual dress such as a very long attire ( iii ) strange and ludicrous speech such as irrelevant, meaningless, vulgar chatter. In short the Vidūṣaka is ludicuous in physical appearance, dress and speech.3

All the Vidūṣakas are personal friends of the hero. They are of four types ( i ) an ascetic ( ii ) a Brahmin ( iii ) a king’s employee and ( iv ) a pupil. The ascetic type of Vidūṣaka is used when the hero is a god, He is a pupil when the hero is a Brahmin. In the case of the hero being a king or a merchant, he may be any of the three types except the pupil.

1. Bharata refers to Śakāra, Viṭa, etc. as low characters. Vide NS (GOS) XXIV, 14; cf. SD III, 46.

2. ND IV, 167. By ‘any one’ the ND seems to mean ‘at least one’; also cf. Ekavidyo viṭaḥ - DR II, p. 9.

3. The ND, p. 199; also cf. RS - Vikṛtāṅgavacoveśaiḥ hāsyakārī Vidūṣakaḥ (I, 92)

Here the ND seems to have followed Bharata1. But the ND deviates

from Bharata in one point, viz., Bharata allows a Brahmin only as the

Vidūṣaka of the king2 while the ND allows any of the three except the

pupil. It is likely that this modification by the ND may be based on the

observation of the actual dramas even though at present we do not

come across any piece of drama where the Vidūṣaka of a king is an

ascetic or a king's employee. It is also quite probable that such works

are now lost to us.

The ND then gives an interesting etymology of the word Vidūṣaka.

The root here is 'dūṣ' (to spoil) with the preposition 'Vi' which means

'excessively' (Viśeṣeṇa). Vidūṣaka is so called because he spoils (i. e.

completely or in a particular (Viśeṣeṇa) manner, peace by conflicts and

conflicts by peace in the case of heroes in separation of love and that

he causes the separation to be forgotten by affording diversion.

Keith takes the word Vidūṣaka to mean "one given to abuse."3

Dr. A. N. Upadhye explains the word as " a hyper-Sankritic back-forma-

tion of 'Viūso' or 'Viūso' in Prakrit (with 'Ka'-suffix) which is to

be connected with 'Vidvas' in Sanskrit4. Dr. G. K. Bhat does not agree

with either of these scholors and takes the word to mean " one who has

a characteristic mode (Vi) of fault-finding (Dūṣ) with a view to evok-

ing laughter "5.

The Vidūṣaka is one of the most conventional characters of Sanskrit

drama. His humour is quaint and stereotyped. Bharata has described in

detail his nature and characteristics such as deformity, stupidity, gluttony,

timidity, etc. All the Vidūṣakas in Sanskrit literature share these common

characteristics and lack individuality excepting those of the great poets

like Kālidāsa and Śūdraka who have tried to infuse some new spirit in

this character.

Helpmates of the Hero

A hero should have helpmates. They are the royal prince, the

commander-in-chief, priests, ministers, foresters, feuedatory princes,

ascetics and others. Some help in matters relating to administration of

royal affairs (Arthacintā), some others in matters of love, and some

others still in matters pertaining to religion.

1. Cf. NS (GOS) XXIV, 16–20.

2. NS (GOS) XXIV, 20.

3. Sanskrit Drama, p. 39.

4. Candralekhā (introduction), p. 26.

5. Vidūṣaka, pp. 85–89.

188

These helpmates are essential for the hero. The success of the hero

of the Dhīralalita type rests on his helpmates. The hero of Dhīroddhata

type has his success resting on both, himself as well as the helpers.

Attendants of the harem

The authors then discuss the attendants of the harem. They are

as under :-

i. Kāruṇaka - is an impotent person but is of good conduct and worthy.

He works as a door-keeper.

ii. Kaṅcukin - is effeminate and not of condemnable caste.

iii. Varṣavara - or eunuchs are impotent, obedient and modest.

iv. Nirmunda - is one who is completely impotent and idle. He is

employed to send for women.

v. Pratihārī - (door-keeper) has the function of announcing to the

king political events.

vi. Mahattarā - ( duenna ) is one who sees to the punctual performance

of auspicious rites.

vii. Vṛddhā - an old experienced lady who is conversant with the

tradition and customs of the earlier kings.

viii. Śilpakārikā - ( a crafts-woman ) is well-versed in painting,

shampooing, fanning, and other fine arts.

The Heroine

Heroines are divided into four types on the basis of their special

strata -

1. Kulajā - ( high-born ).

2. Panyakāminī - ( a harlot ).

3. Divyā (Divine).

4. Kṣatriyā.

A harlot must be depicted love-lorn in all plays (except in

Prahasanas which have mere farce for their aim ), e. g., Vasantasenā in

the MRC. For the sake of ridicule in the Prabhasana the courtesan may

not be after the hero.

When the hero is divine or a king the courtesan should not be

depicted as the heroine. A divine courtesan, like Urvaśī in the Vikramor-

vaśīya. however, could be introduced as the heroine.

Moreover, on the basis of their age and mental state the heroines

may be divided into three types :-

1. Mugdhā ( Inexperienced ) - She is shy in her love ( being ignorant about it ) and gentle in anger. She is of budding youth and love.

2. Madhyā ( Partly experienced ) - She is full of love of the ( rising ) youth, and anger. She is conversant with the pleasures of love and permits its indulgences even to the point of fainting. Madhyā again is of three types :- Dhīrā, Adhīrā, and Dhīrādhīrā. Dhīrā ( self-controlled ) rebukes her erring husband with sarcasm and double entendres. Adhīrā ( Uncontrolled ) chides her husband with tears, sided by harsh words. Dhīrādhīrā ( Partly controlled ) rebukes her husband with tears, sarcasm and harsh words with double entendres.

3. Pragalbhā ( the experienced ) - She is well advanced in age, love's anger ( Manyu ) and love. She is so passionate that she faints at the first embrace ( touch ).

Just as Madhyā she also is of three types - ( i ) Dhīrā. ( ii ) Adhīrā, ( iii ) Dhīrādhīrā. Dhīrā when angry is pretendedly respectful and is indifferent to the pleasures of love. Adhīrā is wont to scold and strike ( uses threats and blows ) against her husband. Dhīrādhīrā employs the weapons of raillery and equivoque.

Still from anther point of view, depending upon her relation to her lover, the heroine is divided into eight types -

1. Proṣitapriyā ( or Proṣitabharṭṛkā ) ( a heroine with her lover absent abroad ) is one whose husband has gone to some foreign land for earning wealth or such other reason. She does not decorate herself.

2. Vipralabdhā - ( Deceived heroine ) - When the lover d es not turn up even after fixing the appointment at a rendezvous or even when the heroine sends a messenger to call him the heroine is known as Vipralabdhā.

3. Khaṇḍitā ( Enraged heroine ) is a lady overpowered by jealousy on finding her lover disfigured by the marks of union with another lady.

The difference between Vipralabdhā and Khaṇḍitā is that in the former the lover is not attached to another lady while here he is.

4. Kalahāntaritā - ( a heroine separated from her lover by a quarrel ) - When the lover has left being tired of the quarrel through jealousy and does not return, the heroine is known as Kalahāntaritā.

This type of heroine, because of the quarrel, is not eager to meet her lover at all, while Khaṇḍitā is anxious for the union and is highly jealous on finding her lover attached to some other lady.

5. Virahotkaṇṭhilā - ( distressed by her lover's involuntary absence ) Here the separation is caused not by the lover's attachment to some

190

other lady. The heroine gets anxious. There is no quarrel (as in no. 4) nor jealousy as in the case of Khaṇḍitā and so the union with the lover is sure in no time. Thus she differs from other heroines in separation where separation is due to pride, jealousy, etc.

6. Vāsakasajjā - (awaiting her lover in full dress). She decorates herself as the lover is going to stay at night and would come at the fixed time. In the earlier types there is love in separation (Vipralambha) while here there is love in union (Sambhoga).

7. Svādhīnabhartṛkā - (a heroine having her husband in subjection). The husband is at her beck and call being enamoured of her beauty and youth. She feels delighted. She is not different from No. 6 as both have their husbands at hand.

8. Abhisārikā - (a heroine moving towards her lover) - She herself goes out to meet the lover or presses him to come to her for the sake of dalliance.

Sanskrit rhetoricians have taken great care and pains in describing very minutely the types and the qualities of the heroines. The NS (KM) XXII 903-913 defines the eight types of heroines and then discusses their dress, behaviour, etc. The DR enters in greater detail and systematically classifies the heroines from various points of view and illustrates each one of them. The later rhetoricians have usually followed the DR and have added several species more. The treatment of this topic finds still more elaboration in the Rasamañjari of Bhānudatta whose total number of the types of the heroine comes to 1152.1

The treatment of the ND is much similar to that of the earlier authorities such as Bharata and Dhananjaya.

The elaborate classification of the hero ard the heroine has led certain critics to think that Sanskrit drama does not represent individuals but types. All the characters here are conventional. But this criticism is not justified. First the classification applies only to the hero and the heroine and not to all the characters in the play where the poet is free to exhibit his skill in effective characterisation. Great poets like Bhāsa, Kālidāsa, Bhavabhūti, and others have skilfully depicted even their minor characters as possessed of distinct individuality. Characters such as Anasūyā and Priyamvadā in the Śākuntala, Samsthanaka, Darduraka and others in the MṛC, are unforgettable on account of their unique individual personality.

Even the heroes and the heroines, although they belong to a particular

1. Vide Rasamañjari (Intro.), p. 6. For a comprehensive treatment of this topic vide Dr. Raghavan's introduction to Ṣṛṅgāramañjari of Saint Akbar Shah.

type, have their own individual traits, e. g., both Rāma and Duṣyanta, even though both belong to the Dhīrodātta type, have their own distinct personality; so also Sītā and Śakuntalā.

The theory, therefore, puts no restriction on the poet's art of creating individual characters.

The qualities of youthful women

After the discussion of the various types of heroines the authors now proceed on an allied topic of the qualities of youthful ladies. These qualities are divided into three groups :-

1. Physical ( Āṅgaja )

2. Natural or inherent ( Svabhāvaja. )

3. Involuntary ( Ayatāja ) (at the time of sexual enjoyment).

Those qualities are twenty in number. The authors at the same time point out that the number twenty should not be taken to mean that there are only twenty qualities. In fact, there can be innumerable qualities. But here only twenty are mentioned, as they are more important1.

These qualities are like ornaments such as bangles, bracelets, etc. which decorate a person. These qualities really add charm to the personality of a woman.

These qualities specially belong to young women. They are chiefly in accompaniment with youth. In girlhood they manifest themselves slightly, while in old age they mostly vanish. It is in youth that they are distinctly perceived.

These qualities belong to women only. In men also some of them may be found but they are subsidiary. The chief qualities of males are fortitude ( Utsāha ), etc. All the four types of heroes are possessed of firmness and courage. So these qualities, viz. Bhāva etc. are suppressed by the strong qualities such as fortitude etc. in males.

The first three of these twenty qualities belong to the first type, viz., physical. They are Bhāva, Hāva and Helā. These arise out of the body only, charming due to the blossoming youth irrespective of the external causes such as lovely sight, dress, garlands, etc.

The next group of ten qualities belongs to the second type, viz., Svābhāvika or innate, related to the very nature (Svabhāva) of the person. They are - Vibhrama, Vilāsa, Vicchitti, Lilā, Vivvoka or (Bibboka), Vibṛta, Lalita, Kuṭṭamita, Moṭṭāyita and Kilikiñcita2.

1. Cf. ND, p. 204. The SD mentions twenty eight excellences born of Sattva (Sattvaja alaṅkāra) (III, 89-92.)

2. The SD refers to eighteen innate qualities adding Mada, Tapana, Maugdhya, Vikṣepa, Kuṭhāla, Hasita, Cakita and Keli, to the above group of ten. (III. 106-110).

the personal sentiment of love at the time of enjoyment with the lover1.

All of these ten qualities are not indispensable as they may arise singly

or in a group of two or three or more. These ten together with the above

three ( Physical) making a total of thirteen, signify activity and the

physical gestures of the damsels, while the remaining seven of the third

group, i. e. Ayatnaja, automatically arise without any sort of effort at

the time of sexual enjoyment. So they are different from the earlier

thirteen which constitute physical activity which is not possible without

deliberation and effort2.

Now the authors go to define and explain each of them one by one -

(i) Angika

1. Bhava (Feeling) is a peculiarity in speech, action, gait, etc. which

reveals the internal love and high-bredness3.

2. Hava - (Emotion) consists of the movement of eyes and brows

betokening the awakening of love4.

3. Hela (Passion) - When the same emotion (Hava) becomes

permanently rooted, and exhibits exuberance of youth and advancement

without any special object5, it is termed Hela. In other words,

the development of the emotion of love leads to passion.

It has to be noted here that all these three qualities are purely

physical, pertaining to body, and are not concerned with any special

mental activity. The ND adds that these three mostly arise from one

another. Each succeeding quality arises from and exceeds the preceding

one. Bhava, however, does not require any other quality for its manifesta-

tion but Hava requires Bhava and Hela, in its turn, Hava.

( ii ) Svabhavaja

1. Vibhrama - (confusion) is a confusion of actions on account of

love, intoxication, delight, etc. Here the lady speaks some thing different

from what she actually intends, the ornament of hands is put on feet,

that of waist on neck and so on.

These changes in physical movements are innate or born of Svabhava

because they arise out of excessive delight at the arrival of the object

of love, while the physical (Angaja) qualities are seen even in the

absence of any such cause.

1. ND. p. 204.

2. Cf. Abhi. III, p. 154.

3. Cf. DR II, 33.

4. Cf. DR II, 34.

5. Cf. DR II, 33; NS XXIII, 11.

2. Vilāsa ( amorous gestures ) is charmingness of limbs as well as action like standing, sitting, moving, looking, etc. in the presence of the beloved.

3. Vicchitti – is the simplicity of dress and ornaments which even enhances the charm owing to the excellent beauty and natural grace.

4. Līlā – ( sportive mimicry ) is amorously imitating the speech, dress, activity, etc. of the beloved on account of great regard and love for him.

5. Vivvoka (or Bibboka) ( affected coldness) is the indifference exhibited towards the favourite objects such as good dress, ornaments etc. on account of pride or arrogance ) due to one's good fortune ).

6. Vihṛata ( want of response ) – is keeping mum even at a time when one must speak, on account of bashfulness, deceitfulness or innocence ( Maugdhya ). It is also meant to exhibit one's bashfulness with a purpose.

7. Lalita – ( lolling ) is graceful delicate movement of the limbs such as eyes, hands, etc. without any purpose ( just naturally ).

Lalita is distinguished from Vilāsa, which too indicates graceful movement of the body, only in one point, viz., in Lalita the movement is without any purpose i. e. unintentional, while in Vilāsa it has a definite purpose1.

8. Kuṭṭamita ( pretended anger ) – is faigned anger when the lover cathes hair, lips, breast, hand, etc. Here there is external repugnance shown even though internally the lady enjoys it.

9. Moṭṭāyita – ( manifestation of love )2 implies gestures such as rubbing of limbs, yawning, scratching the ears, etc. as a result of intense love being absorbed in the thoughts of the lover on his arrival or during the talks concerning him.3

10. Kilikiñcita – ( Hysterical mood ) is a mixture of smile, tears, fear, laughter, fatigue, anger, pride pain, desire, etc.

These ten qualities are natural in a lady either married or unmarried on account of the development of love4.

( iii ) Ayatnataj

1. Śobhā ( Beauty ) – is the brightness of youth, physical charm etc. which a lady obtains when enjoyed by the lover.

2. Cf. Abhi. III, p. 161.

3. Vide NS ( by M. Ghosh ), p. 443.

4. Wilson defines it as “ silent expression of returned affection ”. Vide Dramas, p. 62.

5. Cf. Abhi. III, p. 159.

194

2. Kāンティ (charm) - When Śobhā is heightened on account of love it is known as Kāンティ1.

3. Dipti (lustre) - When Kāンティ attains a high pitch it is called Dipti2.

4. Mādhurya - (sweetness) consists in mildness even at the time of agony or uneasiness caused by pain, anger, fear, jealousy, shame, love, etc.

5. Audārya (dignity) is not abandoning modesty etc. even when there are occasions which make a person uneasy.

The only difference between Audārya and Mādhurya is that in the latter there is no change in one’s outward appearance, while the former refers to the steadiness of qualities3.

6. Dhairya - (courage) is abstinence from self-eulogy and rashness (Cāpala).

7. Prāgalbhya (boldness) is expertness in amorous sports. These seven qualities arise in a woman automatically when she enjoys pleasures of love in the company of her man.

Sanskrit theorists have fairly elaborated this topic. These twenty qualities have been originally mentioned by Bharata in the chapter on Sāmānyābhinaya4 and the later theorists including Rāmacandra and Gunacandra have followed the same. The SD, as has been pointed out earlier, adds eight more to the list of Bharata. The authors of the ND, on the other hand, remark that there can be innumerable qualities over and above the twenty mentioned here.

Attendants of the heroine

The ND now touches a minor topic concerning the heroine, viz., her attendants (or helpmates). They are as under :-

Dhātreyī - a nurse who gives milk.

Liṅginī - a nun.

Pratīvesikā - a companion who remains near the heroine at all times.

Silpinī - one well-versed in fine arts such as painting, carving, etc.

Cetikā - a maid-servant.

Sakhī - a female friend.

1. ND IV, 189 also cf. NS (KM) XXII, 26 ab.

2. Cf. NS XXII, 26 cd; DR II, 36,

3. ND, p. 207.

4. NS (KM), XXII,

195

These are all reliable, clever, knowing the proper place, time, etc. modest, and serious1.

Dilects

After an elaborate discussion of the hero and the heroine the ND turns to another important issue in a drama, viz., language or dialect.

Sanskrit drama though called so (i. e. Sanskrit ) is not purely in Sanskrit but is bilingual, being a mixture of Sanskrit and Prakrit with its varied dialects.

Strict rules have been imposed by the NS of Bharata as to which language or dialect should be spoken by different characters.

Sanskrit was looked upon as a language of the Āryas - the language of the learned - the language of the civilized and cultured class of society.

It was called Gīrvānagīrā, the ‘language of the gods’, and having a halo of awe, serenity, sanctity and culture around it, Sanskrit could not be spoken and thus defiled by ordinary persons.

It was true that all people could comprehend Sanskrit but the right of speaking that ‘language of gods’ was reserved by a selected few.

The ND first enumerates those who are eligible to speak Sanskrit.

Gods (including goddesses), high and middle types of men (excluding women and low men ) are always entitled to speak Sanskrit.

Sometimes for some special purport even a queen, or a minister’s daughter or a harlot may speak Sanskrit.

A queen, for instance, may speak in Sanskrit while discussing the military affairs or so, a minister’s daughter at the time of declaring justice, a harlot for exhibiting her learning or pedantry.

Real ascetics, male as well as female, such as wandering mendicants, Munis, Śākyas, Śrotriyas can speak Sanskrit in order to show their proficiency in all arts.

This implies that in the ordinary course the ascetics have to speak in Prakrit; this is an exception to the rule that men other than low-born are eligible to speak Sanskrit.

Those who are disguised as ascetics have to speak Prakrit only in order to conceal their identity.

The ND now turns to those characters who have to speak Prakrit.

Boys, children, eunuchs, those overpowered by some evil spirits or Grahas such Piśaca, Śani, etc., intoxicated persons, womanish men, women and even high-born men when maddened by penury or power or loss of wealth speak in Prakrit.

Here too extremely low persons, ghosts, evil spirits such as Piśācas have to speak Paiśācī and Māgadhi mixed together.

Those who are merely low speak in Śauraseni.

Generally the language should be in accordance with the province to which a person belongs.

1. Cf. NS XXIII, 8-10.

196

The ND now goes a step further and points out that the language ( rather sounds ) of other creatures such as birds and beasts should be according to their well-known voices so that there is semblance of reality. Persons of different castes such as Brahmins, Banias, untouchables, etc. should speak in a language customary to their own caste and creed. Similarly, villagers, citizens, Viṭas and others should converse in the dialect current in their respective societies.

The ND concludes this discussion of speech saying that these rules of speech are to be followed generally, but they are not so rigid and are not to be followed blindly. These rules may be violated if the occasion or the plot demands it1.

The problem of different languages to be used by different characters may appear a little strange at the first sight; but it is not so especially when we keep in mind that India is a land of diversities and differences. Travelling from Kashmir to Konkan and from Kaccha to Assam we come across a huge variety of people differing in castes and customs, putting on different costumes, and speaking diverse languages. It was necessary, therefore, for a dramatist to be conversant with the different dialects and use them at proper places. Drama being an imitation of life demands a keen observation of life2, in order that it may be realistic. Thus for a work on science of drama it is in the fitness of things to enlighten a budding poet who has not been able to wander all over the country, by giving him the benefit of the vast fund of experience of the past Ṛsis.

Modes of address

The authors of the ND then turn to an allied topic, viz., how different personages in drama are to be mutually addressed. There are specific rules in Sanskrit drama regarding the mode of address, e. g., a king is to be addressed as ‘Mahārāja’ ( Lord ) only. The following persons have to be addressed as Ārya or Āryā ( according to the sex )-

The wife, a female ascetic, a brahmin lady, a brahmin, a mother, an elderly woman3, a revered lady ( she may also be addressed as Bhavatī ), the elder brother, a minister ( by low persons ), Naṭī and Sūtradhāra ( by each other ), a wife ( by a priest and a merchant ) and an old husband.

A queen addresses her husband as Mahārāja provided he is aged, and as Āryaputra when young. When the acquaintance is new a man addresses a woman as Bhadrā, a beloved wife in youth as Priyā, or with reference to the name of her father or son, such as ‘O, daughter

1. ND IV, 195. Nipuṇatā lokaśāstrādyavekṣaṇāt – KP I, 3.

2. Nipuṇatā lokaśāstrādyavekṣaṇāt – KP I, 3.

3. Mother and elderly women may also be addressed as Amba.

of Māṭhara", "O, mother of Śomaśarmā", etc. The chief queen is

addressed as Devī by a king and others. A Vidūṣaka addresses a queen

or a maid-servant as Bhavatī. Attendants address the queen as Bhaṭṭinī,

Svāminī or Devī.

A harlot ( if young ) is addressed by the attendants as Ājiukā and

as Attā if old. A lady addresses another one of her own age, state and

similar family as Halā. Attendants ( maid-servants ) or low ones are to

be addressed an Hañje. Gods, goddesses, revered ones, sages, learned

persons and also their wives are addressed as Bhagavat(ī). Respectable

persons are addressed by names other than their actual one such as

" minister ", " Śreṣṭhin ", " Vatsarāja, " "O, crest jewel of Soma-family,"

etc. ( sometimes by one's own name too ). Persons of middle class are

to be addressed with their name. An ascetic addresses the king as

'Rājan' or 'Bhūpati' or by the ancestral name such as ' Kauravya ' etc.

Jesters address him as 'Rājan' or 'Vayasya' ( friend ), low people as

Bhaṭin and the public - high, middle and low people - call him 'Deva'.

The king addresses the jester as ' friend '. The prince is addressed

as 'Kumāra' and the princess as Kumāri; a sage of some other sect

according to the conventional name. A stage-manager is to be addressed

by his subordinates ( i. e. actors ) as Bhāva and the former in his turn

addresses the latter as 'Mārṣa'. Equals address each other as 'friend'

(Sakhā) or by one's own name.

A pupil, a son or a younger brother is addressed by the preceptor,

the father, or the elder brother respectively, as ' Putra ' (son) or 'Vatsa'

or 'Tāta'. An old person too may be addressed as Tāta. A low-born

man is addressed by a middle or high-born one as 'Saumya' or 'Bhadra-

mukha', by a low-born again as 'Haṇḍe', 'Are' 'Haṃho', etc. A person

may be addressed by whatever thing ( i. e. work, profession, family or

the like) he is well-known, e. g., a person tilling the land may be

addressed as 'farmer', a keeper of cows as 'cowherd', a servant as

'servant', a physician as 'doctor' a Brahmin as 'Brahmin' and so on.

This etiquette has to be observed by a playwright. Bharata has

treated of this problem in the NS (KM) XVII.

Apparently this set of rules of addressing may strike to be rather

strange. It appears that the progress of Sanskrit drama was considerably

hampered by the great number of rules of various types that we find

to have been elaborately discussed by Bharata and others. As time went

on the NS became "the Bible of dramaturgy" and the rules that were

stated therein became binding upon all the later dramatists. These rules

which Bharata formulated by consulting a number of literary pieces of

198

his times were given so much of importance that no young dramatist could dare to challange or violate them. That is why we find a majority of Sanskrit dramas to be highly conventional and lacking in freshness or originality.

But truly speaking these rules are meant for the guidance of a novice artist who has not acquired the vast experience of life. The old sage like Bharata must have a fund of knowledge regarding the ways of the world. He must have moved from place to place and observed the peculiarities of different provinces in speech, dress, customs and traditions. He must have also gone through most of the important plays and literature of his times. He then must have thought is quite proper to help the later writers by means of his knowledge and consequently he gave the rules mentioned above. Really speaking, they were meant as a guide to those who were new to the subject and not to fetter them into rigid chains.

The fact unfortunately is that after Kālidāsa and Bhavabhūti we rarely come across a poet of high dramatic talents. Great artists like great men are few and far between. The succeeding poets of lesser talents had little of originality in them and had therefore to tread by the same path. They had no true vision which makes a real artist and so engaged themselves in play of words and went on giving long conventional descriptions even when they were not called for (as an exercise in style).

Nomenclature

Here too certain conventions ought to be observed.

The name of a heroic person should be such as it may suggest his inner qualities, such as Bhīmaparākrama (i. e. possessed of terrific prowess or valour), Arimardana (i. e. killer of enemies) etc. The name of a merchant should generally end in “Datta”, e. g., Samudradatta, Sāgara-datta, etc. This is generally so; it may be otherwise also such as ‘Dhanapati’. The name of a Brahmin must be generally with reference to his family or work (Karma) such as ‘Sāndilya (i. e. the descendent of Śandila), Gārgyaāyana, or Agnihotrīya (performer of Agnihotra ceremony), Ātharvanika, Sāmaka, etc. It may also end in “Śarman” such as Agni-śarman, Somaśarman etc. The name of a queen ought to be auspicious such as Sulakṣaṇā (having auspicious signs), Vijayavatī etc. The name of a harlot should be generally ending in “Dattā” or “Senā” such as Devadattā, Vasantasenā etc. It may also be different such as Vidagdha-mitrā, Vasantāśrī, ete. The name of a maid should pertain to flowers and the like, such as Mālinī, Mallikā or Cūtalatikā, Āmramañjarī, etc.

199

The name of a servant ought to be suggestive of aucpiciousness such as Siddhārthaka.

The names may also be different in the case of different types of characters in keeping with their purpose.

Even though in actual life we do not find names carrying much significance, still in good old days some significance was attached to the name and consequently we come across awkward names like Lambakarṇa, Śunaḥśepa, etc., in early literature. Moreover, a name would also suggest the caste, community or creed of the person, e. g., the name Agniśarmā automatically suggests that the person is a Brahmin, while a name like Śatrughna or Samaraketu undoubtedly indicates that the man is a Kṣatriya. This implies that there were certain conventions for nomenclature which were generally observed by all people. What is true of life is also true of literature, In literature the poet should select such names for the characters as are deeply significant1, e. g., a modern dramatist writing a play concerning the life of second century A. D. cannot give modern names to his characters. Otherwise the drama would fail to create the air of realism. The above-stated rules therefore help a new writer in naming his characters.

Uparūpakas

At the end of the fourth chapter when the ND declares to have discussed all the forms of drama in detail, it points out that there are other forms of Rūpakas also which are available. They are as under2:—

1. Saṭṭaka3 ( Also known as Sāṭaka ) is similar to Nāṭikā4. It is written in one language i. e. not in a mixture of Sanskrit and Prakrit. There are no Viṣkambhaka or Praveśaka. The SP and the KS mention it as one of twelve ( principal) Rūpakas.

The SD adds that it should be in Prakrit only. The acts are called Javanikās and the sentiment of wonder should dominate. The example is the Karpūramañjarī5.

1. A good dramatist is always careful in selection of names of his characters, as he has full freedom in doing so. We can easily see how significantly Kālidāsa, for instance, has named his characters like Anasūyā, Priyamvadā, Śārṅgarava and others. The very name here suggests the nature of the character.

2. The ND does not enumerate first but directly begins to define and explain. This is rather unsystematic. Moreover, the ND has literally borrowed the definitions from the SP of Bhoja.

3. D. R. Mankad mentions it among derivative types. Vide “ The Types of Sanskrit Drama ”, pp. 93–94.

4. Cf. Karpūramañjarī I, 6.

5. Vide SD VI, 276–277.

200

The BP takes it to be a variety of Nāṭikā written in Prakrit. Vṛtti is graceful and verbal1.

Most of the theorists describe Saṭṭaka in terms of Nāṭikā2. Dr. Upadhye takes Nāṭikā to have evolved from Saṭṭaka It is difficult to say which of the two evolved out of the other3.

It should have Adbhuta Rasa in abundance. The NLR does not mention it at all.

The authors of the ND have followed the SP word for word so far as the definition is concerned but they do not put it among the twelve principal Rūpakas as the SP has done. Dr. A. N. Upadhye gives a very interesting etymology of the word “Saṭṭaka” which he considers to be unsanskritik in origin. ‘Saṭṭa’ is split up as Sa+aṭṭa or Āṭa. Aṭṭa is a Dravidian word meaning dance or play and thus the word stood originally as an adjective of a suppressed term, the suppressed term being Rūpaka or Nartana4.

2. Śrigadita - Here a lady of high birth like Śrī ( Lakṣmī ) of Viṣṇu narrates before her friend the virtuous qualities of her husband, such as heroism, courage, etc. She is deceived by her lord and gradually scorns him as she sings5.

The BP adds that it should have one act only. The sentiment is love in separation. Vṛtti is verbal. Garbha and Avamarśa are absent. The hero is well-known.

Here the word ‘Śrī’ should be frequently used. Some hold that Śrī sings here while sitting.

3. Durmilita6 - Here a female messenger describes the different types of stealthy, amorous dalliances and by means of rustic stories secretly narrates the love between two young souls and while narrating the story asks for money again and again and even after having it desires for still more.

This is also known as Matallikā. The BP adds that there should be four Acts and four Sandhis excluding Garbha. The KS describes it as Kṣudrakathā in Mahārāṣṭrī. The SD wants six heroines in the second Act.

1. BP, p. 269.

2. Rājaśekhara explains it as follows:-“That is known as Saṭṭaka which very much resembles the Nāṭikā, the only difference being that in the former there are no Viṣkambhaka or Praveśaka.” Karpūramañjarī I, 6.

3. Candralekhā (Introduction), page 30.

4. Vide Candralekhā (Intro.), pp. 29-30.

5. ND has literally followed SP here.

6. SP (also BP and SD) calls it Durmallikā.

4. Prasthāna - It is based on Śṛṅgāra arising out of first love or going on a journey. It should depict the states of desire and anxiety. It should be enriched by descriptions of the monsoon and the spring. It should end in Dīpta Rasas such as Vīra. It contains four Apasāras. It is called Prasthāna as it is concerned with journey1.

5. Goṣṭhī : - Here is delineated the life of lord Kṛṣṇa, moving among the shepherds, which would consist of destruction of enemies and demons2.

The Abhi. does not mention this type. The BP remarks that it consists of one act. It has nine or ten male characters and five or six females. The principal sentiment is love and the Vṛtti is Kaiśikī. Sandhis are three excluding Garbha and Avamarśa. The plot is imaginary.

6. Hallīsaka - This is a sort of dance. Here women dance in a circle. Moreover, there is only one hero among them like Kṛṣṇa among the shepherdesses3.

SD - It has one act; the Vṛtti is Kaiśikī. The Sandhis are Mukha and Nirvahana. It has 7, 8 or 10 heroines

It may be compared with the operic ballets of the west.

7. Nartanaka - Here a female dancer represents a particular incident by a charming dance in keeping with proper time ( Tāla ). It is of various types such as Śamyā, Lāsya, Chalita, Dvipadī, etc. The ND explains these four types. Śamyā is a particular delicate dance performed by Kinnaras, the celestial singers. Lāsya is a dance conveying the sentiment of love. Chalita is dominated by the sentiments of Love, Heroic, Fierce etc. Dvipadī etc. are different types of metres.

The SD does not mention this as an Uparūpaka. The BP also does not mention this though it gives about twenty varieties of dance.

8. Prekṣanaka4 - is an incident or episode which is staged in streets, assemblies, quadrangles or temples. Kāmadahana is its illustration.

The definition by the BP is very vague and ambiguous. According to the SD it has one act and the hero is low-born. There is no Sūtradhāra; Sandhis are three excepting Garbha and Avamarśa. It can have all Vṛttis5.

1. The above definition of Prasthāna verbally agrees with SP and BP, p. 265.

2. The ND has literally borrowed this verse from SP or KS (p. 449).

3. The definition faithfully echoes KS VIII, 4, SP, as well as Abhi. I, p. 181.

4. Preṅkhana - SD.

5. SD VI, 286-287.

26

202

9. Rāsaka - That is known as Rāsaka where sixteen, twelve or eight

ladies dance with various postures such as Piṇḍibandha etc.1

Rāsaka can be well compared with modern ballet dance. According

to Abhinava, Rāsaka is to be performed by a number of dancing women.

It has a charming rhythm. It consists of sixty four pairs maximum. It

is of two types - ( i ) soft and ( ii ) excited2.

The SR gives an interesting legendary account of the origin of

Rāsaka. Originally Śiva created Tāṇḍava type of dance and Pārvatī

created Lāsya. The latter taught this to Uṣā, the wife of Aniruddha,

who in her turn imparted it to Gopis of Dvārāvatī. They then imparted

it to young women of Saurāṣṭra3.

The early definitions of Rāsaka suggest that Rāsaka was not meant

for mere recitation or reading but was composed with a view to being

sung and danced. It must have been originally a piece of folk-dance and

music ( It became very popular in Apabhraṃśa or old Gujarati literature ).4

The BP gives three definitions of Rāsaka at three different places5.

One is identical with the ND while the other ( on p. 269 ) is totally

different6, where Rāsaka is defined as a one-act play with five characters,

three Saṃdhis ( excluding Garbha and Avamarśa ), a well-known hero

and heroine, with Kaiśikī and Bhāratī Vṛtti, decorated with Vithyaṅgas,

different languages, etc. A similar definition is given by the SD7.

The two different definitions of Rāsaka clearly suggest that originally

it was purely a form of dance which is suggested by the definitions of

the Abhi. the KS, the SP, the ND, and the BP ( first definition ), while

later on it developed into a form of drama as can be inferred from the

definitions of the BP, the NLR and the SD.

10. Nāṭyarāsaka - When ladies, at the advent of the spring season,

represent by dance the life or actions of a king out of affection for him,

1. The definition of the ND verbally agrees with that of the SP as well as BP,

( pp. 263-4 ). ND explains the term Piṇḍibandha etc. as follows : Piṇḍibandha is so

called because of huddling up closely. Śṛṅkhalā is so called because of an arrangement

of limbs like knitting, Bhedyaka because of splitting up or moving apart and Latā-

bandha because of arrangement in the form of a net.

2. Cf. Abhi. I, p. 181.

3. SR VII, 4-8.

4. Vide B. J. Sandesara : Literary circle of Mahāmātya Vastupāla, p. 153.

5. There is a verbal identity between this verse of ND and SP as well as BP, p. 264

lines 8-9.

6. A similar verse is found in SP and BP under the treatment of Rāsaka; vide BP, p. 265.

7. SD VI, 288-290.

it is known as Nāṭyarāsaka. It consists of one Act. Its subjects are love and mirth.

The SD gives an altogether different definition of Nāṭyarāsaka.

According to the SD its hero is Udātta. The heroine should be Vāsakasajjā.

The principal Rasa is Hāsya accompanied by Śṛṅgāra. It should have plenty of music. Sandhis are two Mukha and Nirvahana. It should have ten Lāsyāṅgas. The BP gives two definitions of the Nāṭyarāsaka. One resembles that of the ND while the other on page 408 is more associated with the definition of the SD.

11. Kāvya - is a love-story in one Act interspersed with poetical stanzas and musical air. Here we find Ākṣiptikā, Varṇa, Mātrādhruvaka, Bhagnatāla, Paddhatikā, and Chardanikā 1.

12. Bhāna or Bhāṇaka - chiefly concerns itself with Viṣṇu, Śiva, the sun, Pārvatī, Kārttikeya or Pramathādhipa. It is dominated by violent action. It has no woman character. It is furnished with descriptions of various things. It contains things which are difficult to a stage but are interesting and captivating. It should be accompanied by Anutāla, Vitāla, etc.

Bhāṇaka is of six types 2 :-

(i) Pure (Śuddha) - provided it is in pure language i. e. Sanskrit.

(ii) Mixed ( Saṅkīrṇa ) - provided it is in mixed languages such as Sanskrit, Prakrit, etc.

(iii) Citra - if it is in all different languages and is performed by attractive ( Citra ) action.

(iv) Arrogant - if the action is full of arrogance.

(v) Graceful - if the action therein is charming and graceful.

(vi) Gracefully arrogant - if the action is a mixture of both the qualities 3.

13. Bhāṇikā - The essential difference between Bhāna and Bhāṇikā, according to the ND, is only this, viz., Bhāna is dominated mainly by vigorous action while the latter is found to be tender and graceful. Mostly it has the life of Viṣṇu as its subject. 4 Abhinava calls Bhāṇikā as Maṣṇoddhata ( gracefully arrogant ) 5.

14. A similar verse is found in SP and BP under the treatment of Rāsaka; vide BP, p. 265.

15. The first three are based on the language and the next group of three is based on the nature of its contents and action.

16. The same divisions are found in the BP as well in the same words. BP, p. 259.

17. Cf. BP, p. 262.

18. Abhi. I, p. 181.

204

According to the SD it has one Act. The Vṛtti is Kaiśikī and Bhāratī.

Critical Remarks

The number of Uparūpakas varies according to the different theorists.

The ND recognizes only thirteen out of the eighteen subordinate types

of drama later known as Uparūpakas. The ND and the KS as well, call

them "other types" of drama." According to the ND dramas are of

two types :

1. Where sentiment is predominant.

2. Where sentiment is not predominant1. Nāṭaka and the remaining

eleven belong to the first type, while the so-called Uparūpakas to the

second. The ND mentions them only in the commentary for the simple

reason that they are not so interesting and that they are not mentioned

by the " Vṛddhas"2. The SD uses the term Uparūpaka for these types

for the first time. Dhanika simply mentions ( does not define or explain )

seven types, viz., Ḍombī, Śṛṅgadita, Bhāṇa, Bhāṇī, Prasthāna, Rāsaka

and Kāvya as varieties of dance. The Abhi. refers to nine types3. The

KS refers to twelve adding Śṛṅgadita, Kāvya and Goṣṭhī to the list of

Abhinava4. The KS seems to have literally borrowed from Abhinava who

again ascribes them to ancient ones (Ciraṇtana). Bhoja refers to twelve

types5. The SD gives eighteen types. The greatest number of Uparūpakas

seems to have been given by the BP which mentions as many as twenty.

It can also be credited with a detailed and systematic treatment of

the same.

Strangely enough the NS does not mention any variety of Uparūpakas.

The probable cause seems to be that the Uparūpakas were invented by

Kohala6 and his followers who made the Nāṭyaveda easily accessible to

the dramatists by their work7. This is supported by a reference from

the ND itself which ascribes the authorship of Saṭṭaka and others to

Kohala8. It is likely that the NS might not have been aware of these

1. ND, p. 25.

2. ND, p. 215.

3. Abhi. I, p. 183.

4. Cf. KS, p. 445,

5. SP (MS), pp. 141-145.

6. Stray references to Kohala by the writers on dramaturgy point out that Kohala

must have written a celebrated work on music and dance including the Uparūpakas.

Abhinava has quoted him very often. He is considered to be the author of Abhinaya-

śāstra which may be a part of Kohala's work or any later abridgment of it. ( Vide

Krisnamachariar : History of Sanskrit Literature, pp. 822-3).

7. Cf. Abhi. I, pp. 183-184. The definition of Kāvya is quoted under the name of

Kohala and the same is repeated by KS.

8. ND, p. 25, last line.

205

Uparūpakas excepting Nāṭikā which the NS mentions1. The DR too is totally silent on this topic from which it may be inferred that the DR also may be unaware of them. Bhoja divides the Prekṣya Prabandhas into two : Vākyārthābhinaya and Padārthābhinaya. Each has twelve varieties. The former are known as principal Rūpakas and the latter as minor Rūpakas. The KS divides the dramatic literature into two : (1) to be recited (2) to be sung, and includes the Uparūpakas under the latter. Someśvara also calls it ‘Geya’ type of Prekṣya Kāvya. He also considers it as Padārthābhinaya-savabhāva, following Bhoja. Even the ND calls them ‘other Rūpakas’ and differentiates them from the earlier twelve Rūpakas on the basis of the place of Rasa which predominates in the latter. In Uparūpakas Rasa has a subordinate place. It is the element of music and dance that prevails here in most cases. The Abhi. calls them musical compositions2. Dhanika and the author of the BP call them " varieties of dance " (Nṛtyabhedāḥ ). Some of them like Rāsaka, Hallīsaka, Nartanaka, Chalita, Śamyā, Lāsya, etc., are still in the form of dance3. As the time went on there was a notable development in the nature of Uparūpakas. The elements of plot, speech, sentiment, etc. were gradually introduced to such an extent that some of these Uparūpakas such as Nāṭikā, Saṭṭaka, Prakaraṇikā4, Troṭaka, etc. became as good as the Rūpakas. Even though early works like the NS do not refer to the Uparūpakas their origin may be taken as earlier than the Rūpakas.6 They went on developing simultaneously with Rūpakas, ultimately leading to the present Uparūpakas.

The difference in the total number of Uparūpakas which varies with every rhetorician indicates that there was no unanimity regarding their number and the great difference in the various definitions of one and the same Uparūpaka ( at times in the same work ) clearly suggests that they had a popular origin and that they underwent continuous changes and modifications in their nature and form, from time to time6.

1. It is also likely that Uparūpakas were in a very initial stage of development in the times of Bharata and were systematized later on.

2. Cf. Prabandhāḥ nṛtyāmakāḥ-Abhi. I, p. 183.

3. They were of the form of modern ‘ballets’

4. D. R. Mankad calls them ‘Derivative types’. Vide The Types of Sanskrit Drama, pp. 91–96.

5. Dance is supposed to be the earliest form of expressing one’s joy and emotions. Even at present it is found in backward tribes (Zulu and others). Abhinava’s reference to "Cirantana" authorities with regard to the Uparūpakas also corroborates this view, ( Abhi, I, p. 141).

6. It is also not improbable that Kohala who was supposed to be the originator of the Uparūpakas was not looked upon as such a binding authority as Bharata and so there are bewildering variations as regards their nature and number.

206

The word 'Uparūpaka', the earliest mention of which we find in the

SD,1 seems to be rather misleading in the sense that it is translated as

'minor Rūpakas'. It is true that most of the Uparūpakas have music

or dance as their predominant element, still it is not proper to attribute

the word 'Minor' to them as some of them like Nāṭikā, Prakaraṇikā,

Saṭṭaka, Troṭaka, etc. are as good as the so called 'major Rūpakas'.

The above-mentioned types of the minor Rūpakas are in no way inferior

to the Rūpakas from the point of view of plot-construction, characterisa-

tion, delineation of sentiments, etc. Even in bulk they surpass some of

the Rūpakas which are simply one-act plays, as we know that not less

than fifty percent of the Rūpakas have only one act, while some of the

above-mentioned Uparūpakas have four acts (Troṭaka has five to nine

acts ). And that is why probably the authors of the ND call them

'other Rūpakas'.

The word Uparūpaka can better be understood in a slightly different

way. The prefix 'Upa' is very often used in the sense of 'near.'

Uparūpakas are so called because they are very near to the Rūpakas,

the essential difference being that in the former there is preponderance

of dance and music.

Concluding Verses

In the five concluding verses our authors briefly evaluate their own

work. In the first verse they pay glorious tribute to Hemacandra, their

learned preceptor, whom they regard as an authority on grammar, logic,

poetics and metrics. In verse No. 2 they refer to the pains they had to

take in writing the work and have mildly reproached those unfair critics

who themselves are unable to write anything original (and who have

earned a name by somehow plagiarising from others' works )2 but whose

sole interest is just to criticise. In the remaining verses the authors have

tried to draw the attention of the readers to the outstanding merits of

their work. Their Kārikās and the Vṛtti are neither too brief nor too

elaborate and are apt to convey the sense. Like the threefold current of

the Ganges their learning is also threefold: grammar, logic and literature.

At the end they claim that if anybody desires to get a real life-like

picture of the Rūpakas he should look into this pure ( i. e. faultless )

Nāṭyadarpaṇa ( the mirror of drama)3.

1. SD VI, 6.

2. A very similar verse is found in the Mallikāmakaranda (1, 7).

3. How far these claims are justified has been discussed in detail in Chapter VII of

the present work.

PART - II

PART-II

CHAPTER V

LIFE, DATE AND WORKS OF RĀMACANDRA AND GUṆACANDRA

Personal history of the authors :1

The present work Nāṭyadarpanaa is an outcome of the joint authorship of two Jaina monks – Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra – whose names are mentioned in the colophons at the end of each of the four chapters of the Kārikās as well as the commentary on them.

As regards the personal history of Rāmacandra we are not completely left in the dark. All the same, the information that we get is meagre and not so satisfactory. So many questions appear before our minds when we think of our author, e.g., where was he born, what was his family, what were the names of his parents, where did he study, where, when and how did he accept asceticism and so on. Most of these questions are likely to remain unanswered. Still an attempt is made here to gather whatever information is available and to present it as systematically as possible.

The chief sources from which we get the glimpses of Rāmacandra’s life and some of its incidents are as follows :2

1. His own works.

2. Prabhāvakacarita of Candraprabhasūri ( 1277 A.D. )

3. Upadeśataranginī of Ratnamandirāgaṇi ( 1460 A.D. )

4. Prabandhacintāmaṇi of Merutuṅgasūri ( 1310 A.D. )3

5. Kumārapālaprabandha of Jinamaṇdanaṇi ( 1435 A.D. )

6. Prabandhakośa of Rājaśekharasūri ( 1348 A.D.).

At the outset from the Nāṭyadarpanaa itself we are given to understand that he was the chief disciple ( Paṭṭadhara ) of Hemacandra who flourished in the days of Kumārapāla. Due homage is paid to the learned preceptor Hemacandra by our authors in the concluding verses at the end of the work.4

That he was the chief disciple of Hemacandra is also known from the following works of his own :-

1. While writing this I have utilized the introduction to the Nalavilāsa ( published by G. O. S. ) by Shri L. B. Gandhi.

2. Pandit Bechardas Doshi in his work Hemacandrācārya refers to the pupils of Hemacandra but we do not find any special noteworthy information about them,

3. According to P.V. Kane the date is 1307 A.D.

4. ND, p. 215.

27

210

1. Prelude to Nalavilāsa

2. Prelude to Satyahariścandra

3. Prelude to Nirbhayabhimavayāyoga

4. Prelude to Raghuviilāsa

5. Prelude to Kaumudīmitrānanda.

The Prabhāvakacarita of Candraprabhasūri relates to an incident

where once Siddharāja Jayasimha out of sheer curiosity inquires of

Hemacandra as to whom he considers to be his chief disciple. The latter

then names Rāmacandra of excellent virtues, the best among the blessed

ones to be fit for inheriting and maintaining his office1. Once he showed

an eulogy to the king composed by Rāmacandra which was quite original

and captivating. He had said, “The victorious do not tolerate any other

person to exceed them even by an inch. So may you, O lord of the

earth, supercede the Lord of Dhārā.” The king was highly impressed

by this.

Truly Rāmacandra was a chip of the old block. It was therefore

quite in the fitness of things that the learned preceptor reckoned him

to be the chief of his pupils. His deep and mature learning of all

sciences, clear thinking, excellent mode of representation, lucid, perspi-

cuous and dignified style are exemplified by the ND and other works.

That he has tried various forms of drama also points out that he is not

merely a learned critic but is a dramatist and a poet as well. He has

thoroughly imbibed the principles of dramaturgy which he theoretically

discussed in his work on dramatics. His mastery over language and his

handling of different topics deserve appreciation.

Ready - wittedness of Rāmacandra :

Rāmacandra was given the title of Kavikaṭāramalla by Siddharāja

Jayasimha as he was pleased by the ready-wittedness in poetry of this

poet ever since his early age. An account of this is found in the Upadeśa-

taranginī of Ratnamandira, the author of Bhojaprabandha. The story

runs as follows :

Once the king Jayasimha accompanied by seventy two feudal kings

went to a pleasure-garden, The summer season had set in. On his way

he met Rāmacandra. With a view to testing the knowledge and ready-

wittedness of this young poet, Jayasimha put to him the following

question : ‘Why are the days so long in summer ?’. To this, ready-

witted Rāmacandra instantly replied that the days were long because

the horses of the sun could not resist the temptation of testing the

Dūrvā grass grown on the banks of the heavenly Ganges, which had

1. Prabhāvakacarita, p. 304, verses 129-135.

become muddy on account of the wind-driven dust which which arose from

the earth which was pulverized by the harsh hoofs of the running horses

of the heroes as he ( Jayasimha ) set out for world-conquest.1

Siddharāja was highly delighted or rather astounded at the extempore

versification of Rāmacandra which revealed his poetic genius, his high

imaginative power and the devotion to the king himself. So he again

asked Rāmacandra to describe the town instantly. Instantly Rāmacandra

gave a poetic and ornate description of the town in a verse containing

a charming Utprekṣā whereupon the king was so much pleased that he

conferred on Rāmacandra the title of Kavikaṭāramalla in the presence

of all.2

The Prabandhacintāmaṇi of Merutuṅga briefly refers to this discourse

between Rāmacandra and Siddharāja as follows - One day Siddharāja

asked Rāmacandra why the days were long in summer, whereupon

Rāmacandra said, ‘ O, Lord’, etc.3

Merutuṅga refers to another interesting episode which took place in

the court of Kumārapāla, where Rāmacandra gave a very apt retort to

Pandit Viśveśvara of Benaras, as he tried to make fun of Hemacandra

by comparing him with a shepherd who too carries a blanket and a stick4.

Rāmacandra was highly diligent in writing. In his prelude to

Raghuvilāsa he refers to himself ( through Sūtradhāra ) as ‘acumbita-

kāvyatandra’ i. e. one who has never been idle in composing poetry. In

prelude to Kaumudimitrānanda also he refers to himself as “ Viśīrṇa-

kāvyanirmānatandra.” This points to his love for poetry and his zeal in

poetic composition.

Rāmacandra loses his one eye :

‘The Prabhāvakacarita gives an account of Rāmacandra’s loss of his

1. Upadeśataranginī, p. 62. An almost similar account is found in the Prabandhacintā-

mani ( p. 63 ) also.

2. The verse runs as follows :-

एतस्यास्य पुरस्य पौर्वनिताचातुर्यतत्पानिर्जिता

मन्ये नाथ सरस्वती जडतया नीरं वहन्ती स्थिता ।

कीर्तिस्तम्ममिषोचण्डरुचिरामुक्त्रु्य वाहावली-

तन्त्रीकां गुरुसिद्धभूतिसरुम्वों निजां कडयपीम् ॥

3. Prabandhacintāmaṇi, p. 63.

4. Ibid. p. 89. Viśveśvara said :

पातु वो हेमगोपाल : कम्बले दण्डमुद्वाहन ।

whereupon Rāmacandra completed the verse as under :

घडदर्शनपशुप्रामन् चरयन् जैनगोचरे ॥

and thus turns the verse as a glorious tribute to Hemacandra.

212

right eye. The work, having provided the reader with general informa-

tion about Siddharāja and Rāmacandra, proceeds as follows - When

Hemacandra introduced Rāmacandra to Siddharāja, Siddharāja asked him

to be one-sighted i.e., concentrated (ekadr̥ṣṭi) in Jaina law. Consequently

Rāmacandra lost one of his eyes the very moment.1

Merutuṅgasūri gives another account for the loss of one eye of

Rāmācandra. He states, "All learned people were once called to see the

Sahasralingapraśasti by the poet Śrīpāla, engraved on a stone. On account

of courtesy towards Śrīpāla and considering the king's regard for the

same, all those who were present said that the poem was quite nice

and specially, appreciated a verse beginning with ‘Kośenāpi’ etc.2

Rāmacandra found out faults of grammar in that very verse and so one

of his eyes was lost."3

There are two other legends with regard to this loss of eye. According

to one, Rāmacandra was unruly and was taken before the sage Jayarṇa.

He made him devote himself to the propagation of the Jaina faith with

a single eye. Thus Rāmacandra lost one eye. Another legend goes that

Rāmacandra criticised the poem of Śrīpāla inspite of the warning of

his teacher. This loss of an eye came as a punishment for the above sin.

In several Stotras in praise of Jinas composed by Rāmacandra we

find a suggestion of this particular incident of the poet's loss of one

eye. The poet supplicates the Jinas to bestow eyesight upon him.

Of course the general meaning would be, according to the context, that

the poet urges for spiritual eyesight to enlighten the path of salvation,

which is darkened by the blindness of ignorance. But a repeated urge

of this type appears to be significant and possessing double meaning.

The demand for eyesight from Lord Jina may conveniently be referring

to the loss of the physical eye, as a true votary of the Lord would

naturally approach Him in times of difficulty. So it is quite in the

fitness of things that the poet should demand it from the Lord (Jina).

A paronomastic reference to this demand for eyesight is found in

the Nemistava- a devotional song in praise of Lord Neminātha, one of

the 24 Tīrthaṅkaras. The verse runs as follows :

1. Prabhāvakacarita, verses 137 to 138.

2. Kośenāpi yutam dalair upacitam nocchettum etat kṣamam

Svasyāpi sphutakaṇtakatavikaram puṃstvam ca dhatte na hi;

Eko ’pyeṣa karoti kośarahito niṣkaṇṭakaṁ bhūtalaṁ

Matvaivaṁ kamalā vihāya kamalāṁ yasyāsam āśriyat.

Rāmacandra points out two faults - (i) the word ‘Dala’ indicates ‘army’ (ii) the

word ‘Kamala’ is neuter gender.

3. Prabandhacintāmaṇi, p. 64.

" O Nemi, lovely and brilliant like a creeper-like sharp-edged sword,

O God, bestow upon me eyesight having pure brilliance like that of the

moon, so that the enveloping heaps of darkness may instantly be

dispelled and immediately there may flash forth eternal light."

We clearly find here an indirect suggestion to the above incident.

Another similar verse is found in the concluding verse of each of the

sixteen 'Sādhāraṇa Jinastavas'.

"O highly delightful Lord, a desire-yielding tree for endless fruit,

who makes the whole world bend low ( before him with respect ) on

account of his life as pure as the moon, whose lotus-like feet are

worshipped by Indra, O God, may you be pleased with me in this

multitude of difficulties, shower mercy, and bestow the eyesight

upon me".1

Vyatirekadvātrimśikā too refers to this blindness of Rāmacandra in

the concluding verses.2

Death of Hemacandra :

More books than one declare that Hemacandra, the preceptor of

Rāmacandra, died in Vikrama Samvat 1229 (i.e. 1173 A.D.). King

Kumārapāla of Caulukya dynasty who was a devout votary of Hemacandra

was deeply shocked at this. This despondent king was consoled by Rāma-

candra and others. The above account is found in the Kumārapālacarita

written by Jayasiṁha sūri dated Vikrama Samvat 1422 (i.e. 1366 A.D.).

The account goes as follows :-

"On account of the death of Hemacandra, the Caulukya king

(Kumārapāla) confounded as it were, on all sides, did not know what

to do at all. Then learned men like Rāmacandra and others advised him

daily and after some days any how lessened his grief.

In the Vikrama Samvat 1230 (i.e. 1174 A.D.) when not more than

six months had passed after the death of Hemacandra king Kumāra-

pāla being affected by the poison given by his nephew Ajayapāla, called

Rāmacandra and asked him to perform "Paryantārādhana".

The verse in the Kumārapālacarita runs as follows -

"Then the royal sage (Kumārapāla) having called the great sage

Rāmacandra started to perform Paryantārādhana according to the

sacred precept.3

1. Jainotrasaṁgraha, pp. 162-190.

2. Cf. जगति पूर्वविधेर्ध्विनियोगं विधिनतानन्ध्यगलत्तनुतादिकम् ।

— Vyatirekadvātrimśikā, v. 31.

3. Canto 10, verse 235.

214

Death of Rāmacandra :

This great poet who was held in high esteem by king Kumārapāla and others and who was reckoned to be the author of one hundred works met a sorrowful death. "The prince of the learned " was put to death in an inhuman manner by the wicked king Ajayapāla. The account of this as found in the Prabandhacintāmaṇi of Merutuṅgasūri is as follows:

As Rāmacandra, the author of one hundred works, was made to sit on a heated piece of copper by that wretched king, he uttered the verse - " That lord of the day (i. e. the sun ) who cast his feet on the surface of the entire earth consisting of animate as well as inanimate objects should set within no time." With these words he committed suicide by cutting the tip of his tongue by his teeth. Yet he was again put to death by the cruel king ( in spite of the fact that he was dead )2.

The above-mentioned work gives the following account of the death of Ajayapāla who performed evil deeds like killing a great poet sage Rāmacandra :-

In accordance with the authoritative lines viz., " The doer of a very sinful or meritorious deed achieves the fruit ( of his action ) here ( i. e. in this world ) only within three years, three months, three fortnights or three days," that bad monarch was killed with a sword ( Kṣurikā ) by a servant named Vayajaladeva and he perished having experienced hell daily, being devoured by worms as he committed sin even at sacred places. From Vikrama Samvat 1230 ( i. e. 1174 A.D. ) onwards Ajayadeva ruled for three years.

The Prabandhakośa of Rājaśekhara sūri states as under :

Thus as the time passed on, king Kumārapāla as well as Hemacandra grew old. In the group of pupils of Hemacandra, there was rivalry. The group of Rāmacandra ane Guṇacandra happened to be on one side and Bālacandra on the other. The latter developed intimate friendship with Ajayapāla, the nephew of the king.

One night king Kumārapāla, preceptor Hemacandra and Ābhaḍa entered into a secret council. The king respectfully asked the learned preceptor as to whom he should entrust the kingdom with after his death, sonless as he was. The preceptor ( Hemacandra ) advised the king to give the throne to Pratāpamalla, the son of his daughter, in order that the religion may be well maintained and pointed out that Ajayapāla was going to destroy the religion founded by the king. Here Ābhaḍa opined that whatever the character of the man may be, one who is personally related should be preferred. Hemacandra reasserted that under

1. Prabandhacintāmaṇi p. 97.

no circumstances should Ajayapāla be made the king. With this secret

counsel, the three persons dispersed.

The secret talk was overheard by Bālacandra and was narrated to

Ajayapāla. Consequently Ajayapāla bore enmity against Rāmacandra and

other favourite pupils of Hemacandra and loved Ābhaḍa.

After some time, Hemacandra joined the majority and on the thirty

second day after his death, king Kumārapāla too breathed his last being

poisoned by Ajayapāla. Ajayapāla acquired the throne. Out of hatred for

Hemacandra, Ajayapāla tortured his pupils viz., Rāmacandra and others

to death by forcing them to sit on a heated iron seat. Many of the Jain

Vihāras (convents) in the domain were levelled to the ground. Having

called young Jain monks (Laghuṣullakas) he made them practise hunt-

ing every day with a view to deriding them as they followed formerly

the order of the Jain convent (Caitiya).

Bālacandra, the root-cause of this calamity, met the fate which he

deserved. He was looked down upon by all Brahmins pointing to him

with the words : “Here is the killer of one’s own family.” He was so

much ashamed that he left for Mālavā country and died there.

Purātanaprabandhasaṃgraha gives the account as under :-

Rāmacandra and Bālacandra were the pupils of Hemacandra. The

preceptor imparted special learning and honour to Rāmacandra having

reckoned him a worthy pupil. Being infuriated by this Bālacandra went

away. He made friendship with Ajayapāla. When the latter became king,

he asked Rāmacandra to impart all learning which he had received from

Hemacandra to his friend Bālacandra. Rāmacandra said, “How can the

learning of the preceptor be imparted to an unworthy person ?”. Then

the king ordered him to sit on fire having cut his tongue, composed Dodhakaṅpañcāśati1.

Personality of Rāmacandra :

Rāmacandra, the author of Prabandhaśata, was a man of great

learning. He himself proclaims his proficiency in the three sciences viz.,

grammar, logic, and poetics2. He must have been well-versed in other

sciences also.

Rāmacandra was proud of himself and of his learning. He thought

much of himself.3 In the ND also he criticizes the unworthy critics

whose only object is to criticise.

1. Purātanaprabandhasaṃgraha, p. 49.

2. ND, p. 215.

3. His fault finding in the Sahasralaṅgapraśasti of Śrīpāla does suggest his learning, but

at the same time it also hints at his lack of modesty.

216

In the prologues to all his plays he eulogises himself and tries to establish his superiority over other poets like Murāri and others.

Rāmacandra was equally fearless. He refused to succumb to any threats. He refused to impart knowledge to Bālacandra whom he considered to be an unworthy pupil, even at the order of king Ajayapāla1 and preferred death to surrender. His end was really worthy of a hero.

He loved freedom. In the NLV he occasionally refers to the pleasures of freedom.2 In his Nirbhay. as well as the Satya. he reckons freedom to be the shower of joy.3 In the Bharatavākya of the Nirbhay., the MM, the Satya., the YBH, etc., there is a prayer for freedom.

Temperamentally he must have been jovial as compared to his co-pupil Gunacandra who appears to be rather serious and sober. In his drama he tries to create humour by humorous speaches and by cutting jokes.

Rāmacandra was a devout monk, which is testified to by a great number of the devotional songs that he has composed. He very much respected his religious preceptor Hemacandra.

He did inherit the learning and erudition of his great ‘Guru’, but he did not have the tact of winning popularity which Hemacandra had, otherwise he would not have met with such a tragic end.

Co-pupils of Rāmacandra :

Hemacandra on account of his towering personality had a great band of votaries and disciples. Rāmacandra obviously was the most favourite of them all. The names of other seven who must have been favoured by Hemacandra more than the remaining huge lot of ordinary pupils are given below. These can safely be regarded as the co-students of Rāmacandra, one of whom was Gunacandra, in the partnership of whom Rāmacandra wrote serious and scientific works such as the Nāṭyadarpana and the Dravyālankāra. The names of those seven pupils of Hemacandra other than Rāmacandra are as under :

1. Gunacandragani - He seems to have been a great favourite of Rāmacandra, being rather equal in knowledge and merits to himself and that is why the latter wrote two above-mentioned works in the joint authorship with him. Of course we do not come across any independent work of Gunacandra and so possibly he might not have written any work

2. Purātanaprabandhasaṁgraha, p. 49.

3. Cf. NLV-“If there be no freedom as long as one lives, useless is the magnificence of heaven and earth ” ( II, 2). Also Cf. “A free man does not know the agony of a dependent ” ( VI, 7). Even in the final verse of the play there is a desire for freedom (Svatantro bhava-VII, 13).

4. Cf. Nirbhay, I, 2; Satya. 1, 5.

independently. It appears that he was a man of sober and serious nature,

more inclined to serious study and learning and less inclined to writing

or earning fame and reputation by contributing something by himself.

But Rāmacandra was conscious of the deep learning of his co-student

and that is why such a voluminous writer as Rāmacandra was, he

preferred to seek the aid of his friend and the fruit of this co-operative

effort is the ND1. A reader of the work cannot but be impressed by the

erudition of the authors and the clarity of expression which indirectly

reflects the personality of the authors. Guṇacandra also joined hands with

Rāmacandra in writing a philosophical work called Dravyālaṃkāra.

2. Mahendrasūri - He has written detailed commentaries on Abhi-

dhānacintāmaṇi and Nighaṇṭukośa of Hemacandra. He also wrote a

commentary called Anekārthakairavakakaumudi on Hemacandra's Ane-

kārthasaṅgraha and ascribed to it the authorship of Hemacandra.

3. Vardhamāna gaṇi - He has written a commentary on Kumāra-

vihāpraśasti, where he draws one hundred ond sixteen meanings from

that poem. This reflects upon the great scholarship of the commentator.

4. Devacandramuni - He has written a Prakaraṇa type of drama

named Cadralekhāvijaya in about 1207 A. D.2 He is also said to have

written another work called Māṇamudrābhañjana. But it is not available

at present.3

5. Yaśaścandra - We find his name mentioned in Prabandhacintāmaṇi

(Vikrama era 1361).4 He is also referred to in Prabhāvakacarita ( verse

no. 737 ) and Kumārapālaprabandha (p. 188 ). No work of his has still

been discovered. Shri K. M. Munshi5 and Shri Ramanlal Modi6 consider

him to be the writer of a Prakaraṇa named Mudritakumuda but Shri

Bhogilal Sandesara points but that their view is wrong.

6. Udayacandra - No work of his is available at present but it is

said that his preachings inspired many others. Being inspired by him

Devendra wrote a commentary named Katiciddurgapadavyākhyā on

Siddhahemabṛhadvṛtti and another work called Upamitiprapañcakathā-

sāroddhāra. Dr. Buhler considers Devendra, the commentator on Haima-

bṛhadvṛtti, as a pupil of Udayacandra.7 Prabandhacintāmaṇi (p. 147 )

1. Guṇacandra, along with Mahendrasūri and Vardhamānagaṇi, is respectfully referred

to by Somaprabhasūri in the concluding verses ( p. 478 ) of the Kumārapālapratibodha

which is said to have been read before them.

2. Vide-Pupils of Hemacandra, page 18.

3. For details - See Jesalmer Bhaṇḍāra Sūci, page 46.

4. Page 133 and pages 143-144.

5. Gujarat and its literature, p. 47.

6. Buddhi Prakāśa, January 1930 - Pāṭanāgaranā Granthakāra.

7. Vide - Life of Hemacandra, p. 81.

28

218

gives an interesting episode of Udayacandra's mastery over grammar.

Once Udayacandra was reading the Yogaśāstra of Hemacandra in the

presence of king Kumārapāla. There he corrected the original reading of

the line - Dantakeśanakhāsthitvagromṇām grahaṇam ākare - by putting

‘Romṇah’ in place of Romṇām. Being questioned by Hemacandra he

pointed out that Dvandva compounds, with limbs of animals, musical

instruments etc. as their members, govern a singular number. All were

pleased with this explanation.

7, Bālacandra - The last member of this group is Bālacandra. He

does not appear to be a worthy pupil of such a great Ācārya as Hema-

candra. He envied the high honour and prominence which his preceptor

gave to Rāmacandra. He was a rival of Rāmacandra. He was formerly

a friend of Ajayapāla. He poisoned the ears of Ajayapāla against Rāma-

candra and was the cause of the tragic death of Rāmacandra which is