1. Theory of Drama A comprehensive Study of Aristotle and Bhartha Rai R.N

ORY

OF

DRAMA

DR

R

O15,2

N2

18094

THEORY

OF

DRAMA

THEORY

OF

DRAMA

A

Comparative

Study

of

Aristotle

and

Bharata

Dr.

R.N.

RAI

Classical

Publishing

Company

NEW

DELHI-110015

UN

COS

N

18094

ISBN 81-7054-155-7

© R.N. Rai

First Published 1992

Published by

B.K. Taneja

Classical Publishing Company

28, Shopping Centre, Karampura

New Delhi-110015

Price Rs. 300-00

Printed in India

Printed by

R.K. Composing at

I.K. Printers, Maujpur

Shahdara, Delhi-110 032

Dedicated

to the Sacred Memory

of my revered father

Dr. Shiwa Mangal Rai

Foreword

There are not many means of fostering mutual understand-

ing of cultures as effective as comparative studies of cultural

and literary productions. Parallelisms and divergences dis-

closed by such studies can contribute to the evolution of a

universal humanist cultural perspective of unity in diversity.

Direct mutual influence in dramaturgy between ancient Greece

and India is ruled out by cultural historians. Yet the

similarity in approach to the central problems of the nature

and structure of drama implict in Aristotle’s Poetics and

Bharata’s Natyasastra is striking. Aristotle, ‘the master of all

who know’ (Dante) was an encyclopaedic thinker ; Bharata’s

work is an encyclopaedia of dramaturgy. The Poetics is

fragmentary and incomplete compared to the massive architec-

tonics of the Natyasastra which elaborately deals with the

minutiae of theatrical production as well as the basic principles

of art appreciation. It is a typical example of the Indian genius

for systemization and oversubtilized classification. Though

condition of dramatic production and reception have undergone

revolutionary changes down the ages, the grammar of gestures

codified by Bharata forms the core of the expressive devices

used by our traditional dancers even today.

In our academic and literary circles Aristotle has had more

pervasive influence than Bharata. It is bad to develop a fixation

on one’s tradition ; but not to be aware of it is worse. Dr. R.N.

Rai has enriched the steadily growing body of comparative

critical studies by his contribution. In his Theory of Drama :

A comparative Study of Aristotle and Bharata he has established

remarkable parallelisms between the Greek and Indian theorists

on the nature, structure, and function of drama. In order to

make the study comprehensive he has made extensive use of

(viii)

later interpretations. Dr. R.N. Rai's achievement is parti-

cularly laudable in view of the admitted difficulties in such a

comparative study.

The difficulties are many. Aristotle's text is cryptic and has

too many loose ends. The crucial phrase 'Catharsis of such

like emotions' has been interpreted in as many ways as there

are therapeutic systems. The Natyasastra text, with Abhinava-

gupta's commentary is notoriously corrupt and no authoritative

critical edition has been prepared. The plethora of interpreta-

tions makes it difficult to keep the discussion within manage-

able limits. The tendency to read ready-made parallelisms into

the texts is strong in most comparatists. Further, the urge to

establish the superiority and sophistication of one's own tradi-

tion, even without cogent reasoning, will be irresistable.

Readers of this book will find that Dr. R.N. Rai has succeeded

in steering clear of these pitfalls.

Aristotle evolved his dramatic theories in the context of the

efflorescence of the Athenian tragedy in the works of Aeschylus

Sophocles and Euripides. The Greek idea of the tragic found

a culmination in their works. The only other period of com-

parable achievement is the last years of the sixteenth century

in Elizabethan England with Shakespeare as the noblest

exponent of the tragic. Tragedy is a sublime and fulfilling

experience because it cleanses the egoistic disturbing elements

in our minds. For Hegel the conflict is between equal ethical

claims. Marx historicized this concept and postulated tragedy

in a conflict between social orders. For Bradley tragedy in-

volves spiritual waste in the process of the 'self-restitution' of

spiritual unity turn as under by evil.

The notion of the tragic, at least some of its implications,

can be felt in the portrayal of Karuna rasa in Indian works

through tragedy as a self-conscious genre did not develop in

India. But as Aldous Huxley pointed out tragedy with its

isolation and suppression of aspects of experience cannot en-

compass the whole truth. Had Vyasa intended to write a tragic

poem he could have ended the Mahabharata with the gruesome

(ix)

nocturnal revenge of Aswathama. Had he wanted to end it on

a note of affirmation he would have left Yudishtira on the

throne to live happily ever after. But for Vyasa life's ultimate

end lies beyond the apocalypse and the coronation. Hence the

Mahaprashthana which is a transcendence of the tragic and the

comic.

Dr. R.N. Rai's intrpretations bring out the way in which

concepts and categories used by Bharata and Aristotle to clarify

facets of dramatic practice in their time have assumed funda-

mental significance in the history of art criticism in their tradi-

tions. While demonstrating parallelisms he points to differences

in the projections of the two thinkers arising from the divergent

cultural matrices within which they worked. His narrative of

the vicissitudes the Aristotelian concepts have passed through

down the centuries and his discovery of affinities in the works

of the two seminal thinkers belonging to two different cultural

traditions will be extremely useful to Indian and Western

students of comparative criticism.

Banaras Hindu University

Varanasi-221 005

January 1992

G.B. MOHAN THAMPI

Former Vice Chancellor

University of Kerala

Trivendrum

Preface

The theory of drama is such a subject that it has attracted

the minds of many of the most brilliant and outstanding literary

critics and philosophers from the very dawn of theatrical art

down to our present days. It is not very difficult to find out

the reasons behind it. Drama is at once the most peculiar and

the most delightful of all types of literature. It is perhaps the

best means for the exploration of the nature of man. It is so

deeply associated with the inner consciousness of the human

race that it is capable of addressing and moving the people of

far distant ages and of varying climes. It undoubtedly stands

as the most interesting of all the literary products of human

endeavour. This has been felt throughout the ages and efforts

have been made to find out the secrets of success of the dramatic

arts upon the human mind.

Aristotle’s Poetics and Bharata’s NŚ (Nāṭyaśāstra) are such

seminal and immortal works in World literature ; they are

encyclopaedic in the range of their ideas on all possible subjects

of dramaturgy. By virtue of their range and profundity of

insight, they are rightly considered to be the decisive authorities

on different aspects of the theory of drama. Aristotle’s Poetics

has been a never-failing source of inspiration to writers and

critics in the West. No student of criticism can deny the great

significance of Poetics as the first systematic, though limited,

inquiry into the fundamental principles governing poetry and

drama. It has exerted a tremendous influence on subsequent

development of literary criticism, dramatic, in the Western

World.

Bharata’s NŚ is also the first systematic extant work on the

subject in the history of Indian dramatic theory. It has been

most frequently quoted and referred to by subsequent authors

on imitation, action, sentiment, diction, gestures, prosody,

music, grammar and so on. It has also stimulated original

compositions on different aspects of poetics such as alañkāra,

riti and rasa etc. The various commentators of different Sans-

krit and Prākrit plays amply used Bharata's insight in elucida-

ting the diverse dramatic highlights. Lollaṭa, Saṅkuka, Bhaṭṭa,

Nāyaka, Abhinavagupta, Viśvanātha and Jagannātha - all have

written commentaries on some aspect of Bharata's theory or

the other. Modern criticism in different languages of the

Indian sub-continent has always sought inspiration from

Sanskrit Poetics whose illustrious originator is Bharata. In

modern Hindi criticism Ram Chandra Shukla, Visvanath

Prasad Mishra and Dr. Nagendra are the chief propounders of

some important aspects of Bharata's theory. The impact of NŚ

on Indian critical and aesthetic theory is of course very deep

and far reaching.

The present work is based on my post-doctoral dissertation

recommended for the award of D. Litt. Degree. Here I have

meticulously analysed the two great theorists - Aristotle and

Bharata and made a systematic comparative study of their

theory of drama. Efforts have been made in this direction by

some scholars and comparatists who touch on, in passing, the

similitude between Aristotle and Bharata. But since no com-

prehensive analysis of the subject was yet available, there was

need to undertake this work. Such a comparative study has

yielded some valuable results and led to a healthy 'cross-

fertilization' of ideas. It has illuminated certain areas which

may be regarded as universals of dramaturgy. It has taken

note of the differences also. It has been evaluated whether these

differences are due to diverse cultural colorations essentially

affirming the same fundamental principles, or they involve

differences of the principles themselves.

The area of common interest that I have discovered in the

present work is the nature of drama, function of drama,

structure of drama, hero in drama, types of drama and the

language of drama. In the first chapter I have given a brief

introduction about the nature and scope of Aristotle's Poetics

and Bharata's NŚ. From Chapter II to Chapter VII I have

(xiii)

dealt with the details of the topic in a comparative manner. I

have analysed and explored the strengths and weaknesses of

each theoretical aspect of Aristotle and Bharata simultaneously

and then made their comparative assessment. The results of

the comparative investigation have been synthesized and certain

further conclusions drawn in the last chapter.

I would like to express my sense of gratitude to Prof. J.C.

Jha for his scholarly suggestions and unfailing courtesy. The

credit of stimulating me to undertake this work goes to my

teacher late Prof. Shiva M. Pandey who unfortunately could

not see the completion of this work, though he had sharpened

my awareness on so many aspects of this topic. I feel highly

obliged to my other teachers Prof. T.N. Singh, Prof. G.B.

Mohan Thampi and Dr. R.K. Shukla who took the trouble of

going through my manuscripts and suggested the modifications

wherever necessary. I am also grateful to Prof. Bhola Shankar

Vyas, Prof. Rewa Prasad Dwivedi and Prof. Bishwanath

Bhattacharya for their valuable suggestions from time to time.

I shall be failing in my duty if I do not express my sense of

gratitude to U.G.C. for giving me the Award of National

Associateship which certainly expedited the process of my work.

I am also very thankful to Classical Publishing Company, New

Delhi, for undertaking the publication of my work.

R.N. Rai

Department of English

Banaras Hindu University

Varanasi-221 005

Contents

Foreword

vii

Preface

xi

CHAPTER I

Introduction

1

CHAPTER II

Nature of Drama

16

CHAPTER III

Function of Drama

42

CHAPTER IV

Structure of Drama

97

CHAPTER V

Hero in Drama

168

CHAPTER VI

Types of Drama

204

CHAPTER VII

Language of Drama

248

CHAPTER VIII

Conclusion

271

Bibliography

285

1

Introduction

Aristotle's Poetics is considered by the critics and commentators of different languages as the Bible of literary criticism.

It has been quoted and annotated by the classicists as well as anti-classicists alike in the defence of their respective theories.

Its inestimable value lies in the fact that by the time of the publication of Bywater's commentary in 1909 fifty five translations into various European languages had been published and since then translations, editions and commentaries on the Poetics have been constantly added to the earlier bulk of Aristotelian criticism.

The Poetics of Aristotle, which had influenced Horace, Sir Philip Sidney, Ben Jonson, Dryden and Dr. Johnson, has found its re-interpreters in a respectable group of critics such as Ronald S. Crane, Richard McKeon, Elder Olson, Gerald F. Else and Hardison in the twentieth century.

Efforts are being made every now and then to analyse and debate the validity of Aristotelian and pseudo-Aristotelian principles.

It is now an accepted fact that there has been no other work more influential than Aristotle's Poetics in the development of Western thought on critical and aesthetic principles of literature.

Aristotle is undoubtedly the first propounder of a systematic literary theory.

He formulated his principles on the basis of the existing models of the Homeric epics, Pindaric odes, Orphicistic lyrics and the plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes.

He is such a seminal Greek critic that he was imitated and emulated by the Roman, French, Italian, Arabic as well as English writers and critics.

2

Theory of Drama

Apart from its inherent merit Aristotle's Poetics has a double historical importance. It is the first inquiry into the nature of poetical art and has exercised an amazing influence upon the critics of the succeeding generations. However, it was not known to the Western world till the beginning of the twelfth century A.D. Even in the Middle Ages it was translated and amply misinterpreted by the Syrian and Arabic scholars. Its modern interpretation started in Italy towards the end of the fifteenth century. Eobertello's commentary on Poetics in 1548 and Castelvetro's in 1570 show the influence of Aristotlè in the sixteenth century Italy. Since then a large number of translations and commentaries have been published by various scholars such as Bywater, Margoliouth, Butcher, Gudeman, Rostagani, Fyfe, Leon Golden, Else and Hardison.

Aristotle's Poetics, published in 330 B.C., is a systematic, though incomplete, inquiry into the nature of art and poetry. It devotes more space to the discussion of dramatic theory rather than to the enumeration of the process of poetic creation. It is not a manual of aesthetics ; it rather tells us how a good dramatic work can be produced and how its literary value can be ascertained. Though it is found in the form of ill written, incoherent lecture-notes, it provides a solid basis for an inquiry into the nature of drama. Prepared on the basis of a few extant Greek plays, its applicability is more or less universal. Its significance lies in the fact that it places before the readers such crucial issues as mimesis, catharsis, plot, character, style and tragic irony which demand perennial attention even from the present day scholars.

The text of Poetics is a very difficult and complex document and poses some problems to its readers. The first problem is due to the fact that the text was originally written in Greek. Hence the readers who are not well versed in Greek language, have to depend on translations, which are always in the form of disguised commentaries. Since several translations are available to us, no translation can be considered to be definitive and fully reliable. The second problem that we face, is whether we should interpret Aristotle's Poetics as an independent self-contained work or it should be considered in relation to his

Introduction

other works such as Rhetoric, Politics and Nicomacean Ethics. The third problem is that Aristotle does not bother to explain some important terms such as Catharsis, hamartia and anagnorsis which are still puzzling to the modern readers. The fourth problem is the problem of the authenticity of the text. Should we consider the Poetics exclusively as the work of Aristotle himself or accept certain sections as interpolations by other scholars of late antiquity ?

Keeping all these points in my mind I have made Butcher's translation the basis of my research work ; but I have also consulted other translations wherever I thought them necessary. Aristotle's Poetics, as is suggested by Aristotle himself, originally consisted of two books--the second book being devoted to iambic poetry, comedy and perhaps catharsis also. Unfortunately, however, the second book seems to have been lost. The first book which is available, is commonly understood to be an answer to the charges levelled by Plato against poetry in the Ion, and in Books II, III and X of his Republic. It is not just a critical evaluation of the works that it refers to but a methodical, philosophical investigation into the nature of literary criticism. In the opinion of most of the critics it has become, says Elder Olson, "a repository of insights, perceptions, observations, to be interpreted ad libitum and picked over for occasional nuggets of profundity"1.

There are twenty six chapters in Aristotle's Poetics. The first three chapters have been devoted to the discussion of his theory of imitation, putting emphasis on the means of imitation, object of imitation and manner of imitation. Chapter IV discusses the origin of poetry and its development into the forms of tragedy and comedy. Chapter V gives a brief definition of comedy and makes its casual comparison with tragedy and epic poetry. In chapter VI he gives a formal definition of tragedy and refers to its "six causally related and hierarchically arranged qualitative parts"2, namely, plot, character, thought, diction, song and spectacle. From Chapter VII to XIV barring Chapter XII which seems to be an interpolation, Aristotle discusses the nature of plot and the process of its construction.

4

Theory of Drama

He also takes into account for exemplification the unity of plot,

kinds of tragic plots, and the essential features of complex

tragic plots such as hamartia, reversal and recognition. Again

from Chapter XVI to XVIII he discusses various kinds of

recognition, rules for the sketching of the events, principles

governing complication and denouement and the unification of

various excellences in the drama. Chapter XV has been devoted

to the discussion of the essential requirements of character such

as goodness, lifelikeness, appropriateness and consistency. The

language of the drama has been analysed and its suitability

considered in chapters XIX to XXII. In chapter XXIII he

explains what epic poetry is and then in chapters XXIV and

XXVI he makes a comparison between tragedy and epic poetry

showing the superiority of tragedy over epic on the ground that

it has all the elements of Epic+ Music and Spectacle ; it is more

concise and concentrated and it has greater sense of unity than

epic. In chapter XXV he discusses some critical problems

relating to tragedy and epic poetry.

Since the three elements of tragedy, namely, plot, character

and diction will be discussed in greater depth and detail in the

succeeding chapters, a brief evaluation of the remaining three

elements is essential here. Thought, as we know, comes third in

order of priority. It is, says Aristotle, "the faculty of saying

what is possible and pertinent in given circumstances"3.

Elaborating it further, in Chapter XIX of Poetics he says :

Concerning Thought, we may assume what is said in the

Rhetoric, to which inquiry the subject more strictly belongs.

Under thought is included every effect which has to be

produced by speech, the subdivisions being, proof and

refutation ; the excitation of the feelings, such as pity, fear,

anger and the like ; the suggestion of importance or its

opposite4.

Thought is infact the intellectual element which is implied in

all rational conduct of the dramatic personae. It makes the

intentions, convictions and views of the persons known to us.

It is revealed when the characters express their specific point of

view or enunciate general truths or maxims. It is the manifesta-

Introduction

tion of reasoning and feeling in written language or speech.

Roughly it is, says Eva Schaper, "What is implied, suggested,

referred to, meant, or cognitively involved in an action"5. It

is of course the intellectual dimension of the play.

The next element of tragedy is melody (melos) which is the

greatest of the linguistic adornments. It is, however, not only

an embellishment but an essential element of drama. Recogniz-

ing it as an element of drama Aristotle not only stresses the

musical element of Greek drama but also the need for fine

artistic presentation. In Aristotelian sense it should be under-

stood as the structural feature which distances the action on

the stage and highlights its character as a mimetic construct.

It finds expression in the form of a chant, a rhythmic accentu-

ation or a stylized speech.

Aristotle assigns the sixth place to the Spectacle and admits

that of all the elements of tragedy it is "the least artistic and

connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of

tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from represenlation

and actors"6. He is of the opinion that tragedy can produce

its proper effect even without being staged. Spectacle which

refers to the costume, stage-scenery and painting, is not so much

the concern of a playwright as that of a stage mechanist.

Aristotle feels that the real tragic effect may be produced by

the inner structure of the play even without the help of stage-

scenery or other such extraneous elements. Drama produces its

effect as much in reading as in its presentation on the stage.

It depends for its peculiar effect on the artistic rather than the

theatrical, histrionic and scenic elements. Eva Schaper, however,

disagrees with his view and says that "Spectacle is an aspect

which is usually taken for granted in a stage-play, for drama is

normally being presented, in visual and auditory form, for our

enjoyment and immediate perception. Presentation in spectacle

--or the potentiality for being so presented--is as genuinely a

formal requirement as the other five. To lack spectacle is to be

unpresentable, and this would mean failure to achieve the

distinctly dramatic mode"7. Aristotle infact does not dismiss

spectacle altogether but considers it to be a minor part of the

poetic art, though it has emotional attraction of its own.

Aristotle's Poetics contains many seminal points and pregnant ideas that no other work on literary criticism has. It has deviated from the earlier literary critical tradition in the sense that it does not consider poetic art as duplicative or photographic of reality and it does not confuse aesthetic values with moral judgements. It has aroused such a great curiosity among the critics and the commentators that it has been interpreted, elucidated and explored differently in different ages. It would be an error on our part if we assume that his literary principles fully conform to the practice of the Greek playwrights such as Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. It rather provides some criterian for the evaluation of artistic excellence which is based on a discriminating and selective principle.

Bharata's NŚ, on the other hand, is considered to be an encyclopaedia of Indian dramaturgy. It provides not only a theory of drama but also the guidelines for directors, actors, spectators and critics. It is a remarkable work of deep psychological insight. Referring to the aim of Bharata's NŚ K.C. Pandey has stated that its main purpose is to "instruct the dramatist, the stage-manager and actors in regard to the ways and means of producing the drama, to tell them the necessary constituents of the drama and the manner and material of their presentation"8. In Sanskrit criticism there is a long line of critics and commentators from Bhatta Lollata to Panditraj Jagannatha who have carried on the tradition of Bharata and elucidated his rules and precepts without adding anything substantial to it.

It is, however, unfortunate that the personal history of the mythical Bharata is not known to us. Not only this, but the date of his NŚ's publication is also a controversial issue. Critics are still not unanimous regarding its actual date of publication. There is widest possible divergence of opinion ranging from 5th century B.C to the 4th century A.D. Whereas S.K. De9 suggests its date of publication between 2nd century B.C. and 2nd century A.D., Prof. Manomohan Ghosh10 considers it to be the publication of 5th century B.C. Whatever be its real date of publication, one thing is certain that it is the oldest work on Indian dramaturgy written at about the same time when

Introduction

Aristotle's Poetics was written, though both the works are much different thematically as well as stylistically.

There is another difficulty regarding the availability of its authentic text. Indian as well as European scholars have faced so many problems in publishing the text of Bharata's NŚ on account of different oral traditions and endless variations in manuscripts.

There are various Indian editions which are based on over more than forty manuscripts collected from different parts of the country.

Though Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa, Śaṅkuka and Bhaṭṭa Nayak wrote scholarly commentaries on Bharata's NŚ, their works are not available to us.

The only available commentary is that of Abhinavagupta who has examined and analysed the important aspects of Bharata's NŚ.

In addition to Abhinavagupta, Dhananjaya, Viśvanātha, Pt. Jagannatha, D.R. Mankad, V. Raghavan, R.K. Sen and B. Bhaṭṭachārya have written commendable commentaries on Bharata's NŚ.

Commentaries, however, cannot solve the problem of the text.

Things remain uncertain regarding the number and sequence of chapters or even about the number of verses in each chapter.

There are certain passages in the text which appear to be the products of gradual interpolation and recasting.

The NŚ was discovered for the first time in 1865 by an American scholar Mr. Fitz Edward Hall who tried to publish its complete edition, but failed to do so due to the corrupt nature of the manuscripts.

The German scholar W. Heymann and the French paul Regn- and made some valuable contributions to the publication of Bharata's text.

J. Grosset made an excellent effort in this direction but he too could not publish the complete edition of the text.

The contribution of Mr. Ramakrishna Kavi to the study of NŚ is remarkable in the sense that he published the complete edition of NŚ in four volumes 1st volume (I-VII) of the Baroda edition in 1926, IInd volume (VIII-XVIII) in 1936, third volume (XIX-XXVII) in 1954 and the fourth volume (XXVIII-XXXVII) in 1964.

So far as the complete translation of the text in English is concerned, the credit goes to Manomohan Ghosh who translated Bharata's NŚ with a scholarly introduction and critical notes.

His translation was published in two

8

Theory of Drama

volumes by the Asiatic Society of Bengal. The first volume

came out in 1951 and the second volume in 1961. Dr. Ghosh

is a distinguished scholar of Sanskrit and his translation dis-

plays his critical insight. However at certain places he is so

literal that his translation becomes sometimes inadequate and

misleading. Even then his contribution to the study of

Bharata's NŚ remains unique in the sense that it is the only

book in English that gives a complete picture of Bharata en-

cyclopaedic vision of dramaturgy.

Bharata's voluminous and encyclopaedic NŚ consists of

thirty six chapters. It is entirely in verse (about six thousand

couplets) with a sprinkling of prose. There is an interesting

story regarding the mythical origin of NŚ. Once the gods under

the leadership of Indra approached Brahmā and said to him,

"we want an object diversion, which must be audible as well as

visible. As the (existing) of Vedas are not to be listened to by

those born as Śūdras, be pleased to create another Veda which

will belong (equally) to all the colour-groups (varṇa)"11. At

their request Brahmā went into yogic meditation and them

stated :

I shall make a fifth Veda on the Natya with the Semi-

historical tales (itihāsa), which will conduce to duty

(dharma), wealth (artha) as well as fame, will contain

good counsel and collection (of traditional maxims) will

give guidance to people of the future as well in all their

actions, will be enriched by the teaching of all authorit-

ative works (śāstra) and will give a review of all arts and

crafts.12

Keeping these things in view Brahmā created the Nāṭyaveda

from his memory of the four existing Vedas. He took the

recitative (pāṭhya) from the Ṛgveda, the song from the Sāmave-

da, the Histrionic Representation (abhinaya) from the Yajurveda

and the Sentiments (rasas) from the Atharvaveda. This Nāṭya-

veda was intended to delight the people of all the four castes,

including the lowest. Brahmā then asked Bharata to learn the

Nāṭyaveda and train his hundred disciples in its art of pre-

introduction

sentation. Bharata did faithfully what he had been asked to do

by the Holy One and thus the Natyasastra came into existence.

Now let us discuss the contents of the NS briefly. Bharata

takes up individual topics and discusses them in great detail.

He treats all the possible subjects connected with the art of

writing and presentation of drama. The meticulous care that

the author shows in discussing each topic is of course astoni-

shing. In chapters I and XXXVI he discusses the origin of

drama and its descent on the earth. In chapter II there is the

description of the play-house and in chapter III the ways of

worship to the gods of the stage. Chapter IV has been devoted

to the discussion of the chief characteristics of class dance, and

chapter V to the preliminaries essential to a dramatic perfor-

mance. Chapter VI and VII deal with Bharata's most impor-

tant theory of rasa and its elaborate elucidation. These two

chapters are considered to be landmarks in the history of Indian

Poetics and have far reaching impact in the field of aesthetics.

Chapters VIII, IX, X, XI and XII are concerned with the

explanation of angika abhinaya (acting through limbs) such as

gestures of minor limbs, gestures of major limbs, gestures of

other limbs, cari movements used in dance and fight etc. and

mandal or cicular movements respectively. Bharata meticulously

explains how even the minor limbs of the body -- eyes, eyebrows,

nose, lips and chin -- may be employed to convey the subtlest

reactions of the mind and the inner-most feelings of the heart

like love, understanding, agony, distress, despair, fatigue and

envy etc. Chapter XIII is devoted to the description of different

gaits (manner of walking) and Chapter XIV to zones and local

usages. In chapter XV Bharata discusses the Vacika abhinaya,

that is, acting through voice, sound and possible metrical

definitions and their illustrations. Thirty six laksanas or

characteristics of poetic composition, four figures of speech, ten

marits as well as ten demerits of poetic expression form part of

chapter XVII, whereas use of languages as well as dialects and

modes and manners of address have been discussed in chapters

XVIII and XIX respectively. Whereas chapter XX is devoted to

the classification of ten types of plays on the basis of which

Dhanamjaya wrote Dasarupaks, chapter XXI is concerned with

10

Theory of Drama

the analysis of plot-structure such as five stages of the Action,

five elements of the plot, its five segments and the five

Explanatory Devices. Chapter XXII gives an account of four

kinds of vṛttis (styles of expression).

Bharata deals with the āhārya abhirāva i.e. acting through

the costumes and make-up in chapter XXIII of his NŚ. Chapter

XXIV is devoted to the discussion of sāttvika abhinaya ie. acting

through involuntary responses such as tears, trembling horri-

pilation and such other manifestations. Chapter XXV is con-

cerned with the dealings with courtezans whereas chapter XXVI

analyses citra abhinaya i.e. varied representation. It explains

how gestural changes are to be made in response to environ-

mental changes for displaying moonlight, sun and smoke etc.

Chapter XXVII presents the criteria of success in the production

of plays. It gives an account of the various blemishes that may

hinder the dramatic performance. It also enlightens us on the

chief qualities which an ideal spectator should possess. There

is no such chapter in Aristotle's Poetics which gives even a hint

regarding the characteristics of the spectator. Chapters XXVIII

to XXXIII are devoted to the discussion of music, musical

instruments, metres of song and talas (time measure) etc.

Chapters XXXIV and XXXV are concerned with the claborate

discussion of various types of characters, both male and female,

and the assignment of different roles to them.

Though there are digressions, repetitions and overlappings

at various places in Bharata's NŚ, it gives us an account of

'the composite art of the drama', thati s, the drama as composed,

produced presented on the stage. Aristotle's Poetics, on the

other hand, is concerned only with the composition of drama

and not with its production and presentation, as Aristotle

believes that the production and presentation of the play are the

responsibilities of the director and the stage-mechanist and not

of the playwright. Aristotle's Poetics, except for a brief intro-

duction about comedy and epic, is basically concerned with the

art of tragedy, whereas Bharata's encyclopaedic NŚ offers an ela-

borate and systematic discussion of all types of drama and their

different parts. It throws light on the theory of imitation,

transportation, unities, manners, etiquette, acting, dance, music,

Introduction

spectacle, costume, make-up, limb-movements, diction, gestures

sentiments, characters and several other pertinent topics. It is

so comprehensive and extensive that it has rightly been consid-

ered as the fifth Veda in Indian classical literature, which was

intended to impart Vedic wisdom in a delightful manner even to

the common people. Whereas Aristotle's style of presenta-

tion is analytical, Bharata's style is descriptive and explanatory.

In comparison to Bharata's complete and comprehensive account

of all the aspects of drama, Aristotle's Poetics appears to be an

incomplete and fragmentary treatise. Whereas Poetics barely

runs into hundred pages, Bharata's NŚ is about thirty times

bigger in size.

There are other vital differences between the works of two

theorists. Whereas Aristotle just mentions the term 'catharsis'

in his definition of tragedy and does not bother to explain it

convincingly, Bharata's discussion of rasa theory is highly

exhaustive and systematic and makes a monumental contribution

to the study of aesthetics. P. Kale has rightly stated that 'the

tranquillity' or the 'serenity' or the 'rapture' which rasa brings

about in the spectator is different from the 'lysis' or 'equilibrium

which is brought about when Katharsis restores the emotional

balance of the spectator'13. Aristotle puts emphasis on the

fable or the plot and believes that the proper effect of tragedy

may be produced even without spectacle and merely by the

systematic arrangement of incidents. Bharata, on the other

hand considers spectacle to be integral part of drama and that

is why he uses the terms rūpaka or rūpa (representation) and

preksaka (spectator) rather than the śrotṛ (audience). The

concept of rupaka puts due emphasis on the representational

aspect of drama which is possible only through the process of

abhinaya (acting). His emphasis on the representational aspect

of drama, however, does not mean that he has ignored the

literary aspect of drama. The later critics, says G.K. Bhat,

"describe drama as a dṛśya-kāvya and the term kāvya is a sure

indication of drama not merely as a piece of theatre production

but also as a piece of literary composition"14. Bharata seems

to be well acquainted with the close connections between the

literary and technical aspects of theatrical production. He treats

both the aspects in his NŚ with equal profundity and insight.

12

He is fully aware of the fact that drama in any form is primarily and essentially a spectacle and therefore it is the responsibility of the play-wright to have proper knowledge about the rules of its production too.

In addition to spectacle Bharata shows the dependence of Indian plays on dance (nṛtta), song (gīta) and instrumental music (vādya). Since NŚ is highly informative on all these points, it has often been quoted and referred to by subsequent writers on poetics, prosody, gesture, music and grammar etc. In this connection Manomohan Ghosh has rightly stated that all "the later writers on dramaturgy depended greatly if not exclusively, on this valuable work, and acknowledged their debt to the mythical Bharata"15.

Aristotle based his observations on the extant plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes. Bharata, on the other hand, appears to have based his observations on intuition and vast range of human knowledge. "The Poetics", says Pramod Kale, "is a critical inquiry into a specific phenomenon of the Greek theatre, its object is to provide a rational explanation. The NŚ, on the other hand, is a creative attempt to bring together all the known elements of theatrical activity into one mythic world-view"16. There are so many points in Bharata's NŚ which have not even been touched by Aristotle. These are the description of the play-house, puja to the Gods of the stage, characteristics of class dance, preliminaries of the play, gestures of major, minor and other limbs, cāri and mandal movements, different gaits, zones local usages, costumes and make-up, dealings with courtezans, varied representation, time-measure and the descent of drama on the earth. That is why P.V. Kane has stated that the NŚ "makes a valiant attempt to raise the status of the dramatic art, places it on a very high pedestal and infuses a spiritual and religious element in it"17.

In spite of the divergences in nature and content of Aristotles Poetics and Bharata's NŚ, there are some points of common interest Though there is no evidence to prove that the ancient Indian thinkers were influenced by the Greek thinkers like Plato

Introduction

and Aristotle or vice versa, it is not very difficult to find out

affinities and parallelism between the two great theorists. A.B.

Keith has rightly stated, "There is no doubt of the many

parallels between the two theories"18. A comparative study

between the two great theories is bound to yield some valuable

conclusions. The area of common interest that I have discovered

in my thesis is the nature of drama, function of drama, structure

of drama, hero in drama, types of drama and the language of

drama.

Prof A. Nicoll, a distinguished critic of drama, has also

laid emphasis on the need for a comparative study, as it would

enable us to solve so many problems of creative as well as

critical writing. Nicoll traces the possibility of such a com-

parative study in the following lines :

It is rather interesting to note that, in their insistence

on impression, these modern critics were anticipated by

the ancient writers on Sanskrit drama. According to them

there were eight principal rasas, or impressions, which

might be aroused by a dramatic poem ....Each of these

may have many subdivisions, and in any one work various

rasas may be employed, although the types of drama are

determined by reference to that rasa which is most import-

ant and although it is recognized that every rasa is in

agreement with some and 'hostile to' others. As will be

observed, this system of critical approach is in essential

agreement with that of those who emphasize as all-impor-

tant the 'idea' or 'impression' received from witnessing a

dramatic work of art1".

If a systematic comparative study of Poetics and NŚ is made

it would help us in understanding both Aristotle and Bharata

in proper perspective and in solving some of the prolems of

their theories. Both the theorists, when compared, will eluci-

date and supplement each other. Bharata's theory of rasa may

solve the complicated issue of catharsis in Western criticism.

Aristotle's classification of drama into tragedy and comedy and

Bharata's classification into ten types of drama may help us in

14

Theory of Drama

understanding the true nature of drama. The opinion of both

the theorists on the theory of imitation, plot-construction, hero

in drama and the language of drama will enable us to measure

their strengths and weaknesses. It may also provide us an opport-

unity for evolving a dramatic theory acceptable to both the

Indian and the Western readers. Some critics are of the opinion

that the principles enshrined in the old texts are not adequate

enough to cope with the new literary consciousness and hence

there is a need to evolve new critical norms. The present

dissertation will try to examine how far their observations are

valid and how far the principles of Aristotle and Bharata are

relevant and practicable even in our own time.

REFERENCES

1. Elder Olson ed. Aristotle's "Poetics" and English Literature (Chicago : The University Chicago Press, 1965),

p. xxiv.

2. Hubert Heffner, "Towards a Definition of Form in Drama", Classical Drama and Its Influence ed. M.J.

Anderson (London : Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1965), p. 143.

3. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics (Ludhiana : Kalyan Publishers, 1974), VI. 16.

4. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics (Ludhiana : Kalyan

Publishers, 1974) XIX. 2.

5. Eva Schaper, Prelude to Aesthetics (London : George Alien

& Unwin Ltd., 1968), p. 74.

6. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, VI. 19.

7. Eva Schaper, Prelude to Aesthetics, p. 78.

8. K.C. Pandey, Comparative Aesthetics, Vol. I (Benaras :

Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 1950), p. 2.

9. S.K. De, History of Sanskrit Poetics (Calcutta : Firma K.L

Mukhopadhyaya Publishers, 1960), p. 18.

10. M. Ghosh, trans., NŚ, Vol. I, 2nd edition (Calcutta : Man-

isha Granthalaya, 1967), p. lxv.

Introduction

15

11. Ibid., I. 7-12.

12. Ibid., I. 14-5.

13. P. Kale, The Theatric Universe (Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1974), p. 173.

14. G.K. Bhat, Sanskrit Drama: A Perspective on Theory and Practice (Dharwar: Karnatak University Press, 1975), p. 14.

15. M. Ghosh (trans.) NŚ, p. xviii.

16. The Theatre Universe, p. 12.

17. P.V. Kane, History of Sanskrit Poetics (Benaras: Motilal Banarasidass, 1961), p. 22.

18. A.B. Keith, The Sanskrit Drama (London: O.U.P. 1954), p. 355.

19. A Nicoll, The Theory of Drama (Delhi: Doaba House, 1974), p. 57

2

Nature of Drama

Both the theorists-Aristotle and Bharata-discuss the nature of drama and suggest the theory of imitation. Aristotle uses the word 'imitation' in chapter I of the Poetics and then discusses the means of imitation, objects of imitation and the manner of imitation. Bharata also uses the word 'anukrti' (imitation) in chapter I of NŚ and considers drama to be an imitation of the actions and conducts of the people. Bharata uses the term 'imitation' in the context of drama, whereas Aristotle uses it in general for poetry which includes dithyramb, epic, tragedy and comedy. Let us now discuss their views in detail and elucidate their resemblances as well as the differences.

I

While discussing the nature of drama we have to take into account Aristotle's use of the term 'imitation' that occurs in the first chapter of Poetics :

Epic Poetry and Tragedy, Comedy also and dithyrambic poetry, and the music of the flute and of the lyre in most of their forms are all in their general conception modes of imitation1.

The English word 'imitation' has been derived from the Latin 'imitatio' which is infact a translation of the Greek word 'mimesis'. 'Mimesis' originally meant the mimicking of a person through speech, song and limb movements. In different contexts it refers to 'imitate', 'represent', 'indicate', 'suggest'

and 'express', etc. "All of these", says D.W. Lucas "can be

referred to the single notion of making or doing something

which resembles something else"2.

Aristotle is not the originator of the term 'imitation'. It

most probably occurs for the first time in Plato's Republic. Plato

uses this term in connection with the poets who, in their process

of imitation, are 'twice removed' from truth and reality. He

explains it through the well-known illustration of the three

beds : the Form of bed made by the god, the actual bed made

by the carpenter and the picture of a bed made by the painter

or the poet. The painter or the poet is thus twice removed from

true reality. Plato considers only Idea to be real and all other

objects as shadows of that reality. It is evident from his

allegory of the cinematic cave in Book VII of the Republic where

people "sitting on a bench with their backs to an opening and

a great fire beyond, see only the shadows of a sort of passing

puppet show cast on the wall before them. Such is our own

experience of what we think to be reality"3. Through the

allegory of the cave Plato warns us not to accept the appearances

as truthful and real representations of life. The artist can only

imperfectly approximate to reality and the ideas can never be

fully realized.

Plato in his Republic condemns Homer and other poets as

they had failed to create a well-ordered purposeful society. The

poets act under a kind of madness and fail to compose anything

until they have been inspired and have gone out of their senses.

Plato, therefore, banishes them from his ideal Republic, for

they teach us how to 'tell lies skilfully'. They present a deceitful

and revengeful picture of the deities and depict them as wicked

and cowardly. In Book IV of his Republic Plato refers to the

corrupting influence of poetry and music on society and in

Book X makes Socrates say :

Speaking in confidence, for you will not denounce me to

the tragedians and the rest of the imitative tribe, all poetical

imitations are ruinous to the understanding of the hearers,

unless as an antidote they possess the knowledge of the true

nature of the originals.4

18

Theory of Drama

Poetry appears to have an immoral and irrational impact

upon the public, as it affects the 'emotional' rather than the

'rational' part of human nature. This is evident from Plato's

remark in Book X :

...it feeds and waters the passions instead of drying them

up ; she lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled

if mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue5.

Plato therefore, is willing to allow 'hymns to the gods and

praises of famous men' to be the subject-matter of poetry. He

will be glad to admit poetry to his Republic if poetry proves to

be not only 'pleasant' but 'useful' also.

Aristotle, who was the disciple of Plato, accepted the word

'imitation' but gave a new interpretation to it. In order to

understand the full implication of his concept of 'imitation' we

have to take into account his total philosophy scattered in his

writings. It cannot be denied that Aristotle's view of art and

poetry is the natural and logical outcome of his total philosophy

of man and the universe.

Aristotle retained the changeless eternal forms and idealistic

principles of his teacher, Plato, but rejected their transcendence.

In his opinion Forms are inherent in things and not transcen-

dent. Aristotle's philosophy, like Sri Aurobindo's advaitism,

neither rejects the spirit nor the matter but mitigates the duality

through the processes of conversion of matter into spirit. He

links up the higher with the lower for the teleological purpose

of upward evolution.

Aristotle's conception of art is an antithesis of Plato's

conception of art which is nothing but the rejection of the world

as a mere shadow of reality. Aristotle's was more scientific

and realistic and he considered the totality of human life as a

fine blending of reason and emotion. Aristotle's contradiction

to the Platonic philosophy paved the way for the reverential

admission and re-establishment of poetry and the poets not as

hadonworshippers but as an integral part of reality itself.

Nature of Drama

19

There was a fundamental difference between the philosophy

of Plato and that of Aristotle which ultimately led °o their

different attitudes towards the fine arts. Whereas Plato was

rigorously abstract and transcendental, Aristotle was concrete,

natural and empirical. For Plato Being was the ultimate truth

and the world was merely a shadow of it. Aristotle, on the other

hand, laid emphasis not on Being but on Becoming which

"meant not an appearing and a vanishing away, but a process

of development and unfolding of what is already in the germ,

an upward ascent ending in Being which is the highest object

of knowledge"6. The poet, while giving expression to his ideas,

sets aside the veil of Becoming, unfolds the realm of Being and

tries to elevate the sphere of Becoming to the stage of Being.

It may be regarded as Sri Aurobindo's Integral Advaitism or

ascending and escmplastic Oneness. The fine arts, therefore,

are no longer a shadow of reality but the manifestation of a

higher truth.

The poet, according to Aristotle, imitates not only what has

happened but what may or should happen also. It is evident

from the statement in ch. xxv of Poetics :

The poet being an imitator, like a painter or any other

artist, must of necessity imitate one of the three objects--

things as they were or are, things as they are said or,

thought to be, or things as they ought to be.7

The poet places before him an unrealised ideal which gets

expression through his work of art. When Aristotle said that

'art imitates nature'. he did not mean that art imitates either

the Platonic forms or Platonic appearances of nature but that

art constructs its own creations which are semblances, and not

merely replicas or copies. The poet surpasses nature by sup-

plementing her deficiencies and completing what nature has left

unfinished. It can be substantiated from Aristotle's other works

such as Politics (IV, 17) and Physics (II, 8) where art is

expected to fill up the nature's missing parts.

The poet does not produce a copy of the original but an

idealisation of the original and the creation of a new beauty.

20

Theory of Drama

He combines a number of existing beauties into a more beauti-

ful whole, as Zeuxis is said to have created his Helen out of the

amalgamation of the five loveliest maidens of Croton. He

makes a pursuit for the principle of coherence that ascends from

the lowest to the highest and descends from highest to the

lowest. In this connection W.H. Fyfe has rightly remarked :

The artist holds a mirror upto nature. Neither does it

exactly reproduce nor does it distort the objects which con-

front it; it presents a picture in which the confused and

therefore unintelligible facts of life are reduced to cohe-

rence8.

The poet, in fact, converts the apparent multiplicity into

unity and coherence.

The poet is primarily concerned with what is universal and

everlasting. In order to reveal the permanent features of human

life he eliminates what is transient and accidental. He gives

expression to "a purified form of reality" says Butcher, "disen-

gaged from accident and freed from conditions which thwart its

development".9 At this stage the distinction between the real

and the ideal gradually fades away, as the real, when it gets rid

of its inner contradictions and inconsistencies, becomes the

ideal. The poet tries to present a world which is something

better than the real. He does not produce a copy of reality,

but a 'higher reality' which is nothing but an idealised repre-

sentation of human life.

Though Aristotle does not use the word 'creative imagina-

tion', his concept of imitation does imply an artistic process

which amounts to 'creative vision'. For Aristotle creation

means, says Gerald F. Else, "discovery, the uncovering of a true

relation which already exists somehow in the scheme of

things"10. If imitation is a creative act, it does admit the pre-

sence of creative mental faculty which may be considered to be

either creative imagination or intuition. Intuition, which is a

higher faculty of the soul, is infact a means for direct rapport

with the highest truth and reality, that is the ultimate end of

art.

Nature of Drama

After defining what 'imitation' is, we should concentrate on the factors which differentiate various kinds of art. In this connection Aristotle remarks :

They differ, however, from one another in three respects—the medium, the objects, the manner or mode of imitation, being in each case distinct.11

After establishing the fact that poetry, music and painting are imitative arts, Aristotle draws our attention to the four causes or principles of imitation in poetry : the formal, the material, the efficient and the final. The formal cause is the object of imitation i.e. action, the material cause is the medium of imitation i.e. language, the efficient cause is the manner of imitation i.e. dramatic rather than narrative, and the final cause is the function of tragedy i.e. catharsis of pity and fear.

Let us first take up the medium of imitation which refers to the elements from which the work of art is created. Just as the carpenter uses wood as his material in order to make a chair, the poet uses language as the medium to describe a chair. Aristotle divides the imitative arts into various categories according to their means of imitation :

For as there are persons who, by conscious art or mere habit, imitate and represent various objects through the medium of colour and form, or again by the voice; so in the arts above mentioned, taken as a whole, the imitation is produced by rhythm, language, or 'harmony' either singly or combined.12

For the imitation the means, mentioned above, are colour, form and voice. Voice is further analysed into rhythm, language or harmony used either separately or in combinations.

There is a fundamental difference between Plato and Aristotle in their approach to the means of imitation. Plato based his account of imitation on the paradigm of the painter who perceives colour and form in an object of art and gives a literal

22

Theory of Drama

representation to it. Aristotle however, considered painting to

be the lowest kind of mimetic art. He gave importance to

music which, in his opinion, was the highest mimetic art

form.

Music uses 'rhythm plus harmony' as the means of imita-

tion, as is evident from the music of the flute and the lyre.

Aristotle considered music to be the most 'imitative' or repre-

sentative of the arts, as it is "the express image and reflexion of

moral character... Not only states of feeling but also strictly

ethical qualities and dispositions of mind are reproduced by

musical imitation, and on the close correspondence between the

copy and the original depends the importance of music in the

formation of character. Music in reflecting character moulds

and influences it"13.

Aristotle considered poetry also to be an art and its means

of imitation is language i.e. words with their meanings. The

distinction between the painter and the poet in connection with

their means of imitation is quite obvious. Whereas the painter

uses colour and form, the poet, as David Daiches has pointed

out "uses words in their denotative, connotative, rhythmic, and

musical aspects"14. Aristotle, however, finds that in his time

there was no such common term which could convey the

modern meaning of the word 'literature', and which could be

applied to all the ways of employing language whether in prose

or in verse :

There is another art which imitates by means of language

alone, and that either in prose or verse—which verse,

again, may either combine different metres or consists of

but one kind—but this has hitherto been without a name.

For there is no common term we would apply to the

mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus and the Socratic

dialogues on the one hand; and, on the other, to poetic

imitations in iambic, elegiac or any similar metre.15

In order to illustrate his point of view, Aristotle refers to

different kinds of literary composition which had not so far

been placed under a common category :-(i) The mimes of

Nature of Drama

Sophron and Xenarchus and the Socratic dialogues which were

of course prose compositions of a dramatic or semi-dramatic

character. Mime in ancient Greece was something like a genre

picture, a depiction-usually humorous -of the scenes and

characters of ordinary life. (ii) Verse compositions either

written in a single metre or in different metres. What is the

implicit suggestion of the passage quoted above? Aristotle

clearly wants to suggest that "the meaning of the word 'poet'

should be widened so as to include any writer, either in prose

or verse, whose work is an 'imitation' within the aesthetic

meaning of the term".16

The inclusion of 'Socratic dialogues' in the category of

'nameless art' is something very remarkable. Almost all com-

mentators are of the opinion that 'Socratic dialogues' refer to

the dialogues of Plato. Aristotle considered the dialogues of

Plato to be a form of poetic art, as they use imitation. The

reference to Platonic dialogues is certainly an ironic one in the

sense that Plato had banished poets from his ideal Republic.

Aristotle seems to suggest that instead of banishing poets from

his ideal state Plato should rather have banished himself.

Aristotle, while discussing the nameless art, points out that

people normally consider metre as a distinguishing feature for

the genre of poetry. He, however, insists that it is not merely

the use of metre that makes a poet :

People do, indeed, add the word 'maker' or 'poet' to the

name of the metre, and speak of elegiac poets, or epic

that is, hexameter) poets, as if it were not the imitation

that makes the poet, but the verse that entitles them all

indiscriminately to the name. Even when a treatise on

medicine or natural science is brought out in verse, the

name of poet is by custom given to the author; and yet

Homer and Empedocles have nothing in common but the

metre, so that it would be right to call the one poet, the

other physicist rather than poet.17

The essence of poetry, says Aristotle, lies in the 'imitation'

of idea rather than the metrical composition. The use of metre

24

Theory of Drama

only serves to differentiate kinds of imitation. The dialogues of

Plato, though written in prose, are considered to be poetry,

whereas versification of physical and medical treatises by Empedocles, who was a famous Sicilian philosopher and scientist in

the fifth century B.C., did not entitle him to the status of a

poet. Aristotle later admits that though metre is not an essen-

tial feature of poetry, its use will certainly enhance the charm

and beauty of poetry.

After classification of 'nameless art' into prose and verse

and further subdivision of the verse into works using one metre

throughout and those using a variety of metres, Aristotle consid-

ders some arts which use all the three means of imitation-

rhythm, harmony and language. Whereas Dithyrambic and

Nomic18 poetry use all the three means simultaneously, tragedy

and comedy u e them separately. The episodes of a Greek

drama use language alone, but the choral parts require rhythm

and harmony both. Aristotle concludes the first chapter of his

Poetics by saying : 'Such, then, are the differences of the arts

with respect to the medium of imitation'.19

(ii) Objects of imitation

Since the medium of imitation is not sufficient to differen-

tiate the literary forms using the same means such as the mimes

of Sophron and the Socratic dialogues or comedy and tragedy,

the basic purpose of the second chapter is to show how works

of art using the same means can be differentiated through the

'objects of imitation'. Aristotle points out the the objects to be

imitated in all arts are 'men in action'-- neither static men with-

out any growth nor inanimate beings-in-action :

Since the objects of imitation are men in action, and these

men must be either of a higher or lower type (for moral

character mainly answers to these divisions, goodness and

badness being the distinguishing marks of moral differ-

ences), it follows that we must represent men either as

better than in real life, or as worse, or as they are. It

is the same in painting. Polygnotus depicted men as

nobler than they are, Pauson as less noble, Dionysius

drew them true to life.20

Nature of Drama

25

Poetic art imitates 'men in action', that is, human actions both

physical and mental, the former being the external manifesta-

tion of the latter. It originates from human life in all its

varieties and manifestations, its mental processes and spiritual

movements. Aristotle does not consider the whole universe to

be the raw material of art. Animals and landscapes are not

supposed to be the objects of aesthetic imitation. They appear

in a work of art only as a background in order to heighten and

intensify the human interest.

The terms spoudaios and phaulos which occur in the first

sentence of chapter II, in connection with the different categories

of human beings, have been variously translated. They have

been translated as good and bad, noble and base, or serious and

trivial. Each translation has its own merits and demerits. Good

and bad are the most appropriate translations if we presume

that Aristotle's considerations are explicitly ethical. But then

two problems arise. First, if we consider Aristotle to be

ethical, it would ultimately lead to the false moralising of his

Poetics. Aristotle nowhere suggests that dramas should

preach morality. Secondly, and more importantly, many of

the protagonists in Greek plays such as Ajax, Prometheus,

Media and Oedipus are seldom good or bad in the moral senes

of the term.

The translations noble and base became popular during the

period of Renaissance when tragedy was supposed to be con-

cerned with kings and princes and comedy with the lower and

middle class people. This was not infact the intention of

Aristotle. If these terms, however, are interpreted in the wider

sense, they may convey the real meaning. Noble may stand

for 'larger than life' or 'majestic' and base the opposite of it.

The terms serious and trivial refer to the general distinction

between tragedy and comedy. Aristotle in chapter XIII is

willing to consider Iphigenia in Tauris with a happy ending as an

ideal tragedy, though many would prefer to regard it as a

comedy on the basis of its ending. If the structure of the

drama is not able to differentiate tragedy from comedy, then

inherent qualities should do it. Tragedy and comedy are to be

26

Theory of Drama

differentiated on the basis of their objects of imitation. In tragedy 'men in action' are obviously 'serious', while those of comedy 'trivial'. In chapter IV Aristotle has rightly pointed out :

The graver spirits imitated noble actions, and the actions of good men. The more trivial sort imitated the actions of meaner persons, at first composing satires, as the former did hymns to the gods and the praises of famous man.2

The translation as serious and trivial conforms to the Greek pratice to a very great extent, as though Medea may not be good, her involvement is definitely serious. No translation of these terms, however, is fully satisfactory, as, says Hardison, "Aristotle himself had no terms adequate to c pe with the complex mixture of qualities embodied in Greek tragedy. Lacking an adequate terminology, he had to be satisfied with an approximate description".2

There is another point of controversy which has been explored at some sustained length by an eminent critic Gerald F. Else. On the basis of both textual and historical evidence he is fully convinced that there is a systematic set of interpolation in chapter II of the Poetics. In his opinion Aristotle recognizes only two categories -"better than" and "worse than" and the "like" category had been added by Hellenistic scholars, which was ultimately incorporated into the text. Else's arguments are based on the fact that Aristotle generally ignores the "like" category in Chapter IV while discussing the history of poetic forms. Moreover in discussing his theory of moral character, Aristotle points out in his Nicomachean Ethics :

It is from playing the lyre that both good and bad lyre players are produced ….This, then, is the case with the virtue also ; by doing the acts that we do in our transactions with other men we become just or unjust.23

Else, therefore, draws the conclusion that the objects of imitation are either good or bad. There is no third category

but only a dividing line between them. There are, however,

other critics like Butcher and Bywater who accept the text as

it is and do not consider the third category as an interpolation.

They are of the opinion that Aristotle retains the third category

while mentioning painting, dancing, music or 'nameless art' in

chapter II. Referring to the painter's objects of imitation

Aristotle says :

Polygnotus depicted men as nobler than they are Pauson

as less noble, Dionysus drew them true to life24.

Or again, while discussing the object of nameless art's

imitation Aristotle clearly states :

So again in language, whether prose or verse unaccom-

panied by music. Homer, for example, makes men better

than they are ; Cleophon as they are ; Hegemon the

Thasian, the inventor of parodies, and Nicochares, the

author of the Deiliad, worse than they are25.

Since Aristotle refers to Cleophon who was known as a

dramatic or an epic writer and who depicted the things as they

were, it is quite reasonable to suppose that Aristotle had

retained the third category.

(iii) Manner of Imitation

After discussing the means of imitation and the objects

of imitation, Aristotle now turns to the exploration of the

manner of imitation in chapter III of his Poetics. Even if the

means and the objects of imitation are the same, the subject

may be treated in different manners :

There is still a third difference--the manner in which

each of these objects may be imitated. For the medium

being the same and the objects the same, the poet may

imitate by narration--in which case he can either take

another personality as Homer does, or speak in his own

person, unchanged--or he may present all his characters

as living and moving before us26.

28

Theory of Drama

Aristotle introduces three manners of imitation—(i) one

may assume another personality as Homer does in his epic ;

(ii) one may give expression to his feelings at the personal level

without making any alteration throughout as in Dithyramb ;

(iii) one may represent the whole story dramatically so that his

characters may appear as living and moving creatures as in

tragedy and comedy.

Chapter III retains the same order as was earlier established

in chapter I moving from narrative to dithyramb to drama.

Aristotle, by retaining the same order, anticipates the brief

history of drama which was to be discussed in chapter IV.

Homer was the first Epic writer who discovered a dramatic

method but gave a representation through recital. Dithyrambic

poets composed their works "in their own persons", though

their compositions were presented on the stage through a

chorus Drama, as the most effective form of expression,

emerged at last and combined Homeric dialogue technique with

Dithyrambic way of presentation.

We, thus, see that these three--means, objects and manner--

are the lines of differentiation which distinguish artistic imita-

tion. Out of the six parts of tragedy three elements--plot,

character and thought are to be determined by the object of

imitation, two elements--diction and melody--by the means of

imitation and the last element--spectacle--by the manner of

imitation. It is, however, to be noticed that none of them alone

is sufficient to differentiate a work of art. So far as the means

of imitation is concerned, poetry is not different from the

scientific treatise written in verse, as both imitate through

language. We cannot differentiate epic from tragedy on the

basis of the object of imitation, as both imitate higher types of

character. Similarly we cannot distinguish comedy and tragedy

on the ground of the manner of imitation, as both adopt the

dramatic manner of presentation. We should, therefore, apply

all three lines of differentation to a given work of art, as one

line of differentiation alone is not enough. Elder Olson's

remark is quite pertinent to recall : "A saw for instance, does

not exist simply because of its metal, or because of the saw--

maker, or because of a certain shape although without these the

saw would not exist."27

Aristotle in chapter IV of his Poetics deals with the origin and

function of imitation. Poetry seems to have originated from

two 'natural causes' which are lying deep in human nature :

Poetry in general seems to have sprung from two causes,

each of them lying deep in our nature. First, the instinct

of imitation is implanted in man from childhood one

difference between him and other animals being that he is

the most imitative of living creatures, and t' roug imitation

learns his earliest lessons ; and no less universal is the

pleasure felt in things imitated.....Imitation, then, is one

instinct of our nature. Next, there is the instinct for

'harmony', and rhythm, metres being manifestly sections

of rhythm. Persons, therefore, starting with this natural

gift developed by degrees their special aptitudes, till their

rude improvisations gave birth to poetry.28

Man is the most imitative of all animals and his proneness

to imitation leads him to the realisation of pleasure, which is

the basic element of imitative art. Poetry or more strictly

dramatic poetry, originates from two human instincts (i) the

poet's instinct for imitation and (ii) his instinctive pleasure in

harmony and rhythm.

When Aristotle says that the imitative faculty is innate in

human beings, he is using the word 'imitation' in the sense of

'emulation'. We learn 'our first lessons' by emulating others.

The instinct for emulation stimulates the acquisition of the

wonders of the world. The word 'imitation' also refers to "a

formal and intellectual appreciation of similarity in difference,

which is also productive of wonder and pleasure."29 In order

to substantiate our argument we may quote a passage from

Rhetoric :

We naturally delight in works of portayal such as paint-

ing, sculpture, and poetry, and every object that is faith-

fully portrayed, even though it is unattractive in itself.

30

Theory of Drama

Thus we do not take pleasute in such objects for their own sake but because we identify them by a syllogistic process of reasoning (syllogismos) and to that extent increase our knowledge: 0

The inner connection, suggested in the above passage, between mimesis and wonder, refers to the portrayal of a work of art as an intellectual pleasure. The pleasure that we derive from the imitative works, is not the gratification of the sensual urges but the satisfaction of the intellect. It occurs only when we perceive the universal in the particular. Hardison has rightly pointed out : "Even if we have never been to the sea-shore, we can learn a great deal about the seagull from looking at Audubon's illustration. At the same time, as everyone knows, Audubon's paintings are works of art. They give pleasure and the source of the pleasure according to Aristotle is their communication of the universal in the particular" 31.

The concept of art as an embodiment of universals occurs again in chapter IX where Artistotle discusses the superiority of poetry to history :

...it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen--what is possible according to th law of probability or necessity. ...Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history : for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular 32

The process of imitation in poetry is the process of universalisation. At every stage, the unintelligible is to be made intelligible as the total intelligibility of a work of art depends upon the successful process of universalisation. Anything that is unintelligible, confused and chaotic is converted into a logical and organic form in the process of imitation in poetry. Imitation in Aristotle is a creative process which requires not only a great artistic skill but also a deep understanding of human life. The poet is of course a creative artist and not merely a versificr.

Nature of Drama

II

31

After discussing Aristotle's views on 'imitation', we should try to understand Bharata's concept of 'imitation', as enshrined in the NŚ. While defining drama in the 1st chapter of his NŚ, Bharata says :

The drama as I have devised, is an imitation33 of the actions and conducts of people, which is rich in various emotions and which depicts different situations.34

When Virupaksha, the leader of the demons, made a request to Brahmā, the Almighty, not to create the Nātyaveda just to please the gods at the discomfort of the demons, Brahmā, in the process of pacifying them, enunciated the theory of imitation. The Nāṭyaveda, said Brahmā, was not created just to imitate the characters and actions of the gods and the demons. It would rather be an imitation of the emotions, situations and act ons of the three worlds. Elaborating it further Brahmā pointed out that drama should imitate "the feelings, emotions, sentiments, situations and the actions of the seven continents"35. It is, of course, very difficult to find such a wide range of dramatic representation in the whole history of dramatic theory.

It is, however, unfortunate that no commentary on Bharata's NŚ-except that of Abhinavagupta is available to us. Though there are scattered remarks quoted or discussed by Abhinavagupta in his Abhinavabhārati, it is risky to build up a complete theory about those critics, as it is just possible that Abhinavagupta might have quoted those portions of their comments which would have served his purpose. But since these is no other alternative to know these commentator's views, we have to depend on Abhinavabhārati.

Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa, one of the earliest commentators on Bharata, admits that drama consists of an imitative activity. He seems to be a monistic Vedantic theorist and tries to give the suggestion of superimposition (āropa) in his theory of drama. He explains it by the perception of snake in a rope in the dim

light. Since there is much similarity between a snake and a

rope, snakeness is superimposed upon the rope and it has all

the effects of perception of a snake on the observers such as

fear, trembling and running away, etc. Spectators visit theatres

and are delighted at the sight of, for example, the love of

Duṣyanta and Śakuntalā. Though in the play house there are

neither historical Duṣyanta and Śakuntalā nor the real bank of

Mālinī, actors imitate them with such competence that the

spectators identify them with the originals. If the observer can

perceive a snake in a rope under certain circumstances, why

cannot the spectators take the actors to be real Duṣyanta and

Śakuntalā for the time being and have the same sensations as

the real persons would have aroused ?

Acārya Saṅkuka, the next commentator on Bharata, how-

ever, does not agree with the views of Lollata that imitation is

an erroneous cognition. He points out that we cannot explain

the dramatic experience by the experience of a snake in a rope

and cannot compare aesthetic cognition with any other logical

cognition. He asserts that there is difference between the

dramatic experience and the experience of the real world, as the

real world is either pleasant or painful or indifferent or mixed,

whereas the dramatic world is a delightful experience. This

delightful experience is brought about through the process of

imitation as the actors imitate the Determinants through the

power of the verse, the consequents through their skill and the

Transitory Mental States through their ability to reproduce

them on the stage. The spectators, however, do not believe at

the time of the production of drama that the whole presentation

was a false presentation. The presentation seems to them as if

it is real, as they infer its reality from the skilful imitation by

the various actors. Saṅkuka considers it to be the imitation

(anukaraṇa) of reality in a work of art through the device of

inference.

Abhinavagupta, who was the most influential commentator

on Bharata's NŚ, does not agree with Saṅkuka's theory of

imitation. In his opinion the relation of the actor with the

character in the role which he plays, can approximately appear

to be a resemblance, and resemblance is not necessarily an

Nature of Drama

imitation. We can, for instance, perceive a similarity between

a real ox and an ox-like species (gavaya), but that is not on

account of one's imitation of the other but due to their

resemblance in certain physical features which they inherit in

common. Only a resemblance of certain qualities of Rāma in

the actor would not move the spectators at all. Moreover the

statement that "That is Rāma" is not applicable to any specific

actor as several actors may play the role of the same Rāma on

different occasions.

Abhinavagupta points out that Bharata considers drama to

be an imitation but not in the sense of replica or mimicry.

Drama should neither praise the gods nor condemn the demons

exclusively. It is, of course, a significant branch of the Vedas,

known as the Nāṭyaveda, which tries to instruct the people in

a pleasing manner. Drama, while illustrating the principle that

governs the world, tries to utilize all the faculties of human

knowledge, wise maxims, arts, crafts and learnings. It "teaches

duty to those who go against duty, love to those who are eagre

for its fulfilment, chastises the ill-bred and the unruly, promotes

self-restraint in the disciplined, gives courage to cowards,

energy to heroes and enlightenment to men of poor intellect,

and so on"36.

Abhinavagupta, therefore, points out that Bharata's concept

of drama does not mean merely a replica or exact representation

of a man's affairs, as it will not please the spectators who will

consider it to be some one's private affairs. Moreover, it

would not be proper on the part of the dramatist to expose the

personal life of an individual. That is why Bharata clearly says

that neither the contemporary themes should be taken up for

dramatic presentation nor the past events in their original forms

should be represented on the stage.

We should not try to interpret Bharata's terms 'anukarana'

and 'anukṛti' in their literal contexts only. Drama is, of course,

different from the literal transcript of the actions and events of

the three worlds. It is, infact, a re-perception, a re-formation

or a re-creation through the transformation of events in

accordance with the principles of universalisation. The theme of

drama may be non-ordinary but it should never be unnatural.

34

Theory of Drama

Abhinavagupta's comments on Bharata's NŚ clearly reveal that imitation in a work of art cannot mean a photographic reproduction of life, or a kind of copying or merely a display of similarity or resemblance. The dramatist, while conceiving and developing events, situations, characters and their physical and emotional reactions, has to depend on his own knowledge and the knowledge of the world as well. He imitates human conduct and the experiences of human life in order to make his presentation life-like and convincing.

The dramatist's observations and experiences, while passing through the alchemy of imagination, appear before us as a work of art. The dramatist, through the process of imitation, concretises his reactions to the world around him. Whatever he creates is a new thing although it is based on his knowledge and experience of the human life. The work of art, through the process of the fusion of the different sets of human experiences, finally emerges as a new creation which is instructive and delightful to the readers or spectators. Indian tradition, therefore, equates the poet with Brahmā, the creator of the universe-Kavir manisi paribhu svayambhu. Like the divine creator, poet can create a world of his own and his creation is not to be governed by the laws of Nature.

In the eighth chapter of the NŚ Bharata discusses the fourfold imitation of human life through Abhinaya or Histrionic Representation which makes the meaning of the drama clear and evokes aesthetic pleasure in the sympathetic spectators. Though here the term 'imitation' has been used in the context of the actor imitating the original character, some conclusions may be drawn to the general concept of 'imitation' also. The fourtypes of Histrionic Representation are, namely, Gestures (āṅgika) words (vāchika), Dress and Make-up (āhārya) and Sattva (emotional states). Bharata's discussion of the gestural imitation continues upto the 13th chapter of the NŚ, the brief account of which is given below :

1. Gestural or Physical Imitation. Gestural imitation is of three kinds—the imitation of the limbs, the face, and the entire body including the various types of dance postures. These

Nature of Drama

35

gestural movements communicate the feelings and emotions to

the spectators and help in making the meaning of the drama

clear. Indian presentation of a drama is a fine blending of

Nrtta, Nrtya and Nātya. Whereas Nrtta refers to the rhythmic

gesture of the body and Nrtya to the gestural communication of

emotion, Nātya is concerned with the creation of rasa through

various devices including gestural imitation.

2. Verbal Imitation (Vāchika abhinaya)—Bharata has

devoted five chapters (from 15th to 19th) to a systematic dis-

cussion of verbal representation. He emphatically asserts that

words are the light and ultimate reality of the world as all the

Sastras and scriptures are made up of words and exist in words.

Words make the language through which we think, speak or

write. The supremacy and the significance of language cannot

be doubted.

In the 15th chapter he refers to the appeal of language which

is allied with script, letters and other grammatical rules and

patterns. In addition to these rules he also discusses syllabic

metres, rhythmic types and other possible metrical patterns.

Bharata is of the opinion that the dramatic artists and the

actors should be well-versed in these rules of prosody, as these

would make them experts in verbal imitation.

In the 16th chapter Bharata discusses seventy five types of

metrical patterns and cites numerous examples in order to sub-

stantiate them. Dramatists should try to cultivate ornatencss,

compactness and brilliance for the most affective expression of

their feelings and emotions. Chapter 17 elaborates four types

of figures of speech and thirteen types of metaphors. Besides

these it discusses ten types of faults in dramatic construction

and puts emphasis on the necessity of using different metrical

patterns in order to express different moods and sentiments.

Chapter 18 discusses Prakrit grammar and recitation. It also

deals with the four varieties of language and seven major dia-

lects. Dramatists should use them in accordance with the

suitability of their contexts.

36

Theory of Drama

Chapter 19 is concerned with into nation and linguistic etiquette. It suggests different modes of address to the people of different stature. The use of various devices such as accents, alamkāras, pauses and punctuations with rhythmic variations exemplify the process of imitative creation. We thus see that Bharata suggests various grammatical, linguistic, poetic, metrical metaphorical and prosodic principles for the proper and pleasant verbal imitation.

3. Imitation through Costume and Make-up--Since the successful production of a drama depends upon its extraneous representation, Bharata, discusses costume and make-up in the 23rd chapter which underlines the socio-psychological disposition and status of the different characters. The dramatic personae may communicate their feelings more effectively through these devices. Costume and make-up have been classified into four categories such as Puṣṭa (model), ālaṁkāra (decoration), aṅgarachana (painting of limbs) and Sanjīva (utilization of living characters). Model costume includes the construction of hills, mountains, masques, shields and armours etc. While discussing the decoration of the body Bharata makes an elaborate survey of thousands of ornamental devices which are differently used in different situations and different cultures. In respect of the painting of the limbs he suggests that different colours should be used for different limbs, castes and creeds. Regarding the fourth category i.e. utilization of living characters, he points out that actors should try their best to identify themselves with the characters they are going to represent. It is pertinent to recall the following lines :

As the soul casts off one body and enters into another taking the shape and temperament of the other, similarly the soul of the dramatic actor enters into the being of the person whose dress and costume he puts on.37

The success of the actor depends on his emotional and spiritual identification with the character whose role he is going to play. Only then can he make a character life-like and powerful. The allegation of the Western scholars that the NŚ is rigidly ritualistic and doctrinaire is based on their lack of pro-

per knowledge of the complete text. Bharata clearly points out

that where the Shāstras are silent, public code of conduct

should guide the pattern of dramatic representation.

4. Sāttvika Imitation--Sāttvika imitation is concerned

with the psychological exploration of the insoluble mystery of

human nature. In spite of the technological advancement, man

has not yet been able to discover the depths of the human heart

and know the relationship between mind and body. Bharata

discusses the Sāttvika imitation or the imitation of psychologi-

cal moods and sentiments in the sixth chapter and further

elaborates it in the 24th chapter of his NŚ. Bharata points out

that there are eight dramatic sentiments which correspond to

eight sthāyibhāvas or durable psychological states. These dur-

able psychological states are assisted by thirty three vyabhicāri-

bhāvas or transitory emotional states in the proper realisation

of aesthetic pleasure. The different emotional states lead to the

different physical manifestations which reveal the inner states of

their mind. The external manifestation of the eight Sattvika-

bhavas in the form of paralysis, perspiration, horripilation,

choking or change of voice, trembling, fading or change of

colour, weeping and fainting help us to understand the invisible

mental states of different characters.

Bharata clearly points out that the success of a drama

depends on the spiritual rapport of the actor with the character.

The imitation of different rasas together with their physical

manifestations is of course very significant for dramatic pre-

sentation, as the spectators experience different psychological

states through introspection, inference, cultural education and

racial tradition.

III

We should now compare and contrast the views of Aristotle

and Bharata on the theory of 'imitation', as it would lead to a

better understanding of the two great theorists. Both the

theorists agree that the term 'imitation' does not mean merely a

photographic representation of human life or a literal trans-

cript of reality but a higher reality which is nothing but an

38

Theory of Drama

'idealised representation of human life'. Art moves through

the reality of life but ultimately transcends it. The world of

Nature is imperfect; the writer makes it perfect through his

work of art. The beauty of Helen produced by Nature is gone

but the beauty of Helen as painted by Homer, has become

immortal. Poetry creates beauty, truth and goodness which is

rarely seen in the world of Nature. The writer infact becomes a

prophet or a divine seer. Imitation possesses all the essential

features of creation as it is the imitation of the creative design

which is not absolutely visible even in the world of Nature.

There are, however, differences between the two. Whereas

Aristotle in his Poetics discusses poetry in general which in-

cludes dithyramb, epic, tragedy and comedy, Bharata in his NŚ

discusses drama only. Aristotle points out that there are three

modes of imitation—means of imitation, objects of imitation,

and manner of imitation. Whereas the means of imitation is

language, the object of imitation is 'men-in-action' and the

manner of imitation is narrative or dramatic. Bharata discusses

four types of imitation—(i) Gestural or physical imitation, (ii)

Verbal imitation (iii) imitation through costume and make-up

and (iv) Sāttvika imitation.

Let us first take up Aristotle's concept about the means of

imitation. Aristotle just tells us that language is the means of

imitation; he does not try to elaborate it further. Bharata,

however, does not only mention verbal imitation but devotes

five chapters of his NŚ to its discussion at greater length. In

these chapters Bharata clearly suggests various grammatical,

linguistic, poetic, metrical, metaphorical and prosodic principles

which are essential for the proper pleasant verbal imitation. In

his opinion language is the ultimate reality of the world, as we

cannot think, speak or write without language.

So far as the object of imitation is concerned, Bharata's

concept has a greater scope than Aristotle. Whereas Aristotle's

object of imitation is 'men-in-action', Bharata's object of imita-

tion is the whole universe. There is nothing in the three worlds,

the Earth, the Heaven and the nether world which the writer

Nature of Drama

39

cannot imitate. Referring to the distinction between Bharata

and Aristotle in their object of imitation, A.B. Keith has point-

ed out :

The doctrine that the drama is an imitation (anukrti) does

not differ from the doctrine of Mimesis, but there is an

essential distinction in what is imitated or represented; in

the cāstra it is a state or condition, in Aristotle it is ac-

tion, a distinction absolutely in accord with the different

geniuses of the two peoples.38

The scope of Bharata's NŚ is very broad and his theory of

imitation includes action together with situations and emotional

states. Bharata's concept of sāttvika imitation refers to the

imitation of the mental states of human beings. We thus see

that whereas Aristotle's object of imitation is 'action', that of

Bharata it is the 'emotional states' (bhāvas). There is still

another difference regarding their concept of imitation. In the

opinion of Aristotle drama is born of human instinct for imita-

tion, whereas Bharata suggests that drama is a deliberate crea-

tion in order to provide an amusement and instruction to the

people.

Referring to the manner of imitation Bharata is silent, as

he discusses drama only whose manner of imitation is essen-

tially dramatic. In addition to the verbal as well as sāttvika

imitation Bharata mentions two other types of imitation i.e.

Gestural or physical imitation and imitation through costume

and make-up, which are essentially related with the theatrical

presentation. Aristotle, however, does not consider spectacle

to be an essential element of drama. In his opinion, spectacle

"is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry.

For the power of tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart

from representation and actors"39. Aristotle is basically con-

cerned with the essential meaning of drama rather than with the

techniques of conveying that meaning to an audience. Bharata,

on the other hand, is highly technical and exhaustive in dis-

cussing the techniques of his four-fold imitation in a convincing

manner.

40

Theory of Drama

REFERENCES

1. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, I. 2.

2. D.W. Lucas, Aristotle : Poetics (Oxford : At the Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 259.

3. William K. Wimsatt, Jr. & Cleanth Brooks, Literary Criticism (Calcutta : Oxford Book Company, 1964), p. 13.

4. B. Jowett, trans., The Dialogues of Plato, Vol. II (Oxford : At the Clarendon Press. 1953), p. 468.

5. Ibid., pp. 482-3.

6. S.H. Butcher, Aristotle's theory of Poetry and Fine Art (Ludhiana : Kalyani Publishers, 1974), p. 160.

7. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, XXV, 2.

8. W. Hamilton Fyfe, Aristotle's Art of Poetry : A Greek View of Poetry and Drama (Oxford : At the Clarendon Press, 1967), p. xxii.

9. S.H. Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, p. 150.

10. Gerald F. Else, Aristotle's Poetics : The Argument (Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 1957), p. 320.

11. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, I. 3.

12. Ibid., I. 4.

13. S.H. Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, pp. 129-30.

14. David Daiches, Critical Approaches to Literature (New Delhi : Orient Longmans, 1967), p. 24.

15. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, I. 6-7.

16. Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, p. 143.

17. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, I. 7-8.

18. The Dithyrambic poetry was originally a choral ode sung in honour of Dionysus; Nomic poetry was originally concerned with texts taken from the epic and was presented with a flute or lyre accompaniment.

19. S.H, Butcher, trans., The Poetics, I. 10.

20. Ibid., II, 1.

18094

Nature of Drama

21. Ibid., IV. 7.

22. O.B. Hardison, comm., Aristotle's Poetics (Prentice-Hall : New Jersey, 1968), p. 85.

23. Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. H. Rackham (London : Harvard University Press, 1947), 1103b 8-21.

24. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, II. 1.

25. Ibid., II. 3.

26. Ibid., III. 1.

27. Elder Olson, "The Poetic Method of Aristotle" Aristotle's "Poetics" and English Literature ed. Elder Olson (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 183.

28. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics. IV, 1-6.

29. J.C. Warry, Greek Aesthetic Theory (London : Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1962), p. 102.

30. Aristotle. Rhetoric, trans., W. Rhys Roberts (New York : The Modern Library. 1954), 1371b 4.

31. O.B. Hardison, comm., Aristotle's Poetics, p. 93.

32. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, IX, 1-4.

33. Though Manomohan Ghosh translates the word 'anukara' as mimicry, it is infact 'imitation' as is evident from V.S. Apte's Sanskrit-English Dictionary.

34. Bharata, NS, trans., Manomohan Ghosh, Vol. I. 2 Ed. (Calcutta : Manisa Granthalaya Private Ltd., 1967), Ch. I. III.

35. Ibid., I. 119.

36. Ibid., I. 109.

37. Ibid., XIII, 84-5.

38. A.B. Keith, The Sanskrit Drama (London : O.U.P., 1954), p. 355.

39. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, VI. 19.

3

Function of Drama

While making a comparative study of Aristotelian theory of 'catharsis' and Bharata's theory of 'rasa' we have to bear in mind the basic thing that both the theories have been suggested by the ancient theorists in the context of the function of drama which is to give aesthetic pleasure to the readers as well as to the spectators. Aristotle explains the same phenomenon through his concept of catharsis that Bharata does through his theory of rasa. Aristotle uses the word 'catharsis' in chapter VI of Poetics and promises to explain it in the Second Book of Poetics which has unfortunately been lost. In chapters six and seven of NŚ Bharata makes a comprehensive study of his theory of rasa which is perhaps the greatest landmark in the history of Indian aesthetics.

I

Let us first discuss Aristotle's concept of catharsis. In Book X of Republic Plato had accused poetry of feeding and watering the passions instead of drying them up. Aristotle did not agree with this view and firmly stated that poetry, instead of nourishing the passions, provides for them a harmless and easy outlet. Aristotle, in order to justify his argument, suggested the theory of 'catharsis' which is supposed to be an answer to the Platonic indictment. His theory of catharsis, however, has led to a good deal of controversy among the critics and commentators in the Western world. As Gerald F. Else has pointed out, it is "one of the biggest of the 'big' ideas in the field of aesthetics and

criticism, the Mt. Everest or Kilimanjaro that looms on all literary horizons.'1

Aristotle uses the term ‘catharsis’ in his definition of tragedy in chapter VI of Poetics :

Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude ; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play ; in the form of action, not of narrative ; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.4

The catharsis-clause in the definition of tragedy has generated a historic discussion, as in the last three hundred years we have had a great many and sometimes strange translations which have created a good deal of confusion among the readers. Since the formal discussion of catharsis, as promised by Aristotle in his Poetics, is not available to us, we may understand and interpret catharsis by making references to certain passages in Aristotle's other works or to the then treatises by other writers.

Some critics like Minturno, Thomas Twining, H. Veil and J. Bernays have interpreted ‘catharsis’ as purgation in the sense of a medical metaphor. Just as medicine operates on the body, tragedy operates on the mind to cleanse it. The German scholars Weil and Bernays drew attention to the passage on music in Aristotle's Politics which throws some light on the process of tragic catharsis. In chapter 7 of Book VIII of his Politics Aristotle considers catharsis to be one of the most important aspects in human life. There are certain emotions such as pity and fear which arise in some degree in every individual and sometimes take a disquieting proportion in some of us. Just as music has the soothing effect restoring people to a normal state of mind, those suffering from excess of pity and fear need a pleasurable relief from the excesses of these emotions. It is better to quote the original passage from the Politics :

...as we say that music ought to be employed not for the purpose of one benefit tha it confers but on account of

44

Theory of Drama

several (for it serves the purpose both of education and of

purgation-the term purgation we use for the present

without explanation, but we will return to discuss the

meaning that we give to it more explicitly in our trea.ise

on poetry3-and thirdly it serves for amusement, serving

to relax our tension and to give rest from it), it is clear

that we should employ all the harmonies, yet not employ

them all in the same way, but use the most ethical ones

for education, and the active and the passionate kinds for

listening to when uthers are performing (for any experience

that occurs violently in some souls is fiund in all, though

with different degrees of intensity--for example, pity and

fear, and also religious excitement; for some persons are

very liable to this form of emotion, and under the influence

of sacred music we see these people, when they use tunes

that violently arouse the soul, being thrown into a state as

if they had received medicinal treatment and taken a

purge; the same experience then must come also to the

compassionate and the timid and the other emotional

people generally in such degree as befalis each individual

of these classes, and all must undergo a purgation and a

pleasant feeling of relief; and similarly also the purgative

melodies afford harmless delight to people).4

The above passage which deals with the operation of tumul-

tuous melodies, gives a hint to the meaning of 'catharsis' in his

Poetics. In the opinion of Aristotle the objective of music is

three-fold. It serves the purpose of education, relexation and

purgation. Purgation is nothing but 'catharsis' which refers

to a process of the cleansing of some baser elements, which, if

allowed to stagnate, would lead to an unhealthy growth of the

body. Hence the ancient theory of medicine suggested the

expulsion of morbid humours from the body and that was

known as catharsis. Bywater took a hint from it and connect-

ed it with the catharsis of tragedy "Pity and fear are elements

in human nature, and in some men they are present in a

disquieting degree. With these latter the tragic excitement is

a necessity; but it is also in a certain sense good for all. It

serves as a sort of medicine, producing a catharsis to lighten

and relieve the soul of the accumulated emotion within it ; and

as the relief is wanted, there is always a harmless pleasure

attending the process of relief''5.

Bernay's and Bywater's interpretations of catharsis, how-

ever, are not fully acceptable to the modern critics like Gerald

Else6 and Leon Golden7 who raise some doubts regarding

their authenticity or methodological accuracy :

(i) Does Aristotle want to suggest that tragedy is a sort of

hospital meant for curing such patients who are suffering from

an excess of pity and fear ? Is tragedy a greater requirement

for such people who suffer from an excess of disturbing emo-

tions of pity and fear rather than with normal and healthy

people ? It is not infact convincing to us that tragedy is more

appealing to a particular sort of people, those who are having a

morbid temperament. There is not a word in the Poetics which

suggests that the purpose of tragedy is to cure or alleviate

pathological states. On the other hand, as Else has pointed

out, "It is evident in every line of the work that Aristotle is

presupposing normal auditors, normal states of mind and feeling,

normal emotional and aesthetic experience.''8

(ii) Bernay's concept of the musical catharsis and its appli-

cation to the sphere of tragedy does not appear to be very

convincing, as Aristotle does not give much importance to

music while explaining the art of tragedy. Moreover whereas

music can be enjoyed only when it is played in the theatre,

there is no such restriction regarding the art of tragedy.

Aristotle is fully confident that tragedy can be enjoyed even by

reading and without its actual performance in the theatre.

(iii) Bernays's method of explaining the term 'catharsis' in

Poetics in the light of its use in Aristotle's Politics is not very

logical and convincing, as the mere use of the same word in

different texts cannot ensure the identical meaning. Richard

Mckeon challenges the procedure of Bernays very emphatically

in the following lines :

46

Theory of Drama

To cite what is said concerning art in the Politics in refutation or in expansion of what is said on the same subject in the Poetics, without recognizing that the one is a political utterance, the other an aesthetic utterance, would be an error comparable to looking for evolution or refutation between the statements of the Republic and the Laws, without recognizing that the one has reference to a perfect state, the other to a state possible to men as they are.

Since the nature or objective of the Poetics and Politics is much different, it would be a fatal error to find out the identity of meaning between two different texts. Whereas the objective of Politics is utilitarian, that of Poetics is aesthetic.

There may be controversy over the total acceptance of their interpretation of the theory of catharsis, it is now an accepted fact that passions are aroused in order to be purged. But then the problem is as to how this purgation takes place. The Renaissance commentators on the Poetics were of the opinion that Aristotle, while suggesting the theory of catharsis, had in mind the ancient theory of homeopathic treatment, which is similia similibus curanter, i.e. like curing the like. John Milton also compares the process of catharsis with the process of homoeopathic treatment, where heat is applied to reduce the fever and cold is used to relieve chills. It is evident from his statement in an essay on "Of that Sort of Dramatic Poem which is call'd Tragedy".

Tragedy, as it was antiently compos'd, hath been ever held the gravest, moralest, and most profitable of all other Poems : therefore said by Aristotle to be of power by raising pity and fear, or terror, to purge the mind of these and such like passions, that is to temper and reduce them to just measure with a kind of delight, stirr'd up by reading or seeing those passions well imitated. Nor is Nature wanting in her own effects to make good his assertion : for so in psychic things of melancholic hue and quality are us'd against melancholy, sowr against sowr, salt to remove salt humours.

Function of Drama

47

Plato too seems to have been aware of how music reduces morbid 'enthusiasm' under the same principle, as is evident from chapter VIII of his Republic. In ch. VII of Laws where he is discussing the rules for the proper nourishment of the infants, he suggests that nurses may lull their infants to sleep not by calm and peace but by perpetual motion in their arms. In his opinion an external agitation is needed in order to pacify the internal commotion. Plato's application of this principle was confined to music and the useful art of nursing only. Aristotle, however, enlarged its scope and applied his principle to tragedy also.

The idea of 'catharsis' as a medical metaphor was not unknown to the later Greek writers.11 Plutarch and Aristides Quintilianus used the term 'catharsis' in the context of music and Iamblicus and Proclus used it with reference to drama. Plutarch mentions the dirges at funerals, which, though initially excite the grief of the mourners, ultimately work off their agony. Aristides Quintilianus, who seems to be distinctly Aristotelian in approach, talks of the cathartic effect of music and dancing in the Bacchic and other mysteries. Iamblicus, who tries to illustrate the Aristotelian theory of 'catharsis', does not by catharsis mean elimination but the moderation of the passions. He points out that the passions cannot be suppressed for a very long time as they need an occasional outlet for the calm and peace of mind. We like to see a drama as it helps us in working off our excessive emotions. Proclus discusses the dramatic catharsis in his commentary on Plato's Republic. In his opinion the drama serves a very useful purpose by providing an outlet for such emotions which would disturb the peace of the soul, if their genuine claims are not satisfied with the help of theatrical performance from time to time.

The homoeopathic theory of catharsis became very popular in the twentieth century under the impact of modern psychology according to which suppressed feelings and emotions have to be given an outlet, otherwise they would lead to various complexes. Freud and Breur pointed out that patients can be cured of their neurotic symptoms by enabling them to recall their painful

48

Theory of Drama

and frustrating childhood experiences. They called this the

'cathartic' method, which leads to the 'purgation' of painful

childhood experiences.

F.L. Lucas, a modern critic, is fully convinced that Aristotle

uses 'catharsis' as a medical metaphor, as he was the son of a

court physician. On account of later changes in medical

thought, however, the word 'purgation' has led to a good deal

of misunderstanding among the modern critics. In the context

of modern medical concept, 'purgation' refers to the 'complete'

evacuation of waste products. The question that naturally

arises, is : Does 'catharsis' mean 'complete' evacuation of our

passions and emotions in a tragedy ? It is neither practicable

nor even desirable. Lucas, therefore, points out that Aristotelian

catharsis does not mean 'purgation' in the modern context but

in the older wider context which referred to the evacuation of

'excess' humours. Hippocrates had also stated that the health

of body and mind depended on the proper balance of these

humours. The purgation of 'superfluous emotional impulses' is

therefore known as 'catharsis'. Aristotelian meaning of catharsis

is properly conveyed through the statement of Shakespeare's

Richard II : "Let us purge this choller without letting blood".

Lucas takes further hint from Aristotle's disciple Theophrastus's

application of catharsis to the pruning of trees and finally con-

cludes that the catharsis of such passions does not mean that

"passions are purified and ennobled, nice as that might be ; it

does not mean that men are purged of their passions ; it means

simply that the passions themselves are reduced to a healthy,

balanced proportion"12.

There are, however, some critics such as Corneille, Racine

and Lessing who suggest the purification theory of catharsis and

point out that catharsis is not a medical but a religious

metaphor which refers to "the religious rite of purification

whereby the hand or soul was cleansed from some pollution or

stain of sin."13 Those who advocate this purification theory,

prefer to translate the catharsis clause as "catharsis of such

(rather than 'these') emotion", which refers to the emotions of

pity and fear as the representative of the whole range of

emotions which may have an adverse effect, if not 'purified'.

Function of Drama

The purification theory suggests that emotions should not be 'driven out'; they should rather be 'purified' for the healthy state of mind. The emotions are to be purified rather than purged in order to restore a healthy emotional equilibrium.

In the eighteenth century Lessing was the most distinguished exponent of this theory of catharsis, which is considered by Leon Golden14 as the theory of 'moral purification'. Lessing15 in Hamburgische Dramaturgic (1769) stated that in order to purify the emotions of pity and fear, tragedy, by the frequent excitement of these emotions, gradually tries to weaken their force and reduce them to just measure. Lessing got the support for his theory from a passage in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics which is as follows :

If therefore the way in which every art or science performs its work well is by looking to the mean and applying that as a standard to its productions (hence the common remark about a perfect work or art, that you could not take from it nor add to it-meaning that excess and deficiency destroy perfection, while adherence to the mean preserves it)—if then, as we say, good craftsmen look to the mean as they work and if virtue, like nature, is more accurate and better than any form of art, it will follow that virtue has the quality of hitting the mean. I refer to moral virtue, for this is concerned with emotions, and actions, in which one can have excess or deficiency or a due mean. For example, one can be frightened or bold, feel desire or anger or pity, and experience pleasure and pain in general, either too much or too little, and in both cases wrongly; whereas to feel these feelings at the right time, on the right occasion, towards the right people, for the right purpose and in the right manner, is to feel the best amount of them, which is the mean amount—and the best amount is of course the mark of virtue.16

It is evident from the above passage that the function of tragedy is to purify us from both the extremes of pity, fear and similar other emotions, and enable us to adopt the mean and reasonable course of action.

50

Theory of Drama

Lessing's whole theory of purification, however, is open to many serious objections, as Bywater17 has pointed out :

(i) It confuses two distinct things, the purification of a feeling and the purification of the soul from a feeling.

(ii) It confuses the ideas of 'pure' and 'moderate', though there is no direct logical or other relation between them; excess or defect in certain matters may be a fault, but they cannot be termed 'impurities'.

(iii) It rests on a false hypothesis as to the position of tragedy in the social life of ancient Greece ; the performance of tragedy was too occasional to have a marked and abiding effect on the moral character of the hearers.

(iv) Even if the tragic excitement of emotion be supposed to have been sufficiently frequent to produce a habit, it does not follow that the resulting habit would be one of moderation in the matter of feeling ; we have no right to suppose that the habitual indulgence of strong emotion (e.g. pity and fear) will weaken its force or reduce it to just measure. Habits, as Aristotle himself has stated in his Nicomachean Ethics, arise from corresponding activities :

In a word, our moral dispositions are formed as a result of the corresponding activities. Hence it is incumbent on us to control the character of our activities, since on the quality of these depends the quality of our dispositions.18

We would expect, therefore, that the strong emotion aroused by tragedy would, if habitualised by repetition, end in a habit of strong emotion, not in a habit of subdued or moderate emotion, not in that mean state of feeling which Aristotle identifies with virtue. The primary error, however, in this and similar interpretations of catharsis is that it reads a directly moral meaning into the term, as though the theatre were a school, and the tragic poet a teacher of morality.

Function of Drama

51

During the Renaissance Robortello and Castelvetro suggested a different theory of purification19. They pointed out that tragedy enables us to harden or ‘temper’ our emotions. They compared the spectators in the theatre with the soldiers on the battlefield or the surgeons in the operation theatre. The emotions of pity and fear are reduced to moderation in the spectator, soldier or the surgeon, as they are accustomed to those piteous and fearful objects that occasion them.

Thomas Taylor in his introduction to the Poetics, published in 1818, gives expression to his concept of moral purification :

… according to the modern commentators on this treatise, the meaning of Aristotle is that the terror and pity excited by the tragedy purify the spectator from terror and pity.

…This cannot be the meaning of Aristotle, as it contradicts what he asserts in his Ethics…Aristotle meant to say, that the terror and pity excited by tragedy purify the spectator from those perturbations which form catastrophe of the tragedy. Thus in the Ajax of Sophocles, the terror and pity excited by the catastrophe purify the spectator from anger and impiety towards divinity ; and in a similar manner purification is affected in other tragedies.20

In the opinion of Taylor purification of pity and fear refers to the purification from those perturbations which happen in the fable and become the cause of fatal event in the drama. Sophocles first tried to excite pity and fear through the character of Ajax and thereby wanted a purification from anger and impiety towards divinity, as these had led to Ajax’s misfortunes in the drama.

Though Butcher pays lip service to the theory of purgation, his leaning towards the theory of purification is clearly revealed. In his opinion there are certain morbid and disturbing elements in our emotions of pity and fear in real life. When we pass through the process of tragic excitation, we get an emotional relief as the disturbing elements of our emotions are thrown off. Butcher remarks :

52

Theory of Drama

Let us assume then that the tragic Katharsis involves

not only the idea of an emotional relief, but the further

idea of the purifying of the emotions so relieved…. In

order that an emotion may be not only excited but also

allayed,—that the tumult of the mind may be resolved in-

to a pleasurable calm,—the emotion stirred by a fictitious

representation must divest itself of its purely selfish and

material elements, and become part of a new order of

things.21

Though Aristotle does not use the word ‘catharsis’ any more in

the technical and special sense in which he uses it in chapter VI

of his Poetics, he does mention it once more in chapter XVII

also. While discussing the plot of Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris

he uses the word ‘catharsis’ for the ‘purification’ of Orestes

which "means ceremonial purification from a religious

impurity".22

I.A. Richards has added a new dimension to the purification

theory of catharsis. In his opinion catharsis refers to the pro-

cess of harmonization of two opposite human impulses—pity

and fear in a work of art. The proper balance between the

op osite - pity, the impluse to approach, and fear, the impulse

to repel, leads ultimately to the restoration of mental equili-

brium on the part of the reader or the spectator. "Their union

in an ordered single response", says Richards, "is the catharsis

by which Tragedy is recognized, whether Aristotle meant any-

thing of this kind or not. This is the explanation of that sense

of release, of repose in the midst of stress, of balance and com-

posure, given by Tragedy, for there is no other way in which

such impulses, once awakened, can be set at rest without sup-

pression"23. The specific function of catharsis in a tragedy is

realised only when it is capable of presenting a proper blending

of the emotions of pity and fear or of other allied emotions.

Pity alone will tend to make the play sentimental and fear ex-

cessively awful.

The problem with both the theories—theory of purgation as

well as the theory of purification—is that they are concerned

Function of Drama

53

with the psychological reaction of the readers or spectators,

whereas Aristotle’s Poetics is basically concerned with the art of

poetry. The third interpretation to the catharsis-clause is sug-

gested by Gerald9. F. Else who translates it as the “catharsis

of these incidents” He contradicts the earlier theories and sug-

gests that there is enough material mainly in the thirteenth and

fourteenth chapters of the Poetics on the basis of which Aris-

totle’s exact meaning can be reconstructed.

Else believes that catharsis is basically an artistic rather

than a psychological process. He considers it as an element in

the structure of the plot itself. In his opinion the use of the pre-

position in the catharsis-clause “can perfectly well mean

‘through (a sequence of), in the course of’, referring not to an

emotional end-effect with which we leave the theatre, but to

pity and fear as they are incorporated in the structure (‘Built

into the events’, i.e. woven into the plot) of the play by the

poet”.24 Catharsis takes place primarily in the tragedy when it

is composed rather than in the spectator who sees it performed

in the theatre. Else raises the question as to what now ‘carries

forward’ the purification through the course of the play? and

himself gives the answer :

Not the text, as a body of words, or the performance of

the text in a theatre, but the process of imitation which

tragedy essentially is…The purification, then, is carried

forward by the plot, the ‘structure of events’ which is

the poet’s own indispensable contribution to the

play.25

On the basis of these observations by Else we may draw the

following ten ative conclusions in connection with catharsis :

(i) The purification in a tragedy is not the purification of

pity and fear but the purification of the fatal or painful act

which is the main ingredient of tragedy.

(ii) Purification is not brought about through pity and fear

but through a sequence of pathetic and fearful incidents, as is

evident from 13th chapter of the Poetics.

54

Theory of Drama

(iii) Purification does not occur through the text or the presentation of the text in the theatre but through the process of imitation which is the fundamental contribution of the dramatist.

Now the question is : what purpose does catharsis serve in the drama ? The purpose of catharsis is served when the reader or the spectator is convinced that the tragic act of the hero has been purified. Elaborating it further Else has stated :

The purification, that is, the proof of the purity of hero's motive in performing an otherwise 'unclean' act is presented to him, and his conscience accepts and certifies it to his emotions, issues a licence, so to speak, which says : "you may pity this man, for he is like us, a good man rather than a bad, and he is free of pollution".26

There are so many characters in Greek tragedies such as Oedipus, Alomeon, Orestes, Medea and Heracles etc., who have killed their dear ones-father, mother or children. Their acts or even their intentions normally seem to be impure or even contemptible. Who can pity Oedipus who has killed his father and married his mother or Medea who has killed her children ? The tragic act of these characters gets purified when we find them placed in such circumstances where they are forced to commit it. We can pity them only when it is established beyond doubt that they committed the fatal crime on account of some hamartia in their character, though their intentions were never bad.

Now the question is : how does catharsis operate in the drama ? Else suggests that it operates with the help of the structure of the events. From the very development of the drama Oedipus, the king, it becomes evident that the hero does not willingly kill his father and marry his mother. The innocence of his motive is discovered when we find Oedipus blinding himself and bitterly repenting over what he had done. This ultimately convinces us about the 'purity' of his motive and we pity Oedipus for the misfortune which he does not really deserve. Recognition in a drama is the structural device which

Function of Drama

55

enables the hero to prove that his intention was not impure or abhorrent. Else, therefore, points out that "the catharsis is not a change or end-product in the spectator's soul, or in the fear and pity (i.e. the dispositions to them) in his soul, but a process carried forward in the emotional material of the play by its structural elements, above all, by the recognition"27. The puri-

fication of the hero's fatal act is possible only when it is proved by the whole structure of the drama that his intention was pure and noble. Leon Golden, therefore, has rightly regarded this theory of catharsis as the theory of 'structural purification in which the development of the plot purifies the tragic deed of its moral pollution and thus allows the audience to experience the emotions of pity and fear"28.

Aristotle repeatedly insists that the plot in a drama should be constructed in such as manner that the catharsis is 'built into the plot itself so that the reader or the spectator may experience and enjoy it. Else's interpretation of catharsis makes it "a transitive or operational factor within the tragic structure itself, precedent to the release of pity, and ultimately of the tragic pleasure, rather than the be-all and end-all of tragedy itself"29. Else, thus, shifts the emphasis from the reader or the spectator to the structure of the drama itself.

Some objections, however, have been raised against the theory of Gerald Else also. The most serious objection against his theory is that he has tried to formulate it on the basis Aris-totle's Poetics alone. Since Aristotle is a consistent thinker, we may take into account his other works such as Politics, Nicomachean Ethics and Rhetoric etc. for the proper and fruitful understanding of his concept of catharsis.

Even the text of the Poetics too presents an obstacle to Else's interpretation, though he is fully convinced that his theory fits well into the text of the Poetics. There are atleast two impor-tant passages in the Poetics which contradict his theory of catharsis. The first is to be found in ch. IX.

But again, Tragedy is an imitation not only of a complete action, but of events inspiring fear or pity.30

56

Theory of Drama

The second passage occurs in chapter XIV of the Poetics where Aristotle clearly says that "Fear and pity may be aroused by spectacular means..."31. Aristotle wants to suggest that even with the help of spectacle, pity and fear may be aroused in the spectators. Structural development of the drama is not essential for the arousal of pity and fear in the tragedy. Pity and fear may be aroused even when we visualise the spectacle of Oedipus blinding himself or Othello killing his innocent wife Desdemona.

In the light of Else's theory, certain acts such as patricide and incest which seem to be contemptible and intolerable in normal circumstances, are made tolerable and piteous under special circumstances with the help of the structural devices of the dramatist. In spite of the fact that Oedipus murders his father and marries his mother, he finally emerges as a man of integrity and he deserves our sympathy. Else's theory, however, is not applicable to all the Greek tragedies. Medea's killing of her children or Electra's urging of her brother to revenge is not ultimately purified or justified in our opinion. Milton, who had Aristotle in mind, had no intention to excuse or purify the slaughtering of God's enemies. He interpreted catharsis in the light of the reader's response and never tried to justify the fatal act, as Else has suggested. Clifford Leech has, therefore, suggested that "if Else is right, a non-Aristotelian catharsis has had more validity than the one that he himself devised."32

The later Aristotelian critics such as Golden and Hardison partly agreed and partly disagreed with Else's theory of catharsis. They agreed with Else in the sense that Poetics is basically concerned with the nature of tragedy and not with the reaction of the audience. They, however, disagreed with his theory of 'structural purification' and suggested the theory of 'intellectual clarification.'33 In the opinion of Golden "tragic catharsis will emerge, convincingly, as that moment of insight and clarification towards which it is the essential nature of art to strive".34 It is better to quote the comments of the Spanish scholar Pedro Latin-Entralgo who by his perceptive analysis has interpreted catharsis as clarification :

Function of Drama

57

Thanks to the anagnorisis the spectator knows and recognizes what really is occurring on stage and therefore is his own possible fate.... The anagnorisis represents, in short, the triumph of that deep demand for expression and clarification of the human destiny—a figurative, verbal expression and clarification—that, in the face of every possible purely musical and Dionysiac interpretation, beats deep within the breast of Attic tragedy. The Poetics calls this "resolution" of the affective state of the spectator catharsis.35

Hardison traces the origin of this word ‘clarification’ in Butcher’s commentary on catharsis which is concerned with the ‘enhanced understanding of the events’ delineated in tragedy. Its function is, says Butcher, "not merely to provide an outlet for pity and fear, but to provide for them a distinctly aesthetic satisfaction, to purify and clarify them by passing them through the medium of art"36 The tragic writer tries to eliminate what is accidental or irrelevant so that the deeper layer of meaning may be revealed. He does this by selecting a series of pitiable or fearful incidents and then constructing the plots on the principle of probability and necessity—on the principle of what should be rather than what is. "When the spectator has witnessed a tragedy of this type", says Hardison, "he will have learned something—the incidents will be clarified in the sense that their relation in terms of universals will have become manifest—and the act of learning, says Aristotle, will be enjoyable"37. We are delighted to see a tragedy on account of its indwelling form of experience as well as it archetypal dimension.

Hardison in his commentary on the Poetics has pointed out some remarkable features of this ‘clarification’ theory. It is concerned with the technique of tragedy and not with the psychological reaction of the audience. It interprets catharsis in the light of Aristotle’s theory of imitation discussed in chapters I-IV and the theory of probability and/or necessity as discussed in chapter IX. It also coincides with the modern aesthetic theory and there are parallels to be found in their

58

Theory of Drama

conclusions. The modern aestheticians like James Joyce and

Austin Warren consider 'coherence' as an essential feature

of a successful work of art and the aesthetic pleasure in

the heart of the audience audience originates from the

discovery of this 'coherence'. Aristotle's emphasis in chapter

XIII of the Poetics on the tragic error (hamartia) reveals that

tragedy enables the spectator to learn something about the

relation between the hero's character and his destiny. 'This

will alleviate (if not eliminate)', says Hardison, 'his pity and

by the same token reduce his fear for himself. Note that the

alleviation is a by product of the learning that produces the

tragic pleasure, not its chief object'.8 Aristotle's comments in

chapters IV, VI and IX refer to the experience of tragedy as a

kind of "insight experience." or "clarification" which ultimately

leads to the realisation of pleasure that is known as catharis.

Without adhering to any specific school of psychopathology

it is better to interpret catharsis as an aesthetic experience

which, though it emanates from the work of art itself, has its

reaction in the readers or the spectators too. Now the question

is : what really gives us aesthetic pleasure in a tragedy ? Is

it the portrayal of suffering of the hero or the painful account

of the tragic events ? Neither of the two can give us aesthetic

pleasure. It is rather "the presentation of a coherent action,

made transparent and intelligible through artistic formula-

tion",39 which provides us an aesthetic pleasure. Tragedy

gives us not only an emotional satisfaction but an intellectual

enlightenment also. It is superior to the other forms of drama

mainly because it leads us to a 'heightened awareness of life'.

S. Radhakrishnan has rightly stated that "A tragedy that leaves

on the mind an impression of disgust and dissatisfaction is a

failure as a work of art"40 Only a work of art which fulfils

the requirements of a well structured tragedy with illuminative

power can lead us to the realisation of catharsis. When we see

the 'resolution at the end of the drama, we feel elevated rather

than depressed. Tragedy depicts human dignity and elevation

even in the midst of trial and tribulation, failure and frustration,

depression and death. This sense of elevation and upliftment is

the main function of tragedy which is known as catharsis.

While pointing out that the function of drama is to entertain as well as to instruct the spectators, Bharata mentions the word 'rasa' and explains it in chapters VI and VII of NŚ. It is the simplest as well as the most complicated word so far as its meaning is concerned. It is very easy to comprehend its meaning but most difficult to define it exactly. S.K. De has rightly stated that "this subtle conception of Rasa makes it difficult to express the notion properly in Western critical terminology. The word has been translated etymologically by the terms 'flavour', 'relish', 'gustation', 'taste', 'geschmack' or 'saveur', for none of these renderings seems to be adequate."41

The word 'rasa' reveals different layers of meaning when used in different contexts. It ranges from the Aryan's drinking of the soma juice to the yogis' communion with the metaphysical Absolute, the Brahman. Though it frequently occurs in the vedas and the upanisads, Bharata is the first authority on the systematic study of rasa. Bharata, however, is not the original exponent of the rasa theory, as De has pointed out that "Bharata himself cites in chapters VI and VII several ślokas in the Āryā as well as is the Anustubh metres in support of his own statements; and in one place, he distinctly quotes two Āryā-ślokas from a chapter of an unknown work relating to the discussion of Rasa."42 Moreover, Bharata mentions the names of several scholars such as Kohala, Śāndilya and Vātsya etc. who had already expressed their views on the theory of rasa. Even then Bharata's NŚ makes a distinctly definite landmark in the history of the theory of rasa. The concept of rasa as an aesthetic principle was for the first time formulated By Bharata who suggested that the work of art has nothing to signify except the manifestation of rasa—"Nahi rasādṛte kaścidapya-rthah pravartate."43

Let us see what Bharata says about rasa. When sages ask him, "what is this commodity called rasa?", he says—"That which is relished is rasa". Whether we take this work in the physical or metaphysical sense of the term, it refers to the

60

Theory of Drama

delightful experience of a work of art. Explaining the purpose

of Bharata's rasa theory Pramod Kale has stated that it is "a

framework of rules and regulations, to explain and achieve an

effective communication, a rapport between the performers and

the spectators"'44.

Referring to the question as to how rasa is produced,

Bharata said :

'Vibhāvanubhāva - vyabhicāri - samyogād rasaniṣpattiḥ '45.

Rasa is produced (rasa-niṣpattiḥ) from a combination (samyoga)

of Determinants (vibhāva), Consequents (anubhāva) and Com-

plementary Psychological States (vyabhicāribhāva). The

'samyoga' or combination mentioned in the Sūtra is not the

combination of vibhāva anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva among

themselves, but it refers to their combination or union with the

sthāyibhāva (Durable Psychological State) which has not been

mentioned in the Sūtra but is to be found in the dialogue that

follows it. Just as the taste results from a combination of

various spices, vegetables and other articles, similarly the

Durable Psychological states (Sthāyibhāva), when combined

with other Psychological States, culminates into rasa wherein

no constituent is experienced separately but all together are

experienced as one whole having a relish different from that of

any of them. In this connection S.K. De has rightly remarked :

It is practically admitted on all hands that the Rasa is

realised when a permanent mood or sthāyibhāva is

brought to a relishable condition through the three

elements, viz. the vibhāva, the anubhāva and the vyabhi-

cāribhāva.... Those elements which respectively excite,

follow and strengthen (if we may use these expressions)

the sthayibhava are in poetry and drama known as

vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva, although in

ordinary world they may be known as mundane cause and

effect (laukika kāraṇa and karya).46

Bharata has explained these terms - sthāyibhāva, vibhāva,

anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva in chapter VII of NŚ with full

clarity and lucidity.

Function of Drama

61

Sthāyibhāya (Durable Psychological State)

The word sthāyibhāva has been variously translated as a Permanent State47, Durable Psychological State48, Mental Affection49 and Permanent Mood50 etc. Though the term sthāyi does not occur in Bharata's definition of rasa, it is essential for us to elucidate it for the proper understanding of his rasa theory, as it figures in Bharata's elucidation of his Rasa-sūtra.

Explaining Sthāyibhāva P.V. Kane has stated that "Sthāyibhāva (Durable Psychological State) is like the ocean which may be now and then disturbed by other bhāvas but always retains its own position ; so sthāyibhāva is that dominant mood which is not broken up altogether by other bhāvas and makes the other bhāvas subordinate to itself."51 It cannot be subdued by another bhāva and it subsists in our mind for a long time.

It is that impression in our mind which lasts even after the mental conditions have subsided. It does not lose its individuality and finally matures into rasa. In the opinion of Bharata it is like the king or the preceptor whereas other bhāvas are like subjects or pupils.

It exists permanently in our mind, says R. Gnoli, "in the form of latent impressions (vāsanā) derived from actual experiences in the present life or from inherited instincts"52 and as such it is ready to emerge into consciousness at any moment.

It gives structural unity to the whole work as it not only dominates but unifies also the entire work into an organic whole. In the opinion of Bharata there are eight Sthāyibhāvas (Durable Psychological States) :

(i) Love (rati), (ii) Laughter (hāsya), (iii) Sorrow (śoka), (iv) Anger (krodha), (v) Energy (utsāha), (vi) Fear (bhaya), (vii) Disgust (jugupṣā), (viii) Astonishment (vismaya).

Vibhāva (Determinant)

Explaining the term (Vibhāva) Bharata observes :

The word vibhāva is used for the sake of clear knowledge. It is synonymous with Kāraṇa, nimitta and hetu. As Words, Gestures and Representation of the Sattva are Vibhāvyte (determined) by this, it is called vibhāva (Determinant).53

62

Theory of Dramı

The word vibhāva is translated as ‘determinant’ as it determines the emotions and moods to be aroused in the reader or the spectator. It arouses emotions in a manner quite different from the emotions that arise in real life G.B. Mohan54 is of the opinion that it may be described as ‘objective correlative, a term used by T.S. Eliot in Western criticism. Krishna Rayan has rightly pointed out that "if Bharata's vibhāvas and Eliot's ‘set of objects’ are placed side by side, it may be difficult to recognize them as the same articles...Bharata's correlatives are the immediate sensory equivalents of the emotion—they are direct, explicit, public, conventional"55.

There are two aspects of vibhāva—(i) Ālambana (Dependent) vibhāva (ii) Uddipana (Excitant) vibhāva. Ālambana vibhāva is the person or the object which is primarily responsible for the arousal of emotion. If there is no Ālambana vibhāva the Sthāyibhāva, though present in its latent form, cannot confine itself on a particular object. The Uddipana vibhāva is required only when the Sthāyibhāva has fixed itself upon a particular Ālambana vibhāva. The Uddīpana is the environment or the surrounding which stimulates the emotive effect of the focal point. An example from Kālidāsa's Abhijñāna Śākuntalam will make the distinction very clear. When Duṣyanta falls in love with Śakuntalā at first sight in the hermitage of Kanva, Śakuntalā becomes the Ālambana vibhāva and the entire scene of the forest with beautiful hermitage, pleasant breeze and fine sun-shine serves as Uddīpana vibhāva.

Anubhāva (Consequent)

Bharata explains the anubhāva in the following words :

Because this anubhāvayati (the spectators) i.e. make them feel afterwards) (The effect of) the Histrionic Representation by means of Words, Gestures and Sattva, it is called anubhāva (consequent).56

Anubhāva is the external manifestation of the provocation of the Sthāyibhāva. It is so called because what is represented on the stage is made to be felt and experienced (anubhāvayati)

Function of Drama

by the spectators. It is an indicator of the bhāva and com-

municates to the spectators the emotions felt by the characters.

Will the physical changes and movements which arise from

the emergence of an emotion, are known as anubhāvas. They

are of two types—(i) voluntary and (ii) involuntary. There are

some changes and movements such as the movement of eyes

and eyebrows which are supposed to be the voluntary or wilful

expression of our emotion for its proper communication to

others. There are, however, some changes such as the change of

colour, horripilation and blush etc., which automatically arise

following the emergence of emotion in our heart. The voluntary

changes are simply known as Anubhāvas, whereas involuntary

changes are considered to be the Sāttvikabhāvas. The Sāttvika-

bhāvas are so called as they arise from sattva, the very essence

of our being They are of two types--internal and external. The

internal Sāttvikabhāvas are regarded by Abhinavagupta as our

'chittavrtti', whereas external Sāttvikabhāvas get revelation in

the for.n of our physical manifestations.

Bharata57 refers to eight Sāttvikabhāvas which are as

follows : Paralysis, Perspiration, Horripilation, Change of

Voice, Trembling, Change of Colour, Weeping and Fainting.

Emphasizing the subtle distinction between Anubhāvas and

Sāttvikabhāvas K.C. Pandey has rightly pointed out that the

"eight Sāttvika Bhāvas, which are nothing more than Anubhā-

vas, but are classed separately, because they are involuntary,

and therefore are unmistakable reflexions of inner emotive

state"58.

Vyabhicāribhāva (Complementary Psychological State)

Bharata defines Vyabhicāribhāva as follows :

Vi and abhi are prefixes, and the root cara means 'to go',

'to move'. Hence the word Vyabhicārinah means 'those

that move in relation to Sentiments towards different

(kinds of objects)'...Just as the sun carries this star, so is

to be understood that the complementary Psychological

State (carry the Sentiments)59.

64

Theory of Drama

The Vyabhicāribhāva does not have an independent status of

its own and it acts just as the feeder of the Sthāyibhāva and

strengthens it implicitly or explicitly. Its relation to the Sthāyi-

bhāva has been compared to the beads on a thread. In the

opinion of Dhanamjaya60 Vyabhicāribhāvas function favourably

towards the Sthāyibhavās emerging out of, and submerging in,

the Sthāyibhāvas like ripples on the surface of the ocean.

There are thirty three61 Vyabhicāribhāvas (Complemetary

Psychological States) which are follows :

Despondency (nirveda), Weakness (glāni), Apprehension

(śaṅkā), Envy (asūya), Intoxication (mada), Weariness (śrama),

Indolence (ālāsya), Depression (dainya), Anxiety (cintā), Dist-

raction (moha), Recollec:ion (smṛti), Contentment (dṛti),

Shame (vṛida), Inconstancy (capalatā), Joy (harṣa), Agitation

(āvega), Stupor (jaḍatā), Arrogance (garva), Despair (viṣāda),

Impatience (autsukya), Sleeping (nidrā), Epilepsy (apasmāra),

Dreaming (supta), Awakening (vibodha), Indignation (amarṣa),

Dissimulation (avahitthā), Cruelty (ugratā), Assurance (mati),

Disease (vyādhi), Insanity (unmāda), Death (maraṇa), Fright

(tr sa). Deliberation (vitarka).

In order to illustrate) the nature of these Complementary

Psychological States Haas has quoted an example from Shakes-

peare's Hamlet where the impact of Ophelia's separation on

Hamlet has been vividly depicted by Polonius in Act (ii),

scene (ii) :

And he repulsed--a short tale to make—

Fell into a sadness, then into a fast,

Thence to a watch, thence into a weakness,

Thence to a lightness, and by this declension

Into the madness wherein now he raves

And all we mourn for.

The frequent changes shown in the physical as well as the

mental states of Hamlet are nothing but the vyabhicāribhāvas

as described by Bharata in his NŚ.

Function of Drama

65

We, thus, see that Bharata in NS has referred to three kinds

of Psychological States—Durable Psychological States, Comple-

mentary Psychological States and Sāttvika States. There are

in total forty nine Psychological States—eight Durable Psycho-

logical States, thirty three Complementary Psychological States,

and eight Sāttvika States. Now the question is : why are the

Durable Psychological States only converted into Sentiments

and not others ? In this connection Bharata has rightly

stated :

Just as among persons having same characteristics and

similar hands, feet and belley and celebrity some due to

their birth, manners, learning and skill in arts and crafts,

attain kingship, while others endowed with an inferior in-

tellect become their attendants, in a similar manner,

Determinants, Consequents and Complementary Psycho-

logical States become dependent on the Durable Psycho-

logical States. Being the shelter (of others) the Durable

Psychological States become masters. Similarly other

Psychological States (lit. feelings) reduced to subordination

take shelter with them (i.e. the Durable Psychological

States) due to superior marit (of the latter). Those be-

coming their retinue are the Complementary Psychological

States.'2

There are some relevant questions in connection with

Bharata’s theory of rasa which create some difficulties in the

satisfactory explanation of his Rasasūtra. Though Bharata

tries to explain it clearly, it is so complex and ambiguous in

connection with its central terms samyoga and nispatti that it

has led to a good deal of controversy among the commentators.

Since each commentator has given his own interpretation, it has

naturally led to the emergence of a number of theories on rasa.

Bhatta Lollaṭa, a Mimāṁsaka, has suggested the theory of

Utpatti-vāda, Śaṅkuka, a Naiyāyika, the anumiti-vāda, Bhaṭṭa

Nāyaka, a Saṁkhya, the bhakti-vāda and Abhinavgupta, a

Shaiva, the abhivyakti-vāda. What is common with all these

different theorists is that though they have propounded their

theories in the context of poetry and drama, they have been in-

66

Theory of Drama

fluenced by the different schools of Indian philosophy. It is,

however, to be regretted that their commentāries, except that of

Abhinavagupta, are not available to us. Whatever information

about the opinions of other commentators is available to us,

it is available only through the contextual references of

Abhinavagupta in his Abhinavabhārati.

Bhatta Lollata, a commentator of 8th and 9th centuries,

appears to be the earliest commentator on Bharata's Rasa-sūtra,

though his original work has been lost. Except the brief

review of his opinion by an adverse critic Abhinavagupta,

nothing is known to us. We may, however, formulate his

views on the basis of the existing exposition. In his opinion

sthāyibhāva which is first generated by the vibhāvas,

manifested by the anubhāvas and intensified by the vyābhicāri-

bhāvas, finally becomes rasa. He further points out that

rasa primarily exists in the original character and the actor,

by his clever and successful imitation, imitates him in form,

dress and action and thereby delights the spectator. P.V.

Kane has beautifully summarized the views of Lollata in the

following passage :

Rasa in the primary sense belongs to the hero, Rāma etc.

(i.e. Rāma loves Sītā and the dramatist describes this love

in appropriate words). The spectator ascribes to the

actor, on account of the latter's clever acting, the same

mental attitude that belonged to Rāma and the spectator's

apprehension of imputed love in the actor brings to him

delight. This is the meaning of the words vibhāva......

rasamiṣpaṭih. This view does not treat of rasa as a

matter of the spectator's aesthetic appreciation of the

inner meaning of the representation. All that Lollata

means is that the spectator is delighted by the fact that

the actor cleverly represents by his acting that he is Rāma

himself, feels the same love that the historic or legendary

person Rama felt towards the heroine. The spectator is

charmed by this.63

The actor, as Bhatta Lollata has further stated, can imitate

the original character very well with the help of anusandhi or

Function of Drama

anusamdhāna which literally refers to the process of awaraness,

recollection and reflection. The sthāyibhāva of the original

character is thus superimposed on the actor and this

superimposition gives pleasure to the spectator, as he is made

to believe that the actor is no one but the original character

itself. The actor with the help of his proper training and suita-

ble environment on the stage so completely identifies himself

with the character of the poet's conception that he moves, feels

and behaves like the original character. Now the question is :

why is Lollaṭa's theory known as the theory of utpattivāda ?

Since rasa is produced as an effect and hence the word nispatti

here means utpatti, Lollaṭa's theory is called theory of

utpattivāda.

Some objections, however, have been raised by Śaṅkuka and

others against the theory of Lollaṭa. The main objections

how can a mental state which originally belongs to the hero, be

superimposed upon the actor and how can the spectator be

delighted by a feeling which is absent in his consciousness ?

It is not possible for the spectator to have even a semblance of the

original feeling imitated by the actor and be delighted by it.

Since the spectator has never got an opportunity to see the

original character, how can the sthāyibhāva of the original

character be superimposed upon the actor and thereby how can

the spectator realise rasa ?

The next objection against Lollaṭa's theory is related to

the distinction that he draws between sthāyibhāva and rasa. In

his opinion the very sthāyibhāva becomes rasa when it is deve-

loped by vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicaribhāva. If the

highest stage in the development of sthāyibhāva is rasa, then

the problem is as to how can we believe that the Karuṇa rasa

follows the same pattern ? "For, its basic emotion, the grief

(śoka) by its very nature", says K.C. Pandey, "is such that it is most

intense only in its first stage and diminishes with the passage of

time. Therefore the talk of developing it to the highest pitch

and thus converting it into Rasa is out of question"63. Hence

Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa's theory referring to the process of aesthetic

relish is not acceptable.

68

Theory of Drama

In spite of its limitations there are some remarkable aspects of his theory which cannot be ignored. He is the first commentator to have given a clear, systematic and scientific interpretation to Bharata's rasa theory. His opinion that it is primarily the emotion of the original character in the drama that the actor tries to communicate to the spectator, is quite remarkable. His recognition of the importance of the actor's training, skill and equipment in the process of rasa realization is fully convincing.

Śrī Śaṅkuka, who is the next commentator on Bharata's Rasa-sūtra, most probably belongs to the 9th century A.D. In his opinion rasa-realisation is a process of logical inference. The spectator relishes rasa when he infers the mood of the original character in the actor. The actor through his skilful representation is taken up for the original character on the analogy by which a horse in a picture is called a horse i.e. citraturaga-nyāya. Just as while seeing a horse in the picture, we cannot say that it is a real horse but at the same time we cannot also say that it is not a horse at all, similarly, while seeing the gesticulation of the actor on the stage we cannot say that the actor is the original character but at the same time we cannot also say that the actor is altogether different from the original character. In fact the aesthetic experience resulting out of the blending of the two different situations--real and unreal--is something very unique and the distinction between the actor and the original character now disappears for the spectator P.V. Kane has rightly pointed out that "The actor who has been well trained in the art of gesticulation cleverly simulates the actions of real heroes and the spectator apprehends for the moment the actor as non-different from the real hero and infers love (of Rāma etc.) from the Anubhāva, vyabhicāribhāva presented by the actor and mutually contemplates such love and relishes it. Here rasa is no doubt spoken of in relation to the spectator ; but it is said to be a matter of inference due to clever imitation"65 This inferred mood is certainly different from the ordinary perceptions, as it has its own distinct charm and beauty.

Function of Drama

Since Śaṅkuka's theory of rasa-realisation is considered to

be the theory of inference or anumāna, it is known as the theory

of anumiti-vāda. K.C. Pandey has suggested that since Sankuka

was a Naiyāyika, he recommended the theory of inference, as

inference or anumāna is one of the four sources of obtaining

knowledge in our Indian philosophy. In his opinion, as K.C.

Pandey has pointed out, "the basic mental state is inferred from

the situation etc., which are directly perceived, such as fire,

hidden in a cluster of trees at the top of a mountain, is inferred

from the rising smoke"66 When we see that the sun changes

its place, we infer that there is movement in the sun, though we

don't perceive it directly. This is what is known as the theory

of inference or anumīti-vāda.

Śaṅkuka's theory of inference, however, could not be accep-

table to the later commentators like Bhaṭṭa Tauta and Abhinava-

gupta who raised the following objections against it :-

(i) The theory of inference ignores the well-established fact

that the inference of a thing can never give the same aesthetic

pleasure as its direct cognition.

(ii) The knowledge of inference is an invalid knowledge in

the sense that it creates a wrong impression in the mind of the

spectator that the actor is the real Rāma, the original char-

acter.

(iii) We cannot make rasa an object of cognition with the

help of the ordinary means of knowledge. Since Rāma flourish-

ed in the past, how can his feelings and emotions be directly

cognized by our present sense organs ? How can the spectator

relish the particular feelings of a particular hero like Rāma who

is certainly different or superior to himself, as his own ?

(iv) While witnessing a drama the spectator is so much

absorbed in the object of dramatic representation like that of a

yogin who enjoys the divine bliss that he does not desire for

further inference as it will obstruct the proper realisation of

rasa.

70

Theory of Drama

(v) Since imitation pre-supposes an originals and no one has seen the original character, how can anyone infer from the original ?

To this objection it has been suggested that historical or mythological characters whether actually observed or not, are lying deep at the popular consciousness.

In spite of these limitations Śaṅkuka's theory made some positive contribution to the exploration of Bharata's theory of rasa.

In comparison to Lollaṭa, Śaṅkuka recognized the more active participation of the spectator in the process of rasa realisation.

He for the first time gave a philosophical interpretation to the theory of rasa and provided a solid background for its analysis.

Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka is the next important critic of 9th century A.D. on Bharata's theory of rasa.

He refutes the earlier theories and gives a new interpretation to the controversial dictum of Bharata.

Referring to the limitations of the earlier theories he points out that Rasa or aesthetic emotion can neither be produced nor inferred.

Words in a work of art are different from those used in ordinary expression as they are endowed with three functions, namely, Abhidhā, Bhāvakatva and Bhojak-atva.

Abhidhā is not merely Denotation but is used in an extended sense of Indication or laksana also.

It gives expression to the vibhāvas as well as the sthāyibhāvas.

Then comes the second function known as Bhāvakatva, which, as S.K. De has pointed out, "is derived apparently from Bharata's general definition of Bhāva, is described as the power of generalisation which makes the vibhāvas as well as the sthāyibhāva, sensed in their general character without any reference to their specific properties"67.

It is through this process of generalisation (sadharaniकरणa) that Rāma in a drama does not appear as a lover of Sītā and Sītā as the beloved of Rāma but they appear as common lovers with their common pursuit of love.

The spectator also rises above narrow individual self and forgets his mundane preoccupations.

He is dissociated from all petty particular interests as the Bhāvakatva presents incidents and situations in their generalised forms.

Then arises the necessity of the third function Bhojakatva which brings into

Function of Drama

predominance the elements of sattva by throwing the Rajas and

Tamas into the background. The mind then becomes steady

and any kind of distraction ceases to exist. The preponderance

of the Sattva element produces illumination and a state of

perfect rest of the self within itself. In the words of K.C.

Pandey, "that state is charactarized by the absence of all con-

scious physical, psychological and volitional activities and so by

freedom from all attachment to and aversion from all that can

enter into consciousness"68. This state of aesthetic experience

is known as the state of perfect bliss and it is akin to the mystic

realisation of Brahman.

We, thus, see that rasa resides in the sthāvibhāva or the

permanent mood which is experienced in a generalised form in

poetry and drama and enjoyed by one's own blissful consciousness

which is very close to the philosophic meditation of Brahman.

Bhatta Nayaka interprets the term 'samyoga' as the cognition

of things in a generalised form and 'niṣpatti' as the enjoyment

(bhukti) of the sthayibhāva as rasa. That is why his theory is

known as 'bhuktivāda'. It makes a significant contribution to

the theory of aesthetic realisation. Bhatta Nāyaka for the first

time considered aesthetic realisation as a mental process, a

subjective experience of a refined reader or spectator. In his

theory we see a transition from objective to the subjective view

of aesthetic experience and the rasa-realisation has been explain-

ed in terms of an inward experience. His other remarkable

contribution in the field of aesthetics is his theory of genera-

lization sādhāranīkaraṇa), which is acceptable to the critics

even today.

Abhinavagupta, a major critic of 10th century A.D., and

the writer of two important works Abhinavabhārati and Dhvany-

āloka Locana, challenges the views of Bhatta Nāyak in two

different stages and offers a new solution to the problem of

aesthetic experience. He is regarded as the great exponent of

the Kāśmīrian Śaivism and a renowned critic of extraordinary

calibre. He propounded the theories of rasa and dhvani so

convincingly that he is considered to be one of the greatest

authorities in poetics and dramaturgy.

72

Theory of Drama

In the first stage Abhinavagupta does not agr e with Bhatta Nāyaka’s contention that rasa is neither produced nor inferred or apprehended. He asks how can rasa be enjoyed if it is not produced or apprehended ? If it is nothing but the relish of rasa, it is certainly an apprehension though it acquires different names on account of the different means. The same process of apprehension has been given different terminology such as direct perception, inference, analogy and intuition etc. Hence the question of rasa-realisation does not arise without apprehension or inference.

In the second stage while referring to Bhatta Nāyaka’s suggestion of the three states of mind i.e. fluidity, expansion and dilation corresponding to the three gunas, i.e., sattva, rajas and tams, Abhinavagupta points out that since the states of mind are endless, how can we restrict their number to three only ? He further suggests that Bhatta Nāyaka’s reference to the process of bhāvakatva and bhojakatva amounts to nothing but vyanjanā or suggestion. Since both the processes of bhāvana (generalisation of content through the dramatist’s skilful representation) and bhoga (relishability of the emotion) are achieved through the process of rasa-vyanjanā only, there is no need to assume two separate processes.

Abhinavagupta considers bhāvakatva to be nothing more than the proper use of guṇa and alaṃkāra for the ultimate purpose of awakening rasa which the suggestive power of word and sense creates. Absence of poetic blemishes, introduction of excellences and the proper use of the four recognized types of acting in a drama set the mind of the spectator in such a state that the vibhāvas etc. appear automatically in their generalised forms. Referring to the process of bhojakatva Abhinavagupta points out that he has no knowledge of any other process called bhoga beyond the pratīti or perception of rasa. Bhatta Nāyaka’s conception of bhoga infact consists in the asvada of rasa through the suggestive power of poetry. Hence there is no need to consider the function of bhavakatva and bhojakatva separately.

Explaining Bharata’s theory of rasa Abhinavagupta now points out that rasa is suggested by the union of the sthāyibhāva

with the vibhāvas etc. through the relation of the suggested (vyanjya) and the suggestor (vyanjaka). In his opinion the sthāyi-

bhāva or the permanent mood is lying deep in the subtle form of latent impressions in the hearts of the readers or the specta-

tors. When they read a poem or see a drama, this sthāyi bhāva is suggested by the depicted vibhāvas etc. which are generalised in

their mind and soon stripped of their peculiar conditions of time and space with the help of the suggestive power of word and

sence and their skilful representation in drama. Similarly the sthāyibhāva wherefrom the rasa originates is also generalised and

universalised as "the germ of it is already existent in the reader's soul in the form of impressions ; and this, together with the

beauty of the generalised representation of the vibhāvas etc. removes all temporal and spatial limitations"69. This state of

relish is known as rasa which is of course nothing but "an uninterrupted, ceaseless enjoyment, bereft of all feeling of

insatiety"70 Abhinavagupta explains the rasa-realisation under the anology of a beverage. Just as the beverage which is made up

of black pepper, candied sugar, camphor and other ingredients, gives us an entirely new taste from those of its constituents,

similarly rasa gives us a unique and indivisible taste which is altogether different from its constituents. In the opinion of

Abhinavagupta, since there is no other sensation of any kind to stand in the way during aesthetic experience, this rasa-realisa-

tion is called 'vitavighna pratītih'.

Since Abhinavagupta explains the word nispatti, used by Bharata in his Rasa-sūtra, as abhivyakti, his theory of rasa is

known as abhivyaktivāda. Abhivyakti is nothing but the pratīti or perception of rasa through the power of suggestion whose

ultimate result is an extraordinary state of relish. This state of relish is of course a divine bliss and it cannot be compared with

the ordinary pleasure or pain, as at this moment we are so completely lost in it that we never feel pain and if we ever feel

it, it is a pleasurable pain. Pt Jagannātha too supports this view by giving an example. When a devotee listens to a description

of the deity and is full of tears, his tears are not tears of even the slightest feeling of pain but of divine pleasure.

74

Theory of Drama

SEVEN-FOLD PSYCHIC OBSTACLES

After explaining the exact nature and apprehension of rasa,

Abhinavagupta remarks that rasa can be relished only by those

who possess a uniform residue of subliminal impressions in

their hearts, as the dull grammarians and old Mīmāṁsakās can

never relish it. He has drawn our attention to the seven-fold

obstacles in the proper realisation of rasa.

In his opinion the first obstacle is the spectator's incapacity

for rasa-realisation. If the spectator is not able to imagine the

object of apprehension and is not even able to sustain his inte-

rest, he cannot relish rasa. Abhinavagupta has also recommend-

ed two remedies in order to get rid of this obstacle. The first

remedy is that the spectator should enlarge the horizon of his

knowledge and experience so that he may develop greater sym-

pathy for and the wider perspective of the things. The second

remedy is that the dramatist should make use of the well-known

figures like that of Rāma and Sītā etc. so that it might be ap-

pealing and convincing to the spectators.

Abhinavagupta considers the lack of the proper aesthetic or

psychic distance between the dramatic situation and the specta-

tor as the second obstacle to the realisation of rasa. If the

spectator identifies the dramatic feelings with himself or with

some other person, it is certainly a hindrance in the proper ap-

prehension of rasa. The solution to this problem, Abhinava-

gupta suggests, lies in the disguising or camouflaging the

actor's personality so that "there is no apprehension that the

happiness or sorrow is of this particular actor, or of this parti-

cular time or place..."71

The third obstacle to the apprehension of rasa is the specta-

tor's over-absorption in his own personal likes and dislikes. In

this situation the spectator is so much concerned with his pri-

vate world that he cannot enjoy the incidents which are being

represented on the stage. Abhinavagupta suggests a remedy for

this obstacle. In his opinion various kinds of entertainment

such as song, dance and accomplished courtezans are employed

in order to enable the spectator to rise above his narrow per-

sonal self and enjoy the objects of representation through the

process of generalisation (sādhāranīkaraṇa).

Abhinavagupta considers simultaneously the lack of the

proper means of apprehension as the fourth and the absence of

clarity as the fifth obstacle to the realisation of rasa, as their

nature of difficulty is more or less identical. In order to get rid

of these obstacles Abhinavagupta recommends the process of

gesticulation which is "quite distinct from the process of verbal

testimony and inference, and is at par with the process of direct

perception. In other words, it creates a vivid impression on the

minds of the audience which only a real event can, and it

guarantees the apprehension of Rasa"72.

Abhinavagupta refers to the sthāvin being given secondary

importance in a play as the sixth obstacle to the realisation of

rasa. The dramatist should not give priority to the set of

vibhāvas, anubhāvas and vyabhicāribhāvas in comparison to the

sthāyibhāva, as in his opinion, whose consciousness can find

repose in an insignificant matter ? This obstacle can be removed

by giving prominence to the sthāyibhāva under the impression

that 'we shall carry the sthāyins to the state of Rasa'.

Abhinavagupta considers the creation of a doubt or uncer-

tainty as to the exact nature of the sthāyibhāva (the permanent

mood in an emotional atmosphere as the seventh obstacle to

the relish of rasa. We cannot identify the exact nature of the

sthāvibhāva simply by the anubhāvas like tears as they are occa-

sioned by sorrow as well as joy. This obstacle can, however, be

removed if we keep in view the assemblage of all the three

factors such as vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva toge-

ther. If the loss of relative is the vibhāva, lamentation and

shedding of tears anubhāva, and anxiety and misery the vyabhi-

cāribhāva, śoka or grief would certainly be the sthāyibhāva.

From the discussion of these seven obstacles and the means

of their removal, it is evident that Abhinavagupta had the capa-

city of penetrating analysis and deep insight into all those

dramatic aspects which lead to the ultimate realisation of rasa.

He discusses, as Y.S. Walimbe has pointed out, "as to how each

of the three human agencies involved in the process of Rasa—

the dramatist, the actor and the spectator or sāmājika—should

try to rise to the best of his skill and ability, how all their indi-

vidual efforts should converge towards to apprehension of

Rasa, the collective experience of human emotion in the

theatre"73.

NUMBER OF RASAS (SENTIMENTS) AND THEIR

DESCRIPTION

After defining rasa and the process of rasa-realisation,

Bharata in chapter VI of his NŚ tries to explain the origin,

colours, presiding deities and the meaning of these rasas (senti-

ments). In his opinion there are eight Sentiments (rasas)

recognized in drama which are as follows : (i) Erotic (śṛṅgāra)

(ii) Comic (hāsya), (iii) Pathetic (karuṇa), (iv) Furious (raudra)

(v) Heroic (vīra), (vi) Terrible (bhayaṅaka), (vii) Odious (bi-

bhatsa) and (viii) Marvellous (adbhuta). These eight Sentiments

originate from four major Sentiments, as is evident from

Bharata's own remarks :

The Comic (Sentiment) arises from the Erotic, the Pathe-

tic from the Furious, the Marvellous from the Heroic,

and the Terrible from the Odious.74

These four major Sentiments (rasas) seem to have been inti-

mately associated with four types of feelings which may arise in

our mind under the impact of external objects. These four types

of feelings are as follows :

(i) Vikāsa (Ardent desire) leading to the arousal of Śṛṅgāra

rasa (Erotic Sentiment).

(ii) Vist!ra (Amplitude) leading to the arousal of Vīra rasa

(Heroic Sentiment).

(iii) Kṣobha (Agitation) leading to the arousal of Raudra

rasa (Furious Sentiment).

(iv) Vikṣepha (Distraction) leading to the arousal of Vibhatsa

rasa (Odious Sentiment).

Function of Drama

77

Referring to the colours of these eight Sentiments Bharata has pointed out :

The Erotic Sentiment is light green (śyāma), the Comic Sentiment white, the Pathetic (Sentiment) grey (Kapota), the Furious Sentiment red, the Heroic (Sentiment) yellow (gaura), the Terrible (Sentiment) black, the Odious Sentiment blue and the Marvellous (Sentiment) yellow.

Regarding the presiding deities of these eight Sentiments Bharata has stated :

Viṣṇu is the god of the Erotic, Pramathas of the Comic, Rudra of the Furious, Yama of the Pathetic, Mahākāla (Śiva) of the Odious, Kālá of the Terrible, Indra of the Heroic and Brahmā of the Marvellous Sentiments.

Bharata now explains the Sthāyibhāvas of eight Sentiments, their Determinants, Consequents, Complementary Psychological States and their nature of combination leading to the realisation of rasa.

1. The Erotic Sentiment (Śṛṅgāra rasa)

The Sthāyibhāva (Durable Psychological State) of the Erotic Sentiment is love (rati), which originates from the relationship between men and women and is associated with the fulness of youth. The Erotic Sentiment is usually associated with a bright, pure, beautiful and elegant attire. In the opinion of Bharata there are two types of Erotic Sentiment—that of union and that of separation. The Determinants in the Erotic Sentiment of union are the pleasant seasons, beautiful garlands, fine ornament, the company of the intimate fellows etc. Consequents in the Erotic Sentiment which is to be represented on the stage, are the clever movement of the eyes, eyebrows, glances, soft and delicate movement of limbs, sweet and pleasant words etc. Fear, disgust, cruelty and indolence should not be considered complementary Psychological States of the Erotic Sentiment in union. The consequents of the Erotic Sentiment in separation are such as “indifference, languor, fear, jealousy, fatigue,

78

Theory of Drama

anxiety, yearning, drowsiness, sleep, dreaming, awakening,

illness, insanity, epilepsy, inactivity, fainting, death and other

conditions''??.

Whereas Bharata has mentioned two types of the Erotic

Sentiment--Samyoga (union) and vipralambha (separation),

Dhanamjaya has referred to the three varieties of the Erotic

Sentiment--Ayoga (Privation), Viprayoga (Separation) and

Sambhoga (union), the first two of which together correspond

to the Vipralambha. Referring to the difference between the

Pathetic Sentiment and the Erotic Sentiment in separation

Bharata has stated that "The Pathetic Sentiment relates to a

condition of despair owing to the application under a curse,

separation from dear ones, loss of wealth, death or captivity,

while the Erotic Sentiment based on separation relates to a

condition of retaining optimism arising out of yearning and

anxiety''78.

2. The Comic Sentiment (Hāsya rasa)

The Sthāyibhāva of the comic Sentiment is laughter, which is

aroused by the Determinants such as putting on unusual dress

and ornament, impudence, greediness, quarrel, strange move-

ment limbs, use of irrelevant words, uncouth behaviour and the

like. This Sentiment should be represented on the stage by the

consequents such as the throbbing of the lips, the nose and the

cheek, opening the eyes wide or contracting them, perspiration,

colour of the face, and taking hold of the sides. Complemen-

tary Psychological States in it are indolence, dissimulation,

drawsiness, sleep, dreaming, insomnia, envy and the like.

There are six varieties of laughter which is the Sthāyibhāva

of the Comic Sentiment--(i) Gentls Smile (smita) which refers

to the opening of the eyes wide ; (ii) Smile (hasita) reveals the

showing of the teeth to some extent ; (iii) Gentle Laughter

(vihasita) refers to the making of a soft sound ; (iv) Ridiculous

Laughter (upahasita) shows the shaking of the head ; (v) Up-

roarious Laughter (apahasita) is the laughter which is accomp-

anied by tears ; (vi) Convulsive Laughter (atihasita) amounts

to the shaking of the entire body. The first two varieties of

laughter belong to the superior, the next two to the middling and the last two to the inferior types of persons.

3. The Pathetic Sentiment (Karuna rasa)

The Sthāyibhāva of the Pathetic Sentiment is sorrow. It is aroused by the Determinants such as suffering under a curse, separation from or loss of dear ones, commotion caused by reversal of situation, death, captivity, fatal injury and such other misfortunes. This has to be shown on the stage by the consequents such as heaving of sighs, shedding of tears, paralysis, lamentation, dryness of mouth, change of colour and loss of memory etc. The Complementary Psychological States in the Pathetic Sentiment are epilepsy, depression, langour, indifference, anxiety, yearning, excitement, delusion, fainting, sadness, distraction, dejection, sickness, insanity, death, tremor, change of colour and loss of voice etc.

4. The Furious Sentiment (Raudra rasa)

The Sthāyibhāva of the Furious Sentiment is anger (krodha), It originates from Rākṣasas, Dānavas and haughty men and is caused by striking, cutting, mutilation and the fight in the battlefield. It is aroused by the Determinants such as indignation, rape, insult, false allegation, exorcising, jealousy, threatening revengefulness and the like passions. It is to be represented on the stage by the consequents such as biting one’s lip, knitting of eyebrows, red eyes, movement of cheeks, trembling, frowning, sweating, drawing of the weapons and striking the earth etc. It is to be soon followed by the following Complementary Psychological States–indignation, excitement, intoxication, inconstancy, agitation, restlessness, fury, perspiration, trembling, horripilation etc. The Furious Sentiment, in the words of Bharata, "is full of conflicts of arms, and in it words, movements and deeds are terrible and fearful"79.

5. The Heroic Sentiment (Vīra rasa)

The Sthāyibhāva of the Heroic Sentiment is Energy (utsāha). It is aroused by the Determinants such as good conduct,

80

Theory of Drama

detrmination, perseverence, courage, infatuation, diplomacy,

discipline and aggressiveness etc. It is to be shown on the

stage by the consequents such as heroism, firmness, patience,

pride, energy and diplo nacy etc. Its complementary Psycho-

logical States are pride, contentment, firmness of purpose,

judgement, agitation, indignation and horripilation etc.

6. The Terrible Sentiment (Bhayānaka rasa)

The Sthāyibhāva of the Terrible Sentiment is Fear (bhaya).

This is aroused by the Determinants such as loss of courage,

sight of ghosts and death, hideous noise, terrible cry of jackals

and owls, staying in an empty house or forest etc. It is to be

represented on the stage by consequents like trembling of all

the limbs, sweating, vomitting, spitting, fainting and the like.

The Complementary Psychological States of this Sentiment are

depression, distraction, agitation, paralysis, perspiration,

horripilatiin, fear, stupefaction, dejection restlessness, palpit-

ation of the heart and dryness of the lips etc.

7. The Odious Sentiment (Bībhatsa rasa)

The Sthāyibhāva of the Odious Sentiment is Disgust

(Jugupsā). It is aroused by the Determinants such as disgust-

ing sight, taste, smell and sound which create uneasiness and

suffocation to the spectators. It has to be staged in the form of

the consequents like contraction of the mouth and eyes, cover-

ing the nose, spitting, vomitting and shaking of the limbs in

disgust etc. Its Complementary Psychological States are

agitation, delusion, apprehension, sickness, death and the

epilaptic fit etc.

8. The Marvellous Sentiment (Adbhuta rasa)

Its Sthāyībhāva is Astonishment (vismaya). It is caused by

the Determinants like the supernatural things and seeing the

illusory and magical acts. It is to be shown on the stage by the

Consequents like exclamation of surprise, weeping, trembling,

stammering, sweating, horripilation, perspiration, uttering

words of approbation etc. Its Complementary Psychological

Function of Drama

81

States are joy, agitation, perspiration, horripilation, hurry, choking voice, paralysis and death etc.

9. Śānta Rasa

The admission of Śānta as the ninth rasa has led to a good deal of controversy among the critics. There are only eight rasas mentioned in almost all the editions (Grosset, Kāvyamāla and Kāshi) of Bharata's NŚ where in the beginning of chapter VI he has given an elaborate account of these eight rasas and their corresponding sthāyibhāvas, vibhāvas, anubhāvas and Vyabhicāribhāvas. Kālidāsa too in his Vikram. ii. 8 has credited Bharata with eight rasas only. Those who do not accept the Śānta as the ninth rasa, give the following arguments :

(i) If Śama is the sthāyibhāva of the Śānta rasa, why does Bharata not mention Śama as one of the forty nine bh vas ?

(ii) Bharata gives an account of laya, svara, guṇa, alaṁkāra, vṛtti, etc. of the eight rasas only in different sections of his work, but he does not mention Śānta in this connection.

(iii) Bharata mentions the vibhāvas, anubhāvas, and vyabhicāribhāvas of the eight rasas only. He, however, does not mention them in connection with the Śānta rasa.

(iv) Śānta cannot be admitted as rasa because it is not possible for the people to exterminate rāgī and devṣa completely.

(v) Since the real nature of Sama refers to the state of complete inaction and the lack of conflict and tension, it cannot be represented on the stage.

It is, however, to be noted that in the Gaekwad edition of his NŚ, there is reference the Śānta as the ninth rasa at the end of chapter VI. Abhinavagupta in his commentary has tried to establish Śānta as the ninth rasa. In his opinion drama or

82

Theory of Drama

poetry cannot confine itself to trivarga only, but is sure to take

into account the greater Purusārtha, i.e., Mokṣa that is the

highest goal of human life. The attitude to Mokṣa is Sama

which is the sthayibhava of Śānta rasa. Viśvanatha to accepts

the Śānta rasa, as in his view, the attainment of Sama does not

mean cessation from all activity. Even Śānta rasa is capable of

being represented and appreciated by the spectators.

S.K. De also admits the validity of Śānta rasa in literature,

as it is certainly appealing to the people of devout mind. In

his opinion there has been "a continuous stream of literature

which depicts Śānta as a Rasa. The non-mention by Bharata

is at best a technical and trifling objction"80 It is very pertinent

in this connection to mention that in many of the greatest

plays in the West Christ has been presented as the hero,

whereas Buddha has been presented as the hero in many

of the remarkable plays in the East. Theoretically both

of them are infact the ideal protagonists of the plays which

are mainly concerned with the Śānta rasa. In the opinion

of Ānandavardhan the basic rasa of the Mahābhārata is

the Śānta rasa, though it is full of conflicts and tensions.

Śānta to him, says G.B. Mohan, "was not the absence of

conflicts but the reconciliation of conflicts"81, which finally to

the state of tranquillity.

If Śānta is accepted as the ninth rasa, the question is as to

what then would be its sthāyibhāva, vibhāva, anubhāva and

vyabhicāribhāva. The sthāyibhava of the Śānta rasa is Sama.

Its vibhāvas (Determinants) are the persuit for spiritual know-

ledge and freedom from worldly desires. It is to be represented

on the stage by anubhāvas (consequents) such as mediation,

devotion, perception, recognition of truth, control and

sympathy for all the creatures etc. Its vyabhicāribhāvas

(Complementary Psychological States) are courage, indifference,

recollection and fixity etc.

So far we have considered Śānta as one of the nine rasas.

We would now consider it as the most fundamental rasa in

Indian aesthetics. Abhinavagupta considers it not only as a

rasa but "as the mahārāsa, a the basic mental state in which all

acsthetic experiences are realised and relished...all emotions in

aesthetic experience emerge out of Śānta and are in the end

submerged in it.'82 Śānta is a state of consciousness which is

free from all tensions and turmoils. It is nothing but the tran-

quillity itself, which is the ultimate and of human life.

Frequent attempts, however, have been made to enlarge the

number of rasas, though a majority of the critics feel that nine

rasas are capable of meeting the requirements of the large

number of literary productions. Bhānudattā in his Rasa Tar-

anginī has mentioned four more rasas (i) vātsalya (ii) Laulya

(iii) Bhakti and (iv) Kārpanya, though he too does not give

them an independent status. Referring to the acceptance of

nine rasas by Abhinavagupta K.C. Pandey has rightly pointed

out that he admitted nine rasas only simply because "no other

closely state admits of so interesting a presentation, nor is so

mental connected with the objectives of human life.83

Now two more fundamental issues remain yet to be resolved

in connection with Rasa-realisation. The first issue is as to

whether Rasa realisation is always pleasant or otherwise too ?

This issue has generated a good deal of controversy among the

critics and commentators. Bharata in chapter VI of his NŚ

has stated that we derive pleasure and satisfaction from rasa-

realisation :

...just as well-disposed persons while eating food cooked

with many kinds of spice, enjoy (asvadayanti) its tastes,

and attain pleasure and satisfaction, so the cultured people

taste the Durable Psychological States while they see

them represented by an expression of the various Psycho-

logical States with words, Gestures and the Sattva, and

derive pleasure and satisfaction.84

Abhinavagupta, however, has analysed the nature of nine

Sthāyibhāvas and thereby proved that the nature of eight

Sthāyibhāvas out of nine, is pleasant as well as painful whereas

the nature of Sama (which leads to the realisation of Śānta rasa)

is always delightful. It means that the nature of four Sthāyi-

bhāvas such as rati (love), hāsa (mirth), uts ha (energy) and

vismaya (astonishment) is mainly pleasant through it is not free

84

Theory of Drama

from pain. Similary the nature of the remaining four Sthāyi-

bhāvas such as Krodha (anger), bhaya (fear), śoka (sorrow) and

jugupsā (disgust) is mainly painful but not devoid of pleasure

altogether. Viśvanātha, a famous adherent of Bharata's theory

of rasa, however, feels that rasa realisation is always pleasant

and never painful. He argues :

...if there were pain in these, no body would turn his face

thither and the reading of books like the Rāmāyana would

become a source of pain, instead of pleasure as it is at

present.... People may experience sorrow and joy from

situations so far as they belong to this work-a-day world,

but pleasure along is produced from them when they are

delineated in poetry and attain the position of hyper-

physical excitements ; there is nothing illogical about the

phenomenon.85

Jagannātha also agrees with his view and says that even the

shedding of tears is the result of a pleasant experience and not

of a painful one.

In modern Hindi criticism critics like Keshava Prasad

Mishra, Bhagawan Das, Shyam Sunder Das and Hazari Prasad

Dwivedi have tried to prove through their different methods

that the end of rasa-realization is always delightful. The pur-

pose of rasa is to provide pleasure to the spectator and not to

give him mental torture. Rama Chandra Shukla, however, is

the strongest opponent of this theory that rasa-realisation is

always delightful. In his book Rasa-Mīmāṃsā he has tried to

prove that Rasa is not necessarily delightful. If śoka (sorrow)

or jugupsā (disgust) is capable of arousing pleasure in the heart

of the spectator, then it should be presumed that either the

poet has failed to communicate those feelings properly or the

spectator has not been able to understand them distinctly. In

order to substantiate his theory he gives an example from the

play Satya Harishchandra. Do we have pleasure when we see

Shaibya, the wife of king Harischandra, lamenting over the

death of her only son who had died on account of the snake-bit-

ing ? Do we not shed tears when we find her asking for coffin

Function of Drama

85

(a piece of cloth) for covering the dead body of her son ? There

may be difference in intensity and proportion in our reaction to

this pathetic scene but certainly we cannot derive pleasure from

it.

Dr. Nagendra in his book Rasa-Siddhānta has, however,

expressed his disagreement with the views of Acarya Shukla.

Like F.L. Lucas, an eminent critic of Aristotle's Poetics, he

raises this fundamental question : Do we then go to the theatre

just to shed tears ? Is the theatre a place for lamentation ?

He agrees with Acarya Shukla that the scene of Rohita's and death

the mother's lamentation over it in Satya Harishchandra is

certainly not pleasant. Any rational creature will not derive

pleasure from it. But the question is whether this scene is just

a part of the drama or the main end of the drama. What is

the intention of the playwright ? Does he want to show the

suffering of these characters or to display their sense of sacrifice

far the cause of truth ? Dr. Nagendra further points out that if

Acārya Shukla has objection to the use of the word ānanda

(pleasure) in connection with rasa-realisation, he would prefer to

use the ātmaparitosh (self-satisfaction) which the spectator

derives after sceing a drama in the theatre. If the spectator is

not able to derive self-satisfaction after seeing the drama, then

it should be understood that there is some flaw either in the

structure of the drama or in the sensibility of the spectator. Dr.

Nagendra finally concludes that there is pleasure even in our

self-satisfaction.

There is, however, some doubt which parists in our mind.

Dr. Nagendra, while referring to the death-scene of Rohita,

admits that it is certainly not pleasant, but later on points out

that it is just the momentary experience and not the end of the

whole drama. He means to suggest that the predominant rasa

in Satya Harishchandra is heroic and not pathetic. Now the

question is if any drama has pathetic (karuṇa) or Odious (bīb-

hatsa) or terrible (bhayānaka) rasa as its predominant rasa, how

can the spectator derive pleasure of even self-satisfaction ?

We

feel that Odious (bibhatsa) or Terrible (bhayānaka) rasa, being

used as predominant rasa in the drama, can never give us

86

Theory of Drama

pleasure or even self-satisfaction. That is why they are very

rarely used as predominant rasas in our plays.

The second controversial but significant issue is as to

where lies the rasa, whether in the original character or actor

or poet or spectator or the work itself ? In the opinion of

Bharata rasa is produced when there is the union of sthāyibhāva

with vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva. Hence rasa lies

in the work of art, and the spectator just enjoys it. Bharata

explains rasa as ‘āsvādya’ (object of relish). It can be made

clear by an analogy of the flower. Just as the smell lies in the

flower itself and not in the nostril of the person who enjoys its

smell, similarly rasa lies in the work of art itself and not in the

spectator who just enjoys it.

Bhatta Lollata points out that rasa does not lie in the work

of art but in the original (historical or mythical) character like

Rāma and Sītā. Rasa primarily lies in the original character

and the actor by his competent imitation imitates him and there-

by delights the spectator. Śri Śankuka, however, does not agree

with the views of Lollata. In his opinion rasa does not lie in

the original character but in the actor or in the gesticulation of

the actor. Through his successful representation the actor is

taken up for the original character and the spectator infers love

from the gesticulation of the actor. Hence rasa lies in the actor

and not in the original character.

Bhatta Nāyaka does not agree with the views of either

Lollata or Sankuka. He suggests that the Sthāyibhāva of the

spectator is uitimately converted into rasa when it is united with

the vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva in its generalised

(sādhāranikṛta) form. Hence rasa lies in the heart of the

spectator and not in the original character or the actor. Abhi-

navagupta too accepts that rasa lies in the heart of the spectator

itself.

Dr. Nagendra in his book Rasa-Siddhānta88 has pointed out

that rasa lies in the poet, spectator, and if it is a play to be

staged, in the actor also. He does not consider the work of art

as an independent entity, as in his opinion the work of art is

Function of Drama

87

nothing but the expression of the poet's experience. Hence the

question of rasa in the work of art does not arise. Dr. Nagendra

is fully conscious of the objection which may be raised against

it. Since the poet uses the historical or mythical incidents as

his subject matter, how can the work of art be considered to be

just the expression of the poet's experience only ? To this

objection Dr. Nagendra's suggestion is that the poet uses the

subject-matter not for its repetition but for the expression of

his motive or intention which is his own. Hence the attempt to

find out rasa in the work of art is not acceptable to him. He

also rules out the possibility of rasa in the original character.

Dr. Nagendra is of the opinion that rasa lies in the poet

as well as in the spectator. If the poet's expression of his

experience does not contain rasa, the rasa lying in the spectator's

heart will remain dormant. Similarly if there is no rasa in the

spectator's heart, the poet's expression alone will not be able to

arouse it in his heart. The spectator infact relishes the relish-

able state of his own being.

Now let us examine whether rasa lies in the actor or not.

Abhinavagupta considers the actor to be just a vessel. Just as

the taste of wine does not stay in the vessel, similarly rasa

does not lie in the actor who is just the means of tasting it.

Dr. Nagendra, however, does not agree with the view and says

that so long as the actor is not able to experience those feelings

and emotions himself, he will not be able to communicate them

properly to the spectators. A recent example may be given to

illustrate it. In the film Gandhi, the British actor Ben Kingasley,

who played the role of Mahatma Gandhi, had admitted in an

Interview that sometimes he had to go on fast for several days

so that he could experience the reaction of Gandhi Ji on such

occasions. This proves beyond doubt that the actor cannot be

considered to be just a vessel. After all the actor has the human

sensibility and he is bound to be influenced at least for the time

being by the various situations and psychological reactions that

he has to present on the stage.

88

Theory of Drama

III

Let us now have a comparative assessment of Aristotle's

concept of catharsis and Bharata's theory of rasa. Many

Western critics like Minturno, John Milton, Thomas Twining,

H. Weil, J. Bernays and Bywater have suggested the purgation

theory of catharsis. They interpret catharsis as a medical

metaphor keeping in view the ancient Greek theory of homeo-

pathic treatment which is similia similibus curanter, i.e., like

curing the like. An identical concept occurs in Atharva-Veda

also, from which Bharata seems to have borrowed his theory of

rasa. It discusses rasa in the sense of water and medicine which

produce good health and give divine joy. Since poison is an

anti-dote to poison, it is injected in the body in order to neut-

ralise the poison. Viṣasya viṣmausadham is a medically acceptable

formula. The Atharva-Veda refers to the process of curing

fever by sprinkling hot-water, which is much like the Greek

theory of homoeopathic treatment.

Butcher in his commentary on Aristotle's Poetics has also

drawn our attention to the similarity between the Western and

Eastern pattern of treatment :

Aristotle, it would seem, was led to this remarkable

theory by observing the effect of certain melodies upon a

form of religious ecstasy, or, as the Greeks said, 'enthu-

siasm', such as is rarely seen in this country, and whose

proper home is in the East. The persons subject to such

transports were regarded as men possessed by a god, and

were taken under the care of the priesthood. The treat-

ment prescribed for them was so far homoeopathic in

character, that it consisted in applying movement, in

soothing the internal trouble of the mind by a wild and

restless music.89

People forget their earthly existence and realise the blissful

experience when they get themselves involved in group-singing

in temples in the form of Kirtan. It is a sort of tranquillising

dose for such people who are passing through the stage of

religious frenzy. It relaxes our tension and gives emotional relief.

So far as the theory of ‘Catharsis’ is concerned, Aristotle has neither explained it nor taken care to discuss how it originates in drama. However, on the basis of the observations of the critics which we have already discussed, we have come to the conclusion that there are two stages in the realisation of catharsis. In the first stage emotions of pity and fear are evoked to a disturbing pitch and then the devastating force is spent and the mind is at rest. In the second stage the dramatic experience is exalting and ennobling. It provides a chastening calm to the mind of the spectator. It ultimately results in the liberation and purification of the mind.

Bharata, on the other hand, has defined rasa and explained the process of rasa-realisation. We realise rasa when a sthāyibhāva or a permanent mood is brought to a relishable condition by its combination with vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicaribhāva which excite, follow and strengthen the Sthāyibhāva and lead the spectator to the realisation of rasa. It has been compared to the ecstatic bliss of divine contemplation. It leads the spectator to the stage of an emotional exaltation and a state of serenity.

Just as Aristotle’s concept of catharsis reconciles the two opposite emotions of pity and fear, Bharata’s rasa theory also reconciles many opposites like ‘involvement-detachment’, ‘individual-universal’, ‘multiplicity-unity’ and ‘excitment-serenity’. It is, however, to be stated that whereas Aristotle uses the term-‘catharsis’ in the context of tragedy and the emotion of pity and fear only, Bharata’s theory of rasa takes into account all the branches of literature including drama and discusses all emotions that may arise in the human heart.

We may make an attempt to identify Bharata’s Karuna rasa (pathetic sentiment) with Aristotelian concept of pity, though it is much wider in import than pity. Bhavabhūti, a great Indian dramatist considers this rasa to be the most dominant rasa as it has the capacity to move even the mountain and crush

90

Theory of Drama

the heart of the thunderbolt. It arises in the heart on account

of the suffering under a curse, separation from the dear ones,

loss of wealth, captivity, fatal injury, death and the like. Aris-

totle's concept of pity, however, is very specific. In his opinion

pity arises on account of the suffering caused by undeserved

misfortune.

Aristotle's concept of fear has been identified with Bharata's

concept of bhayānaka rasa (terrible sentiment), which arises in

the heart of the spectator, as Bharata has pointed out, by the loss

of courage, sight of ghosts, terrible cry of jackals and owls, and

death etc. Aristotle's emotion of fear arises in the heart of the

spectator only when he feels that (i) the stuation may aggravate

and further complicate and endanger the life of the hero or the

heroine, (ii) he may be placed under similar circumstances and

may have to face the same situation.

We feel pity for others whereas we fear for others as well as

for ourselves. These emotions of pity and fear, as Aristotle has

indicated, are interrelated and interdependent. Those who can-

not fear for themselves, cannot show pity for others. Fear then

is the primary emotion which leads to the arousal of pity for

others. Pity is aroused in our heart only when we feel that a

similar suffering may befall us also. These two emotions toge-

ther are essential for a successful work of art. Pity alone is

likely to make the play excessively sentimental whereas fear

alone will make it a horror play. Bharata, however, is of a

different opinion. In his view Karuṇa rasa (pathetic sentiment)

and bhayānaka rasa (terrible sentiment) are independent rasas.

In his NŚ he points out that the theme of eight out of ten types

of drama is to be governed by eight different rasas. Each rasa

is to determine the theme of one type of drama.

Critics like Ernest Cassirer90 have compared Bharata's Śānta

rasa with the end of Aristotlian catharsis. Śānta rasa is born

out of the state of tranquillity and gives us peace and serenity.

Similarly in catharsis our soul is ultimately brought to a state

of rest and peace. R. Appa Rao, however, refers to the clear

distinction between the two :

Function of Drama

91

While Aristotle’s principle of catharsis stops at pleasure the Indian principle of rasa-experience transcends this state and reaches the state of ānanda or bliss which obviously is a higher level in aesthetic enjoyment.91

Whereas catharsis refers to the process of aesthetic pleasure, rasa transcends this stage and goes up to the level of divine bliss.

The world ‘rasa’ is such a comprehensive term that it is very difficult to find out its equivalent in English language. It has multidimensional connotations and comprehends the entire poetic process. John Dewey has admitted this fact and rightly remarked :

We have no word in the English language that unambiguously includes what is signified by the two words ‘artistic’ and ‘aesthetic’. Since ‘artistic’ refers primarily to the act of production and ‘aesthetic’ to the act of perception and enjoyment, the absence of a term designating the two processes taken together is unfortunate.92

Only the world ‘rasa’, used by Bharata for the first time, is such a term which includes the creative experience of the poet as well as the aesthetic enjoyment of the reader or the spectator ‘Rasa’ is definitely wider and deeper in its implication than the Aristotelian concept of ‘catharsis’.

REFERENCES

1. Gerald F. Else, Aristotle’s Poetics ; The Argument (Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 1957), p. 443.

2. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, vi. 2. Butcher has translated ‘Catharsis’ as ‘purgation’ : There are, however, other critics who have translated it as ‘purification’ and ‘clarification’ also. Each translation has taken a specific point of view concerning the meaning of ‘catharsis’.

92

Theory of Drama

3. The reference here is probably to the lost Second Book of

Poetics.

4. H. Rackham, trans., Aristotle : Politics, (London : Harvard

University Press, 1950), Book VIII, ch. vii, 4-6.

5. Ingram Bywater, Aristotle on the Art of Poetry (Oxford :

At the Clarendon Press, 1909), p. 155.

6. Ingram Bywater, Aristotle's Poetics : The Argument, pp.

440-41.

7. Leon Golden, "The Purgation Theory of Catharsis",

JAAC. Vol. 31, No. 3, Spring 1973, p. 474.

8. Leon Golden, Aristotle's Poetics : The Argument, p. 440.

9. Richard Mckeon, "Literary Criticism and the Concept of

Imitation in Antiquity", Critics and Criticism ed. R.S.

Crane (Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1970), p.

167. Harold Bloom ed. John Milton's Paradise Lost, Paradise

Regained Samson Agonistes (New York : Collier Books,

1967), p. 307.

11. I. Bywater, Aristotle on the Art of Poetry, pp. 56-8.

12. F.L. Lucas, Tragedy (New York : First Collier Books

Edition, 1962), p. 37.

13. Bywater, p. 159.

14. Leon Golden, "The Purgation Theory of Catharsis",

JAAC, Vol. 31, No. 3, Spring 1973, p. 473.

15. Rene Wellek, A History of Modern Criticism (1750-1950),

Vol. I (London : Jonathan Cape, 1961), pp. 171-5.

16. H. Rackham, trans. Aristotle - The Nicomachean Ethics

(London : Harvard University Press, 1947), II, vi. 9-11.

17. Bywater, pp. 160i-1.

18. Bywater, Aristotle : The Nicomachean Ethics, II, i, 7-8.

19. O.B. Hardison, Aristotle Poetics (New Jersey : Prentice-

Hall, 1968), p. 136.

20. Thomas Taylor, "From the Introduction to his translation

of the Rhetoric, Poetic and Nicomachean Ethics of

Function of Drama

Aristotle”, Aristotle's "Poetics" and English Literature ed. Elder Olson (Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 72.

21. S.H. Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, pp. 269-71.

22. Humphry House & Colin Hardie, Aristotle's Poetics (Ludhiana : Lyall Book Depot, 1966), p. 104.

23. I.A. Richards, Principles of Literary Criticism (New Delhi : Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1986), p. 193.

24. Gerald F. Else, 229.

25. Ibid., p. 231.

26. Ibid., p. 438.

27. Ibid., p. 439.

28. Leon Golden, "The Purgation Theory of Catharsis", JAAC. vol. 31, No. 3, Spring 1973, p. 473.

29. Gerald F. Else, p. 439.

30. S.H. Butcher (trans.) The Poetics, ix. 11.

31. Ibid., xiv. 1.

32. Clifford Leech, The Dramatist's Experience (London : Chatto & Windus, 1970), p. 139.

33. Leon Golden, "The Purgation Theory of Catharsis", p. 473.

34. Ibid., p. 478.

35. P.L. Entralgo, The Therapy of the Word in Classical Antiquity, (New Haven : Conn., 1970), p. 230.

36. S.H. Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, p. 255.

37. O.B. Hardison, p. 117.

38. Ibid., p. 119.

39. Eva Schaper, Prelude to Aesthetics (London : George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1968), p. 111.

94

Theory of Drama

40. S. Radhakrishnan, The Philosophy of Rabindra Nath Tagore (Baroda : Good Companions Publishers, 1961), p. 77.

41. S.K. De, Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics (Calcutta : Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay Publishers, 1960), p. 210.

42. Ibid., p. 179.

43. Bharata, NŚ, VI, Prose following verse 31.

44. Pramod Kale, The Theatric Universe (Bombay : Popular Prakashan, 1974), p, 78.

45. Pramod Kale, NŚ, VI. Prose following verse 31.

46. Pramad Kale, Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics, pp. 192-3.

47. George C.O. Haas (trans.) The Daśarūpa (Varanasi Motilal Banarasidass, 1962), p. 106.

48. M. Ghosh (trans.) The NŚ, p. 102.

49. Rakesh Gupta, Psychological Studies in Rasa (Banaras : B.H.U. Press, 1960), p. 145.

50, P.V. Kane, History of Sanskrit Poetics (Varanasi : Motilal Banarsidass, 1961), p. 301.

51. Ibid., p. 362.

52. R. Gnoli, The Aesthetic Experience According to Abhinava- gupta (Varanasi : Chowkhamba, 1968), p. xvi.

53. M. Ghosh (trans.), The Nāṭyaśāstra, vii. 4.

54. G.B. Mohan, The Response to Poetry : A Study in Comparative Aesthetics (New Delhi : People's Publishing House & Ltd., 1968), p. 17.

55. Krishna Rajan, "Rasa and the Objective Correlative" Critical Thought, eds. S.K. Desai and G.N. Devy (New Delhi : Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1987), p. 120.

56. M. Ghosh (trans.) The NŚ, VII. 5.

57. ibid., VII. 94.

58. K.C. Pandey, Comparative Aesthetics, Vol. I (Banaras : Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 1950), p. 17.

Eunction of Drama

59. M. Ghosh (trans.), The NŚ, VII. 93.

60. George C.O. Hass (trans.), The Daśarūpa, iv. 8.

61. M. Ghosh (trans.), The NŚ, VII. 92.

62. Ibid., VII, prose following 7.

63. Ibid., History of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 370.

64. Ibid., Comparative Aesthetics, p. 36.

65. Ibid., History of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 370-1.

66. Ibid., Comparative Aesthetics, p. 48.

67. Ibid., Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 201.

68. Ibid., Comparative Aesthetics, p. 62.

69. Ibid., Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 208.

70. Y.S. Walimbe, Abhinavagupta on Indian Aesthetics (Delhi : Ajanta Publications, 1980), p. 47.

71. Ibid., p. 51.

72. Ibid, p. 53.

73. Ibid., p. 59.

74. M. Ghosh (trans.), The NŚ, VI. 39.

75. Ibid., VI. 42-3.

76. Ibid., VI. 44-45.

77. Ibid., VI. Prose following 45.

78. Ibid.

79. Ibid., VI. 66.

80. Ibid., Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 143.

81. Ibid., The Response to Poetry, p. 92.

82. Ibid., p. 93.

83. Ibid., Compaaative Aesthetics, p. 174.

84. M. Ghosh (trans.), The NŚ, VI. Prose following 22.

85. Viśvanātha, Sāhityadarpana, ed., Satyabrat Singh (Banaras: Chowkhamba, 1957), pp. 113-5.

96

Theory of Drama

86. Acarya Ram Chandra Shukla, Rasa-Mimāṁsā (Varanasi : Nagari Pracharani Sabha, 1982), pp. 99-101.

87. Dr. Nagendra, Rasa-Siddhānta (Delhi : National Publishing House, 1974) ; pp. 93-111.

88. Ibid., pp. 188-90.

89. S.H. Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, p. 248.

90. Ernst Cassirer, An Essay on Man : An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture (New York : Doublebay & Co., 1956), p. 190.

91. P.S.R. Appa Rao & P.S.R. Sastry (trans.), A Monograph on Bharata's Naatya Saastra (Originally in Telugu by P.S.R. Appa Rao (Hyderabad ; Natyakala Press, 1967), p. 32.

92. John Dewey, Art As Experience (New York : Minton, Balch & Company, 1934), p. 46.

4

Structure of Drama

The structure of drama is an over-all architectonic element of drama. It is not just a series of incidents but the process of ordering and organizing them. Aristotle discusses the 'proper structure' of drama, especially the tragedy in greater depth and detail from chapter VI to XIV of Poetics. Though Bharata does not pay so much attention to the fable or the plot of drama as Aristotle has done, he is fully aware of its significance and therefore in chapter XXI of NS suggests the process the playwright should adopt in order to compose different kinds of plot in the drama.

I

In chapter VI of his Poetics Aristotle defines plot as "the arrangement of the incidents"1. The plot is not infact the 'story' but the structure or the arrangement of the incidents which make up the story. It primarily refers to, as Else has pointed out, "the shaping of the structure of incidents, the forming process which goes on in the mind (soul) of the poet"2. Here emphasis should be laid not on individual incidents but on their arrangement, the arrangement thus transforming the separate incidents into something entirely new.

Aristotle considers plot to be the soul of tragedy. The comparison of the plot with the soul of the human being is very significant. In Aristotle's biology just as the soul, i.e. form comes prior to the body, plot comes to the drama in exactly the same manner. The drama is a living organism and the plot is its animating principle. Just as the soul gives life to the body,

98

Theory of Drama

so does plot to drama. To quote Eva Schaper : 'By 'soul' we indicate that a body is alive. By 'plot', analogously, we indicate that the events presented hang together and are functionally interrelated'3.

Plot is infact the most significant ordering principle in a work of art. It is evident from the following curious analogy : 'A similar fact is seen in painting. The most beautiful colours laid on confusedly, will not give as much pleasure as the chalk outline of a portrait'4. Just as the different colours splashed on a surface without any pattern or design are not able to produce any pleasure to the spectators, the play, though full of incidents is not able to delight us in the absence of a coherent structure. Plot should be like the chalk outline of a portrait, a systematic sequence of expressions which may create a 'recognizable pattern of human behaviour' in our consciousness.

In chapter VII Aristotle points out that the 'action which is to be imitated in the drama, should be 'complete and whole, and of a certain magnitude...'5 The 'complete and whole' action refers to the movement of the entire drama from beginning to the end. Explaining the concept of a 'whole' Aristotle says that 'A whole is that which has a beginning, a middle and an end.....A well constructed plot, therefore, must neither begin nor end at haphazard, but conform to these principles'6 The terms 'beginning', 'middle' and 'end' put emphasis on a close cohesion of causes.

Critics and commentators have felt some difficulty in regard to the interpretation of these terms 'begining', 'middle' and 'end as they are absolutely abstract. Since in real life anything that happens, has its own antecedents as well as consequences, how can anything 'begin' in a drama without having its antecedent ? In the Middle Ages writers of the Christian religious drama had faced the problem and they solved it by beginning their drama with the beginning of the creation and ending it with the end of the world. We may cite, for example, the English Corpus Christi plays which begin with the beginning of the creation and end with the last judgement. Some playwrights, as Hardison7

Structure of Drama

99

has pointed out, try to solve this problem either by adopting the loose formula of 'Cradle-to-grave' or by using the social conventions such as marriage and the birth of a child etc. Aristotle, however, feels that such writings are arbitrary and produce a false unity. They depend on something on a convention which is extrinsic to the action, though the drama should emanate from and end in ction.

Now the question is as to where from the drama should begin ? Since each beginning has its own antecedent, should we go on tracing its origin or finding out its cause and effect sequence ad infinitum ? It would certainly lead to an 'endless retrograde movements. Butcher's comment in this regard is very apt :

A play must begin at some definite point, and at some definite point it must end. It is for the the poet to see that the action is complete in itself, and that neither the beginning nor the end is arbitrarily chosen. Within the dramatic action, a strict sequence of cause and effect is prescribed ; but the causal chain must not be indefinitely extended outwards.8

Some dramatists begin their plays with the murder of the rightful king ; then the society is plunged into a chaotic situation until the usurper is punished and the real heir is brought back to the throne. This pattern has been adopted by Shakespeare in his great tragedy Macbeth and a number of history plays from Richard II to to Richard III. Ibsen ha also applied this principle to his play The Ghosts. It begins at a definite stage in the life of Mrs. Alving who makes an untiring effort to free herself from the ties of her husband. The drama comes to an end when Mrs. Alving's hope for a better future is completely shattered and there is no further possibility of the extension of the plot. 'Beginning' in a drama, of course, refers to the incident that starts the process of change. 'End' refers to the specific point when the issue of the drama gets resolved.

The 'middle', unlike the 'beginning', is causally connected with what goes before and unlike the 'end' it is causally related

100

Theory of Drama

to what follows. It is very difficult to say at what point should

it be placed in the drama. This much, however, is certain that

the 'middle' of the drama should be causally connected with

what precedes and what comes after. Merely a succession of

moving scenes cannot make a coherent tragedy. It is true in

connection with the great Greek playwright Euripides who

does not try to build up 'well articulated whole' and creates

stirring situations and pathetic effects. Aristotelian principle

of 'beginning', 'middle' and 'end' is applicable to an ideal

tragedy only.

Aristotle now refers to the concept of magnitude which is

infact indispensable for the harmonious evolution of a whole.

Magnitude in his opinion stands for the physical length of a

drama. Though he does not make an attempt to prescribe any

very specific rule as to the possible length of a drama, he frankly

states that an object which is infinitely large or small, can never

be a fit object for artistic representation. He takes, for example

the whole Trojan War which has no doubt a beginning and an

end, but fails to produce the desired tragic effect as it is too

vast in its compass and therefore may seem to be merely a

series of detached incidents. Butcher's remark is quit significant :

"The whole, he says must be of such dimensions that the

memory or the mind's eye can embrace and retain it".

Just as there is an upper limit to magnitude, there should be

a lower limit to it also. Extremely short plays such as Yeats's

Plays for Dancers are not able to produce the impact of a coher-

ent work of art. Referring to the essential requirement of the

magnitude Aristotle has expressed similar views in his Politics

too :

Beauty is realized in number and magnitude......To the

size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things,

plants, animals, implements......For example a ship which

is only a span long will not be a ship at all, nor a ship a

quarter of a mile long......In like manner a state when

composed of too few is not......self-sufficing ; when of too

many ....it is not a state, being almost incapable of con-

stitutional government10.

Structure of Drama

101

A drama which is lacking in magnitude, can never become

a coherent work of art. Improper size in both nature and art

creates confusion and incoherence. Why an upper limit or a

lower limit should be imposed on the size of a drama, is frankly

stated by Aristotle in the following lines :

Hence a very small animal organism cannot be beautiful ;

for the view of it confused, the object being seen in an

almost imperceptible moment of time. Nor, again, can

one of vast size be beautiful, for as the eye cannot take it

all in at once, the unity and sense of the whole is lost for

the spectator ; as for instance if there were one a thousand

miles long.11

In order to determine the magnitude in a drama, the most

common principle is that it should be as long as possible but

not to the extent of becoming ambiguous. Aristotle clearly

suggests that the drama must have the greatest extension and

variety but it should never violate the rule of comprehensibility

and unity of impression. Butcher remarks : "A play should be

of a magnitude sufficient to allow room for the natural develop-

ment of the story. The action must evolve itself freely and

fully, and the decisive change of fortune come about through

the causal sequence of events"12.

Aristotle further discusses unity of plot which is intimately

related to wholeness and magnitude. Explaining the concept of

the unity of plot he remarks :

Unity of plot does not, as some persons think, consist

in the unity of the hero. For infinitely various are the

incidents in one man's life which cannot be reduced to

unity ; and so, too, there are many actions of one man

out of which we cannot make one action. Hence the error

as it appears, of all poets who have composed a Heracleid

or Thescid, or other poems of the kind. They imagine

that as Heracles was one man, the story of Heracles must

also be a unity.13

102

Theory of Drama

Aristotle rejects the idea that since several incidents occur in

the life of a single individual, they are part of the same action

and lead to the unity of plot. Mutually heterogenous incidents

such as the award of the Notel Prize and the death of the son

may occur in the life of an individual but they will never lead to

the unity of plot, as one would lead to the "fortunate" and the

other to the "fatal" plot. Hence all the incidents, since they

occur in a single individual's life, cannot lead to the unity of

plot. The great epic writer Homer was wise enough to avoid

this error :

In composing the Odyssey he did not include all the ad-

ventures of Odysseus--such as his wound on Parnassus,

or his feigned madness at the mustering of the host--

incidents between which there was no necessary probable

connection, but he made the Odyssey, and likewise the

Iliad to centre round an action that in our sense of the

word is one.14

The unity of plot can be maintained mainly in two ways

(i) by making a causal connection among the different parts of

the drama, (ii) by directing the whole series of events to a

definite end. "The end is linked to the beginning", says

Butcher, "with inevitable certainty and in the end we discern

the meaning of the whole. In this powerful and concentrated

impression lies the supreme test of unity."15

The different parts of the drama should be so structurally

unified, that, in the words of Aristotle himself, "if any one of

them is displaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed and

distributed. For a thing whose presence or absence makes no

visible difference, is not an organic part of the whole."16 If

any episode is not necessary or probable in the unified structure

of the plot, it is certainly a digression. Digression in a drama

is not only inartistic but also dilutes the dramatic effect and

finally makes it difficult for the reader to have a sense of the

whole. We may take, for example, Shakespeare's Hamlet

where a slight change in the sequence of incidents leads to a

significant difference in the meaning of the drama. In the

original Hamlet Hamlet meets Ophelia after the famous soli-

loquy 'To be' or not to be and since he is extremely perturbed, he

abuses the woman he had earlier loved. Sir Laurence Olivier in

his movie version of Hamlet transposed the two incidents in

such a manner that Hamlet's conversation with Ophelia preced-

ed his famous soliloquy. This slight modification in the

arrangement of incidents, says Hardison, 'threatens to change

the play from high tragedy to a melodrama about an adolescent

having troubles with his lady friend !'117 The difference between

Shakespeare's Hamlet and Olivier's Hamlet suggests two points:

(i) Plot is certainly more important than character or other

elements of drama and (ii) the proper sequence of incidents

brings out the necessary or probable relations and leads the

drama to a definite end.

Aristotle carries the discussion forward from the inter-

pretation of the unity of plot to the discussion of the sources of

poetic unity, that is, the principle of probability and/or neces-

sity. Now the question is as to what the principle of probability

and necessity means. It is normally considered to be the

'unifying principle' brought out by the arrangement of incidents

in a drama. Some commentators try to differentiate the mean-

ing of probability and necessity and relate them to certain

aspects of drama. Summarizing the views of Tedford, Hardison

point out that "...in the Sequence 1-2-3, the relation between 1

and 2 is necessary because 1 is in the past; but the relation

between 2 and 3 is only probable since 3 has not actually

happened. He further speculates that pity is related to

necessary events, because pity is appropriate only for things

that have happened, and fear to probable events, since we only

fear what may happen but has not yet happened'".18

Probability and necessity are thus the principles of

causality. In the sequence of episodes A-B-C, the dramatist

may present A as the "cause" of B and B as the "cause" of C

in the simplest and the most common sense of the term. In

Euripide's play Medeia Jason's decision to marry the daughter of

Creon, the king of Corinth, becomes the cause of Medeia's

anger which in turn, results in Creon's decree of banishment.

However, this is not always true. In Sophocle's Oedipus, the

104

Theory of Drama

King the messenger's arrival is certainly the immediate cause for

the blinding of the king, but what causes the messenger's

arrival at the right moment? Similarly in Shakespeare's

Henry IV Part I how does a scene in the Boar's Head Tavern

become the "cause" of a scene at the rebel camp? These

incidents cannot be explained with the help of the principles of

causality. They are of course based on chance, although

Aristotle considers a plot based on chance as inartistic.

Aristotle points out that the plots which are lacking in

probability or necessity are known as 'episodic'. Episodic plot

is considered to be the worst type of plot by Aristotle :

Of all plots and actions the episodic are the worst. I call

a plot 'episodic' in which the episodes or acts succeed one

another without probable or necessary sequence. Bed

poets compose such pieces by their own fault, good poets,

to please the players; for, as they write show pieces for

competition, they stretch the plot beyond its capacity,

and are often forced to break the natural continuity.19

In dramatic competitions the length of a drama is not to be

decided by the action of the drama but by the number of

dramas to be staged. If the dramatist makes an unnecessary

addition of the incidents either to please the actors or to cope

with the requirements of the dramatic context, he is forced to

the plot and are hence "episodic".

Aristotle, however, is convinced that the principle of pro-

bability and necessity cannot in itself evoke the intensity of pity

and fear. A second condition which is more important, is

required. To quote Aristotle himself, "such an effect is best

produced when the events come on us by surprise; and the

effect is hightened when, at the same time they follow as cause

and effect. The tragic wonder will than be greater than if they

happened of themselves or by accident; for even coincidences

Structure of Drama

105

when he was watching a festival nearby. Such a device may

not be perfect from the artistic point of view but it would

certainly be appealing to popular credulity, as "Such events

seem not to be due to mere chance. Plots, therefore, cons-

tructed on these principles are necessarily the best.21

Aristotle, however, is cautious about the excessive use of

"surprise", as it would lead not to the creation of an ideal

tragedy but to a melodrama. The sense of 'surprise' may

also be produced with the help of the divine agency which is

known as deux ex mechina. We may see much examples in the

gods of Prometheus Bound, the Furies of the Eumenides, the

dragon-car of Medea, the Ghost of Hamlet and the witches of

Macbeth. Aristotle is definitely not in favour of the use of

"miracles" or the supernatural occurrences which are extrinsic

to the plot of the drama. If the marvellous or the supernatural

occurs in a drama, it should be an integral part of the necessary

or probable sequence of incidents and not extrinsic to it. Refer-

ring to the question as to what kind of things should not be

presented in a drama, Aristotle pointed out that things which

are either, impossible, or irrational, or morally hurtful, or

contradictory, or contrary to artistic correctness"22 should not

be presented in the drama, as they would violate the principle

of necessity and or probability in drama.

After discussing the significance of the principle of probabi-

lity and necessity for the unified structure of the plot. Aristotle

divides plot into two categories--Simple and Complex. He

defines the Simple plot as follows :

An action which is one and continuous in the sense above

defined, I call simple, when the change of fortune takes

place without Reversal of the Situation and without

Recognition.23

There are two essential requirements for the simple plot--

(i) it should be continuous and single, (ii) the 'shift' in it should

take place without reversal or recognition. In a simple plot

there should be the direct movement of the hero's fortunes from

happiness to sorrow or vice versa. There should rather be an

106

Theory of Drama

indeterminate movement from beginning to end. It is, however,

to be pointed out that "In Aristotle's view, pity and fear cannot

be aroused to their fullest measure by a simple plot, that is, one

in which the outcome is foreseen all the way from the begin-

ning ; or, to put it in his terms, one in which the tragic 'change'

moves in a straight line from happiness to unhappiness or the

reverse."24

Aristotle, therefore, prefers the Complex plot, as it is cap-

able of arousing the tragic emotions more effectively. In the

Complex plot the outcome is unexpected but logical and con-

vincing. Defining it he says :

A Complex action is one in which the change is accom-

panied by such Reversal, or by Recognition, or by both.

These last should arise from the internal structure of the

plot, so that what follows should be the necessary or pro-

bable result of the preceding action.25

In a Complex plot the hero rises to a certain point which is

known as the climax and then suddenly makes a retreat to the

final catastrophe. Reversal and recognition are the two funda-

mental aspects of the Complex plot ; they are a formal necessity

in the properly organized plot of a drama. However, they

should not be imposed upon the plot ; they should rather auto-

matically develop from the structure of the plot itself on the

basis of probability or necessity. In the opinion of Aristotle,

"It makes quite a difference whether they occur because of these

events or merely after them".26

If the reversal and recognition are the integral parts of the

Complex plot, what does Aristotle mean by them? He defines

peripety (reversal of situation) as follows :

Reversal of the Situation is a change by which the action

veers round to its opposite, subject always to our rule of

probability or necessity.27

There has been a good deal of controversy over the interpre-

tation of the term 'peripety'. Butcher translates it as 'reversal of

Structure of Drama

107

situation', Hardison as 'reversal of fortune' Vahlen and Humphry

House as 'reversal of intention', Wimsatt & Brooks as 'reversal

of expectation or frustation of purpose'. F.L. Lucas interprets

it as an "unexpected catastrophe resulting from a deed un-

wittingly done"28, whereas Bywater suggests that "a peripety is

said to take place when something done by a man with a certain

end in view has consequences of a directly opposite kind"29.

To my mind the most convincing interpretation of this term has

been suggested by Gerald Else who points out that peripety is

"an unexpected yet logical shift in the events of the play from

happiness to unhappiness or the reverse".30 There may be con-

troversy over the interpretation of this term 'peripety' but it is

certain that reversal is inevitable in a complex plot and if the

reversal is 'sudden' and 'unexpected', it is most likely to have a

greater impact upon the audience. Aristotle's reference to

Sophocles' play Oedipus, the king is the most appropriate

example. In this play the messenger comes to cheer Oedipus and

relieve him of his suspicion about his identity, but his revelation

produces and relieve him of his suspicion about his identity,

but his revelation produces the effect he had never intended to

produce. We find peripety in Lynceus--a lost play of Theodektes

where the hero Lynceus is being led by Danaus to be executed--

but suddenly the hero is saved and Danaus killed. Peripety

may be seen in Euripides' play Iphigenia in Tauris also where

Iphigenia who is prepared to kill the stranger, recognizes at the

most crucial moment that the stranger is no one but her own

brother and thus saves his life.

The most forceful tragedy, however, is that tragedy where

people are not struck down by their Destiny or Chance such as

Job or Maurya in Riders to the Sea, nor are they annihilated by

their enemies such as Polyxena or Henry VI. It becomes most

effective only when they become the cause of their own destruc-

tion. For example, Oedipus tries his best to run away from

the kingdom of his parents so that the prophecy might not

prove true, but he falls a prey to his own scheme. Shylock with

the help of his Bond wants to take away the life of Antonio,

but he is finally entrapped in it. The trial scene in The Marchant

of Venice may be considered to be one of the best examples of

108

Theory of Drama

peripety or the reversal of situation. Othello finally realises his

error and curses himself for destroying the priceless jewel of

his life. These are all the examples of 'peripetaias' in the true

Aristotelian sense of the term. It comes very close to Horatio's

utterance in Shakespeare's Hamlet -"purposes mistook, Fallen

on the inventors' heads".

Aristotle now defines the second term 'anagnorisis' or

recognition as follows :

Recognition, as the name indicates, is a change from igno-

rance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the

persons destined by the poet for good or bad fortune.31

We normally understand the term 'anagnorisis' in the sense

of the recognition or discovery of a person's identity or of

things unknown before. Greek playwrights used anagnorisis as

an artificial device strictly in this sense of the term. Modern

critics, however, have widened its scope and gone to the extent

of defining it as "the realisation of truth, the opening of the

eyes, the sudden lightning flash in the darkness"3. It is a kind

of recognition which is gained by the tragic characters through

their sufferings. From these sufferings emerges a new "percep-

tion, insight, understanding, perhaps even wisdom--for which

we can use Aristotle's term anagnorisis"33. An American play-

wright Maxwell Anderson admits that it is of course very diffi-

cult to find out scenes of recognition in Shakespeare's plays or

in modern plays as they have become subtle in comparison to

the recognition scenes in the Greek plays. Nevertheless "the

element of discovery", says Anderson, "is just as important as

ever. For the mainspring in the mechanism of a modern play is

almost invariably a discovery by the hero of some element in

his environment or in his own soul of which he has not been

aware-or which he has not taken sufficiently into account....

The leading character, let me say again, must make the dis-

covery ; it must affect him emotionally ; and it must alter his

direction in the play"31. When the development of the

incidents in the drama lead the hero from darkness to light,

from ignorance to knowledge or self awareness, it is

known as recognition. We may cite so many examples

Structure of Drama

109

in order to justify this interpretation of the term 'anagnorisis'.

There is recognition in Shakespear's Othello when we find that

the hero ultimately realises the true facts of his own tragedy,

though as a result of his own ruin. Anagnorisis occurs in

Hamlet in the 'play within the play' when Hamlet discovers that

his uncle Claudius is undoubtedly the murderer of his father.

Lear undergoes anagnorisis which changes him from a foolish

and egoistic old man to a man of humility, pity and self-

knowledge. Anagnorisis can be seen in Ibsen's Doll's House too,

where we find that Nora finally realises that she had been living

all these eight years with a stranger.

Now the question is whether reversal and recognition are

closely related to each other or they are distinct from each

other. Aristotle has hinted at both the possibilities but in his

opinion they are most effective when they are combined toge-

ther. To quote Aristotle himself : "The best form of recogni-

tion is coincident with a Reversal of the Situation, as in the

Oedipus. Tnere are indeed other forms".35 In Oedipus, the king

the recognition is the discovery by Oedipus of his identity as is

reported to him by the messenger. Then immediately the rever-

sal starts and the king blinds himself. Similarly in Iphigenia at

Tauris as soon as Iphigenia recognizes that the victim to be

sacrificed is no one but her own brother, reversal at once takes

place and Iphigenia who was prepared to kill the stranger, now

tries her best to save his life. In these plays the recognition

and reversal are so intimately interwoven that it is very difficult

to separate them. There are, however, certain plays where

recognition occurs without reversal and vice versa. In some

plays the hero is able to learn the identity of his victim without

any reversal following, such as Heracles in Hercules Furens and

Agave in the Bacchae. There are other plays where reversal

"takes place without any recognition of the identity of the per-

sons involved, such as Admetus in the Alcestis and Creon in

Antigone.

Scenes of recognition are so significant and useful for the

playwrights that, as Frye has pointed out, "although already

discussed in chapters 10 and 11, further instructions for their

110

Theary of Drama

criticism and construction are now added in chapter 16".63 Some critics like Hardison consider this chapter to be an interpolation, as its discussion does not add anything new to the understanding of recognition scenes in Greek tragedies. It is, however, to be pointed out that this chapter does throw some light on the subtle technicalities of recognition scenes. Hence its relevance.

In the opinion of Aristotle there are six kinds of recognition. The first and the least artistic form of recognition is the recognition by signs or marks.37 With the help of these signs or marks recognition takes place at a crucial stage in the drama and leads to the reversal of incidents. In chapter XIX of the Odyssey there is the Bath scene where the old nurse Eurycleia, keeping in view the social custom, washes the feel of the stranger who is Ulysses himself in the disguised form. In the process of washing, the nurse discovers the old scar on his thigh and recognizes him. It is certainly a better way of discovery as it arises out of the incidents themselves. The inferior type of recognition is the recognition of Ulysses by the swincherds in chapter XXI. Here Ulysses himself refers to the scar on his thigh as a mark of recognition. This is certainly unusual and hence inartistic.

The second kind of recognition is the recognition invented by the poet's mind. This kind of recognition is manipulated exclusively by the poet himself without paying any regard to the principle of necessity and/or probability in the drama. It is evident from the recognition scene of Orestes in Euripides' play Iphigenia in Tauris. When the sacrifice is just to take place, the exclamation of Orestes, "My sister, my dear sister, from one sire/From Agamemnon sprung, turn not away", appears to be most unnatural and improbable at this moment. This statement does not arise out of the development of the incidents, but is invented by the poet himself in order to enable Iphigenia to recognize her brother.

The third form of recognition, says Aristotle, "depends on memory when the sight of some object awakens a feeling".38

Structure of Drama

111

He cites two examples in order to substantiate this type of recognition. The first is in connection with The Cyprioe of Dicaeogenes, a fourth century tragedian. When Teucer who is in disguised form, sees the picture of his father Telemon, he bursts into tears and is thereby recognized in Salamis. The second example is related with the eighth book of the Odyssey, where Ulysses, who is a stranger at the palace of king Alcinous, is so moved by the minstrel's chant in connection with the fall of Troy that he starts weeping and is thereby recognized by the king. In the words of Hardison, "Since the incident depends on a chain of prior incidents extending back to the fall of Troy, it is less arbitrary than recognition by signs or by the poet's contrivance"39.

The fourth kind of recognition is related to the process of logical speculation. The character is supposed to argue and reach the logical conclusion. Aristotle cites the first example from Aeschylus' second play Choephoroe from his Oresteia trilogy, where Electra recognizes her brother Orestes through the process of reasoning. Aristotle next refers to the discovery by Iphigenia of her brother's identity on the basis of inference in the play of Polyidus the Sophist. He further mentions two plays—Tydeus and Phincidae which have unfortunately been lost.

The fifth kind of recognition refers to the recognition by false reasoning which is of course a difficult concept. Here the text is ambiguous and the play mentioned i.e. Ulysses the False Messenger is not available to us. It has been considered as the recognition by bluff which is often used by the detectives. It is better to quote Aristotle himself : "A said that no one else was able to bend the bow ; ...hence B (the disguised Odysseus) imagined that A would > recognize the bow which, in fact, he had not seen ; and to bring about a recognition by this means—the expectation that A would recognize the bow—is false inference"40. Lane Cooper41, however, tries to make it clear by the following example. Joseph's brethren show Jacob the coat they had dipped in goat's blood, and Jacob says : 'It is my son's coat ; an evil beast hath devoured him'.

112

Theory of Drama

The sixth kind of recognition is the best type of recognition as it "arises from the incidents themselves where the startling discovery is made by natural means"42. Aristotle illustrates it by his most favourite play—Oedipus, the king by Sophocles. In this play an astounding revelation is made to the king leading to the recognition of his own identity out of the natural growth of the plot without taking recourse to the process of inference or evidence of tokens or scars. At the end of the chapter Aristotle categorizes these six kinds of recognition in order of priority—recognition arising from the plot is ranked first, then comes the recognition through reasoning and last comes the recognition through signs or external aids.

After discussing reversal and recognition Aristotle takes up a third component of plot—pathos or the Scene of Suffering. Now the question is : what does the Scene of Suffering mean? Aristotle defines it as follows :

The Scene of Suffering is a destructive or painful action, such as death on the stage, bodily agony, wounds and the like42.

Aristotle had already defined tragedy as pitiable and fearful and his definition of the Scene of Suffering certainly refers to its pitiable and fearful content. Although he does not elaborate it further, one thing atleast is certain that most of the tragedies possess one major pathetic scene which deeply effects the whole drama. The pathetic scene in Aeschylus' Agamemnon, for example, is seen in the murder of the king by his own wife Clytemnestra. We see example of pathetic scene in Oedipus, the king when Oedipus blinds himself on account of the unthinkable mistake that he had committed, or in Ruripides' Medea when Medea kills her own children in a mood of vengeance against her husband.

Aristotle now proposes to discuss "what the poet should aim at, and what he should avoid, in constructing his plots; and by what means the specific effect of Tragedy will be produced"43. Though different elements in tragedy can be combined in so many different ways, Aristotle tells us which

Structure of Drama

113

combination will be able to produce the best tragic effect. In

his opinion a perfect tragedy should be based on a complex

rather than a simple plot and it should be able to excite pity

and fear. He then suggests that the following three types of

complex plot should be avoided, as they would never be able

to produce an ideal tragedy :

1. There is a complex-fatal plot where the protagonist is a

perfectly virtuous man who comes to an unhappy end in the

last. Aristotle, however, suggests that "the change of fortune

presented must not be the spectacle of a virtuous man brought

from prosperity to adversity ; for this moves neither pity nor

fear ; it merely shocks us"44. It is certainly repellent to our

ethical sense to see a perfectly virtuous man falling from

prosperity to adversity. A perfect man make no "miscalculation"

and even then if he meets with a fatal end, it violates the

principle of probability and/or necessity which are the basic

requirements of drama. This type of plot fails to produce any

sensible or intelligible relation between the character of the

hero and his fatal end. The only possible justification may be

the role of chance which brought the hero to such a tragic end.

But we should not forget that Aristotle considers the plot

involving chance to be the worst type of plot. It lacks unity

and coherence. It seems as if episodes have been strung

together in order to make a viable plot. Such a plot fails to

produce pity and fear no matter how terrible the particular

incidents are, because the downfall of a supremely good hero

is merely shocking to the spectators. We should not, however,

think that Aristotle is here preaching didacticism or is talking

of poetic justice. Hardison has rightly remarked that "Aristotle

merely insists that in the best tragedy there must be a relation

between character and destiny. If no such relation exists, the

tragedy lacks unity--it becomes incoherent and, of course,

cannot fulfil its tragic "function"45.

Butcher, however, does not agree with the stand taken by

Aristotle. He points out that "Aristotle had not to go beyond

the Greek stage to find a guiltless heroine whose death does

not shock the moral sense. Nothing but a misplaced ingenuity,

or a resolve at all costs to import a moral lesson into the

drama, can discover in Antigone any fault or failing which

entailed on her suffering as its due penalty"46 Butcher's opinion,

however, that Antigone is a flawless character is open to

question. The flaw in her character lies in the fact that she

considers the partial truth to be the absolute truth. No one

has the right to deny the equally justifiable claim of others just

for the satisfaction of his own claim exclusively. There may

be controversy over the issue as to whether the denial of even

the burial ceremonies to a traitor is a humanely acceptable

proposition or not ; but no one should ignore this fact that

the State cannot encourage traitors and allow them or their

relatives to keep the law in their own hands. This is what

Antigone does and therefore comes to a tragic end.

2. Aristotle next talks of a complex fortunate plot where

an extremely evil protagonist is shown passing from adversity

to prosperity. He is of the opinion that "nothing can be more

alien to the spirit of Tragedy; it possesses no single tragic

quality, it neither satisfies the moral sense nor calls forth pity

or fear"47. The presentation of a bad man passing from

adversity to prosperity is really the must untragic situation as

it cannot arouse the proper tragic emotions. Such a plot

should not be presented on the stage as instead of arousing

pity and fear it would lead to the arousal of 'the righteous

anger' or 'moral indignation' in the hearts of the spectators.

Butcher in this regard has rightly stated that "the doubt and

disturbance which arise from the spectacle of real life will be

reproduced and l erhaps intesified. In the drama our view of

universe needs to be harmonised, not confused ; we expect to

find the connexion of cause and effect in a form that satisfies

the rational faculty"48.

3. The third type of plot is the complex-fatal plot where a

'villainous' protagonist is seen moving from prosperity to

adversity. In a drama if the villainous protagonist gradually

destroys himself or is destroyed on account of his evil designs,

it is satisfying to the moral sense of the spectators. It is the

principle of morality that vice ultimately brings ruin to the

sinner. Hence this type of plot is the best kind of plot from

the didactic point of view and is certainly most edifying.

Aristotle too admits it but with his own reservations :

A plot of this kind would, doubtless, satisfy the moral

sense, but it would inspire neither pity nor fear; for

pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the

misfortune of a man like ourselves. Such an event,

therefore, will be neither pitiful nor terrible.49

Aristotle's argument is quite convincing. Emotions of pity

and fear are not produced when we see an evil man punished

and good man rewarded. Pity cannot arise in our heart for

a bad man like Richard III who fully deserves his misfortune.

It may be edifying but it is bound to be tedious and sentimental

also. It is not the function of catharsis to suggest that he got

exactly what he deserved. If catharsis means clarification of

pitiable and fearful incidents, there is no need of clarification

in such a plot, as the issues at stake are already clear.

4. Aristotle at last discusses the fourth type of plot which

he considers to be the best for an ideal tragedy. It fulfils all

the requirements of a powerful tragedy. It is known as the

complex-fatal plot but it is different from the first type of

complex-fatal plot in the sense that whereas the protagonist in

the first type of plot is 'an unqualifiedly virtuous man', in the

fourth type of plot he is neither too good nor too bad but has

a leaning towards goodness. He is such a character that he

stands midway, as Aristotle himself has stated, "between these

two extremes,- that of a men who is not eminently good and

just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or

depravity, but by some error of frailty. He must be one who

is highly renowned and prosperous, a personage like Oedipus,

Thyestes, or other illustrious men of such families".50 Aristotle

is right in his view that the hero in such a pot should be neither

supremely good nor entirely depraved. He should be just and

good but not perfect. He should meet his downfall not through

some vice or depravity in character but through some hamartia.

Fyfe has rightly pointed out that "there must be some error or

116

some flaw in his character-something wrong about him-

which is the cause of his downfall. But we must never feel that

he deserves it. It must be a venial error, a 'little rift within the

lute'.51 Butcher's remark is also very significant in this regard

and makes Aristotle's stand very clear : 'As it is, we arrive at

the result that the tragic hero is a man of noble nature, like our-

selves in elemental feelings and emotions; idealised, indeed, but

with so large a share of our common humanity as to enlist our

eager interest and sympathy. He falls from a position of lofty

eminence; and the disaster that wrecks his life may be traced

not to deliberate wickedness, but to some great error or

frailty'.52

Aristotle's use of the term 'hamartia' in connection with the

character of the hero which leads to his downfall, has led to a

good deal of controversy among critics. It has been interpreted

by different critics in different ways. It has been explained as

'flaw' by Butcher and Bradley, as 'error' by Bywater, Rostagni

and Humphry House, as 'sin' by Lane Cooper and as 'mistake'

by Hardison and F.L. Lucas. Now the question is: which inter-

pretation is most appropriate in the context of Aristotle's use

of 'hamartia' in chapter XIII of his Poetics ?

Let us first look at the origin of the term 'hamartia'. Etymo-

logically it is derived from the verb hamartanein which means

'to miss the mark, to err, to fail'. Hamartia is infact a meta-

phor taken from archery and literally refers to a 'mis-shot' or

'missing of the mark'. V. Rai has explained it clearly in the

following lines : "you shoot an arrow in one direction with the

best of intentions and yet it so happens that it has hurt one you

never wanted to hurt. In other words, it is simply an error of

judgement caused by ignorance or inadequate knowledge of facts

for which the character is not morally responsible".53 In the

Greek Old Testament the word 'hamartia' has been used in the

context of 'sin'. The interpretation of 'hamartia' as 'sin' in the

context of Aristotle's Poetics is certainly not acceptable, as

Aristotle has clearly stated that the misfortune of hero should

not come about by any vice or moral depravity.

Structure of Drama

117

Though Butcher admits that there are various 'shades of meaning' so far as the interpretation of 'hamartia' is concerned, he clearly suggests that it is a 'flaw' in the character of the hero. It may denote, as Butcher has pointed out, "a defect of character, distinct on the one hand from an isolated error or fault, and, on the other, from the vice which has its seat in a depraved will. This use, though rarer, is still Aristotelian. Under this head would be included any human frailty or moral weakness, a flaw of character that is not tainted by a vicious purpose'54. In order to illustrate his point of view Butcher suggests that Hamlet, Othello, Lear, Macbeth and Coriolanus met with their tragic ends through some defect or flaw in their character. Hamlet's indecision of excessive reflectiveness, Othello's credulity, Lear's vanity, Macbeth's ambition and Coriolanus' pride were the tragic flaws in their character which led them to their fatal end.

We should not, however, forget that Aristotle used the term 'hamartia' in the context of Sophocles' ideal tragedy Oedipus, the king. Now, the question is : Does 'hamartia' mean either a 'tragic flaw' or a 'tragic error' in the context of Oedipusy ? Whereas the 'flaw' refers to the physiological set-up and is the result of a permanent state of mind, error refers to an isolated act resuiting from the ignorance of some material fact or circumstance. Though Oedipus is a man of hasty and impulsive temperament with too much of self-confidence, his temperament does not become the cause of his tragic end. Is he really in a position to alter the course of his destiny which is almost pre-determined ? It is really due to circumstance or the ignorance of parentage that he meets with his tragic end. Anything wrong committed under ignorance or on account of the lack of proper information, cannot be considered to be a 'flaw' in the character of the hero. It is just an error resulting from the ignorance of a particular fact. That is why Bywater and House interpret 'hamartia' as an 'error'.

Lucas and Hardison, however, try to explain 'hamartia, as a mistake rather than as a vice or sin. Lucas points out that when "we seek the 'hamartia' in more modern tragedy like

118

Theory of Drama

Ibsen's it becomes clearer than ever that an intellectual mistake is all that the term need mean''55. In Ibsen's play The Ghosts Mrs. Alving's submission to the marriage-yoke with her husband Captain Alvin who was the patient of a virus disease, proved to be her fatal mistake and ultimately led to her fatal doom.

When we scrutinize all these translations of 'hamartia' as 'sin' or 'flaw' or 'error' or 'mistake', we come to the conclusion that no single English term can convey the full meaning of the Greek term 'hamartia'. In general we may say that anything wrong committed either on account of the lack of proper information or on account of the particular type of hero's temperament or due to typical circumstances, is 'hamartia'. The most important thing about 'hamartia' is that it should always be 'unintentional'. The audience should not suspect the motive of the hero otherwise they will have no pity for the sufferer. as pity is always aroused on account of undeserved misfortune.

5. Aristotle has referred to four types of complex plot only. Another possible type of plot which is known as the complex-fortunate plot, has been left out by him, though he cites examples of this type of plot in his Poetics. In this kind of plot the protagonist who is a good man, may be shown as rising from adversity to prosperity. Euripides's Iphigenia in Tauris may be cited as an ideal example. Iphigenia has to pass through a good deal of suffering for no fault of her own, but she is ultimately reunited with her brother and the play comes to a happy ending. Though Aristotle considers the complex fatal plot to be the most artistic plot as it produces greater pity and fear, he has a high regard for the complex-fortunate plot also, as is evident from his several favourable references to Iphigenia in Tauris.

Now the most remarkable but very controversial issue is whether Aristotle considers the complex-fatal plot to be superior to the complex-fortunate plot or vice versa. His statements appear to be self-contradictory on this issue. In chapter XIII of his Poetics he points out that almost all the best tragedies are based on the stories of a few families which were involved in fatal deeds and provided material for fatal plots.

Structure of Drama

119

Now, the best tragedies are founded on the story of a few

houses, on the fortunes of Alcmaeon, Oedipus, Orestes,

Meleager, Thyestes, Telephus, and those others who have

done or suffered something terrible. A tragedy, then, to

be perfect according to the rules of art should be of this

construction.56

Aristotle here wants to suggest that if the fatal endings had

not been suitable for perfect tragedies, dramatists would have

turned away from those myths and derived their subject-matter

from elsewhere. Aristotle considers unhappy ending to be the

'right ending'. In his opinion, "...such plays, if well worked

out, are the most tragic in effect ; and Euripides, faculty though

he may be in the general management of his subject, yet is felt

to be the most tragic of the poets"57. His plays are most effective

on the stage as well as in dramatic contests, organized frequently

in ancient Greece. Though he is not perfect in the art of plot-

construction and makes frequent use of sensationalism, rhetoric

and deus ex machina, he is considered to be the most powerful

dramatist in Greek literature.

In Chapter XIV of his Poetics, on the other hand, Aristotle

considers tragedy with a happy ending to be the best type of

tragedy. It is evident from his following sentences :

This last case is the best, as when in the Cresphontes

Merope is about to slay her son, but, recognizing who he

is, spares his life. So in the Iphigenia, the sister recognizes

the brother just in time.58

Aristotle considers that kind of recognition to be the best

type of recognition where the tragic deed is contemplated but

then averted in the last moment. That is why he considers the

plot of Iphigenia in Tauris to be the best type of plot and we all

know that it is a complex-fortunate plot with a happy ending.

Aristotle, however, adds that the dramatist, while using such

plots, is governed by the 'weakness of the spectators' and the

'wishes of his audience'. Now the question is whether the play

is an end in itself or it is a means to an end which is nothing

120

Theory of Drama

but the elevation of our human consciousness. It is the main

function of a work of art to provide a rationale to the audience

to show a cause-effect relationship, a proper relation between

the act of the hero and his end. In this context Anderson has

rightly stated that '...in audience watching a play will go along

with it only when the leading character responds in the end to

what it considers a higher moral impulse that moved him at the

beginning of the story, though the audience will of course define

morality as it pleases and in the terms of its own day'59. If a

work of art fails to do so, it intensifies our doubts and aggravate

our misunderstanding. The discovery of the proper relation

between cause and effect should not be considered as a device

to supplement the weakness of the spectators. Moreover, as

Fyfe has pointed out, "a sudden reprieve as the eleventh hour

serves powerfully to stimulate the relief of tears"60. The German

producers of Ibsen's Doel's House so repeatedly modified the

ending of the drama that the dramatist himself had to device a

happy ending for them. Similarly the ending of Shakespeare's

King Lear and Pinero's The Profligate had to be altered in order

to suit the requirements of the audience. The distate for the

fatal ending is not very rare; it is rather the fundamental

requirement of the people.

Aristotle further discusses the difference between the struc-

ral effects of the plot and the effects produced by spectacle. In

his opinion though the effects of pity and fear may be produced

by spectacular means, the effects produced by the 'inner stru-

cture' of the play are definitely more powerful. Spectacular

effects are less artistic and more dependent on extraneous aid.

It is mainly the concern of the actor or the producer rather than

the dramatist. Structure is certainly more significant than

spectale in drama. For the most effective impression, says

Aristotle, "the plot ought to be so constructed that, even with-

out the aid of the eye, he who hears the tale told, will thrill with

harror and melt to pity at what takes place. This is the impres-

sion we should receive from hearing the story of the Oedipus'61.

Those who depend on spectacular means for creating the tragic

effect, do not succeed in creating the emotions of pity and fear

proper to a tragedy, but rather the emotion of the monstrous or

Structure of Drama

121

sensational. A drama which depends for its effect on incidents rather than on the structure, does not precisely possess those elements which produce the proper tragic effect.

When Aristotle says that pity and fear should primarily arise from the structure of the plot, it does not mean that the dramatist should exclude such incidents which are pitiable and fearful in themselves. He considers such incidents as 'incidents of suffering' or pathos. They are also known as tragic deeds. Now the question is : what are the actions or the situations which appear to us as pitiable and fearful ? Aristotle says :

Actions capable of this effect must happen between person who are either friends or enemies or indifferent to one another. If an enemy kills an enemy, there is nothing to excite pity either in the act or the intention, except so far as the suffering in itself is pitiful. So again with indifferent persons. But when the tragic incident occurs between those who are near or dear to one another if, for example, a brother kills, or intends to kill, a brother, a son his father, a mother her son, a son his mother, or any other deed of the kind is done these are the situations to be looked for by the poet.62

Aristotle here discusses three possible types of tragic deeds which may provide the subject-matter for the tragic dramatist. The first possibility that he discusses is the involvement of two parties which are enemies to each other. If a person kills his enemy, neither his act nor his intention excites pity, though the resultant suffering is of course pitiful in the common sense of the term. The technical meaning of the term 'pity' in Aristotle's Poetics does not, however, refer to this kind of suffering. It rather refers to the suffering caused by undeserved misfortune--

misfortune that the person neither aspires for nor brings on himself. Here since both the parties involved are enemies of each other, each party aspires for the destruction of the other party and is consequently prepared to face destruction itself. That is why we don't pity Oedipus' father Laius because when Oedipus kills Laius, neither he nor the spectators are under the impres-

122

Theory of Drama

sion that he has killed his own father. Hence the question of

pity for Laius does not arise.

The second possibility is that the two agents involved in the

tragic situation are indifferent to each other. They fall in a

tragic situation accidently. Since this tragic situation is the

result of merely a chance, such a situation can neither produce

pity nor fear. The third possibility is the tragic deed where

there is an involvemen of friends or blood relatives. When

friends or blood relatives are involved in a tragic deed. it is

infact capable of producing pity and fear in the true Aristotelian

sense. Aristotle mentions various types of family relationships

which may be involved in tragic deeds. A murder or the like

may be committed or contemplated by a brother on brother

such as Eteocles and Polyneices in the Phoenissae, by a mother

on her children such as Medea in Medea or by a son on his

mother as is evident from Orestes against Clytemestra in

Aeschylus' Choephoroe and Euripides' Electra. Aristotle suggests

that the dramatist should always select such situations in order

to have the maximum tragic effect. For this purpose he should

look back to the 'traditional stories' of the Greek myths and

legends but with his own discretion. He further refers to the

four possible ways of handling the traditional meterial skill-

fully :

(i) In the manner of the older poets the tragic deed may

be done consciously and knowingly, as in Euripides' play Medea

Medea consciously kills her children. Other examples may be

seen in Aeschylus' Agamemnon and Sophocles' Ajax which give

an account of premeditated murders.

(ii) The tragic deed may be done but in ignorance and the

relationship discovered afterwards. It is evident from Sophocles'

Oedipus the king where Oedipus unknowingly quarrels with his

father and kills him. The relationship is discovered afterwards

and Oedipus at last comes to know that he has killed his own

father. Another example may be cited from wounded Odysseus in

which Telegonus, the illegitimate son of Ulysses, comes to Ithaca

in search of his father but wounds him fatally in ignorance.

Structure of Drama

123

Similar instances may be seen in Sohrab and Rustum and Euripides' Bacchae also.

(iii) In this category the character, being conscious of all the relevent facts, plan to commit the tragic act but then desists. This is the worst type of tragic act and therefore it is rarely found is drama. Aristotle is of the opinion that "It is shocking without being tragic, for no disaster follows".63 He cites the example of Haemon in Sophocles' Antigone. In this play Haemon, while embracing the dead body of his beloved Antigone, sees his father Creon and threatens to kill him but Creon escapes.

(iv) Referring to the last type of tragic act Aristotle says that it takes place "when some one is about to do an irreparable deed through ignorance, and makes the discovery before it is done".at. This is the best type of tragic deed as here recognition precedes the fatal act and the tragic deed is averted rather than performed. In order to illustrate this type of drama Aristotle cites three examples from the Greek plays:

(a) Cresphontes, a lost play of Euripides, in which Polyphontes kills king Cresphontes, captures his kingdom and takes away his wife Merope. When Merop's son comes back and tries to seek vengeance, his own mother Merope is about to kill him but then she recognizes who he is and therefore spares her son's life.

(b) Iphigenia in Tauris of Euripides in which Iphigenia is just to sacrifice her own brother Orestes but, then, suddenly they recognize each other and Iphigenia spares har brother's life. Aristotle was deeply moved by this type of 'tragic deed' and that is why he considered it to be the best type.

(c) Hells of an unknown author, in which the son who is on the verge of giving his mother up to her enemy, recognizes her in time and saves her ultimately.

In order of priority Aristotle considers category no. 4 to be the best type, then comes category no. 1 followed by category

124

Theory of Drama

no. 2. The last is category no. 3 which is supposed to be the

worst type of tragic deed. Referring to the question as to

why most of the Greek tragedy writers turned for subject-

matter only to a few families in ancient Greece, Aristotle

pointed out that they were forced to "have recourse to

those house whose history contains moving incidents like

these".65

Chapter XIV comes to an end with a formal conclusion,

"Enough has now been said concerning the structure of the

incidents, and the right kind of plot."86. Here there is a reference

to the prolonged discussion of plot from chapter VI to chapter

XIV. Though the substantial discussion of plot comes to an

end by the end of chapter XIV, the matter is taken up again in

chapters XVI, XVII and XVIII. Although nothing new has

been added to the discussion of the structure of the drama,

these later chapters may be regarded as supplementary notes

full of practical observations which elaborate and clarify Aristo-

tle's earlier arguments.

Since chapter XVI has already been discussed in the context

of the meaning and process of recognition, it is needless to take

up that chapter again. Hence we would pass on to the consi-

deration of chapters XVII and XVIII which discuss tragedy

from the point of view of the creative writer as well as from the

point of view of the critic or the spectator evaluating a finished

work of art. While constructing the plot of a tragedy the

dramatist should keep three things in mind. The first is that he

"should place the scene, as far as possible, before his eyes. In

this way, seeing everything with the utmost vividness as if he

were a spectator of the action, he will discover what is in keep-

ing with it, and be most unlikely to overlook inconsistencies"67.

It is evident from the fault censured in Carcinus, that is, the

return of Amphiaraus from the temple. This fault would have

gone unnoticed if it had not been observed by the spectators.

The play could not succeed on the stage simply because the

spectators were offended by its incongruity. Though the play is

not available to us, the point can be made clear by a reference

to chapter XXIV of Poetics :

Structure of Drama

125

Thus, the pursuit of Hector would be ludicrous if placed on the stage the Greeks standing still and not joining in the pursuit, and Achilles waving them back. But in the epic poem the absurdity passes unnoticed.68

The second thing that the dramatist should keep in mind is that he should try his best to work out his play with appropriate gestures so that it might be appealing to the spectators.

The third thing that the dramatist should do is that "he should first sketch its general outline, and then fill in the episode and amplify in detail".69 It is the most significant task of the poet to give "universal form" to the different aspects of the story whether the story be ready made or invented and then to present them in general outline. It should conform to the principles of probability and or necessity, as has already been discussed by Aristotle in chapter IX. In order to illustrate his concept of the general plan of drama Aristotle gives the example of one of his most favourite tragedies, that is, Euripides' Iphigenia in Tauris. It is better to quote Aristotle himself :

A young girl is sacrificed ; she disappears mysteriously from the eyes of those who sacrificed her : she is transported to another country, where the custom is to offer up all strangers to the goddess. To this ministry she is appointed. Some time later her own brother chances to arrive. The fact that the oracle for some reason ordered him to go there, is outside the general plan of the play. The purpose, again, of his coming is outside the action proper. However, he comes, he is seized, and, when on the point of being sacrificed, reveals who he is. The mode of recognition may be either that of Euripides or of Polyidus, in whose play he exclaims very naturally :- ‘So it was not my sister only, but I too who was deemed to be sacrificed; and by that remark he is saved.70

After the general plan has been worked out, the dramatist should assign proper names to the different characters, as the naming of characters determines whether the story is historical

126

Theory of Drama

or mythical or purely fictitious. It also provides some important

clues for characterization in connection with its appropriateness

and life-likeness.

When the general outline of the drama has been established,

the dramatist should extend it by filling in the episodes which

are relevant to the main story. He should retain such episodes

which are ‘appropriate’ to the play and eliminate those which

are irrelevant. In order to illustrate it Aristotle gives the

example of Euripides’ Orestes. In this play the narration of

Orestes madness which led to his seizure by Taurians and the

consequent ritual of purification for his deliverance are the

examples of ‘appropriate’ episodes.

In the opinion of Aristotle episodes in drama are short

whereas they can be extended in a leisurely manner in the epic.

The epic is certainly more conducive than the drama to the use

of episodes which are digressive but delightful. An example of

this type of episode can be cited from Ulysses’ narration of his

adventures to king Alcinoüs. Aristotle gives the general outline

of the plot of Odyssey in the following manner.

A certain man is absent from home for many years : he is

jealously watched by Poseidon, and left desolate. Mean-

while his home is in a wretched plight suitors are wasting

his substance and plotting against his son. At length,

tempest-tost, he himself arrives ; he makes certain

persons acquainted with him ; he attacks the suitors

with his own hand, and is himself preserved while he

destroys them. This is the essence of the plot ; the rest is

episode.71

When Aristotle says that ‘the rest is episode’, the word

‘episode’ is certainly close to our modern version of ‘delightful

digression’. The dramatist uses episodes for pleasant digressions

without making any signicant alteration in the main outline of

the drama. We thus see that Aristotle suggests some guide-

lines which are very practical and useful for the dramatist in the

composition of a drama.

Structure of Drama

127

Aristotle further discusses the complication-resolution theory

which has not been taken up earlier in the formal discussion of

plot from chapters VI to XIV. He says :

Every tragedy falls into two parts—Complication and

Unravelling or Dénouement. Incidents extraneous to the

action are frequently combined with a portion of the

action proper, to form the complication ; the rest is the

Unravelling. By the complication I mean all that ex-

tends from the beginning of the action to the part which

marks the turning-point to good or bad fortune. The

unravelling is that which extends from the beginning of

the change to the end.72

To sequence of events that leads up to the climax in drama

is known as complication whereas the incidents that take place

after the climax till the end of the drama are regarded as part

of Resolution or Dénouement. Aristotle gives the illustration

from Theodocte’s lost play Lynceus. In the play the incidents

presupposed in the drama, the seizure of the child and his

parents and Lynceus being accused of murder and likely to be

executed form part of the Complication. The Resolution or

Denouement starts from the accusation of murder and goes up

to the fortunate conclusion. We may cite Ibsen’s play The

Ghosts as another example to illustrate his point of view. Here

the complication comprises the action from the beginning to

the stage of climax when Mrs. Alving’s life-long struggle

appears to be futile. The resolution starts with the most tragic

realisation on the part of Mrs. Alving that she was an active

though unconscious participant in her own suffering as well as

in the suffering of her unlucky son on account of her union

with her ‘tainted’ husband. The five stages of the plot in

modern drama such as (i) initial incident, (ii) rising action,

(iii) climax, (iv) resolution, (v) conclusion or catastrophe are

certainly based on Aristotle’s division of the Greek play into

Complication and Denouement. The first three stages form the

complication whereas the last two the Denouement in the

drama.

128

Theory of Drama

So far as the three Dramatic Unities are concerned,

Aristotle is emphatic only about the Unity of Action. The

Dramatic unities are the technique of dramatic representation

which help the dramatist in the maintaining coherence and

harmony in a work of art. Unity refers to a sense of oneness

in many. It is “the principle of limit, without which an object

loses itself in the region of the undefined, the indeterminate,

the accidental. By means of unity the plot becomes individual

and also intelligible”73. It is therefore the duty of the drama-

tist to present the scattered but relevant incidents and show a

cause-and-effect relationship among them. Aristotle’s Poetics

clearly asserts that there should be an organic unity among the

various incidents of the plot. It should neither be wanting in

anything for its perfection not having anything in excess with-

out being relevant.

If we say, as is normally said, that Aristotle advocated the

use of all the three Unities in drama, it would be an example

of gross misrepresentation and misinterpretation. The mischief

infact started during the Renaissance period and the real

discredit formulating the three Unites goes to a Renaissance

critic Castelvetro who in his edition of Aristotle’s Poetics in

1570 took the authority of Aristotle and boldly asserted that

a playwright should observed all three Unities. In 1583 Sir

Philip Sidney too in his Defence of Poesy took the same stand.

The doctrine now became so popular that, in the words of F.L.

Lucas, “no intelligent person’s imagination could lend credence

to a play that was so unreal as to represent more than place

or one day.”74 It was only Dr. Johnson who in his Preface to

Shakespeare strongly repudiated the unities of time and place

and gave importance to the Unity of Action only.

It is really very surprising to know how Aristotle was mis-

interpreted for so many centuries. In his Poetics he repeatedly

says that the Unity of Action is of paramount importance and

the other two Unities are dependent on and consequential to it.

In chapter VI Aristotle defines tragedy as imitation of an action

(that is, a single action) which should be serious, complete and

Structure of Drama

129

a certain magnitude. In subsequent chapters also he puts emphasis on the Unity of Action only. It is, as Butcher has stated, "an organic unity, an inward principle which reveals itself in the form of an outward whole. It is opposed indeed to plurality, but not opposed to the idea of manifoldness and variety ; for simple as it is in one sense, it admits of all the complexity of vital phenomena. The whole in which it is manifested, is complete in its parts, the parts themselves being arranged in a fixed order, and structurally related so that none can be removed, none transposed, without disturbing the organism"76 In other words, we may say that the dramatist should observe the principle of necessity and/or probability in drama. Each incident should result from what has gone before and must lead to what follows. This causal relationship between what has happened and what is going to happen is the essential requirement of the Unity of Action. This does not, however, admit the presence of the sub-plot or underplot or the mixture of serious and the comic in drama. If Aristotle had to observe and evaluate the Elizabethan dramas, he would have considered them as ill constructed as they contain not only a mixture of the serious and the comic but more than one action also.

Aristotle makes no attempt to prescribe any specific rules so far as the possible length of a play is concerned. He is, however, of the opinion that a certain magnitude is essential for the 'harmonious evolution of a whole', a whole which should have a beginning, a middle and an end. He further points out that any object which is either infinitely large or infinitesimally small, cannot be a suitable object for artistic representation. The whole of the Trojan War even if it has a beginning and an end, is so vast that it cannot be presented by dramatist in a single play. The dramatist should be governed by the law of beauty as well as by the law of comprehensibility.

Whereas the Unity of Action is the most fundamental and controlling force in drama, the other two Unities—Unity of Time and Unity of Place—are of secondary and derivative importance only. The Renaissance critics Scaliger and Castelvetro, how-

130

Theory of Drama

ever, stated that Unity of Time should also be observed in drama. In the seventeenth century France and in Restoration England this view became very popular. The Unity of Time was now considered to be an important factor essential for the compactness of plot. Those who support this view, quote the following passages from Aristotle's Poetics in order to justify their stand :

(i) "They differ again, in their length : for Tragedy endeavours, as far as possible, to confine itself to a single revolution of the sun, or but slightly to exceed this limit whereas the Epic action has no limit of time".76

(ii) "Moreover, the art attains its and within narrower limits, for the concentrated effect is more pleasurable than one which is spread over a long time and so diluted".77

It is evident from Aristotle's first remark that he is only comparing tragedy and epic poetry and referring to the obvious distinction between the two so far as their length is concerned. Moreover he is making a rough generalisation of the observed facts and not suggesting a rule which should be strictly adhered to. There has been a controvery regarding the interpretation of the phrase 'a single revolution of the sun', but the most acceptable proposition is that it refers to a period of twenty four hours. It means that only those incidents which have taken place within twenty four hours in the life of an individual, should be presented in the tragedy. Some critics like Dacier and Corneille have tried to confuse the time-limit fixed for the drama with the time being given to the performance of a tragedy in the theatre. The comparison between tragedy and epic poetry in terms of the theatre becomes meaningless as epic poetry is not to be performed in the theatre but is to be read only. Hence the time-limit here refers to the time taken by the incidents in the drama and not to the time being spent over the performance of the drama in the theatre.

Structure of Drama

131

The second statement of Aristotle refers to the desirability of 'narrower limits' for the 'concentrated effect' of the drama and not necessarily to the limit of twenty four hours. There are so many existing Greek tragedies which don't conform to this rule of Unity of Time, as is evident from the following examples. In the Eumenides we see a long gap of months and years between the opening of the play and the next scene. In Euripides' Suppliants so many days are taken in raising an army in Athens, in gaining victory and in its final return. Similarly Women of Trachis, The Persians, Oedipus at Colonus and Agamemnon also don't observe the Unity of Time. Shakespear's plays such as Macbeth, Henry V Antony and Cleopatra and The Winters Tale don't stick to the rule of the Unity of Time as we see in these plays not only a gap of months but of years.

Wherever this rule is observed whether in the Greek tragedy or in the French classical tragedy of Corneille and Racine, it was observed only as a matter of convention rather than as an essential rule. We may observe an adherence to this rule in Milton's Samson Ogonistes, Swinburne's Atlanta, Ibsen's The Ghosts, Masfield's Tragedy of Nan, Corneille's The Cid and in most of the plays of Ben Jonson where the time-limit does not exceed even the 'single revolution of the sun'. In some of the 20th century plays such as Beckett's Waiting for Godot Pinter's The Caretaker and McGrath's Events while Guarding the Bofors Gun the playwrights have tried to confine the action of the drama to a limited period but certainly not to a period of twenty four hours only.

So far as the Unity of Place is concerned, there is not even a single sentence in Aristotle's Poetics which indicates that it is essential for drama. The change of place was not shown on the Greek stage ; it was just reported to the spectators by the chorus The main reason was that in those days it was not possible to change the scene of the place in the absence of the proper pro-vision of the curtain-fall. There is, however, no suggestion given by Aristotle that the action of the entire drama should be confined to a single place. Moreover in our present age when the change of place on the stage is not a problem at all, it is

132

Theory of Drama

useless to think of the Unity of place as the basic requirement

of drama. There are even some Greek plays where we see the

change of place. In Ajax there is change of place from hero's

tent to the sea-shore and in the Eumenides from Delphi to

Athens.

The neo-classical critics who suggested that the Unity of

place should be observed in the drama, were of the opinion

that since the spectator does not change his place while seeing

the drama, any change of place on the stage would appear to be

unreal and deceptive to the spectator. We should, however, he

very clear on this issue that, as Coleridge has pointed out, there

is a 'willing suspension of disbelief' on the part of the spectator

while he is seeing a drama in the theatre. Otherwise the spect-

ator is always aware of the face that the stage is but a stage and

the players are only players.

II

In chapter XXI of NŚ Bharata defines plot (itivṛtta) as "the

body of drama"78. If 'rasa' is the soul of drama, plot is certa-

inly the body of drama through which the entire revelation has

to be made. It is like an organism wherein everything is well

ordered and leads to a fruitful end. It posses five arthaprakṛtis

(components), five avasthas (stages of development) and five

sandhis (junctures), as they are essential for the proper construc-

tion and effective development of the plot.

Bharata suggests that the plot is of two kinds–Principal

(ādhikārika) and subsidiary (prāsaṅgika). The principal plot

is directly concerned with the activities of the hero whereas the

rest is considered to be the part of the subsidiary plot. The issue

for which the hero is renowned and to which he appears to be

committed, forms part of the principal plot, whereas the subsi-

diary plot furthers the purpose of the main plot. Bharata has

clearly explained and differentiated them in the following

lines :

Structure of Drama

133

An (assemblage of) acts which are fabricated with a view to (lit. by reason of) the attainment of (some particular) result, is to be known as the Principal plot. (Acts) other than these constitute a Subsidiary plot. The attainment of the object and its exaltation which the ingenuity of the playwright (lit. poet) plans by means of the associated characters (lit. Heroes) acting in a regular manner (lit.) (resorting to rules), constitute the Principal Plot on account of an attainment of the result. And any incident (lit. anything) mentioned for helping any other (incident) in it, is called the Subsidiary Plot.79

The principal plot is concerned with the main goal of the drama with which the hero is basically concerned, whereas the subsidiary plot works only as an instrument to achieve and promote the principal object. In Kālidāsa's Abhijñānaśākuntalam for example, the principal plot is concerned with the relationship between Duṣyanta and Śakuntalā whereas the Viduṣaka incident, the Durvāsas incident and the fisherman incident form the subsidiary plots. It is the most significant duty of the dramatist to present the theme in such a manner that it may appear as a composite whole. All the incidents in drama should be presented in such a way that each stage leads to the growth of the next stage and finally to the culmination of the whole action to one point. That is why S. Chattopadhyaya80 believes that the idea of a ‘mono-centric’ plot has been finally established in the field of Indian dramaturgy. It has close resemblance to the Aristotelian idea of unity of action.

Bharata further discusses the five component parts (artha-prakṛtis) of plot which help the dramatist in maintaining the proper and harmonious development of the drama :

The five Elements of the plot are—the Germ (bija), the Prominent point (bindu), the Episode (patākā) the Episodical Incident (prakari) and Denouement (Kārya).81

The three elements of the plot—the Germ (bija), the Prominent Point (bindu) and the Denouement (kārya) are the essential

134

Theory of Drama

features of every plot or the Principal plot ; whereas the

other two elements of the plot-the Episode (patākā) and the

Episodical Incident (prakarī) are needed only when the dramatis

has to introduce a Subsidiary Plot. The dramatist should use

them cautiously so that he might be able to give a beautiful

unified structure to the drama. In this connection Bharata's

remark is quite significant :

Of these, what serves the purpose or leads to excellence,

has to be emphasized, the rest are non-essential.82

In the very beginning of the drama the dramatist should sow the

'germ' (bija) of his plot and then try to work out its development

in such a manner that the plot goes on expanding in ever widen-

ing circles like a drop (bindu) of water. The expansion of the

plot should be made possible by the use of varied actions and

various types of episodes. "It is by such inclusion of incidents,

events, episodes and actions of characters", says G.K. Bhat,

"that the plot development is done, till the dramatic action

comes to a close, accomplishing the expected fruit (kārya)"83.

Significantly Bharata's observations imply the organic meta-

phor of a tree which passes through these stages-the germ, the

sprout, its development into branches and leaves, the flowers

and the fruits. The ultimate purpose of the seed is served

when it gives birth to the fruit. Just as the tree in its different

stages of fulfilment starts with the seed and ends with the fruit,

the plot in a drama starts with the germ which leads to the

realisation of fruit in the end. Referring to the similarity bet-

ween the two, B. Bhattacharya has rightly said, "... as in the

case of the tree, there is a basic unity running from the seed up

to the fruit, linking the life-force of the tree with the various

manifestations of it in the form of the sprouts, branches, flowers

etc., so in the case of the drama there is a basic unity underlying

the entire plot and a linking of it with its outcome in the

form of the actions of the hero"84.

Bharata has explained all the five component parts of the

plot and discussed their significance in the construction of the

drama. Let us take them one by one :-

Structure of Drama

135

(i) The Seed (bija)—In Sanskrit dramatic theory the seed

is supposed to be the genesis of the plot. It is very significant

from the dramatic point of view as it leads the drama to its

desired end. It pervades the entire drama and is hence indis-

pensable to every plot. Bharata defines it as follows :

That which scattered in a small measure, expands itself

in various ways and ends in fruition, is called the Seed of

the Plot85.

It is considered to be the most significant element of the

plot as all other elements originate and ensue from it. Much

of the success of the drama depends on it as it gives a slight

indication of the final object. The dramatist should introduce

it in such a manner that it may appear to be natural and appro-

priate in the prevailing circumstances.

The Seed should be normally mentioned in the Introduction

(Prastāvanā) by the Sūtradhāra, as without it the Introduction

would appear to be inadequate. It is evident from the play

Ratnāvali. The Seed, however, may sometimes be introduced

in the Explanatory Scene before the first Act, as can be seen

in Mālavikāgnimitra. In Abhijñānaśākuntalam the Seed is introduced

with Vaikhānasa's blessing to Duṣyanta that he would be the

father of a cakravartī son. It goes on expanding till the end of

the drama when Duṣyanta is not only reunited with his wife

Śakuntalā but with his Cakravartī son also.

(ii) Vital Drop (bindu) or the Prominent Point—When

seed has been sown, it will naturally sprout ; but there is always

a possibility of its being diverted towards the wrong track. Now

the second element of plot which is known as bindu or vital

drop, comes to its help and controls the seed from being mis-

directed. Its main function is to restore the continuity whenever

there is an obstruction in the realisation of the chief object of

the drama. Bharata defines it as follows :

That which sustains the continuity (lit. non-separation)

till the end of the play even when the chief object (of

136

Theory of Drama

the play) is (for the time being) suspended, is called the

Vital Drop (bindu)*6.

The word bindu has been explained by different critics in

different ways with the help of similes. Abhinavagupta and

Dhanika suggest that bindu is like a drop of oil which spreads

over the surface of water. It links the different elements of the

plot with a common purpose. S. Chattopadhyaya has stated that

"as drops of water dripping from the sides of a thatch indicate

the fall of water even when the rain is over, so Bindu also

indicates the purpose and maintains the continuity of the main

action when i: is interrupted by secondary issues"87.

When the dramatist feels that the main motive of the drama

is getting shrouded by extraneous incidents, he should use bindu

or the prominent point in order to restore the continuity of the

main argument in the drama. Referring to the fundamental

purpose of bindu in drama B. Bhattacharya says that by employ-

ing bindu "the dramatist should ensure that the motif of the

play is recalled at definite intervals so that the audience may

not lose sight of the chief end of the play".8*

Sāgar Nandin illustrates this element of the plot from

Venisamhāra where the dramatist uses in all the acts some such

statements which reveal the anger against the Kauravas and

give continuity to the main purpose of the plot, that is, to tie

the hair of Draupati in a knot after taking revenge against

Kauravas. From Abhijñānasākuntalam two instances will be

sufficient to make the concept of bindu clear to the readers. The

wild elephants cause trouble to the dwellers in the vicinity of

the āśrama and Duṣyanta has to rush to that place in order to

protect his subjects. This creates obstacle in the union of

Duṣyanta and Śakuntalā. However the invitation to Duṣyanta

by hermits and Śakuntalā's friends to revisit the āśrama gives

him an opportunity to meet Śakuntalā again. This invitation

serves as the bindu in drama. We see the second instance in

Duṣyanta's rejection of Śākuntalā under the impact of the curse

of Durvāsa. This is again creates a formidable hindrance in the

union of Śakuntalā with Duṣyanta. How ever, the discovery

of the ring by the fisherman paves the way for their reunion.

This discovery of the ring is nothing but the bindu in drama.

(iii) The Episode (Patākā)–There are two kinds of plot–

the principal plot and the Subsidiary plot. The subsidiary plot

is also of two kinds–Patākā and Prak ri. The main distinction

between the two is that whereas Patākā or episode continues as a

subsidiary story for a number of Acts, prakāri or the episodical

incident is merely an incident. The literal meaning of the term

patākā is flag. Just as the flag of a king denotes his majesty

and glory, the patākā in a plot refers to the full significance of

the dramatic theme. Though it tells a different story altogether

it promotes the cause of the main plot and leads the main action

to its final goal. Bharata defines it as follows :

The event which is introduced in the interest of the

Principal (Plot) and is treated like it, is called an

Episode.89

The episode or patikā should not stand isolated ; it should

be linked with the main plot by one or more junctures. It

should, however, come to an end before the attainment of the

result otherwise it would not be able to serve the purpose

of the main plot. The episode of Indra's invitation to

Duṣyanta for assisting him in his fight against the demons may

be cited as an example of patākā. There are other examples

of patākā such as the episodes of Sugriva or Vibhīṣaṇa in the

legendary stories of Rāmāyan. Though they do attain their

respective ends, they make the story of Rāma more appealing,

In Veṇisamhāra though Karṇa displays his own valour and other

heroic qualities, he has been introduced to help Duryodhana in

the development of the main plot.

(iv) Prakāri (The Episodical Incident) : It is similar in

nature to the Patākā with the only difference that it is introduced

in the drama for a very short while. Though it is concerned

with the characters other than the hero, it is used in order to

enhance the intensity of the Principal Plot. Bharata defines it

as follows :

138

Theory of Drama

When merely the result of such an event is presented for

the purpose of another (i.e. the Principal Plot) and it has

no continuation it is called the Episodical Incident.

Prakāri is used only in a subsidiary plot, and it has no use

when the drama does not have a subsidiary plot. It “is almost

an interesting casual incident” says S. Chattopadhyaya, “occupy-

ing a small portion of the whole action”91 Jatāyu-Rāvana

In Abhijñānaśākuntalam the incident of Sānumati where Sānumati

comes at the request of Menaka to watch the condition of king

Duṣyanta and know his reaction about Śakuntalā in Act VI,

may be considered as a prakāri or the episodical incident.

Though it serves the purpose of the Principal plot, it has no

continuity of its own.

(v) Kārya (Action)-It may be interpreted as the effort

towards the end which the hero of the drama and the dramatist

himself aim at. It may be considered to be some sort of achi-

evement on the part of the hero, which is also known as phala-

yoga. Bharata defines it as follows :

The efforts made for the purpose of the Principal Plot

introduced (in a play) by the experts, is called the Action

(kārya)92.

Though Viśvanātha and Keith translate Kārya as ‘Denouement’,

Ghosh rightly translates it as ‘Action’. The confusion

arises mainly on account of the fact they confuse arthaprakṛtis

(components of drama) with avasthās (stages of development in

drama). Kārya is a part of the arthaprakṛtis and not of avasthās.

Whereas the arthaprakṛtis are only the means towards an end,

Denouement is the end itself. Hence the better and more

appropriate translation of Kārya would be ‘Action’. It refers

to the efforts made by the various characters for realisation of

the main objective of the drama. The main objective in Abhij-

ñāśākuntalam is the reunion of Duṣyanta and Śakuntalā and

the effort made for the realisation of this objective is known as

kārya.

Structure of Drama

139

Five Stages (Avasthās) of Plot-development

The plot in a drama is considered to be the manifestation of

a sustained effort on the part of the hero for the realisation of

an objective. It may be the realisation of love, victory in a

battle or the fulfilment of some social, religious or moral ideal.

In order to realise his ambition the hero has to pass through

five stages, which are as follows : (i) Beginning (prārambha),

(ii) Effort (prayatna), (iii) Possibility of Attainment (prāptisam-

bhava), iv) Certainty of Attainment (niyataprāpti), and (v) At-

tainment of object (phala-prāpti). Summarizing the situation

during these five stages, Sylvain Levi has pointed out that the

hero "takes up the issue, makes an effort to realise it, hopefully

sees the possibility of success, gains the certainty that he will be

successful and finally sees his effort crowned with success"'3.

(i) Beginning (ārambha) Beginning arouses curiosity and is

intimately linked with the Seed (bīja). Bharata defines it as

follows :

That part of the play (lit. composition) which merely

creates a curiosity about the Attainment of the great

object with reference to the Seed (bīja), is called the

Beginning (ārambha).94

It does not mean the beginning of the real action but the

rise of an ardent desire in the heart of the hero which refers to

the Beginning. It is a hint about the hero's first effort for

creating curiosity among the readers about what he intends to

achieve. In Abhijñānaśākuntalam when an ascetic informs the

king that since Kaṇva is not present in his hermitage and

Śakuntalā has been asked to look after the guests, the king

says, "Then I shall see her". This curiosity of Duṣyanta for

having a glimpse of Śakuntalā refers to the stage of Beginning

(ārambha).

(2) Effort (Prayatna)– It refers to the hero's zeal and firm

determination for the attainment of his goal, though the fruit is

not yet in sight. Bharata defines it as follows :

140

Theory of Drama

(Hero's striving towards the Attainment of the object when the same is not in view, and his steps exciting curiosity (about it), is called the Efforts (prayatna).95

It reveals the hero's feverish attempts for the realisation of his objective in spite of the many hurdles he has to face. This is the proper occasion for introducing episodes or episodical incidents if the plot so permits. We may cite an example from Abhijñānśākuntalam. In Act III when Duṣyanta consults Mādh- avya as to how to meet Śakuntalā again and is very keen to meet her, it refers to this second stage of effort (prayatna).

(3) Prospect of Success (Prāptyasā or prāptisambhava).

It refers the pyschological impression that the success appears to be attainable though the hero is temporarily beset with the obstacles which create a sense of suspension and uncertainty about it. Bharata defines it as follows :

When the Attainment of the Object is slightly suggested by some Psychological State (of the hero), it is known as the Possibility of Attainment (prāpti-sambhava).96

At this stage the hero realises that success is possible and therefore he resolves to go ahead. Though he has yet to face the so many obstacles and impediments, he is sure about the possibility of success. His emotions, says B. Bhattacharya, "reach almost a breaking point and there is a corresponding desperation in his thoughts and actions. He, however, over- comes it and is sustained by the prospect of attaining the cheri- shed end".97 In Abhijñānśākuntalam Duṣyanta becomes hopeful of his happy married life after his second meeting with Sakun- talā in Act III. But then in Act IV Durvāsā's curse makes the prospect dim, though his later modification of the curse revives the hope of reunion.

(4) Certainty of Success (niyatāpti or niyata-phalaprāpti)

At this stage the hero feels that though the obstacle is still to be overcome, he is sure about his success and the objective now appears to be within reach. Bharata defines it in the following words :

Structure of Drama

141

When the Hero visualises due to a Psychological State (of his), a sure attainment of the object, it is called Certainty of Attainment (miyata phala-prāpti).98

He has just to surmount the final obstacle, as B. Bhattacharya has pointed out that "the achievement (āpti) appears to be conditioned (niyata) by the final obstacle".99 Now there is greater possibility of success than ever before. In Act VI of Abhijñānaśākuntalam the discovery of the ring provides an opportunity to Duṣyanta for remembering his secret relationship with Śakuntalā and this paves the way for their reunion, though he has yet to overcome the final obstacle.

(5) Attainment of the Result (phalayoga)–It refers to the stage when the hero is able to obtain his desired object. Bharata defines it as follows :

When a suitable Result of intended actions appears in full at the end of events (of a play) it is called Attainment of the Object (phala-yoga)100.

It brings the play to a happy end. The last obstacle is now removed and the hero is crowned with success. Since Indian dramatists believe in the Brahmanical view of life which suggest that virtue is ultimately rewarded and vice punished, the hero of the Sanskrit drama usually meets with success in the end of the drama. In Act VII of Abhijñānaśākuntalam king Duṣyanta is ultimately reunited with Śakuntalā and his son and this is known as phala-yoga (Attainment of the Result).

We thus see that these are the five stages in the realisation of the main objective on the part of the hero. In the words of G.K. Bhat, "Bharata expects that these stages are put together in a unified relation so that drama has a proper beginning and the expected logical end, achieving a unity of action"101 Bharata is basically concerned with the construction of a closely knit and hermonious structure of the drama. In order to maintain the proper harmony between the components of the plot and the stages of plot-development Bharata suggests the use of five

junctures (sandhis) and their sixty four sub-divisions (sandhyañgas). These sandhis and sandhyañgas are used as links between

the Plot and the Action. The dramatists should use them freely

according to the requirements of sentiment, time, place and

situation. It is not necessary to use all the limbs in every

drama. However its appropriate use is essential as without its

use the drama would appear just like a human body without

arms or legs. Referring to the specific purpose behind the use

of junctures Bharata has pointed out :

Expressing the desired object, non-omission of any essen-

tial item in the plot, attaining the quality of pleasing in

production, concealment of the objects to be concealed,

telling tales of surprise and disclosing things to be disclos-

ed are the six-fold needs of the limbs described in the

Śāstra102.

Now the question is as to what is Sandhi (juncture) in the

drama. The literal meaning of the word Sandhi is joining or

maintaining a link. Dhanamjaya has rightly defined the sandhi

as "the connection of one thing with a different one, when there

is a single sequence (of events)"103.

The five elements of the plot and the five stages of plot-deve-

lopment combine respectively and form the five junctures (Sand-

his) such as the Opening (mukha), the Progression (pratimukha

the Development (garbha), the pause (vimarśa) and the Conclu-

sion (nirvahana). These five junctures and their sixty-four

sub-divisions have been unanimously accepted by all the theo-

rists as indispensable parts of drama, though all of them need

not be used in every kind of drama. All the five junctures

(sandhis) may be used in Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa but not in

other varieties of drama. They should be used in order to

support the chief sentiment of the drama, as they are mainly

concerned with the Principal plot and the Actions of the hero.

The five junctures (sandhis) are as follows :

(1) The Opening (mukh-sandhi)—Bharata defines it as

follows :

Structure of Drama

143

That part of a play, in which the creation of the seed (bija) as the source of many objects and sentiments takes place, is called in relation to its body the Opening.104

It refers to the first section of the play where the Action arises out of the Germ and the juncture reveals the prevailing Sentiment. It stirs the plot into movement. In Abhijñānaśāk-untalam, for example, the portion from the entrance of king Duṣyanta till Act II when the king confesses to have fallen in love with Śakuntalā forms part of the opening juncture (mukha-sandhi).

There are twelve component parts of the opening juncture, as Bharata105 pointed out : suggestion (upasepa), Enlargement (parikara), Establishment (parinyāsa), Allurement (vilobhana), Decision or Resolve (yukti), Accession (prāpti), Settling (samādhāna), Conflict of Feelings (vidhāna), Surprise (paribhā-vana), Disclosure (udbheda), Activity (karana) and Incitement (bheda). All the twelve component part of the Opening juncture, however, are not equally essential for the use of the dramatist. They are used in order to prepare the suitable atmosphere for the hero to begin his efforts for the realisation of his goal. The Opening juncture, says B. Bhattacharya, "having for its base the 'Germ' and the 'Beginning', pushes on the hero to attain his desired end through these twelve steps".106

(2) The Progression (pratimukha)—This is the second stage of the hero's effort where he makes a vigorous attempt for the realisation of his dream. Defining it Bharata has pointed out that "uncovering of the Seed placed at the Opening after it has sometimes been perceptible and sometimes been lost, is called the Progression".107 Here the hero's progress towards the cherished dream is perceptible but only for a short while. It appears that the germ would bear fruit but the moment we realise it, the fruit seems to have disappeared. Even then it increases the momentum in the drama. "The Germ, having come to light in the Opening", says B. Bhattacharya, "now assumes a greater importance and allures the hero who embarks upon a vigorous search to get at the result suggested by the

144

Theory of Drama

Germ'108. He has to face hurdles in his passionate pursuit and hence frustration and disappointment follow. He feels tormented and gradually passes through the vicissitudes of emotions. In Abhijñānaśākuntalam, for example, the portion from the moment when the king confesses his love to the jester up to the end of Act III forms part of the Progression (pratinukha).

There are thirteen109 component parts of the Progression—Amorousness (vilāsa), Pursuit (Parisarpa), Refusal (vidhūta), Pessimism (tāpana), Joke (Narma), Amusement (Narmadyūti), Response (Pragamana), Hindrance (nirodha), Moving Forward (Paryupāsana), Sweet words (Puspa), Thunderbolt (vajra) Reference (upanyāsa), Meeting of Castes (varṇasaṃhara). These component parts reveal the effort of the hero in order to attain his object. The dramatist should use his discretion in applying them to his plays. Since the creation of proper rasa-realisation is the main motive of the dramatist, he should use passion (vilāsa) at the beginning of this juncture. The passion will provide the necessary incentive for the hero to overcome the hurdles and pass to the next stage of the Action.

(3) The Development (garbha).—Since it is known as the 'garbha', it is supposed to be the middle of the drama. Bharata defines it as follows :

The sprouting of the Seed, its attainment or non-attainment and search for it, is called the Development (garbha).110

At this stage the hero has been able to surmount so many hurdles, but he is still not very close to the realisation of his objective. We find him restless both in his emotions and actions. Success now appears to be a possibility but not a certainty. Since the hero is not yet able to realise his objective, he makes a renewed effort for this purpose. It is the possibility of success that encourages the hero for his onward journey to the realisation of his goal. In Abhijñānaśākuntalam the portion from Act IV where Kanva is preparing Śakuntalā to send her to the palace of king Duṣyanta till the rejection of Śakuntalā by

Structure of Drama

145

Duṣyanta under the influence of the curse of Durvāsā, forms part of the Development (garbha).

As Bharata111 has pointed out, there are thirteen component parts of Development (garbha) : Mis-statement (abhūtāharaṇa), Indication (mārga), Supposition (rūpa), Exaggeration (udāharaṇa), Progress (Karman), propitiation (saṃgrahaṇa), Deduction (anumāna), Supplication (prārthanā), Revelation (ākṣipta), Quarrel (toṭaka), Outwitting (adhibala), Dismay (udvega), and Consternation (vidrava). Sylvain Levi112 is of the opinion that only five component parts of the garbha such as the abhūtāharaṇa, the mārga, the toṭaka, the adhibala and the ākṣepa are to be definitely used, while others are to be used only when needed.

(4) Pause (vimarśa, lit. deliberation) : Since the prospect of success appears to be very bright for the hero, he now reaches the fourth stage where he can pause and think over his progress as well as his shortcomings. Now the realisation of his objective appears to be very close and hence the onward movement becomes almost leisurely. The hero reviews the whole situation through which he has passed and contemplates the future course of action. Bharata defines ‘pause’ as follows :

One’s pause (vimarśa, lit. deliberation) over the Seed (bīja) that has sprouted in the Development (garbha) on account of some temptation, anger of distress, is called the Segment of that name (i.e. Pause)113.

Since the hero has had the possibility of success in the previous stage, he now decides to make a deliberation (vimarśa) over the prevailing circumstances. Even if the success appears to be near at hand, the hero feels uncertain, sometimes almost disheartened. At this stage he has to take a very calculated step which may lead him to the final stage of success. In Abhijñānaśākuntalam, for example, the discovery of the ring by the fisherman places the king in such a situation that he has to pause or contemplate his future course of action, as the realisation of the objective is still very uncertain. We may see a similar instance in Shakespeare’s device of ‘play within the play’ in Hamlet.

146

Theory of Drama

As Bharata114 has pointed out, there are thirteen component parts of pause (vimarśa) : Censure (apavāda), Angry words (sampheta), Insolence (abhidrava), Placation (śakti), Assertion (vyavasāya), Mention (Prasangga), Injury (ćruti), Lessitude (kheda), Opposition (niṣedhana), Altercation (virodhana), Summing up (ādana), Humiliation (sādana) and Foresight (pravacanā). It is significant in the sense that the hero now takes stock of the situation and feels confident of the final success. Referring to the use of the component parts of Pause, B. Bhattacharya has stated that "the hero starts with Censure directed against him and passes through Altercation, Tumult and challenge to Assertion, a decision to carry out the plan of Action. He then faces, among the rest, disappointment, Despair and Opposition. Undoubted he reaches at Summary, a view of the Germ and the Denouement that grants him Foresight of the conclusion.115

(5) The Conclusion (nirvahana)—The last juncture is known as the Conclusion. It is as indispensable as the Opening because every plot does have a beginning and an end. Bharata defines it as follows :

Bringing together the object (of the Segments) such as the Opening (mukha) etc. along with the Seed (bija), when they have attained fruition, is called the conclusion (nirvahana).116

Dhanamjaya points out that "The Conclusion (nirvahana) is that (juncture) in which the matters that occurred in the opening (mukha) and in the other junctures, and that contained the Germ (bija) and were distributed in due order, are brought together to one end"117. All the efforts and the strivings of the hero now culminate at a point which bears fruit for him. The hero, overcome all the hurdles, is now able to realise his cherished goal, and gets the benediction from Heaven. At this stage the drama comes to an end. Bharata compares the nirvahana to the tail of a cow. Act VII of Abhijñānaśākuntalam forms part of the nirvahana or the conclusion of the drama where Duṣyanta is reunited with his beloved Śakuntalā.

Structure of Drama

147

As Bharata118 has pointed out, there are fourteen component parts of the conclusion (nirvahana) : Juncture (sandhi), Awakening (vibodha), Assembling (grathana), Ascertainment (nirṇaya), Conversation (paribhaṣaṇa), Confirmation (dhṛti), Gratification (praśaṃsa), joy (ānanda), Deliverance (samaya), Surprise (apagūhana), Speech (bhāṣaṇa), Retrospect (pūrva-vṛkya), Termination of the play (kāvya-samhāra) and Benediction (prasasti). We, thus, see that there are sixty-four component parts of the plot, some of which are essential while others are just accidental. Referring to the use of Sandhis (junctures or Segments) in different kinds of drama, Bharata119 has stated that all the five Sandhis should be used in Nāṭaka, and the Prakaraṇa ; four sandhis excluding pause should be used in the Dima and the Samavakāra, three sandhis excluding Development and Pause should be used in the Vyāyoga and Ihaṃga and only two sandhis - the opening and the conclusion - are to be used in the Prahasana, the Vīthī, the Aṅka and the Bhāṇa. Regarding the omission of junctures in order of priority Bharata points out that if one is to be omitted, it should be the fourth-'Pause' ; if two are to be left out, then the third and the fourth i.e. the Development and the Pause ; if three are to be omitted, then the second, third and fourth i.e. the Progression. the Development and the Pause are to be omitted. The opening and the conclusion are indispensable and therefore essential for every kind of drama. The rule regarding the use of Sandhis is applicable only to the main plot and not to the subsidiary plot as it is used mainly to serve the purpose of the main plot. Besides discussing these Sandhis (segments) Bharata refers to twentyone 'contents of Segments' which are used in order to enhance the beauty of the junctures.

These are as follows : Conciliation (sāma), Dissention (bheda), Making Gifts (pradāna), Chastisement (daṇḍa), killing (vadha), Presence of Mind (pratyutpanna-matila), Blunder in Addressing (gotra-skalita), Rashness (sāhasa), Terror (bhaya), Imaginative Fancy (dhī), Deceit (māyā), Anger (krodha), Strength (ojas), Concealment (saṃvaraṇa), Error (bhrānti), Ascertainment (avadhāvana), Messenger (dūta), Letter (lekha), Dream (svapna), Portrait (citra) and Intoxication (mada)120. Regarding the significance of the use of these Sandhis and their differ-

148

Theory of Drama

ent component parts in drama Bharata has expressed his views

in the following words :

Just as a man deficient in his (limbs is unable) to fight a

battle, so a play deficient in the limbs (of segments) will

be unfit for (successful) production.121

He further points out that a play which is poor in theme but

well equipped with the limbs is better than the play that has

a lofty theme but is devoid of the requisite limbs. Therefore

the dramatist should use the junctures in proper places and

with proper sentiments.

Bharata suggested the three-fold division of the plot such

as the five elements of plot, five stages of plot-development and

the five junctures in order to maintain unity and coherence in

drama. The independent and outward circumstance is known

as arthaprakrti, the voluntary action of the hero is known as

avasthā, and the joining of the two is known as sandhi. In the

terminology of the NŚ, says Adya Rangacharya, "straying into

K nva's hermitage is the 'beeja' (seed) and Dusyanta's wilful

action to go to the sage to pay his respects is the ārambha

(beginning) and the two circumstances combining to start the

love-story is the 'sandhi' (joining, combining) called mukha

(lit. face, opening first etc.)'122 of the drama. This broad

outline is sufficient for guiding the playwrights regarding the

structure of drama. Further classification of the five sandhis

(junctures) into sixty four component parts, however, appears

to the modern readers as mere hair-splitting and reduntant to

some extent. It is not possible for any playwright to use all

the component parts of the juncture, as their full use would

make the drama highly mechanical and devoid of meaning

whereas the main function of drama is to convey the sentiments

of human life. B. Bhattacharya has rightly stated that "A blind

following of these in respect of handling the theme and collocat-

ing the incidents would clearly take away the initiative of the

playwright and tend to make his art mechanical."123

Structure of Drama

149

Division of Drama into Acts

Bharata discusses the construction of drama from yet another point of view. In his opinion the plot is to be developed through an Act or a series of Acts depending upon the nature and scope of the story. Bharata considers Act as a unit of plot-construction. He defines it as follows :

The Aṅka is the customary word. As by means of presentation of the Psychological States and Sentiments, it causes the purposes of the play to develop, and as it adheres to some technical rules (for this purpose), it is called an Aṅka (Act). An Act should be brought to a close by (lit. in) a division of the play, and no final disposal of the seed (bija) should be made in it. And the vital Drop (bindu) of (lit. arising from) the play should again and again be made to occur in the plot (vastu).124

The Act does not stand isolated ; it is a logical part of the total consistent structure of the drama. It is related with the prior as well as the subsequent stages of the plot-development. M. Ghosh has rightly stated that Acts in ancient Indian Nāṭakas are not "a set of clearly divided scenes as they are in modern Western Compositions of this category. An Act of the ancient Indian drama consists of a series of more or less loosely connected scenes which due to its peculiar technique could not be separated in writing from one another."125 The purpose of the Act is to divide the whole drama into such parts as may provide an organic unity to it. It satisfies the time factor as "definite breaks in the course of staging a play are necessary and helpful for both the actors and the audience"126.

There appears to be a natural connection between the junctures of the drama and the Acts of the drama, though the Acts may be larger in number than the junctures. There are only five junctures whereas there may be more than five Acts, sometimes even ten. The Acts therefore seem to correspond with the stages of Action, though the playwright is free to use more than one Act in order to cover a particular Stage of

150

Theory of Drama

Action. In Venīsamhāra, for example, the dramatist uses three

Acts—the third; the fourth and the fifth in order to show the

third Stage of Action, the Prospect of Success, and the same

juncture, the Development.

There are slow as well as fast moving plots in dramas. The

Nāṭaka, Prakaraṇa and the Nāṭikā are supposed to have slow-

moving plots as they possess all the junctures. The Prahasana,

Vīthī, the Dima, the Samavakāra, the Ihāmṛga, the vyāyoga

and Aṅka varieties are known to have fast-moving plots as in

these varieties some junctures are left out.

Five Explanatory Devices (arthopakṣepaka)

Bharata feels that there are certain incidents such as the

portrayal of a battle, loss of kingdom, death, the siege of a city,

a marriage ceremony or any other religious ritual and so many

pieces of information which are essential for the development

of the story but they don’t form a part of the plot. In order

to supply the necessary information and supplement the missing

links Bharata suggests the use of five Explanatory Devices

(arthopakṣepaka lit. communicator of incidents), which are vary

helpful in clarifying the obscurities that may occur on account

of the extreme condensation of the subject-matter of the drama.

These five Explanatory Devices are as follows :

(i) The Supporting Scene (viṣkambhaka)—It is an inter-

lude. It is used for describing some incident or occurrence that

has either taken place or is just to take place. It is related

originally to the opening Segment of the Nāṭaka. In this con-

nection Bharata has stated :

A Supporting Scene (viṣkambhaka) should employ the

middling male characters, are relate to the Opening

Segment (mukhasandhi) only of the Nāṭaka and it is (to

be) graced by a priest, minister or Kaṅcukin (armour-

bearer).127

Not more than two characters should participate in it and

they too should be secondary characters. The Supporting Scene

Structure of Drama

151

is divided into two types- pure and mixed. In the first type of

the Supporting Scene only characters of middle rank are on the

stage and they speak Sanskrit. Persons of the highest rank

such as gods and king should not be employed for this purpose.

In the mixed type of the Supporting Scene inferior and middling

characters should be used and they should speak Prākrit. In

the opinion of Sylvain Levi'28 Bharata's rule that the use of the

Supporting Scene should be restricted to the mukha-sandhi,

should not be literally followed as there are exceptions to it.

Act IV of Abhijñānaśākuntalam which belongs to the garbha

sandhi, begins with a viṣkambhaka (Supporting Scene).

(ii) Intimating Speech (cūlika)-It is a kind of speech

which is made from behind the curtain in order to give some

important but brief information. Bharata defines it as

follows :

When some points are explained by a superior, middling

or inferior character from behind the curtain, it is called

an Intimating Speech (cūlika).

Normally it is used either to introduce a new character or

to give some important information regarding the outcome of

some fierce battles. In the beginning of Act II of Uttararāma-

carita a voice from behind the curtain introduces a female

hermit and reveals her identity. In Act IV of Mahāvīracarita a

voice from behind the curtain announces that Paraśurāma has

been defeated by Rāma.

(iii) Introductory Scene (praveśaka) - The Introductory

Scene is an intermediary scene used between two Acts. When

the events of a day cannot be accommodated in an Act, they

should be presented through an Introductory Scene after closing

the Act. In Nāṭaka and Prakarana the Introductory Scene

should refer briefly to the summary of the next segments. When

a particular item which is too large, cannot be completely pre-

sented in an Act, its account should be given through an Intro-

ductory Scene in a compressed form. Regarding the other

purposes of the Introductory Scene Bharata says :

152

Theory of Drama

An Introductory Scene may have many purposes. (For example), it may explain the advent of time, change of purpose, or the inversion of movement, or making a beginning (of some event).130

In the Introductory Scene exalted speech of the superior or the middling characters should not be used. The speech and manner should rather be of the common people. An Abhijnana-sakuntalam at the beginning of Act VI the conversation between the fisherman and the guards, and in Ratnavali the scene between the two maids, may be cited as the best examples of the Introductory Scene (pravesaka).

There has been a good deal of controversy over the issue as to whether the Introductory Scene (pravesaka) and the Supporting Scene (viskambhaka) are identical or distinct from each other. B. Bhattacharya translates 'viskambhaka' as the Explanatory Scene and points out that "the Explanatory and Introductory Scenes should be treated as identical. They have nothing distinctive in them in essence, that can justify their separate enumeration. The mere prohibition of using the latter in the beginning of the first Act can hardly be taken to justify its separate character."131 A. B. Keith, however, is of the opinion that there are distinctions between the two. The Viskambhaka (Supporting Scene) is to be performed by not more than two characters and they should not be of noble rank. It may be used at the beginning of the drama whereas Pravesaka (Introductory Scene) cannot be used at the beginning of the drama, and should be used only when the first Act is over. If the viskambhaka is pure, its characters should be of middle rank and should speak Sanskrit whereas the characters of the Pravesaka are always of inferior class and speak Prakrit. In Abhijnanasakuntalam Act III is introduced by a viskambhaka where a disciple of Kanva Rsi speaks in Sanskrit and informs us that king Dusyanta is staying in the hermitage, whereas in Act VI a Pravesaka introcuced the conversation between the fisherman and the police who speak in Prakrit.

The purpose of both these dramatic devices-viskambhaka and pravesaka—is to give information about what has happened

or what is going to happen in order to give a clear hint about

the next phase of development. "All this is done", says G.K.

Bhat, "by simple narration and/or conversation. Being mere

links and not of much dramatic interest, the vïskambhaka and

pravesaka have to be short, to the point, and also suggestive"133.

In other three Explanatory Devices-the Intimating Speech

(cūlikā), the Transitional Scene (aṅkāvatāra) and the Antici-

patory Scene (aṅkamukha) are comparatively less significant

Devices.

(iv) Transitional Scene or Continuation Scene (aṅkivat-

āra)-Bharata defines it as follows :

As in practice it falls between two Acts, or within an Act,

and relates to the purpose of the Seed (bīja), it is called a

Transitional Scene (aṅkāvatāra)131

Though the definition is not very clear, it appears to give an

indication about the theme of the next Act. It is a close succes-

sion of two acts in order to keep the development of the plot

well connected. It is intended, says B. Bhattacharya, "to bring

the Germ of the Plot to the forefront, when it is lost sight of,

either as the part of an Act or as a separate entity."135

Viśvanātha gives the example of the fisherman incident. The

recovery of the ring from the fisherman brings the motif of the

play of the forefront and makes the reunion of Duṣyanta and

Śakuntalā possible.

(v) Anticipatory Scene (aṅkamukha)-It is mostly used

in plays other than the Nāṭaka and the Prakaraṇa. Here the

dramatist employs only one character in order to give a

summary of the next Act. Bharata defines it as follows :

When the detached beginning of an Act is summarized

beforehand by a male or a female character, it is called

Anticipatory Scene (aṅkamukha).136

It reveals such matters which cannot be staged very conveni-

ently. We may take, for example, the Mahāviracarita where at the

154

Theory of Drama

end of Act II Sumanta announces the arrival of three characters

Vasiṣṭha, Viśvāmitra and Praśurām and these three open Act

IV. Viśvanātha, however, takes a different view and defines it as

the part of an Act where a reference is made to the subject of

the following Act along with the entire story from the germ to

the denouement. He gives the example of the dialogue of

Avalokitā and Kāmandaki in Act I of the Mālatimādhava which

gives an account of the part to be played by the characters and

their distinct motive.

In addition to these five Explanatory Devices there are a

few other parts of the drama which have been mentioned by

Bharata in the NŚ. They are as follows :

(i) Preliminaries (purvarañga)—They are performed by

the singers with the help of musical instruments in the begin-

ning of the drama.

(ii) Benediction (nandi)—It is the invocation of the bless-

ing of gods, Kings and Brahmins.

(iii) Prologue (prastāvanā)—It is used by the dramatist in

order to proclaim the theme of the play.

(iv) Prayer (Bharata-Vākyama)—It is a kind of praśasti

used by the dramatist at the end of the drama in order to

express his good wishes for the betterment of the whole world.

Bharata himself uses the Bharata-vākyama at the end of his NŚ.

What more shall I say? Let the earth be full of grains,

and be free from diseases for all time. Let there be peace

for cows and Brahmins and Let the king protect thus the

entire earth.137

This bharata-vākyama is used by the Sanskrit playwrights at the

end of their plays, and it expresses their expectations for a

better future.

Three Unities

(i) Unity of Action (Impression)

Structure of Drama

155

Bharata, like the Greek theorist Aristotle, does not attach much importance to all the three unities. In his opinion Unity of Action (Impression) alone is important; the other two unities—unity of time and unity of place—could be achieved but in accordance with the requirements of the story G.K. Bhat has rightly pointed out that "what a dramatist cannot afford to neglect without sacrificing literary art is the Unity of Action which makes a play a logically built organic structure."

138

In the opinion of Bharata an Act should not contain too many incidents as it would violate the unity of impression in the drama. Moreover, there should be proper coordination between the main plot and the sub-plot and if there is anything which cannot be directly represented on the stage, it should be reported to the audience through the Explanatory Devices. It gives not only a guarantee of the unity of impression but also a rapidity of movement to the plot which is required for a successful dramatic representation. Bharata's suggestion about the five elements of plot, five stages of plot-development and the five junctures reveals the utmost importance which Bharata gave to the Unity of Action.

The presence of the Hero as well as the use of the Seed and the vital drop in every Act also contributes towards the unity of Action. In this connection Bharata has pointed out that "The Seed (bīja) of the play as well as its vital Drop (bindu) was always to relate to every Act of the play, and the Hero was sometimes to appear in every Act or to be mentioned there."

139

The use of Explanatory Devices also helps the dramatist in avoiding ambiguity and clumsiness in the drama.

(ii) Unity of Time

Bharata is not very specific about the Unity of Time and he gives a very wide scope to the dramatists and producers. Unity of time, in his opinion, refers to the time taken by the actual incidents in the drama. Referring to time he says :

Depending on the Germ, the Act should present the actions relating to a single day, and there should be no

156

Theory of Drama

conflict with the routine duties. At times, a skilled playwright may present many Actions but these should not

come in the way of the necessary duties.140

It is evident from the above passage that the individual Act

should not contain such incidents which cross the limit of a

single day. Moreover there should be nothing in an Act that could

interrupt the routine duties such as the recitation of prayers

or taking of meals. There are, however, some difficulties which

the dramatist has to face. For example, the hero Duṣyanta in

Abhijñānaśākuntalam leaves one place and goes to another. How

is it possible that the journey will take only one day ? If the

journey takes more than one day, how to present it in the

drama ? Bharata refers to the ‘Termination of Act’ (ankacbeda)

and the use of Explanatory devices for this purpose. If the

gap of one month or even one year is to be shown between two

Acts, it should be reported through Explanatory devices.

Kālidāsa, for example, introduces an Explanatory Scene after

the termination of Act III in order to report Śakuntalā’s marri-

age with Duṣyanta, the hero’s return to the capital, the curse of

Durvāsā and the worries of Anasuyā and Priyambadā over the

fate of Śakuntalā.

Later theorists, however, relaxed Bharata’s insistence on the

limit of one year’s duration on the basis of the plays written

by different playwrights. They were of the opinion that even

more than one year’s gap might be reported through these

Explanatory devices. Bhavabhūti in Uttararāmacarita for inst-

ance, reports in the Explanatory Scene an interval of twelve

years between the first and the second Acts. Similarly a gap of

four or five years is shown between the fifth and the Sixth Acts

in Abhijñānaśākuntalam. These intervals don’t militate against

our sense of reality and they don’t create any obstacle to our

perception of unity.

(iii) Unity of Place

So far as the unity of Place is concerned, there is not even

the slightest suggestion anywhere in the NŚ that means any kind

of restriction over the change of place in the drama. Since in

Structure of Drama

157

Bharata's opinion drama initiates all that is there in the three

worlds, the question of restiction over the place does not arise.

He wanted that the characters of the drama may be placed in

the whole of the Bhāratavarsa which is the most proper place

for dramatic representation and production. If the character is

on a voyage or tour to a foreign land, the Act should be brought

to a close at his departure and the new Act should begin. In

Uttararāmacarita the change of place from Ayodhya to the forest

or in Abhijñānaśākuntalam Duṣyanta's visit from his kingdom to

the hermitage of Kanva Rṣi does not create an unnatural

impression over the mind of the spectators.

III

Both the theorists—Aristotle as well as Bharata have laid

emphasis on the supremacy of plot in drama. Whereas Aristotle

considers plot to be the 'soul of drama', Bharata calls it 'the

body of drama' though both the theorists use these two terms

metaphorically in order to communicate the same truth. In

considering the plot as the 'body of drama' Bharata appears to

be more exact and appropriate, as plot is certainly the body i.e.

the outer structure of drama. Aristotle uses the word 'soul' in

the sense that plot is the most significant element of drama and

we cannot conceive of a drama without plot just as we cannot

think of the human beings without their souls. Bharata too,

while calling the plot the 'body of drama', accepts the signific-

ance of plot as without body we cannot even think of the soul.

Both the theorists, thus, have substantially identical views about

the significance of plot in drama.

Both the theorists are of the opinion that the plot should be

an organic whole and nothing irrelevant or inconsistent should

be incorporated into it. In the opinion of Aristotle the plot of

a tragedy should have a proper magnitude with a beginning, a

middle and an end. Aristotle's three stages of the evolution of

dramatic action are elaborated into five—beginning (prāram bha),

effort (prayatna), possibility of attainment (prāptisambhava),

Certainty of attainment (niyata prāpti) and attainment of object

(phala prāpti) by Bharata. Bharata's reference to the five

158

Theory of Drama

elements of plot as well as the five segments is also intended to emphasize the unified structure of plot.

Aristotle points out that there are five structural parts of a play such as Prologue, Episode, Exode, Parode and Stasimon. The prologue in Greek plays corresponds to the prastāvanā of Sanskrit plays, where the subject matter of the play is reported to the audience in order to prepare them for what is going to be staged. The Episode may be compared to an ‘Act’ in Indian dramaturgy. Sanskrit drama has no parallel to the Greek concept of Exode which is the last scene in a Greek drama, though Bharata’s conception of phalayoga including the bharatavākyam may be considered to be at par with it.

The opening in Greek drama is different from that in Sanskrit drama. Greek drama opens with the prologos (an introductory speech) which is intended to arouse the interest of the audience so that the action may gather momentum. It is done by the main characters of the drama. Sanskrit drama, however, begins with the prastāvanā where the sūtradhāra, after performing the religious ritual, announces the title of the play and the name of the playwright and then creates the proper situation for the entrance of the hero. The introduction of the hero by the sūtradhāra in sanskrit drama is definitely more dramatic and appealing than the pattern of self-introduction by the hero in Greek drama, as is evident from Sophocles’ great play Oedipus, the king where Oedipus himself says-‘I am Oedipus’. It appears to be dull and prosaic.

Greek playwrights are fond of using chorus in their plays. The chorus, which consists of the common Athenian people, serves various purposes in Greek drama. It serves as the spokesman of the playwright and change; in its views reflect the changing perspectives in drama. It is also used to report the non presentable incidents of drama and connect the missing links. It sometimes reveals the happenings off the stage and denotes the significance of certain actions and their consequences. This purpose is served by the Sanskrit playwrights by making use of arthopakṣepakas (Explanatory Devices) in

order to report such things which are either not possible to be

presented on the stage or not proper for enactment on the stage

such as the showing of battle, siege of a city, loss of a kingdom,

marriage ceremony and the actual occurrence of a miracle etc.

However these problems have now been solved on account of

the advancement of science and technology. Modern playwrights,

producers and directors do not have to face these problems for

the enactment of drama.

Sanskrit plays are divided into various Acts in order to

indicate the various stages of plot development in drama. There

is, however, no such division of Greek drama. The different

stages in Greek drama are to be denoted by the different choral

songs known as stasimons. In addition to these choral speeches

there is a prologue before the entrance of the chorus and an

epilogue after the exit of the chorus. Chorus plays such an

important role in the plays of Aeschylus that some of his

existing tragedies such as The Supplicators, The Persians, The

Libation Bearers and The Eumenides are nemed after them. The

importance of chorus, however, declines in the plays of

Euripides and it is virtually dispensed with in the Elizabethan

age. Even if we find a speech or two by the chorus in Marlowe's

Dr. Faustus and Shakespeare's Henry V, it is just in the form of

impersonating an actor and not the group of actors as we see

in the Greek tragedies. There are five stasimons in Sophocles'

Oedipus, the king and therefore the play is divided into six

sections-each related to the other and interdependent in

nature. Absence of Acts in Greek drama shows its limitation

and its undramatic modes. This deficiency, however, is

supplemented later by the British and American playwrights

by dividing the play into various Acts and Scenes.

Aristotle has suggested that there are two stages in the plot-

construction of a drama--Complication and Denouement. In

Bharata's system these stages are called sandhis or segments and

their number is five. The Aristotelian concept of the Com-

plication covers the first three segments which are known as the

Opening (mukha), the Progression (pratimukha) and the

Development (garbha) whereas the Denouement includes the

160

Theory of Drama

last two segments which are called the Pause (vimarśa) and the

Conclusion (nirvahana). The Aristotelian concept of complic-

ation and Denouement is later developed in Western criticism

into five stages-the Initial Incident, the Rising Action (or

Growth or Complication), the Climax (or crisis or turning

point), the falling Action (or Resolution or Denouement) and

the Conclusion (or catastrophe) which have close resemblance

with Bharata's concept of the five segments.

Aristotle's classification of plot as simple and Complex has

no parallel in Bharata's concept of drama. Bharata nowhere

uses the terms such as 'anagnorisis' (recognition) and 'peripety'

(reversal), though instances of this type are available in Sanskrit

plays also. Kālidāsa's Aahijnānaśākuntalam may be cited as an

instance. When Duṣyanta sees the ring, brought to his court by

the fisherman, he recognizes what a serious error has been com-

mitted by him on account of his rejection of Śakuntalā and

then there is a reversal or change in his outlook. He repents

over his conduct. In Oedipus, the king there is reversal from

good to bad fortune but in Abhijnānaśākuntalam there is reversal

from bad to good fortune, though there are similar instances

in Greek plays also such as Iphigenia in Tauris where the

reversal after recognition leads to the reunion of a brother with

his sister. In Vikramorvaśī the recognition is possible through

the stone of reunion (sañgamamani) which helps Purūravas in

recognizing his beloved though she had been transformed into a

creeper. The necklace in Ratnāvalī, the jewel in Nāgānanda the

garland in the Mālatimādhava, jewels in Mṛcchakatika, and the

ring of the queen in Mālavikāgnimitra are similar instances of

recognition in Sanskrit plays. Aristotle's concept of the sub-plot

too does have its resemblance in Bharata's theory of Patākā and

Prakāri.

Further, in Aristotle's theory of plot construction some sort

of conflict or tension is inevitable while the delineation of

emotion or emotional reactions is the main objective of the

Sanskrit plays. Even if there is conflict in Sanskrit drama, it is

controlable. In Uttararāmacarita the conflict arises in the

heart of Rāma between his sense of duty towards his subjects

and that of his love for Sitā but ultimately the latter is subordinated to the former. The deep rooted sense of high idealism

prompted the Indian writers to display the virtue triumphant and vice suppressed at the end of the drama. In Sanskrit plays

no hero or heroine dies or is killed at the end of the drama, but in Greek tragedies most of the heroes and heroines meet with

a fatal end. In Sanskrit plays tragic endings are avoided and evil forces are finally overpowered. Studied in this light,

Bhāsa's Urubhaṅga ceases to be a tragedy as Duryodhana who was the source of all atrocities on the Pāṇḍavas, is finally killed

by Bhīma. Here there is the victory of virtue over vice, honesty over dishonesty. However, if we study Urubhaṅga in the light

of the Aristotelian theory of tragedy, Duryodhana becomes the hero of the drama and he meets with his downfall simply on

account of the flaw in his character—the flaw of over-ambition or lust for power and prosperity.

Referring to the sources which provide the subject-matter for plots, both the theorists are of the opinion that may be

borrowed from the famous stories whether legendary, mythical or traditional or may be the poet's own creation or a mixture

of the two. Though Bharata does not make any such classification regarding the sources of the plot, his definition of the ten

types of drama substantially refers to the same thing. Referring to the plot of the Nāṭaka he points out that it sould be borrowed

from a well-known story (prakhyāta vastuviṣayam) whereas the plot of the Prakaraṇa should be derived from the writer's

creative genius (prakurute). We thus see that both the theorists are identical in their views regarding the sources of plot. Both

due emphasis on the writer's creative power.

Both the theorists are of the opinion that the dramatist should observe the principle of probability and/or necessity and

should take into account the principles of universal appeal while writing a drama. He should present his theme in such a manner

that it might satisfy the taste and aspirations of the spectators. Both the theorists feel that, the unity of Action or Impression

alone is sufficient for effective and forceful presentation of drama. Unity of time or unity of place is not considered

162

Theory of Drama

essential for a consistent and coherent presentation of theme in

drama either by Aristotle or Bharata.

REFERENCES

1. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, VI. 6.

2. Else, p. 263.

3. Eva Schaper, Prelude to Aesthetics (London : George

Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1968), p. 72.

4. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, VI. 15.

5. Ibid., VII., 2.

6. Ibid., 3.

7. O.B. Hardison, Jr., p. 140.

8. Butcher, comm., p. 281.

9. Ibid., p. 278.

10. H. Rackham, trans., Politics, VII, 4.

11. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, VII, 4.

12. Butcher, com., p. 278.

13. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, VII. 1-2.

14. Ibid., VIII. 3.

15. Butcher, comm., pp. 284-85.

16. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, VIII. 4.

17. Hardison, p. 149.

18. Ibid., p. 153.

19. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, IX. 10.

20. Ibid., IX. 11-12.

21. Ibid.,

22. Ibid., xxiv. 20.

23. Ibid., X. 2.

24. Else, p. 331.

25. Butcher, trans. The Poetics, X. 3.

Structure of Drama

26. Leon Golden, trans. The Poetics, X. 3.

27. Butcher, trans. ? The Poetics, XI. 1.

28. F.L. Lucas, "The Reverse of Aristotle" Classical Review, Vol. xxxvii, 1923, pp. 98-104.

29. I. Bywater, Aristotle on the Art of Poetry (Oxford : At the Clarenden Press, 1909), p. 201.

30. Else, p. 345.

31. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, XI. 2.

32. F.L. Lucas, Tragedy (New York : First Collier Books Edition, 1962), p. 99.

33. James L. Calderwood & Harold E. Toliver ed. Forms of Drama (London : Prentice Hall International, INC., 1969), p. 19.

34. Marwell Anderson, "The Essence of Tragedy", Aristotle's Poetics" and English Literature ed. Elder Olson (Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 116.

35. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, XI. 2-3.

36. W. Hamilton Fyfe, Aristotle's Art of Poetry (Oxford : At the Clarendon Press, 1967), p. 44.

37. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, XVI. 1-2.

38. Ibid., XVI. 5.

39. Hardison, p. 212.

40. Butcher, trans., XVI. 7.

41. Lane Cooper, The Poetics of Aristotle : Its Meaning and Influence (New York : Cornell University Press, 1956), p. 53.

42. Butcher, trans. XI. 6.

43. Ibid., XIII. 1.

44. Ibid., XIII. 2.

45. Hardison, p. 180.

46. Butcher, comm., p. 309.

164

Theory of Drama

47. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, XIII. 2.

48. Butcher, comm., p. 313.

49. Butcher, trans., XIII. 2.

50. Ibid., XIII. 3.

51. Fyfe. p. 32.

52. Butcher, Com., p. 317.

53. V. Rai, Aristotle : The Poetics (Delhi : Doaba House, 1984), p. 59.

54. Butcher, Comm., p. 319.

55. F.I. Lucas, p. 104.

56. Butcher, trans., XIII, 5.

57. Ibid., XIII. 6.

58. Ibid., XIV., 9.

59. Maxwell Anderson, "The Essence of Tragedy" Aristotle's Poetics and English Literature, p. 119.

60. Fyfe, p. 33.

61. Butcher, trans., XIV. 1.

62. Ibid., XIV. 4.

63. Ibid., XIV. 7.

64. Ibid., XIV. 7.

65. Ibid., XIV. 9.

66. Ibid.

67. Ibid., XVII. 1.

68. Ibid., XXIV. 8.

69. Ibid., XVII. 3.

70. Ibid., XVII. 3.

71. Ibid., XVII. 5.

72. Ibid., XVIII. 1.

73. Butcher, Com., p. 275.

Structure of Drama

74. F.L. Lucas, p. 148.

75. Butcher, Com., pp. 275-6.

76. Butcher, trans., V. 4.

77. Ibid., XXVI. 5.

78. M. Ghosh, trans., NŚ, XXI. 1.

79. Ibid. 3-5.

80. S. Chattopadhaya, Nataka - Laksana - Ratna - Kosa (Calcutta : Punthi Pustak, 1974), p. 25.

81. NŚ, XXI. 22.

82. Ibid., 28.

83. Sanskrit Drama, p. 16.

84. Sanskrit Drama and Dramaturgy (Varanasi : Bharata Manisha Research Series, 1974), pp. 53-4.

85. G. Ghosh, trans., NŚ, XXL 22.

86. Ibid., 23.

87. Nataka-Laksana-Ratna-Kosa, p. 38.

88. Sanskrit Drama and Dramaturgy, p. 60.

89. M. Ghosh, trans., NŚ, XXI. 24.

90. Ibid., 25.

91. Nataka-Laksana-Ratna-Kosa, p. 44.

92. NŚ, XXI. 26.

93. Narayan Mukherjee, trans., Sylvain Levi’s The Theatre of India, Vol. I (Calcutta : A Writers Workshop Publication, 1978), p. 31.

94. NŚ, XXI. 9.

95. Ibid., 10.

96. Ibid., 11.

97. Sanskrit Drama and Dramaturgy, p. 67.

98. NŚ, XXI. 12.

166

Theory of Drama

99. Sanskrit Dramaturgy, p. 69.

100. NŚ, XXI. 13.

101. G.K. Bhat, Sanskrit Drama : A Perspective on Theory and Practice (Dharwar, Karnatak University Press, 1975), p. 18.

102. NŚ, XXI. 52-3.

103. DR. I. 35.

104. NŚ, XXI. 38.

105. Ibid., 58-9.

106. Sanskrit Drama and Dramaturgy, p. 89.

107. NŚ, XXI. 39.

108. Sanskrit Drama and Dramaturgy, p. 77.

109. NŚ, XXI. 60-1.

110. Ibid., 40.

111. NŚ, XXI. 62-3.

112. Sylvain Levi’s The Theatre of India, p. 43.

113. NŚ, XXI. 41.

114. NŚ XXI. 64-5.

115. Sanskrit Drama and Dramaturgy, p. 95.

116. NŚ, XXI. 42.

117. DR., I. 96.

118. NŚ., XXI. 66-7.

119. Ibid., 43-7.

120. Ibid., 48-50.

121. Ibid., 54.

122. Adya Rangacharya, Introduction to Bharata's Nāṭya-Śāstra (Bombay : Popular Prakashan, 1966), p. 60.

123. Sanskrit Drama and Dramaturgy, p. 86.

124. NŚ., XXI. 109.

Structure of Drama

167

125. M. Ghosh, "The Literary Structure of Drama", NŚ, p. xii.

126. Sanskrit Drama and Dramaturgy, p. 102.

127. NŚ., XXI. 107.

128. Sylvain Levi's The Theatre of India, p. 52.

129. NŚ., XXI. 109.

130. Ibid., 110.

131. Sanskrit Drama and Dramaturgy, pp. 45-6.

132. A.B. Keith, The Sanskrit Drama, pp. 301-2.

133. G.K. Bhat, Sanskrit Drama, p. 20.

134. NŚ, XXI. 111.

135. Sanskrit Drama and Dramaturgy, p. 49.

136. NŚ., XXI. 112.

137. Ibid., XXXVI, last verses.

138. G.K. Bhat, Sanskrit Drama, p. 68.

139. NŚ., XX. 15.

140. Ibid., 24-5.

5

Hero in Drama

In the present chapter we have to discuss the qualities and characteristics of hero in the drama as pointed out by Aristotle in his Poetics and Bharata in his NŚ respectively and then assess their resemblances as well as the differences. Aristotle is of the opinion that there are four qualities–goodness, appropriateness, life-likeness and consistency which should be aimed at by the dramatist while portraying the character of hero in the drama. Bharata suggests that there are four categories of hero in the drama–Dhīrodātta (the self-controlled and exalted), Dhīralalita (the self-controlled and light-hearted), Dhīroddhata (the self-controlled and vehement) and Dhīraprasānta (the self-controlled and calm) which should be used according to the requirement of the situation in the drama.

I

Aristotle's delineation of character, especially the character of the hero, occurs in chapter XV of his Poetics. Explaining as to what character is, Aristotle says :

By character I mean that in virtue of which we ascribe certain qualities to the agents.1

Character, as an element in drama, refers to the expression of character through speech or action. Though Aristotle does not begin a formal discussion of character (ethos) before chapter XV, he does drop certain important hints on the subject in the earlier chapters of his Poetics. For example, chapter II gives a hint to this effect that the character in tragedy should be noble and of a better sort. Though chapter XIII is concerned with

Hero in Drama

169

the construction of plot, it also throws some light on the

qualities of the tragic hero.

The first requirement of character that Aristotle mentions

in chapter XV, is that it should be 'good' :

First, and most important, it must be good. Now any

speech or action that manifests moral purpose of any kind

will be expressive of character : the character will be good

if the purpose is good. This rule is relative to each class.

Even a woman may be good, and also a slave, though the

woman may be said to be an inferior being, and the slave

quite worthless.2

The most fundamental requirement of tragedy is that the

character, especially the character of the hero, should be good,

as without the 'goodness' of character the true tragic

emotions of pity and fear cannot be aroused in the heart of the

spectators. Humphry House and Colin Hardie have rightly

pointed out that 'Aristotle assumes in his spectators a normally

balanced moral attitude, by which they cannot give their sympa-

thetics to one who is 'depraved' or 'odious' ; and sympathy is

the very basis of the whole tragic pleasure.'3 'Goodness' may

be evaluated in terms of moral purpose which is to be seen even

in a woman or a slave. We have deep sympathy for the tragic

fate of the hero simply because he is a 'good' and not an evil

creature. The 'goodness' of the hero may be defined as 'the

quality that provides moral elevation in tragic characters. The

specific quality will change from play to play and from character

to character, but all tragic protagonists have it in some degree,

and the more the better''.4

In chapter XIII Aristotle explains the characteristics of the

ideal tragic hero in the light of the function of tragedy which is

"to produce the Katharsis of pity and fear ; pity being felt for a

person who, if not wholly innocent, meets with suffering beyond

his deserts ; fear being awakened when the sufferer is a man of

like nature with ourselves''5. Hence certain types of character

are not considered suitable for the purpose of an ideal

tragedy :

170

Theory of Drama

(i) The hero of the tragedy should be good but not a perfect

character as blameless goodness passing from prosperity to

adversity does not awaken either pity or fear. It merely shocks or

repels us. In fact we can have no pity for an innocent

sufferer as 'wholly unmerited suffering' is repulsive to our

emotions. Moreover, as Butcher has pointed out, "it has been

sometimes said that such persons themselves despise the pain of

suffering ; they enjoy so much inward consolation that they

have no need of our sympathy".6 A flawless character does

not have a strong motive and is not very effective on the stage.

Though Butcher feels that the character of Antigone is a flaw-

less character and she is powerful on the stage, we have our

own reservations regarding the perfection of her character. She

has to choose between two contending duties--duty towards her

dead brother and duty towards the State and she chooses the

first. Is her choice absolutely justified ? Does she have no duty

or responsibility towards the State ? The denial of the right for

burial ceremonies may be a debatable issue, but no state can

flourish by permitting traitors to be treated at par with its

loyal citizens. Sometimes there is a clash between two equally

justifiable claims, between imperative and impulse, between the

moral ordinance and unruly passion, between mandate and

desire when the situation becomes irreconcilable and the fatal

ending inevitable.

There are, however, some religious tragedies such as Eliot's

Murder in the Cathedral and Shaw's Saint Joan which have added

a new dimension to the Aristotelian concept of tragic hero.

The protagonists here are flawless but at the same time effective

on the stage. We should, however, bear one thing in mind that

these protagonists can fill us with wonder and admiration but

never with pity and fear which are the true tragic emotions in

the Aristotelian sense of the term. The saints or mar.yrs can

hardly arouse our emotions of pity and fear which are indis-

pensable factors in a true tragedy. Some critics, on the cont-

rary, are of the opinion that suffering has to be accounted for

in human terms. Becket's and Joan's sufferings have their

roots in their characters and are worthy of our sympathy. Even

Christ is a sufferer and even his suffering calls for sympathy.

Hero in Drama

171

Such characters in tragedy have to be seen and evaluated in

human contexts.

(ii) The hero of the tragedy should not be a bad man pass-

ing from adversity to prosperity, as nothing can be more disturb-

ing to our sense of poetic justice or the spirit of tragedy than

this situation in the drama. Aristotle has rightly stated :

Nor, again, that of a bad man passing from adversity to

prosperity : for nothing can be more alien to the spirit

of Tragedy ; it possesses no single tragic quality ; it

neither satisfies the moral sense nor calls forth pity or

fear.7

Such a situation is completely devoid of tragic quality and is

wanting alike in pity and fear. Though the rise of a bad

man to the position of power and glory is frequently seen in

day-to-day life, it is not very conducive to a work of art. It

may arouse righteous anger or moral indignation but not the

pity and fear in a work of art. It will be outrageous to our

sense of justice too. We have no hesitation in arguing with

Butcher that "Even granting that art must touch us through our

aesthetic sensibility, and has nothing directly to do with the

sense of justice, the aesthetic effect itself will be one of pain and

disquiet ; the doubt and disturbance which arise from the

spectacle of real life, will be reproduced and perhaps intensifi-

ed"8. Drama which is intended to display a plausible connection between cause and effect, fails in its purpose if it shows the

supremacy of sheer Fate or blind Chance in human life. It may

aggravate our confusion and intensify our distrust for order

and system in human life.

(iii) The hero of the tragedy should not be an utter villain

as his downfall would neither arouse pity nor fear. In this

connection Aristotle has stated :

Nor, again, should the downfall of the utter villain be

exhibited. A plot of this kind would, doubtless, satisfy

the moral sense, but it would inspire neither pity nor fear;

for pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the

172

Theory of Drama

misfortune of a man like ourselves. Such an event, therefore, will be neither pitiful nor terrible 9

The overthrow of a villain is certainly satisfying to our moral sense but is lacking in true tragic qualities. We cannot pity the sufferer whose suffering is well deserved on moral grounds. Similarly we cannot have fear if the sufferer is not like us in nature or character. Since the villain deserves his suffering and we cannot identify ourselves with the character of the villain, we cannot have either pity or fear if the villain comes to a fatal end. Even if the wickedness of a villain is presented on a grand scale and the villain is invested with a resolute will or powerful intellect, we can only have sympathy for his misuse of splendid gifts and not the pity for his suffering which is an essential requirement for an ideal tragedy. Some experiments, however, have been made during the Elizabethan period in order to make such character the hero of the drama. Tourneur’s Vendice and Webster’s Vittoria Corombona may be cited as examples of this type of character. Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Richard III and Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus also belong to this category to a very great extent, as they all choose evil deliberately, stick to it and ultimately pay for it. In the absence of the soliloquies Macbeth’s character would have been the character of a villain but as the play stands, he is undoubtedly a tragic hero in spite of the fact that he chooses evil deliberately.

(iv) In the opinion of Aristotle the hero of tragedy should be good but not a perfect character. He clearly suggests :

There remains, then, the character between these two extremes, - that of a man who is not eminently good and just, yet, whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty. He must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous, - a personage like Oedipus, Thyestes or other illustrious men of such families.10

The hero of tragedy should be a man of mixed character— neither supremely good nor extremely depraved. He should,

however, be leaning to the side of goodness. He should be,

says Butcher, "a man of noble nature, like ourselves in element-

al feelings and emotions ; idealised, indeed, but with so large

a share of our common humanity as to enlist our eager interest

and sympathy".11 The hero of tragedy should not be a per-

fectly virtuous man, as then there would be no 'necessary and

probable' connection between his original tragic deed and his

catastrophe. He should come to his fatal end not through

some deliberate Vice but through some great flaw or error of

character. Aristotle uses the term 'hamartia' for this purpose.

We have already explained it in greater depth and detail in our

chapter on the structure of drama. It would here be sufficient

to say that the tragic hero should meet with his downfall

through an act that is not intentional. Othello's innocence,

Macbeth's ambition and Hamlet's indecision are mainly respon-

sible for their tragic end. There are, however, moments of

tragic catastrophe when the hero himself is not responsible for

his downfall either directly or indirectly. The responsibility

rather goes to the other forces such as Fato in Greek tragedy or

heredity in modern one. Fate has a major part to play in

Oedipus' tragic end and heredity in the suffering of Mrs. Alving

in Ibsen's The Ghosts. There are religious, social and psycho-

logical tragedies also. In the social tragedies of Galsworthy

the hero's social mal-adjustment is responsible for his fatal end

and not the flaw in his character. Similarly in psychological

tragedies the hero comes to a fatal end due to his conflict

between the conscious and the unconscious forces of the psyche

In Aristotle's theory there is no scope for such a tragic hero

who displays the struggle between a pure will and a disjointed

world or the conflict between a grand criminal purpose and a

higher moral force.

Aristotle's requirement that the hero should be 'highly

renowned and prosperous' is applicable to the Greek tragedies,

Shakespearian tragedies and some of the modern tragedies only.

In modern age the nature of requirement has changed. Today

even the common man may become the hero of the tragedy.

He is undoubtedly very much like us but at the same time he is

different from us in his intellectual and spiritual superiority.

174

Theory of Drama

He is superior to others, says Northrop Frye, "in his concern

with a large problem, in his exceptional power of action, in his

extraordinary capacity to suffer, and vehement refusal of a

servile submissiveness to his circumstances and the forces work-

ing against him"12. The social status of the hero in the past

has now been replaced by his moral status - his sense of dedica-

tion and devotion to such a noble cause which concerns the

entire human race in one way or the other. Willy Loman in

Arthur Miller's well-known play The Death of a Salesman does

not possess the tragic grandeur of an Oedipus or a Lear, but he

is undoubtedly a moving tragic character as there underlies a

vital truth relating to his tragic experience.

(2) Aristotle is of the opinion that the next requirement in

the character is its appropriateness :

The second thing to aim at is propriety. There is a type

of manly valour ; but valour in a woman, or unscrupulous

cleverness, is inappropriate.13

In every age human characters have been classified according to

certain general categories. Since they are mostly drawn from

Ethics or legendary and historical sources, they must be appro-

priate to their traditional accounts. They must naturally be

linked with their age, sex, social class, status and nationality.

If courage or unscrupulous cleverness is shown in a woman, it

would be inappropriate. John Jones has suggested that "The

stages woman should possess the womanly virtues and the stage-

slave the slavish virtue ; the former should not be brave like a

a man nor the latter generous, tempered like a king, for this

will produce an ultimate aesthetic anarchy"14. But the question

is : where should we then place Antigone or Portia ? Do they

not 'overstep' the reasonable limits of their class ? The appro-

priateness of character in fact should not be confused with its

being type, as neo-classicists did. The traits of Ben Jonson's

characters are based on the theory of humours and their specific

characteristics are determined by their 'humours'. They became

so rigid in their outline that there is no scope for the express-

ion of the subtleties and complexities. They ultimately appear

to be superficial.

Hero in Drama

175

That is certainly not the intension of the great critic Aristotle when he uses the term appropriateness of character. Humphry House is not willing to accept the stand of the critics that finally reduces all characterization to the mere presentation of types. In his opinion there is "no word in the Greek at all corresponding to "type". The word translated "appropriate" is quite fairly so translated; it is an intransitive participle meaning "fitting."15 It means that the character in the drama should not normally 'overstep' the proper limits of his class either up or down, as it would then become unnatural and hence cunconvincing to the spectators. Women, for evample, possess their own graces, weaknesses and strengths. It would not be proper to ignore the womanliness of a woman and depict as if there is no basic difference between the two opposite sexes. There are, of course, social, psychological and biological factors which place a demarcating line between male and female characters. This fundamental distinction should be maintained by the dramatist in the portrayal of his characters. In the light of the Aristotelian principle Mclanippi's clever speech would appear to be inappropriate to her sex and Medea's murder of her children as most unwom only.

Aristotle, however, does not mean to say that the dramatist should ignore the particularities and the subtleties of human character. If we want that the character should be typical enough to be intelligible to the readers, we at the same time expect that it should also be untypical enough to retain its individuality and its distinctive character. This is what Aristotle means by the appropriateness of character.

(3) The third requirement in the character is that it should be true to life, as Aristotle has said :

Thirdly, character must be true to life ; for this a distinct thing from goodness and propriety, as here described.16

Whereas Butcher translates the original Greek version regarding the third requirement as 'true to life', Bywater and Gerald Else suggest that the character should be 'like'. This is perhaps the most perplexing issue as Aristotle here does not either care to

176

Theory of Drama

explain it further or give example in order to substantiate it.

The problem remains as to 'like' what? Else17 derives two

meanings from the context :-

(i) The character should be like the original mythical

prototype, as presented by tradition.

(ii) The character should be like men in general, or as

Aristotle is fond of saying, like 'us', i.e. true to life.

Regarding his first observation it is evident that if the

dramatist has to use a mythical or historical character, he should

conform to the accounts of that particular character in the myth

or history. If the playwright has to depict the character of Zeus

and Agamemnon, he should preserve their characteristics as

narrated in traditional myth and legend. If the character is to

be named after Medea or Oedipus or Helen, the playwright

should turn to their traditional accounts for like characteristics.

If any fundamental deviation is introduced, it would not be

convincing to the spectator. If Medea is represented as a self-

sacrificing woman, Oedipus as very tolerant and Helen as ugly

in appearance, it would neither be appealing nor convincing to

the people. However the playwright is free to use his hown

observation and experience in order to make them more lively

and interesting. There is no binding of mythical or historical

account on the writer if he chooses an imaginative character.

He is free to choose a character f his liking and give a new

dimension to his personality.

Regarding his second observation that the character should

be true to life, it is clear that he should behave and react in

the manner we all do in our own life. He should not be

presented as more puppets – wooden and lifeless. Aristotle

gives a hint to this effect when he uses the word 'hamartia'

which leads the here to his downfall. 'Hamartia' refers to a

common human weakness from which we all suffer. If

'hamartia' is responsible for the tragic end of the hero, it means

that the hero is one like ourselves. Moreover one of the two

fundamental tragic emotions, that is, fear is aroused only when

we feel that the hero is one of us and by our reaction that the

Hero in Drama

177

some thing might happen to us. The tragedy of a titan or of

an animal will have no impact on us if they do not possess the

recognizable humanıty of a tragic character. Aristotle's obser-

vation is quite convening when he says that "since Tragedy is

an imitation of persons who are above the common level, the

example of good portrait-painters should be followed. They,

while reproducing the distinctive form of the original, make a

likeness which is true to life and yet more beautiful. So too

the poet, in representing men who are irascible or indolent, or

have other defects of character, should preserve the type and

yet ennoble it. In this way Achilles is portrayed by Agathon

and Homer.18

(4) The fourth requirement in the character is that it should

be consistent. The requirement of consistency in the character

does not permit the playwright change its class or category in

the midstream. It should be depicted from the beginning to

the end of the drama in such a manner that its growth may

appear to be rationally understandable.

The character should possess consistency and its develop-

ment should take place according to the principle of probability

and/or necessity. The right thing, therefore, would be that :

As in the structure of the plot, so too in the portraiture

of character, the poet should always aim either at the

necessary or the probable. Thus a person of a given

character should speak or act in a given way, by the rule

either of necessity or of probability ; just as this event

should follow that by necessary or probable sequence.19

The rule of necessity and/or probability is essential in the

art of characterization as its absence leads to a disruption of

the dramatic illusion. The play seems to violate natural

causality. Aristotle clearly suggests in chapter II of his Poetics

that the playwright should imitate men in action, but he now-

here overtly criticizes the use of magic fairies and supernatur-

al agents. He wants to emphasize this point that the characteri-

zation should be consistent with the ending of the drama so

that it might give the impression that character is responsible

178

Theory of Drama

for the growth of action in drama, as in real life. Even if the

playwright uses 'magical powers' in drama, he should use them

in such a manner that it may provide a convincing and effective

'cause' for the use of that miracle. The objection against

Eurupides' Medea is not that it makes use of the Sun-chariot in

order to escape but he uses it in such a situation that it appears

to be a bit of unmotivated sensationalism.

Consistency is the basic requirement of character as it is

to be evaluated as a whole. It refers to the logical growth of

the character and appears to have originated from the Greek

aesthetic intellectualism. Consistency does not mean that

there should be no turn or twist in the life of the character.

By putting emphasis upon consistency, Aristotle, says Humphry

House, "is not recommending a dead level, not a flat uniformity

but a living coherence"20.

It the character is a bundle of contradictions and a figure

of momentarily changing moods, it certainly means that it is

inconsistent in its growth. Aristotle might have anticipated

this objection that may arise in connection with this require-

ment of character, as is evident from the observations of John

Jones ;

Thus Aristotle anticipates a sophistical objection to the

requirement of consistency : a student might come to

him afer the lecture and ask "But what about the

inconsistent people? At the same time it may not be

entirely fanciful to see him fumbling-and fumbling

impressively - with the fact that a strand of chaos may be

traced through the pattern and system of the sanest life.21

Aristotle is of the opinion that if the character is inconsistent

in its growth, it should be 'consistently inconsistent'. The

dramatist should try to trace consistency even in his inconsist-

ency, as Aristotle says :

...though the subject of the imitation, who suggested

the type, be inconsistent, still he must be consistently

inconsistent.22

Hero in Drama

179

Even if the life of the character is chaotic, the playwright should discover a rational order in it. Aristotle illustrates his point of view from the apparent inconsistency of Achilles' character. Though there is inconsistency on account of abrupt changes in the character of Achilles, he is consistently inconsistent and hence acceptable to Aristotle.

After mentioning that the dramatist should aim at goodness, appropriateness, life-likeness and consistency in the protrayal of tragic hero or some other character, Aristotle further tries to make his stand clear by giving some illustrations in the following lines :

As an example of motiveless degradation of character we have Menelaus in the Orestes : of character indecorous and inappropriate, the lament of Odysseus in the Scylla, and the speech of Melanippe : of inconsistency, the Iphigenia at Aulis, - for Iphigenia the suppliant in no way resembles her later self.

23

Through the example cited above Aristotle shows the violation of three of the four criteria regarding the art of characterization, that is, goodness, appropriateness and consistency. So far as the principle of goodness is concerned, Euripides violates it in the portrayal of his character Menelaus in his play Orestes. When Menelaus is expected to help save Orestes from being condemned to death, fear prevents him from doing so and he is finally condemned. This shows the degradation or baseness of Menelaus' character. Aristotle uses the word 'motiveless degradation' of character in the sense that the act of degradation on the part of Menelaus is not required by the action of the drama and Euripides could have easily omitted it. Goodness of character is of course an essential requirement as the downfall of a villain would not be able to arouse either pity or fear.

Regarding the violation of the rule of appropriateness in character Aristotle cites two examples in order to substantiate it - the lament of Odysseus in the Scylla and the speech of Melanippi. Ulyasses, as the tradition says, was a great warrior and a courageous fellow. However in the (lost) dithyramb of

Hero in Drama

183

The self-controlled and light-hearted (Hero) (Dhīralalita) is free from anxiety, fond of the arts (song, dance etc.), happy and gentle.27

His main concern is to overcome the love of a new favourite by getting through the obstacles which may come in his way. The predominant rasa in this type of hero is the Erotic Sentiment. King Vatsaraj Udayana in the Ratnāvalī is a dhīralalita character.

(iii) Dhīroddhata (the self-controlled and vehement)—This type of hero is arrogant and self-assertive. He is proud, jealous, fickle, irascible and boasterful. He is fond of fight and action. Explaining his distinguishing features Dhanamjaya has stated :

The self-controlled and vehement (Hero) (dhīroddhata) is altogether dominated by pride and jealousy wholly devoted to magic practices and deceit, self-assertive, fickle, irascible, and boastful.28

He is used as hero in the Dima, the Vyāyoga and the Ihamrga types of drama where violent activities dominate the whole play. Paraśurāma in Mahāviracarita is dhīroddhata as he thinks that he is capable of lifting Kailash mountain and is able to conquer all the three worlds. Rāvana too belongs to the same category as he is proud of this fact that he can take away the goddess Lakshmi forcibly with his own hands.

(iv) Dhīraprasānta (the self-controlled and calm)—He is such a hero who is self-controlled and calm and possesses the common qualities. In the opinion of Bharata a Brahmin, a merchant, a priest or a minister may belong to this category. Dhanamjaya has rightly stated the chief features of this type of hero :

The self-controlled and calm (Hero) (dhīrasānta) is a Brahmin or the like, possessed of generic merits29.

This type of hero is normally used in Prakarana. Mādhava in Mālatimādhava and Cārudatta in Sudraka's Mṛcchakatikam are examples of this type of hero.

Hero in Drama

are possessed by the hero of the drama : (i) Beauty of character (śobhā), (ii) vivacity (vilāsa), (iii) Equanimity (mādhurya), (iv) Poise (gāmbhirya), (n) Firmness (sthairya), (vi) Sense of honour (tejas), (vii) Light-heartedness (lālita), and (viii) Magnanimity (audārya). He later on explains their distinguishing features :-

(i) Beauty of character (śobhā)—It refers to the brilliance and splendour of character. It implies sympathy for the weak and help to the poor. Dhanamjaya explains this quality in the following lines.

In Beauty of character (śobhā) (are comprised) compassion for the lowly, emulation of one’s superiors, heroism and cleverness.31

(ii) Vivacity (vilāsa)—In the opinion of Dhanamjaya, “vivacity (vilāsa) includes a firm step and glance and a laughing voice.”32 It refers to the elegance, firmness in gait and assured look.

(iii) Equanimity (mādhurya)--Bharata defines mādhurya as preserving the same gracefulness of body and mind even in the most adverse circumstances. Dhanamjaya explains it as the “slight change of demeanor even in very great agitation.”33

(iv) Poise (gāmbhirya)—It refers to the imperturbability of character. One should remain unperturbed even in the moment of great agitation and should not allow himself to be the victim of his own passions. Dhanamjaya observes that “because of the strength of character, no change of demeanor whatsoever is observed (even in very great agitation).”34

(v) Firmness (Sthairya)—“Firmness (sthairya) is the not being swerved”, says Dhanamjaya, “from one’s determination even by a multitude of obstacles.”35 It refers to the steadfastness of a man’s character.

(vi) Sense of Honour (Tejas)—It refers to the hero’s unflinching courage which forces him to prefer death rather than

186

Theory of Dr

insult. Dhanamjaya has rightly explained it in the following

lines. “Sense of Honor (Tejas) is the not enduring insults

the like, even at the cost of one’s life.”36

(vii) Light-heartedness (lalita)—It refers to the elegance

and natural distinction in bearing. In the words of Dhanam-

jaya, it is “the natural sweet appearance and demeanor of

love.”37

(viii) Magnanimity (audārya)—It refers to the sublime

of character and shows the readiness for sacrifice for the welfare

of the people. Dhanamjaya defines it as follows :

Maganimity (audārya) is the giving up of even as much as

(a) one’s life, with a kindly word, (and) the propiti-

ion of the virtuous.38

Besides these sāttvika qualities, the hero in all the major

types of drama is expected to be well-bred, young, charming,

generous, intelligent, popular, upright, eloquent, resolute,

energetic, of noble lineage, endowed with memory, skilful in

arts, proud, heroic, majestic, vigorous and well conversant with

religious and human codes.

The Hero as Lover

Since most of the Sanskrit plays are concerned with the

stories of love, the hero is normally presented as a lover. And

lover he may be presented in four different situations, out of

which the first three presuppose a previous love-affair. In this

connection Dhanamjaya has rightly pointed out :

When he has been captivated by another woman, (the

Hero may be) clever (dakṣina), deceitful (śatha),

shameless (dhrṣṭa) toward his previous (love).39

(i) The hero may be presented as dakṣina (clever or courteous) lover. Haas translates dakṣṇa as clever whereas Narayan

Mukherjee as courteous. This type of lover is kind to his previous

love. He shares his heart between new and old love. Dhanamjaya explains him as follows :

Hero in Drama

187

A clever (Hero) (daksina) is (one that is) kind to her (i.e. to his previous love).40

Sylvain Levi41 gives the following example in order to substantiate it-“The daughter of Kuntala is here, fresh from her bath ; now it is the turn of the sister of the king of Anga. But Kamatā confessed during the dice-game that the first queen, too, was hoping for his favour–When I had thus informed the king about the beauties of the harem, he remained undecided for a long time”.

(ii) The hero may be presented as a śaṭha (deceitful or false) lover. Haas translates śaṭha as deceitful whereas Narayan Mukherjee as false. This type of lover tries to conceal his new love from the old one. Dhanamjaya explains him as one who “hides his unfaithfulness”.42. Sylvain Levi gives the following example :

Traitor ! As soon as you heard the jingling of the jewels of another woman’s waistband, your embrace became loose. To whom can I speak now that the honey of your words has poisoned my heart ? No, my friend does not care for me any more.43

Though both ‘clever’ and ‘deceitful’ lovers are equally unfaithful to their previous love, the fundamental difference between the two is that the clever lover is kind to his former love whereas the deceitful lover is not.

(iii) The hero may appear as dhrṣṭa (shameless or impudent) lover. Whereas Haas translates dhrṣṭa as shameless, Narayan Mukherjee translates it as impudent. This type of lover does not even care to conceal from his old love the marks of disfigurement made by the nails and teeth of the new beloved. Dhanamjaya explains him as one that “lets the disfigurements on his body show”.44. Sylvain Levi illustrates it as follows :

On his forehead a stain of lac, on his neck the mark of bangles, on his lips the black stain of collyrium, on his eyes the red stain of betal. This new make-up of her

188

Theory of Drama

lover made her mad with anger and, as the day dawned,

she let out her sighs in the heart of the lotus which she

pretended to smell.45

There has been some controversy over the classification of

such a hero as Vatsa in Ratnāvali. The issue is as to whether

he should be considered a 'clever', 'deceitful' or 'shameless'

lover. He should not be considered as 'deceitful' or 'shameless'

even though he conceals his love first and then openly confers

it. He should therefore be placed in the category of a clever

or courteous lover, as he retains some affection for his former

love also. A double alliance should not be considered impossi-

ble, as the works of great dramatists give ample illustrations

of it.

(iv) Finally the hero may be presented as anukūla (faithful)

lover. Dhanamjaya defines him as one who "has only a single

lady-love".48 He does not frequently change his loyalty from

one woman to the other. He rather constantly remains faithful

to his lady-love. Sylvain Levi gives the following example in

order to make it more clear :

My dress, my dear, is not gorgeous, my garland is plain,

my bearing is simple and my laughter is genuine. I have

no pride. But people say that my lover never looks at

another woman, and my happiness is so great that every-

body seems to me unhappy.47

The hero in the drama stands in contrast with that of his

rival (prati-nāyaka or anti-hero) who is always hostile to the

hero. The rival of the hero is jealous, arrogant, egoist and

evil-minded and is easily swept away by the vehemence of his

passions. Rāvana, for example, is the rival of Rāma and Duryo-

dhana that of Yudhistir.

The Heroine

The heroine, like the hero, also "contributes no less than

that of the hero in giving to the drama its particular charm"48.

In the opinion of Bharata49 there are four classes of heroines

Hero in Drama

such as goddesses, queens, women of high family and courtesans.

Normally the heroine is kulajā, a woman of noble family.

Only in the social type of play like prakarana the heroine may

be an accomplished courtesan. These different kinds of heroines

possess their own special characteristics. The goddesses and

the queens possess all the major qualities and therefore they

may be self-controlled (dhīrā), light-hearted (lalitā), exalted

udattā and modest (nibhrtā). Whereas the women of high

family are exalted and modest, the courtesans may be exalted

and light-hearted.

Bharata does not say anything more in connection with the

heroines. Dhanamjaya, however, made further observations

on this issue. In his opinion the heroine, in relation to the

hero, may be of three kinds : "(the Hero's) own wife (svā), (a

woman who is) another's (anya), or a common 'woman (sādhāranastrī) ; and she has his (i.e. the Hero's) qualities".50 All

these heroines are always to be seen in different kinds of love

with their heroes.

(1) If the heroine is the hero's own wife (svā) or svīyā), she

possesses good character, uprightness, straightforwardness,

honesty and the like. She may be of three categories : (i)

Mugdhā which is translated by Haas as 'inexperienced' and by

Levi as 'innocent' (ii) Madhyā which is translated by Haas as

'partly experienced' and by Levi as 'middling' (iii) Pragalbha

which is translated by Haas as 'experienced' and by Levi as

'shameless'. Dhanamjaya51 has further commented on all the

three categories with a good deal of subtlety and appropriate-

ness :

(i) The inexperienced (kind of wife) (mugdhā) has the

desire of new youth, is coy in love and gentle in anger.

(ii) The partly experienced (kind of wife) (madhyā) has the

love of rising youth and permits its indulgence even to faint-

ing.

(iii) The experienced (kind of wife) (pragalbha) in blinded

by youth, crazed with love, infatuated, and clinging, as it were,

190

Theory of Drama

to the body of her husband for joy even at the beginning of

love's pleasures.

(2) The heroine who is another's (anyā, anyastri) is either a

maiden or some one's wife. A woman who is the wife of

some one else should never be the object of the principal

sentiment. A maiden, on the other hand, may be the object of

both the principal as well as the subordinate sentiments. It

sometimes happens that a maiden is secretly in love with the

hero, although the secrecy is necessitated not by the objection of

the parents or the guardian but by the presence of a third person

who creates obstacles to their happy union. Mālati and

Mādhava and Sāgarikā and Vatsa may be quoted as classical

examples of this type.

(3) The heroine who belongs to everybody (sādhāranastri),

is a courtesan, a public woman, a lover of different arts, shame-

less and cunning. She tries to allure and entrap the rich, the

foolish, the extravagant and the impotent by her various gestures

and techniques. She turns them out of her house when they

become penniless.

If the courtesan is to be shown as heroine she must have

true love for the hero, as is evident from Vasantasenā in the

Mṛcchakatika. In the Prahasana, however, she must not be in

true love with the hero in order to produce the comic effect.

Madanamanjari in the Lataka-melaka may illustrate this point.

The courtesan should not be made the heroine of such a drama

where the hero is a god, a semi-god or a celestial king.

Natural Graces of Heroine

In connection with the natural graces (sattvajalankāra) of

the heroine Bharata is silent. Dhanamjaya52, however, points

out that there are twenty natural graces which are found in the

heroine in the prime of her youth. Viśvanātha adds eight more

blandishments to the list. Whereas Dhanamjaya mentions and

defines them only, Sylvain Levi illustrates them also. These

are the following twenty-eight graceful traits :

Hero in Drama

191

(i) Bhāva (feeling)—It is ‘the first touch of emotion’ in a

woman who had remained so far unaffected.

Śakuntalā, for example, in Abhijñānaśākuntalam, has the

bhāva when she sees Duṣyanta for the first time in the her-

mitage.

(ii) Hāva (emotion)—When the bhāva becomes stronger, it

is known as hāva. It brings about changes in the eyes and the

eyebrows. When Śakuntala’s love for Duṣyanta gets a gestural

expression it is called hāva.

(iii) Helā (Passion) - When the feeling of love becomes more

explicit and evident, it is known as Helā. When the desire for

conjugal relationship arises in Śakuntalā for Duṣyanta, it is

regarded as Helā.

These three natural graces reveal a progressive series of

manifestations of love. The next seven graces display the

inherent characteristics of the heroine. They are as follows :

(iv) Sobhā (Beauty) (v) kānti (loveliness), (vi) Mādhurya

(Sweetness), (vii) Dipti (Radiance), (viii) Prāgalbhya or Pragal-

bhatā (courage), (ix) Audārya (Dignity), and (x) Dhairya (self-

control).

Then follow ten traits of character :-

(xi) Līlā (sportiveness)—It refers to the imitation of a lover

in the actions of a fair-limbed (maiden).

(xii) Vilāsa (Delight) - At the sight of the hero the sudden

change that arises in the voice and the manner of the heroine

is known as vilāsa.

(xiii) Vicchitti (Tastefulness)—It is an arrangement, though

slight, of adornment in order to increase the loveliness.

(xiv) Vibhrama (Confusion)—When the heroine misplaces

the ornaments out of eagerness to meet the hero, it is called

vibhrama.

192

Theory of Drama

(xv) Kilakiñcita (Hysterical Mood)—It refers to the amorous agitation which produces a combination of anger and tears, joys and fear and the like.

(xvi) Moṭṭāyita (Manifestation of Affection)—When the heroine hears the news of her lover's arrival and thinks of him, her silent expression of love is known as Moṭṭāyita.

(xvii) Kuṭṭamitā (Pretended Anger)—When the heroine, though inwardly filled with immense joy, expresses her anger outwardly when the lover touches her body, it is known as kuṭṭamitā.

(xviii) Bibboka (Affected Indifferencey—Indifferent affectation towards the lover due to pride and arrogance is known as bibboka.

(xix) Lalita (lolling)—Graceful and languid gesture is known as lalita.

(xx) Vihrta or Vikṛta (Bashfulness)—The heroine, even when she gets the right opportunity to talk to the lover, does not talk to him due to her coyness and modesty, it is known as vihrta or vikṛta.

Viśvanātha's eight more additions are as follows :

(xxi) Mada (Pride)—When the heroine attaches special importance to her youth and fortune, that mode of thinking is known as mada.

(xxii) Tapana (Pang of separation)—When the heroine is passing through the stage of pain and boredom on account of the absence of her lover, it is known as tapana.

(xxiii) Maugdhya (innocent behaviour)—When the heroine starts behaving like an innocent child, it is known as Maugdhya.

(xxiv) Vikṣepa (love-distraction)—When the heroine loses her sense of balance and keeps the ornaments in utter disorder on account of her frustration in love, it is known as vikṣepa.

Hero in Drama

193

(x.v) Kutūhala (Utmost curioity)—When the heroine becomes impatient and is very keen to have a glance at her lover, it is known as Kutūhala.

(x.vi) Hasitā (Laughter)—When the heroine is extremely happy and gives spontaneous expression to his sense of youthful joy, it is regarded as hasitā.

(xxvii) Cakita (pleasant surprise)—The heroine’s reaction to something unexpected is considered to be cakita.

(xxviii) Keli (Wanton play)—The heroine’s amorous game with her lover is known as keli.

Bharata has pointed out that in general characters, male and female, are of three types—Superior (uttama), middling (madhyama), and inferior (adhama). Commenting on the superior type of character Bharata says :

(A man) who has controlled his senses, is wise, skilled in various arts and crafts (śilpa), honest, expert in enjoyment, brings consolation to the poor, is versed in different śāstras, grave, liberal, patient and munificent, is to be known as a superior (uttama) (male) character.53

Bharata refers to the chief characteristics of the middling character as follows :

(A man) who is an expert in the manners of people, proficient in arts and crafts as well as in śāstra, has wisdom, sweetness (of manners) is to be known as a ‘middling’ (madhyama) male) character.54

The middling character stands midway between the superior and inferior character. Bharata has drawn a clear distinction between the superior and middling characters. Whereas superior male character acquires the knowledge of different arts and crafts as an accomplishment, the middling character should be capable of making a professional use of them for his livelihood.

194

Theory of Drama

Regarding the inferior (adhama) male character Bharata says :

(Men) who are harsh in words, ill-mannered, low-spirited, criminally disposed, irascible and violent, can kill friends, can kill anyone by torturing, are prone to engage himself in useless things, speak very little, are mean, haughty in words, ungrateful, indolent, expert in insulting honoured persons, covetous of women, fond of quarrel, treacherous, doers of evil deeds, stealers of others' properties, are to be known as inferior (adhama) (male) character.55

The inferior character is vulgar and ill-mannered. He is fickle, shameless, lustful and ungrateful.

After describing these three categories of male characters Bharata discusses in due order the female characters also. Commenting on the superior female character Bharata says :

A woman who has a tender nature, is not fickle, speaks smilingly, is free from cruelty, attentive to words of her superiors, bashful, good mannered, has natural beauty, nobility and such other qualities, and is grave and patient, is to be known as a 'superior' (female) character.56

A female character of this type is controlled in speech, well mannered, skilful, serious and modest.

Referring to the chief characteristics of the middling female character Bharata points out :

A woman who does not possess these qualities to a great extent and always, and has some faults mixed with him, is to be known as a 'middling' (female) character.57

The middling female character is such a character who stands half-way between the superior and the inferior female character. He knows the usages of the world, so far as the inferior female character is concerned, Bharata is of the opinion that "she is to be known in brief from an inferior male character"58. She is

Hero in Drama

195

normally ill-tempered, shameless, arrogant and artificial in

conduct.

In addition to these three types of male and female characters

Bharata also refers to the characters of a mixed nature such as

the maid servants, the śakāra, the vīṭa and the hermaphrodite

etc.

III

Both Aristotle and Bharata have expressed identical views

in connection with the various types of characters. Aristotle is

of the opinion that the characters or the agents represented in

a drama should be either above our level or below it or just as

we are. In a tragedy the writer imitates the first type of

characters, in a comedy the second type of characters. Aristotle

is silent about the third type as mere imitation of reality is not

the purpose of literature. In the tragedy the dramatist tries to

present an idealised picture of human society, in the comedy the

ludicrous presentation of it. The tragedy writer looks at the

problems of human life seriously whereas the writer of the

comedy in a lighter vein.

Bharata too has classified characters into three categories-

uttama or superior, madhyama or middling and adhama or

inferior. Their characteristics have already been described in

greater detail. But since Bharata never thought of drama in

terms of tragedy and comedy, there is no such classification

here. Here the difference between the superior and middling

characters is that of degree and not of the kind. He does not

give any example regarding the inferior type of characters.

Referring to the qualities of character in the tragedy Aris-

totle has pointed out that it should be good, appropriate, life-

like and consistent. Let us now see whether Bharata has also

thought of character on this line or not. In connection with

the first quality of character that it should be good. We may

refer to Bharata's classification of hero as dhīrodātta (self-

controlled and exalted), dhīralalita (self-controlled and light-

hearted), dhīraprasānta (the self-controlled and calm) and

196

Theory of Drama

dhīroddhata (the self-controlled and haughty), the term dhīra (self-controlled) being common to all. It is very close to the Aristotelian requirement of the goodness of character.

Though Bharata does not say anything explicitly in connexion with the appropriateness of character, he has given enough hint to this effect. He was of the opinion that the proper role should be given to the different characters in the drama. He emphatically asserted that

... a woman should not be made a Heroine in any theatrical show, when she smiles on wrong occasions, is rough, has an uneven gait and movement, persistent anger, miserable look and is always haughty and fickle.59

This is, I feel, what Aristotle has said about the appropriateness of character :

There is a manly valour ; but valour in a woman or un-scrupulous cleverness, is inappropriate.60

Referring to the third quality of character that it should be true to life, there is enough hint in rata's NŚ. Bharata is of the opinion that the dramatist should create living and moving characters and not merely puppets. If Bharata insists that different roles should be assigned to proper characters, it certainly means that he was insisting on creating natural and life like characters. Bharata's description of the conduct and behaviour of different types of characters in the NŚ gives an impression that he wanted the characters to look life-like and human.

Regarding the consistency of character Bharata does not say anything clearly but who can say that characters in Sanskrit plays were inconsistent ? Bharata is of the opoion that if the dramatist chooses a dhīrodātta (self-controlled and exalted) character he should remain dhīrodātta till the end of the drama. A dhīrodātta hero can never be wicked or stoop to a low level. So is the case with other types of character. Consistency in character is an essential requirement of the drama, as it enables

Hero in Drama

197

the play to appear natural and convincing. If the development

of the drama is not convincing to the audience, it would not

be very effective on the stage. We, thus, see that the four

requirements of character in a tragedy, as suggested by Aris-

totle, are implicit in Bharata's NS too.

Referring to the status of the tragic hero Aristotle has

pointed out that he should be a man of noble and royal descent.

He should be highly renowned and prosperous. Bharata too

expresses similar views in connection with the hero of the

drama. He should be a king or a prince or a person belonging

to the higher strata of society. Just as the heroes in most of

the Greek tragedies were borrowed from certain well-known

families, most of the heroes in Sanskrit drama hail from certain

aristocratic families. Even during the medieval era, especially

in the plays of Shakespeare, only persons belonging to the

higher strata of society such as Hamlet, Othello, Lear, Macbeth

and others could become the heroes of the drama. In the

modern period, however, the concept of hero in connection

with his lineage has changed. The hero now-a-days may come

from a poor and ordinary family also. The deficiency in his

status has been supplemented by identifying him as the repre-

sentative of a class or a force etc. The position of the hero in

English literature has been changing from time to time but

there has been no change, in the status of the heroes in Sanskrit

dramas. Rāma, Dusyanta, Chārudatta and Mādhava became

the heroes of the Sanskrit dramas and not the ordinary people

of the society.

Aristotle is of the opinion that the tragic hero should be

virtuous but at the same time possess a tragic flaw which would

lead him from prosperity to adversity. We may cite numerous

examples from Greek as well as British drama to illustrate his

theory of hamartia. Oedipus, Agamemnon, Hamlet, Othello

and Macbeth—all suffer from a tragic flaw which leads them to

their tragic ends. Now the question is as to whether there are

plays in Sanskrit literature also where heroes suffer from tragic

flaw. At least there are two plays available in Sanskrit drama

which may illustrate the Aristotelian view of tragic hero suffer-

198

Theory of Drama

ing from a tragic flaw. They are Bhāsa's Urubhangam and Karṇabhāram. Most of the Sanskrit scholars, however, are not

prepared to accept Urubhangam as a tragedy and Duryodhana as the tragic hero. I beg to differ from them and consider

Duryodhana to be the tragic hero on the following grounds :

(i) Bhīma cannot be the hero of the drama as he violates the rule of the battlefield and resorts to foul means in order to

kill Duryodhana.

(ii) Bhīma has not been presented as a character on the stage though the breaking of Duryodhana's thighs is performed

by him.

(iii) Balrāma, the elder brother of Krishna, condemns Bhīma for his foul method and considers Duryodhana to be an

ascetic who, at the last moment of his life, wanted the Pāṇḍavas to survive for offering oblations to the ancestors.

(iv) There is acute realisation at the end of the drama on the part of Duryodhana. When Asvathāma asks him as to

what has happened to him, he replies, "The son of my guru,

it is the fruit of discontentment".

Can we not consider 'discontentment' to be the tragic flaw in the character of Duryodhana which leads him to his tragic

end ? Duryodhana's insatiable desire for gaining full supremacy over the whole of Bhāratavarṣa and his reluctance in leaving

the land to the Pāṇḍavas even equal to the point of a needle was certainly a tragic flaw which led him to his ruin.

Bhāsa's second tragedy Karṇabhāram is based on an episode from Mahābhārata. Karṇa was gifted with armour and ear-

rings which were capable of giving full protection to him from any kind of danger. But what was the tragic flaw in his char-

acter ? I think, it was unbounded charity. He was such a dignified person that he could not deny anything to a Brahmin.

Lord Krishna exploited this situation and took away his divine armour and ear-rings which enabled Arjuna to kill Karṇa. May

Hero in Drama

we not consider this 'unbounded charity' to be a flaw in the

character of Karṇa which led him to his death?

Whereas most of the Greek heroes become the victim of

Fate and meet with their fall as well as death, most of the

Sanskrit plays rule out the possibility of defeat as well as the

death of the hero. Whereas in most of the Greek plays 'Destiny

is character', in Sanskrit plays 'character is destiny'. Indian

hero may pass through suffering and turmoil, but in the end

he is sure to realise the ambition of his life. He never sur-

renders before Fate and accepts defeat in life. When we make a

comparison between Sophocles' Oedipus, the king and Bhāsa's

Urbubhaṅga, we see the difference very clearly. In Oedipus, the

king the life of the hero Oedipus appears to be merely a play-

thing in the hands of Fate. Though he is a man of strong will

and firm determination, his life seems to be conditioned by the

forces beyond his control. On the other hand the hero of the

Urubhaṅga, Duryodhana is not a puppet in the hands of Fate.

He accepts his own responsibility in his tragic end. It is not his

Fate but unrighteous designs which lead him to his fatal end.

The sense of pessimism that we see in the character of Oedipus

is altogether missing from the character of Duryodhana who,

by the end of the drama, realises his own fault and makes a re-

volution of his own life.

Most of the Shakespearean characters also bring their own

downfall. Take, for example, the character of Macbeth. He

becomes the victim of his own high ambition to become the

king. His long association with the royal army as well as Lady

Macbeth incited his ambition for power. He was the de facto

king of Scotland but aspired to be the dejure king. This high

ambition ultimately led him to his own destruction. The hero

in Sanskrit drama, however, normally accepts the challenge and

ultimately meets with success. The hero, as described by

Bharata in his NŚ, is the netā (one who leads), who is sure to

succeed in all his endeavours. He possesses some excellent

qualities of head and heart such as humanity, tenderness, sense

of renunciation, skill in action, sweetness of tongue, love for

all, illustrious birth, patience, youth, intelligence wisdom, good

200

Theory of Drama

memory, energy, self-respect, valour, unwaveringness and loyalty

to religion and duty. How is it possible that such an ideal hero

will commit such an act which would lead him to his own

downfall ? However, lack of any or some of these qualities may

work as a tragic flaw in the character of the hero and bring his

ruin. The dhīroddata hero in Sanskrit drama who is extremely

unyielding and agnostic, reckless and fluctuating in conduct,

easily excited and indulgent in unabashed self-praise, belongs to

this category. Rāvaṇa and Duryodhana may be cited as

example of dhīroddata heroes who are responsible for their

own downfall.

Rāma in Uttararāmacarita, however, is a dhīrodātta hero who

passes through acute mental suffering but does not have any

tragic flaw. Though Aristotle considered tragic flaw to be an

essential requirement for tragedy, Hegel contradicted it. In the

opinion of Hegel there is not always a clash between good and

evil but sometimes between two goods also. In the character of

Rāma there is conflict between two goods - conflict regarding

duty as a husband towards his wife Sītā and duty as a king

towards his subjects. It is of course very difficult to make a

choice between two equally justifiable moral claims. The hero

Rāma suffers immensely but does not accept his defeat. He

does not feel that he is just a puppet in the hands of destiny.

There are some points of divergence between the two great

theorists. Whereas Aristotle is silent in his Poetics regarding

the role of the heroine in a tragedy, Bharata has discussed

various types of heroines and their respective characteristics.

Infact what Aristotle says about characters in general applies as

well to the heroines also. On the basis of the extant heroines

in both the Greek and the Sanskrit plays we perceive the clear-

cut difference in their outlook. Whereas heroines in Sanskrit

drama are humble and obedient in reacting to their suppress-

ions, Greek heroines are reactionary and sometimes become

violent also. There are some heroines in Sanskrit drama such

as Sītā, Śakuntalā and Śaivyā who never react violently against

the decision of their husbands, howsoever oppressive and insult-

ing their decisions might be. On the contrary the Greek heroine

Hero in Drama

Antigone asserts her own right for giving proper burial to the

dead body of her brother. Clytemnestra goes to the extent of

killing her own husband Agamemnon and Medea her own

children. This shows a remarkable difference in their outlook

which reflects the wide difference in their respective cultural and

social backgrounds.

Whereas Aristotle does not say anything regarding the role

of minor characters in the drama, Bharata has discussed their

role too in greater depth and detail. He has paid proper attent-

ion to the role of jesters, parasites, errand-girls, servants

messengers and dancers etc. Bharata has not only taken into

account the role of various characters, but given detailed

instructions also regarding the assignment of proper roles to

various characters keeping in view their suitability on the stage.

There is no such account available in Aristotle’s Poetics.

References

1. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, VI. 6.

2. Ibid, XV. 1.

3. Humphry House and Colin Hardie, Aristotle’s Poetics

(Ludhiana : Lyall Book Depot, 1966), p. 84.

4. Hardison, p. 202.

5. Butcher, com., p. 302.

6. Ibid., p. 308.

7. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, XIII. 2.

8. Butcher, com., pp. 312-3.

9. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, XIII. 2.

10. Ibid., XIII. 3.

11. Butcher, com., p. 317.

12. Northrop Frye, Fictional Modes (San Francisco : Chan-

dler Publishing Co., 1961), p. 32.

13. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, XV. 2.

14. John Jones, On Aristotle and Greek Tragedy, p. 42.

202

Theory of Drama

15. Humphry House, p. 87.

16. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, XV. 3.

17. Gerald F. Else, p. 460.

18. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, XV. 8

19. Ibid., XV. 6.

20. Humphry House, p. 93.

21. John Jones, p. 38.

22. Butcher, trans. The Poetics, XV. 4.

23. Ibid, XV. 5

24. A.B. Keith, Sanskrit Drama, p. 305.

25. M. Ghosh, trans., NŚ, XXXIV. 23-4.

26. Dhanamjaya, Daśarūpaka, 2.5.

27. Ibid, 2.3

28. Ibid., 2.6.

29. Ibid., 2.4.

30. A.B. Keith, The Sanskrit Drama, pp. 306-7.

31. Dhanamjaya, Daśarūpaka, 2.16

32. Ibid., 2.17.

33. ibid., 2.18.

34. Ibid., 2.19.

35. Ibid., 2.20.

36. Ibid., 2.21.

37. Ibid., 2.22.

38. Ibid., 2.23.

39. Ibid., 2.7.

40. Ibid., 2.8.

41. Sylvain Levi, p. 57.

42. Dhanamjaya, Daśarūpaka, 2.9.

43. Sylvain Levi, pp. 57-8.

44. Dhanamjaya, Daśarūpaka, 2.10

45. Sylvain Levi, p. 58.

46. Dhanamjaya, Daśarūpaka, 2.11.

47. Sylvaim Levi, p. 58.

Hero in Drama

48. Ibid., p. 61.

49. M. Ghosh, trans., NŚ, XXXIV, 25-28.

50. Dhanamjaya, Daśarūpaka, 2.24.

51. Ibid., 2. 26-9.

52. Ibid., 2. 47-69.

53. M. Ghosh, trans., NŚ. XXXIV. 3-4.

54. Ibid., 4-5.

55. Ibid., 6-9.

56. Ibid., 10-12.

57. Ibid., 13.

58. Ibid., 14.

59. Ibid., XXXV. 86-7.

60. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, XV. 2.

6

Types of Drama

The present chapter discusses various types of drama as suggested by Aristotle and Bharata respectively. Whereas Aristotle suggests two types of drama–Tragedy and Comedy only, Bharata refers to ten types of drama–Nāṭaka, Prakaraṇa, Samavakāra, Ihāmṛga, Dima, Vyāyoga, Utsṛṣṭikāṅka, Prahasana Bhāṇa and Vīthi. These various types of drama are discussed separately and then an attempt is being made to find out the similarities as well as the differences between the two theorists regarding their categorization of drama. The question of complete identification between Aristotle and Bharata on this issue does not arise. Only an approximate similarity may be traced between the two.

I

Let us first take up Aristotle's concept of tragedy and comedy and discuss them in detail. Referring to the origin of the theatre in connection with the growth of tragedy and comedy, in ancient period, Maxwell Anderson has rightly stated :

The theatre originated in two complementary religious ceremonies, one celebrating the animal in man and one celebrating the god. Old Greek Comedy was dedicated to the spirits of lust and riot and earth, spirits which are certainly necessary to the health and continuance of the race. Greek tragedy was dedicated to man's aspiration, to his kinship with the gods, to his unending, blind attempt to lift himself above his lusts and his pure animalism into

Types of Drama

a world where there are other values than pleasure and

survival. However unaware of it we may be, our theatre

has followed the Greek patterns with no change in essence

from Aristophanes and Euripides to our own day.1

In ancient Greece both tragedy and comedy originated from

the religious rituals. Tragedy originated from the lamentations

associated with the public worship of Dionysus, the god of

vegetation. In Winter and early Spring people used to worship

Dionysus in order to propitiate him so that he might bless them

with fine harvests. The word 'tragedy' owes its origin to the

Greek term 'tragodoi, which refers to a chorus, who personated

goats. Etymologically 'tragedy' refers to a 'goat-song'. In the

opinion of Hardison the term 'tragedy' was traced by Hellenistic

critics to 'the practice of awarding a goat to the winner in

dithyrambic contests honoring Dionysus. Later, the term

tragedy came to be used as the label for plays performed at the

dramatic contests that replaced the dithyrambic contests. On

each day of a dramatic festival, four plays were performed,

three generally serious in tone and one satyr-play''2. The first

three plays which were serious in tone, were then known as

tragedy.

Tragedy

Since we have already discussed Aristotle's concept of the

nature, function and structure of tragedy in earlier chapters, it

is necessary here to give a brief account of what a tragedy is.

Let us start with the definition of tragedy, given by Aristotle

himself :

Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious,

complete, and of a certain magnitude ; in language embel-

lished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several

kinds being found in separate parts of the play ; in the

form of action, not of narrative ; through pity and fear

effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.3

Aristotle considers tragedy to be a 'serious' work of art. It

is concerned with the serious issues and not with the trivial

206

Theory of Drama

incidents of human life. Moreover it should be 'complete' and of a certain 'magnitude'. Explaining the word 'complete' Aristotle has further stated that the action represented must have beginning, middle and an end. It is also essential that the tragedy is of a certain magnitude, as the beauty of anything whether it is a ship, a city or a work of art, depends upon its proper size. The tragedy should be of such a size that it may be taken in by the memory of the audience.

The tragedy should employ such a language which has been enhanced by each kind of artistic ornament. Its mode of presentation should be dramatic and not narrative. It should excite the emotions of pity and fear in the heart of the audience and than by providing proper outlet to these and similar other emotions, produce a pleasant relief which is known as catharsis. Tragedy is in fact the greatest and the most significant form of drama. Its contribution to the human society lies in the fact that it is mainly concerned with man's never-ending struggle to understand himself and the world he lives in. It contemplates the human situation freely and tries to uncloud the immediate concerns of human life. It explores the complicated situation in which "the divided human being faces basic conflicts, perhaps rationally insoluble, of obligations and passions, makes choices, for good or for evil ; errs knowingly or involuntarily ; accepts consequences ; comes into a new, larger awareness ; suffers or dies, yet with a larger wisdom"4.

Aristotle analyses tragedy into six constituent elements. The first three elements—(i) plot or the arragement of incidents concerning human actions or experiences, (ii) character of different personae, and (iii) thought which gives an impression about the intellectual qualities of different characters, are related with the objects of imitation. The other two elements – diction an d melody—are the means of imitation employed by the dramatist in order to enhance the beauty and effectiveness of expression in the drama. The last element i.e. spectacle is the manner of imitation. It is concerned with the way the tragedy is to be presented on the stage before the audience.

Types of Drama

Aristotle further refers to the types of tragedy and says that they are of four types :

(i) Complex tragedy which entirely depends on peripety and anagnorisis.

(ii) Pethetic tragedy or the tragedy of suffering, as is evident from the tragedies on Ajex or Ixion.

(iii) Ethical tragedy or the tragedy of character, as can be seen in Sophocles' lost play Phthiotides which is based on feminine psychology and another play Peleus written by both Sophocles and Euripides.

(iv) Simple tragedy or the tragedy of Spectacle such as the Phorcides, Prometheus Bound and all the plays with the scenes laid in Hades.

The most significant distinction among them is that the first kind of tragedy is certainly different from the remaining three. It is a complex form of tragedy and is entirely dependent on reversal and recognition, as is evident from the complex-fatal plot of Oedipus, the king and the complex-fortunate plot of Iphigenia in Tauris. The remaining three kinds of tragedy, on the other hand, are simple in nature. Among the Simple types the first kind of tragedy is the tragedy of Suffering. As is evident from chapter XI in Poetics, the third part of the plot is the Scene of Suffering which consists of destructive or painful events such as death, physical agony, wounds and the like. This type of tragedy does not depend on the complex structure for its effect but rather on such incidents which are pitiable and fearful in themselves. Sophocles' play Ajax illustrates this type of tragedy. It is a simple portrayal of the hero's sufferings which come to an end with deliberate suicide. It may rightly be considered to be a traged of suffering as it ends with the suicide of the hero, without having any reversal or recognition in it.

Among the Simple types the second kind of tragedy is the Ethical tragedy or the tragedy of Character where the emphasis shifts from plot to Character. The tragedy of character mainly

208

Theory of Drama

depends on the use of moral stereotypes and frequently tends to be episodic. The action in such a play is rather weak and the drama appears to be a series on dramatic monologues. It is evident from Robert Browning's dramatic monologues such as Andrea del Sarto and Fra Lippo Lippi as well as The Ring and the Book. It can be also noticed in O'Neill's Strange Encounter. Though the nineteenth century critics tried to put greater emphasis on character rather than on the plot, Aristotle is very clear in his assertion about the primary of plot. "To him the tragedy of character" says Hardison, "is an inferior kind. As his examples show, tragedy of character is possible and can be treated artistically; but it ignores just those parts of tragedy that are most important to the tragic effect".5

The last type of tragedy is the tragedy of spectacle. Spectacle is a formal part of tragedy and can produce the tragic effect even without the help of the structural development of incidents in the drama. It depends on the scenes for its effectiveness on the stage as in the Peleus. Like Prometheus Bound it takes the help of sensational acting and the powerful stage-craft for its effect.

Aristotle also discusses the question whether tragedy is superior to the epic or vice versa. In the beginning of chapter XXVI he summarizes the arguments for the superiority of the epic over tragedy. He refers to the fact that people are normally under the impression that the better art is the art which appeals to the more refined set of people. Considered from this point of view, epic is definitely superior to tragedy because the latter depends on the actor's gesture for its success and its appeal is intended for the common people. Aristotle, therefore, concludes their arguments in the following lines :

So we are told that Epic poetry is addressed to a cultivated audience, who do not need gesture; Tragedy, to an inferior public. Being then unrefined, it is evidently the lower of the two.6

However he does not agree with the view. In his opinion the accusation is directed against the art of acting and not against

Types of Drama

209

tragedy itself. Moreover, it is possible to overdo gestures both

in epic recitations as well as song competitions. Aristotle gives

four positive arguments which reveal the super positive of

tragedy over epic :

(i) In addition to all the epic elements tragedy uses two

more–song and spectacle for producing the most vivid

impression on the audience. Though they are not the

most important parts of tragedy, they certainly make it

richer and more effective in performance.

(ii) Tragedy gives more vivid impression in reading as well

as in representation. Aristotle has stated that tragedy,

like epic poetry, “produces its effect even without

action ; it reveals its power by more reading.”7 It is

true that we are immensely moved just by reading the

tragedy ; its enactment on the stage is not essential for

its enjoyment.

(iii) Tragedy requires a ‘shorter length of time’ than epic in

achieving its end. In the opinion of Aristotle, “...the

concentrated effect is more pleasurable than one which

is spread over a long time and so diluted. What, for

example, would be the effect of the Oedipus of

Sophocles, if it were cast into a form as long as the

Iliad.”8 It would certainly be two long and would

definitely spoil its effect. Aristotle here clearly links

economy with intensity of effect.

(iv) Tragedy is confined to a single action and does not in-

clude such episodes which are outside the plot. The

dramatist concentrates on a single action and excludes

all that is not necessary or probable, thereby achieving

greater unity then epic. Tragedy produces the ‘proper

pleasure’, that is, catharsis more efficiently than epic.

If tragedy is, thus, superior to epic in possessing a large

number of elements, a greater compression and a better unity

and in achieving catharsis more effectively, it is evident that

“Tragedy is the higher art, as attaining its end more perfectly”.9

210

Theory of Drama

Tragedy is in fact superior to epic as well as comedy in the delineation of the complexities of human life and in its powerful appeal.

COMEDY

Comedy, like tragedy, first originated in ancient Greece as a result of the religious celebrations in honour of Dionysus. Etymologically the word 'comedy' has been derived from the Greek term 'komos' which means merriment and revelry. It is associated with the revels in the honour of Dionysus as a god of wine, fruitfulness and reproduction. The Dionysus spirit gets reflected in "songs of joy and delight in nature, the rollicking fun which showed in the gay treatment of the divine and in the fantasies of cloud cuckooland, the earthly pleasures of natural processes"10, and is to be seen in almost all the comedies right from the days of Aristophanes upto the present age.

It is a fact that not as much importance was attached to comedy as had been given to tragedy. It is evident from Aristotle's own statement :

The successive changes through which Tragedy passed, and the authors of these changes, are well known, whereas Comedy has had no history, because it was not at first treated seriously.11

There is no systematic discussion of comedy in Aristotle's Poetics also, though there is a good deal of exploration of the history of comedy in chapters III and IV. Chapter V begins with an account of comedy arousing the expectation that it would give a full account of comedy. It is, however, to be regretted that that account is missing though Aristotle clearly promises in the very beginning of chapter VI to discuss comedy in detail at a later stage. Critics still differ as to whether the Poetics originally consisted of two Books, the other Book being devoted to the discussion of comedy and catharsis or not. It is quite obvious that Aristotle' contemporaries were well acquainted with his theory of comedy in some form or the other.

Types of Drama

There is a work entitled Tractatus Coislinianus where the definition of comedy is available to us, although its date and authorship are not known. Moreover Humphry House and Colin Hardie have pointed out that "it reads like an almost mechanical invention by somebody working with the Aristotelian definition of Tragedy in front of him, and producing what has been called a "travesty" of it and a "sorry fabrication."12 Though it is a complex and puzzling abstract, it reveals the workings of a great mind. Lane Cooper has attempted to construct an Aristotelian theory of comedy comparable to that of tragedy with the help of the classical work Tractatus Coislinianus as well as the hints given in Aristotle's Poetics and Rhetoric. Lane Cooper's account of Aristotelian theory of comedy, however, cannot be considered to be an authentic one, as a systematic theory cannot be propounded merely on the basis of the hints being taken from different sources. Formulation of a systematic Aristotelian theory of comedy is almost impossible on account of the lack of proper evidence. "Scholars still argue", says W.D. Howarth, "over the etymological derivation of the word 'comedy' ; there is no general agreement on the boundaries prescribed for this kind of drama, or the authentic purpose which animates it ; and we possess no challenging formulation of the essence of comedy, such as the Poetics provide for tragedy, with sufficient authority to make it the necessary starting point for any theoretical inquiry"13. However a general theory of comedy may be propounded on the basis of the hints being given in Aristotle's Poetics and the available comedies, Greek as well as English.

Let us begin with Aristotle's meagre account of comedy in his Poetics :

Comedy is, as we have said, an imitation of characters of a lower type–not, however, in the full sense of the word bad, the Ludicrous being merely a subdivision of the ugly. It consists in some defect or ugliness which is not painful or destructive. To take an obvious example, the comic mask is ugly and distorted, but does not imply pain.14

212

Theory of Drama

Aristotle's preoccupation with 'an imitation of characters of a lower type' in comedy does not mean that comedy is concerned with low types of people only. It simply means that comedy makes men appear worse than they are in real life. It is evident from Aristotle's another statement in Poetics : "Comedy aims at representing men as worse, Tragedy as better than in actual life."15 In Greek comedies of Aristophanes there are so many characters like Socrates, Creon, Euripides and Heracles who possess dignified status in society but they have not been shown in the exalted moments of their life in the plays. Aristophanes has rather exposed their weaknesses and defects and exaggerated them to such an extent that they might appear to be amusing to the audience. In The Clouds Aristophanes does not want to glorify Socrates but intends to ridicule his follies as the leader of the new sophistics, then in fashion. In The Frogs he presents the merits and demerits of Aeschylus and Euripides as a tragedy writers and finally tilts in favour of Aeschylus, as only a return to Aeschylean passion could save tragedy from utter ruin. In The Birds he expresses his disgust at what is real and ludicrous and seeks refuge in an imaginative, fantastic utopian world.

Though it is an undisputed fact that comedies of Aristophanes, Plautus, Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Moliers and others are mostly dominated by characters of ludicrous qualities, there are some characters like Viola, Portia, Orlando, Imogen, Candida or Prospero who possess qualities of rare excellence and intellectual perfection. Their presence in comedy is an important as the presence of the erring and the imperfect, as they "complete the perspective of life and hold out, in their very existence, a hope and an ideal-Comedy, with its unflinching faith in the possibility of human happiness, cannot ignore these effective instruments of redemption."16

Aristotle traces the origin of comedy to the "poems of satirical kind" and suggests that the writers of comdey evolved from the lampooners or the writers of personal satire. He considers Homer as the father of comedy as he was the first poet to have "laid down the main lines of comedy, by dramatising the ludicrous instead of writing personal satire"17. Whatever be the

Types of Drama

213

origin of comedy, there is no doubt it that comedy is basically concerned with the social aspects of character. Elizabeth Drew has clearly stated her views on this issue :

Comedy is always rooted in the social order. It deals with the relationship of individuals to society and of society to individuals.18

It is true that most of the comedies are mainly concerned with the social behaviour of human beings and try to show the lapses in the social behaviour of men and women. There are, however, some exceptions to this. The presence of such comedies as Aristophanes' The Birds or Shakespeare's The Tempest testify to this fact that the concern of comedy is not social only. It would be more appropriate to say that nothing human is alien to comedy.

The spirit of comedy is a spirit of ardent joy for and unshakable faith in the forces of life. Its purpose is to evoke laughter at some defect or ugliness which is neither painful nor destructive. Aristotle here deviates from Plato who had clearly stated that comedy corrupts the passions by displaying images of depravity and arouses malicious and painful laughter. In the opinion of Aristotle comedy should be amusing but not malicious or painful. Genuine comedy should not include personal satire and gallying caricature. The omission of malica in the context of comedy was a significant departure of Aristotle from Plato. Explaining Aristotle's views on comedy Else has rightly stated tha! "comedy does not involve us in the painful emotions of envy, anger, malice and the like ; and it does not involve the comic characters in pain, death and destruction. Both aspects are pertinent to the definition of the genre, and to its history."19

The essence of comedy lies in the continued assertion of the human will to live and enjoy the happiness from within and without. There may be passing moods of cynicism and sadness in comedy but the lasting impression is one of ardent faith in the value of man and his existence on the earth. Even when the comic playwright appears to be wholly occupied with the

214

Theory of Drama

weaknesses, follies and foibles of man, he is fully "aware of his

vast potentialities for achievement, and believes in the possi-

bility of a happier and a more enlightened human life".20

Aristophanes' comedy The Birds illustrates it perfectly, as it is

capable of inspiring us to aspire for a happier and more peace-

ful life. In Galsworthy's play The Pigeon Ferrand is such a

character who is forced to lead a life of perpetual poverty, but

there is a remarkable quality in his character which compen-

sates his lack of earthly comforts. He has an immense

capacity for enjoying 'the light of life as it is and the sweetness

of life as it may be'. He has a message to convey and that may

be considered to be the message of comedy-'Life is sweet,

Monsieur'.

The purpose of comedy is to arouse amusement and

laughter, Amusement, aesthetic in nature, says G.S. Amur, "is

the comedic way of overcoming the imperfection and ugliness

in life, and laughter is its outward, though not an inevitable,

manifestation"21. Laughter serves a very useful biological

purpose. It provides an outlet for superfluous energy and gives

relief to our mental tension. It strengthens those forces which

make our life worth living. It has been interpreted by various

critics as a 'sudden glory', 'a surge of vital feeling', a catharsis

of psychic tension', or something else. James L. Calderwood

and Harold E. Toliver22, however, are of the opinion that the

interpretation of laughter is not so significant as its pattern of

development. Laughter generally arises from the incongruous

which implies a forced linkage of disparate categories such as

the clown's distended nose, the motley fool in court, the

pompous strut leading to a pratfall, verbal devices like hyper-

bole, understatement and pun etc.

Laughter in comedy should arise from the ugly, the dis-

proportion ate and the unsymmetrical and not from the graver

vices or crimes. It may also be extended to embrace, says

Butcher, "the incongruities, absurdities, or cross-purposes of

life, its blunders and discords, its imperfect correspondences

and adjustments, and that in matters intellectual as well as

moral"23 Comedy is not basically concerned with the graver

Types of Drama

issues of human life but rather looks at its follies, imperfections

and inconsistencies. It deals with the idle and distorted

moments of human life. It also embodies a dominant charac-

teristic or a leading passion of human life. It deals with

romance and fantacy and displays the kindliness of human

nature. It is, however, to be accepted that the chief end of

comedy is not mere amusement. It is rather an embodiment

of the great spirit of harmony, and, in its full expression, is as

necessary for a fully developed life as Tragedy is'. 24

The spirit of comedy is not compatible with an uncontrolled

moral indignation. Though it exposes the follies and foibles

of human life and thereby encourages the growth of a healthy

society, it is never rigid in its moral commitments. If on the

one hand it cherishes the traditional values like chastily, fide-

lity and love as we see in the comedies of Shakespeare, on the

other hand it is highly critical of the limitations of our tradi-

tional moral values as is evident from the plays of Bernard

Shaw. Aristophanes, Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Moliere and

Shaw have tried to preserve what is best in the life of the

individual as well as the society and have fought against the

forces of irrationality, stupidity and false values which deeply

influence the human society. They have made an ardent search

for order and system and indirectly affirmed the rational

values of human life.

Comedy adopts the most reasonable and human attitude to

the problem of sex. It frankly admits the requirements of sex

as an indispensable part of a healthy process of procreation.

Since comedy had originated from Dionysiac rituals of fertility,

gamos–union of sexes–became its most significant ingredient.

It is evident from the plays of Aristophanes that most of them

end in the union of sexes. So is the case with the comedies

of Shakespeare. Comedy infact recognizes the claims of love

and brings out its beauty and romance in abundance. It looks

upon the relations of men and women as an eternal source of

happiness for the human race.

The spirit of comedy is a spirit of invention and imagination

and takes delight in fantacy and romance. The plays of

216

Theory of Drama

Menander, especially The Arbitration, are romantic in their setting. The comedies of Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Dekker, Goldsmith and Fry are remarkable in their affinity to fantacy and romance. Even Bernard Shaw has made frequent use of fantasy in some of his plays such as Man and Superman and Androcles and the Lion. Streaks of romanticism and sentimental expression can be easily seen in the plays like As you like it, The Twelfth Night, Love for Love. The School for Scandal, The Lady's not for Burning or The Winslow Boy. Frequent use of wit and humour generates an atmosphere of relaxation and amusement in comedy.

Comedy stands for the assertion of the forces of life over the forces of death and destruction. Fry's play The Lady's not for Burning displays the triumph of the love of life over the love of death. We may see the victory of true love over the heavy odd of life in A Midsummer Night's Dream or As you Like It or the triumph of the good and the virtuous over the wicked and the sinning in The Merchant of Venice or The Tempest. The triumph of normality over abnormality has been celebrated by Aristophanes in his play The Clouds. Comedy is in fact concerned with the depiction of the ritual combat of a young man with an old man and displays the clash of summer against winter, life against death and fertility against sterility. Even if death occurs in the comedy, it is not an all-absorbing conclusive death of tragedy but just a transitory phase in an over-all comic movement.

Difference between Tragedy and Comedy

From the earliest times up to the present age we have the general impression that whereas tragedy is sad, serious and profoundly dark, comedy is light, bright and animated. We normally associate tragedy and comedy with the unhappy and happy endings respectively. It is, however, very significant that Aristotle never made such a distinction between tragedy and comedy. In his opinion there are two types of complex plot in the tragedy–complex-fatal plot and complex-fortunate plot. There is unhappy ending in the complex-fatal plot as is evident from the plays such as Oedipus, the King. Antigone,

Types of Drama

Hamlet, Macbeth and King Lear etc. On the other hand there is happy ending in the complex-fortunate plot as is clear from the plays such as Oresteia and Iphigenia in Tauris. Aristotle considers Euripides' Iphigenia in Tauris to be an ideal tragedy, though we all know that the play, instead of ending unhappily, ends with the reunion of Iphigenia with her lost brother Orestes. It is a very moving tragedy in the sense that it depicts the pangs of separation of long lost brother and sister who fail to recognize each other. Iphigenia goes to the extent of killing her own brother, though at the last moment recognition takes place and his life is saved.

Though most of the tragedies do end unhappily, 'unhappy ending' is not an essential requirement of tragedy. Similarly 'happy ending' is appropriate to comedy, but comedy cannot be determined solely by its happy ending. Most of the comedies do end on a happy note of triumph, reunion, harmony and contentment which give us the impression of the sweetness of life. However we should not forget that the happy ending is not the proper ending for comedy only. Happy ending may be frequent in comedy but is certainly not the distinguishing feature of comedy solely. Happy ending is possible even in a powerful tragedy. Now the question is : If happy ending is possible in both tragedy and comedy, how can we differentiate the two ? In tragedy the happy ending is possible simply by the avoidance of impending disaster, in comedy there is no such disaster ever really threatened. Hence we cannot determine whether a particular play is a tragedy or a comedy on the basis of the ending of the drama.

It is also very diffiult to say whether a particular play ends happily or unhappily unless the point of view is quite obvious. We may take, for example, Ibsen's famous play A Doll's House. If we consider it purely from a conventional point of view, it appears to have an unhappy ending as it ends with the breaking up of Helmer's family. However if we go deeper into it, we find that Nora has got deliverance from the doll's house and is now in a position to lead an independent life and Helmer has become wiser and more hopeful of future happiness. The

218

Theory of Drama

play comes to an optimistic end as it shows the triumph of

human spirit over the shackles of time and space.

Though comedy usually ends with marriages, reunions and

reconciliations, they cannot always be relied upon as the deci-

sive tests of comedy. Osborne's Look Back in Anger cannot be

considered to be a comedy even though it ends with the reunion

between Jimmy and Alison. On the other hand Oscar Wild's

play A Women of No importance is a comedy though there is no

reconciliation between Mrs. Arbuthnot and Lord Illingworth

even till the end of the play. G.S. Amur has gone to the extent

of saying that "under particular cicumstances and against a

particuiar background, even such a sure sign of an unhappy

ending as death becomes part of a perfectly acceptable comedic

end, as in Shaw's The Doctor's Dilemma, Maugham's Sheppey

or Eliot's The Cocktail Party".25 We, thus, see that the ending

of the drama cannot primarly be responsible for determining

whether the play is a tragedy or a comedy.

Aristotle says that tragedy and comedy differ in respect of

the subject of the object of imitation. Whereas tragedy imitates

the exalted and the noble, comedy is concerned with the

humbler and meaner types of action. In chapter IV of his

Poetics Aristotle, while giving an account of the origin of

tragedy and comedy, has clearly stated :

Poetry now diverged in two directions, according to the

individual character of the writers. The graver spirits

imitated noble actions, and the actions of good men.

The more trivial sort imitated the actions of meaner

persons, at first composing satires, as the former did

hymns to the gods and the praises of famous men...Thus

the older poets were distinguished as writers of heroic or

of lampooning verse.26

The epic-spirited poets became tragedy writers and the satirical

lampooners writers of comedy in due course of time.

Albert Cook27 is of the opinion that the difference between

tragedy and comedy lies in the choice of the subject-matter.

Types of Drama

219

rather than the ending of the drama. He analyses the theme

of Philoctetes and The Tempest and finds both of them to be

profound and powerful plays. Both of them have a happy

ending but whereas the Philoctetes is a tragedy, The Tempest is

a comedy. Tragedy derives its theme from the grim aspects of

Greek mythology or from the serious concerns of human life,

comedy derives it from the lighter or the ludicrous side of

human life. Comedy does not possess the kind of metaphysical

dimension which is of prime importance in the tragedy. Tragedy

deals with the exalted figures, comedy with the inferior types.

Tragedy appeals to the heart, comedy to the head. These are,

however, sweeping generalisations and cannot be a sure guide

to the exact nature of tragedy and comedy as "the range of

comedic characters is not limited to the ridiculous or the

typical. It is usual for comedy to portray the nobler aspects

of humanity as well, and when this happens, our response to

the characters of comedy is one of emotional sympathy and

not merely one of detached judgement"28.

Tragedy is concerned with the irremediable and inevitable

vices of society, comedy with the remediable ones. In tragedy

whereas the moderate and the most reasonable ambitions are

dashed to the ground, in comedy even the wildest ones are

realised. Willy Loman is not able to realise his humble

ambitions, but Lysistrate and Viola succeed even in their most

fantastic plans. Oedipus miserably failed in spite of his best

possible efforts to avert the inevitable course of Fate, Bassanio

succeeded in realising his dream of marrying Portia even

through the choice of Casket. In tragedy even the minor

errors lead to the fatal end, in comedy the greater errors are

condoned and forgiven. In tragedy goodness and wisdom do

exist but they are often ineffective and hence wasted or sacri-

ficed as is evident from the characters of Cordelia, Desdemona

or Ophelia. In comedy, on the other hand, goodness and

wisdom are great source of happiness and are capable of res-

toring harmony by the end of the drama as is evident from the

careers of Paulina and Camillo in The Winter's Tale. The

comedy opens with a confused state of affairs but the confusion

is happily cleared up by the end of the drama, whereas tragedy

220

Theory of Drama

opens with the distinct issues but the outcome is horrifying.

There is another difference between tragedy and comedy regarding the reader's response also. "The tragic poet", says J.G. Warry, steadily tightens up his grip upon the audience, but the comic poet wakens his victims as soon as they are entranced, drawing attention to the deceit which under his spell he has been able -or would have been able to practise on them".29

Tragedy makes a positive presentation of truth, comedy refers to it by implication. Comedy, by exposing the hollowness of untruth, refers to the superiority of truth indirectly. In comparison to tragedy the appeal of comedy is less exalted and the analysis of human emotions less profound. Throwing further light on the difference between tragedy and comedy P.S. Sastri has pointed out that "while tragedy appears to present idealism persons, comedy turn out to be busy with personified ideals ; comedy merges the individuals in the type, a tragedy reveals the type through the individuals".30 In tragedy we start with a well known figure like Oedipus, Agamemnon or Hamlet and try to see what level it reaches at through a certain development. In comedy, on the other hand, we begin with a fixed meaning and try to fill it out with examples. Wimsatt & Brooks have drawn our attention to another very significant difference between tragedy and comedy.

Tragedy takes hamartia literally but magnifies its punishment-and is thus fearful and pitiful. Comedy distorts hamartia by caricature, reduces punishment to discomfiture and mortification, and is thus ridiculous.31

Tragedy deals with unusual but normal, comedy with the abnormal but not unusual. "In tragedy there is ever a clash" says A. Nicoll, "between forces physical or mental or both ; in comedy there is ever a conflict between personalities, between the sexes, or between an individual and society".32 In tragedy there is outer as well as inner conflict-outer conflict between man and man or man and some force outside himself as with Orestes and the Furies, or Oedipus and his Fate and inner conflicts which takes place in the mind of the hero. In Hamlet,

Types of Drama

221

for example, though there is conflict between Hamlet and his

father's ghost or Hamlet and Claudius but the real clash lies

in the mind of Hamlet himself. In comedy the clash between

personalities or between the sexes arousing our laughter can be

easily seen in Sheridan's The School for Scandal or Fletcher's

Tamer Tam'd or Wild-goose chase. Another remarkable differ-

ence between tragedy and comedy is that whereas the tragedy

is mostly dominated by man like Oedipus, Dr. Faustus, Hamlet,

Othello, Macbeth and King Lear, comedy is mostly dominated

by women like Portia, Viola, Rosalind, Beatrice and Maria etc.

These female characters bend the action as well as the male

characters in the drama to their own purposes.

Tragedy displays the suffering of the protagonist for some

vital issue, comedy deals with the events suggestive of ongoing

life and a sense of the continuity. In tragedy the protagonist,

in the process of suffering or loss, gains a new insight and a

qualitative refinement of consciousness which Aristotle calls

anagnorisis or recognition. Comedy, on the other hand, looks

at the human life in a lighter vein and tries to evoke laughter

by exposing its follies and foibles.

We, thus, see that the 'ending' of the drama is not a deter-

mining factor whether the play is a tragedy or a comedy. We

may take, for example, Shakespeare's most powerful tragedy

Hamlet. Suppose a slight modification is introduced in the

ending of the drama - Hamlet is able to kill Claudius but him-

self survives; it is just possible and dramatically conceivable-

will Shakespeare's Hamlet then become a comedy simply

because it ends happily? Certainly not. The ending of

Hamlet is not so important as the mental suffering of Hamlet

and his philosophic meditation over the vital issues of human

life-'To be or not to be; that is the question'. Similarly

will Sheridan's play The School for Scandal become a tragedy if

its ending is slightly altered? In The School for Scandal if Sir

Peter and Lady Teazle quarrel again in the last Act and Sir

Peter in a fit of anger kills his wife and then in a mood of

extreme tension, commits suicide, should it then be considered

a tragedy? Certainly not. It is thus evident that the ending

of the drama is not so significant a factor in determining

222

Theory of Drama

whether the play is a tragedy or a comedy, as the main issue

in the drama, the intention of the play-wright, his attitude

towards life and the reader's response to it. The most dis-

tinguishing feature of drama is its moving spirit which deter-

mines its character and the nature of its appeal. If this is so,

then the Hindi translation of tragedy as 'dukhānta nāṭaka'–

play with a unhappy ending and of comedy as 'sukhānta

nāṭaka'–play with a happy ending, is misleading and hence

not an appropriate translation. 'Gambhīra nāṭaka' - serious

play and 'Vinodapurna nāṭaka'–delightful play, would certain-

ly be better terms for tragedy and comedy respectively.

Melodrama

In England some plays, whose appeal was more sensational

than tragic, were written by the end of the seventeenth and the

beginning of the eighteenth centuries. It constituted a separate

form of drama which was known as melodrama. Etymologi-

cally it referred to a serious play, accompanied by music, in

order to stir up the audience. The main purpose of melodrama

was to produce thrills at any cost.

Melodrama is certainly a less significant dramatic form than

tragedy, as its appeal is trivial and temporary. It is not expected

to communicate a deeper level of meaning to the audience. It

does not deal with the inner conflicts like Hamlet's mental

struggles or Alceste's fight against social conventlons but an

external one like the fight between two men for the beauty of

a woman or the fight among people for the sake of property.

Though melodrama has been universally recognized today

as a form of drama, it is a fact that little attempt had been

made by the early dramatists to distinguish melodrama from

tragedy–Even during the Renaissance the term 'tragedy' in-

cluded melodrama. "Some of the best Elizabethan tragedies",

say F.B. Millet & G.E. Bentley, "Like Webster's Duchess of

Malfi, and Beaumont and Fletcher's Maid's Tragedy, made use

of melodrama, while other plays called tragedies at the time,

like Kyd's Spanish Tragedy and Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus

are melodrama pure and simple."33

Types of Drama

Melodrama takes into account the whole range of conflicts starting from failure to success, from defeat to victory undergone by various characters. The main issue of conflict here is, says Robert B. Heilman, "not the reordering of the self, but the reordering of one's relations with others, with the world of people or things; not the knowledge of self, but the maintenance of self, in its assumption of wholeness, until conflicts are won or lost"34. Melodrama is described as monopathic and shows characters in defeat or victory guilt or innocence having affiliations with politics and history. Characters are usually type figures and they are frequently inconsistent. Plot here dominates the characters and is capable of producing thrills to the audience.

Melodrama is not intended to display a logical sequence of events but a series of individual scenes, each scene exciting in itself and is not dependent on the others for its effect, as is normally seen in the tragedy. The characters and the events presented on the stage don't have much significance and their resemblance to real life is only superficial. The melodrama is not thought-provoking and the less we think over it, the more we are likely to enjoy it.

Farce

Whereas melodrama deals with sensational events, farce is concerned with the ridiculous ones. Whereas melodrama produces thrill, farce produces laughter in the heart of the audience. Now the question is; what is the demarcating line between comedy and farce? It is a surprising fact that no attempt was ever made by the early Greek writers or by Aristotle to distinguish farce from comedy. When we read the plays of Aristophanes and Plautus, we see comedy and farce mixed together. Even the Latin comedy followed the same pattern. When we trace the history of the development of drama, we find the word 'farce' introduced during the Restoration period. It was, however, not used to refer to a special type of comic technique, but to a short humorous play consisting of three acts instead of five. Extremely exaggerated incidents and characters were brilliantly presented in these

224

Theory of Drama

plays. It is this crude technique of exaggeration and slapstick that is the main distinction of farce today.

Even when farce had not been recognized as a distinct form of drama such as in Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew, Jonsons Epicoene and Goldsmith's She Stoops to Conquer we find farce wixed with comedy. There are scenes of farce in other plays also. In Shakespeare's Twelfth Night the duel between Viola and Sir Andrew Aguecheck and in Congreve's Love for Love Miss Prue's pursuit of Tattle are typical farces.

In farce plot gets predominance over character. Physical action gets utmost priority in farce as dramatist here is exclusively concerned with what people do and not with their process of thinking and feeling, Its appeals depends entirely on its humorous incidents. "It makes no pretense", say F. B. Millet & G.K. Bantley, "to depict reality and it constantly resorts to gross improbabilities in action and in Character".35 Charliés Aunt the young scapegrace is dressed as an elderly lady, gets into all sorts of ridiculous diffiulties and thereby produces a good deal of laughter in the heart of the audience.

There are other minor forms of drama such as the History plays and the Problem plays which have only ephemeral interests in the long history of drama as they were the products of specific requirements of particular periods. The moment the specific requirement subsided, these forms disappeared. In the sixteenth century a large number of history plays where written by Shakespeare on account of the absorbing interest of the Elizabethan audience in history and they were in as much popular demand as tragedy and comedy were. But when the interest of the people in history declined, these plays automatically lost their popularity. Similarly the problem plays became very popular in the last phase of the nineteenth and the first phase of the twentieth century on account of the efforts of Ibsen, Galsworthy and other social dramatic reformers but they rapidly disappeared due to the drastic change in our social requirements.

Types of Drama

II

225

Bharata has devoted chapter XX of his NS to the discussion and classification of ten kinds of drama. Dhanamjaya also wrote a book on this very theme and called it Daśarūpaka. Referring to the distinction between the Greek pattern and Indian pattern of classification Manomohan Ghosh has stated :

Unlike the three-fold division of the Greeks based on a consideration of the sentiment involved, such as tragic, comic and an admixture of the both, the Indian classification depended on the subject-matter as well as technique of construction and presentation.36

Bharatia himself gives the reason for this kind of classification of drama. In his opinion the bases or mother-sources for this classification are known as vṛttisa which is normally interpreted as 'a style of production'. In the present contevt, however, it is used as the 'source of different types of plays'.37 The classification of Sanskrit drama is not based on the 'ending' of the drama, as in our Indian philosophy life and death are endless sequence of continuity. The classification is rather based on 'the delineation of particular emotional content'38. On the basis of their relative complexity Mr. Ghosh has classified them into major and minor types--the major types being the Nāṭaka and the Prakaraṇa and the remaining eight types known as minor types. Nāṭaka and Prakarṇa are the principal varieties which attracted the attention of the well-known playwrights. The other eight types don't have even sufficient representative works.

(1) Nāṭaka

Nāṭaka is considered to be the most perfect kind of dramatic composition. A.B. Keith calls it 'heroic comedy'. It derives its subject-matter from well-known sources like myth, legend, established tradition and so on. These sources may be Purāṇa, Rāmāyan, and Mahābhārata or any other celebrated work like Bṛhatkathā. The hero of the Nāṭaka should be a celebrated man of exalted nature such as Rāma, Kṛṣna and

226

Theory of Drama

Udayana or a royal seer like Janaka and Viśvāmitra. He should be a man of refined taste, noble, dignified and large hearted. Keeping in view the sublime character of the hero Bharata does not like the use of low level humour and vulgar love-scenes in the Nāṭaka. He wanted to retain the dignified level of the Nāṭaka so that even the parents might see the dramatic performance with their sons and daughters. He wanted to choose such a well-known figure as the hero of the Nāṭaka who could justify the title of the drama.

Though Bharata does not put any restriction regarding the use of rasa in the Nāṭaka, he is certainly of the opinion that the predominant rasa should be heroic or erotic. Regarding the number of Acts to be used in the Nāṭaka Bharata clearly suggests that 'suitable number of Acts' must be introduced. Elaborating it further M. Ghosh points out that "unlike Greek plays ancient Indian Nāṭakas are divided into Acts the number of which must be less than five or more ten"39. Kālidāsa's Abhijñānaśākuntalam, Mālavikāgnimitra V'ikramorvasi, Bhāsa's Pratimanātak, Viśākhadatta's Mudrārākṣasa, Bhavabhūti's Mahaviracarita and Uttararāmacarita, Vijjaka's Kaumudi Mahotsava, Krṣna Misra's Prabodha Candrodaya may be cited as examples of this type of Nāṭakas. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. There are some plays which ignore the limitation of five to ten Acts. Ravidāsa's Mithyājñānavidambanā has one, Vedāntavāgica's Bhojacarita two, Ghanacyāma's Navagrahcarita three, Madhusūdana's Janakīparinaya four, Kavibhūṣaṇa's Adbhutārnava twelve and Hanumannāṭaka fourteen Acts.

Bharata is of the opinion that the Nāṭaka should be so composed as to include five sandhis, for styles, sixty-four sandhiāngas, thirty six lakṣaṇas and embellishment of poetic excellances and figures of speech. Its plot should be well-knit and well connected. Its style should be clear, forceful and harmonious. It should arouse pleasure in the heart of the audience. The missing links or the unpleasant incidents like death should be reported with the help of the Introductory scenes in the Nāṭakas.

Types of Drama

227

(2) Prakarana

Prakarana is the second type of ancient Indian drama. A.B. Keith calls it 'the bourgeois comedy' or the 'comedy of manners'40. It follows the pattern of the Nātaka in everything except the nature of the plot and the condition of the hero. Whereas the plot of the Nātaka is based on myth and legend, the plot of the Prakarana should be derived from the writer's own imaginative creation. In this regard Bharata has clearly stated :

The play (lit. where) in which the writer prakurute (devises) by his own intellect an original plot with its Hero and works up its elaboration (śarira), is called the Prakarana.41

Whereas the hero of the Nātaka is a man of divine origin or a royal seer, the hero of the prakarana should be a man of the society like a Brahmin, a minister or a merchant. Let us look at the remark of Bharata :

The prakarana should be known as not made up with an exalted Hero. And it does not contain the character of any god, has no story of king's enjoyment (of pleasures), and it is connected with the men outside (the royal palace)42.

The hero of the Prakarana is calm and noble. He is drawn from real life and the most appropriate theme is love. He pursues his object through many hurdles but ultimately succeeds in realising it.

Female characters in the Prakarana should be either a courtezans or a depraved woman of good family. It is also possible to have both types of characters. It has been suggested that the Prakarana may be of three types : it is pure (suddha) if the heroine is of pure character ; it is impure (vikrta) if the heroine is a courtezans, it is mixed (sankīrṇa) if both types of heroine -- a woman of pure character and a courtezans -- appear in the same play. The heroine may be of three types, a lady of good

228

Theory of Drama

family, as in the lost Puṣpadūṣita (bhūṣita); a hetaera as in the lost Taraṅgadatṭa ; or a lady of good family may share the honours with a hetaera, with whom, however, she may not come in contact, as in the cārudatta and the Mṛcchakaṭika. The drama offers an appropriate place for slaves, viṭas, merchant chiefs and rogues of various kinds. It is to be mentioned that if the hero is in the company of a respectable woman, no courtezanshould meet him and vice versa. If, however, an urgent necessity arises and their meeting together with the hero becomes inevitable, their manner as well as language should remain undistorted.

So far as the use of rasa is concerned, Bharata is of the opinion that all the rasas may be used in the Prakaraṇa, though Dhanamjaya is in favour of the use of Erotic and Heroic Sentiments mainly. Like Nāṭaka, the number of Acts should be normally from five to ten and Introductory Scenes should be introduced in order to compress the events in the play. The name of the Prakaraṇa should be normally but not necessarily derived from the hero or heroine or both. The following are examples of Prakaraṇas :

(i) Śūdraka's Mṛcchakaṭika, (ii) Bhavabhūti's Mālatimā-dhava, (iii) Ashvaghosha's Cāriputraprakaraṇa, (iv) Uddandin or Uddandanātha, Malikāmāruṭa, (v) Rāmacandra's Kaumudimī-trānanda and (vi) Rāmabhadra Muni's Prabuddharanḥineya.

Nāṭikā

Though the discussion of Nāṭikā does not come within the scope of our work, as it is mainly concerned with the classification of ten kinds of drama only, it deserves our notice simply on account of the fact that it continued to be composed till the end of the 18th century and it combines certain features of both the Nāṭaka and the Prakaraṇa. There are some scholars who consider the inclusion of Nāṭikā as an interpolation, though Keith emphatically denies it.

Referring to the origin and nature of Nāṭikā Bharata has stated :

Types of Drama

229

Different in origin from the two (types of plays) the

Nāṭaka and the Prakaraṇa, its plot should be invented,

the Hero should be a king, and it should be based on (an

incident relating to) music or affairs of the harem. And it

contains an abundance of affairs of the harem. And it

contains an abundance of female characters, has four

Acts, graceful gestures as its soul ; well arranged consti-

tuents, many dances, songs and racitations, and love's

enjoyment are its chief features.43

The hero of the Nāṭikā should be a renowned king, self-con-

trolled and light-hearted (dhiralalita). Its principal sentiment is

Erotic. Though it is normally expected to have four acts, it

may have even one, two or three. Corresponding to the four

acts, it should have four sub-divisions of the gay style. Its

dramatic personae are the hero, his queen, the female messen-

ger and the attendants. The following are its chief examples :

(i) Bhāsa's Pratijñā-Yaugandharāyana, (ii) Harṣa's Ratnāvalī

and Priyadarśikā, (iii) Rājaśekhara's Viddhaśālabhañjikā (iv)

Bilhaṇa's Kernasundarī, (v) Madana's Pārijātamanjari or Vija-

yaśri and (vi) Mathurādāsa's Vṛṣabhānuja.

Though the plot, character and the situation in the Nāṭikā

are identical with the Nāṭaka, its form gradually degenerated

into mere imitation on account of the lack of real dramatic

genius. It ultimately lost its creativity and life-force and it

confined itself to mere entertainment with the help of song and

dance.

(3) Samavakāra

The first play that Bharata produced is known as Samava-

kāra. It is so-called as various themes are scattered abou

(samavakiryante) it. A.B. Keith44 considers it to be a supre.

natural drama. Referring to the chief characteristics of

Samavakāra Bharata has stated :

It should have the (exploits of) gods and Asuras as its

subject-matter and one of them as its well-known and

230

Theory of Drama

exalted Hero, and it is to consist of three Acts (present-

ing) the three kinds of deception, the three kinds of

excitement or the three kinds of love. (Besides this) it

should have as many as twelve dramatics personae and

require a duration (lit. length) of eighteen Nādikās (for

its performance).45

Samavakāra derives its theme from some mythological story

related with gods and Asuras. Its hero should be some well-

known mythological figure. The number of the heroes should

be twelve, each striving for attaining a separate object. It is

evident from the obtaining of Lakshmi and the like by Vasudeo

and others in the churning of the ocean. Its predominant rasa is

heroic though other rasas may also be used. It consists of three

Acts, each Act having different durations. The limitation of

time has been imposed on it so that it may not be too long.

Each Samavakāra takes the time of eighteen Nādikās ,one

Nādikā is=24 minutes ; eighteen Nādīkās is=seven hours and

twelve minutes) for its presentation. The first Act should take

twelve, the second four and the third two Nādikās only. Each

Act should have different topics loosely related to one another.

There should be no vimarsa sandhi, no Bindu and Praveśaka in

Samavakāra. All the styles except the graceful may be used and

the metres used in it are of the complex kind. The uṣṇih, Kutila

and Anuṣṭubh metres are most appropriate.

In Samavakāra each act should exhibit one type of Excite-

ment (vidrava), or Deception (kapata) and love. Since there are

three acts in Samavakāra, the play is expected to have three

different types of excitement, deception and love. Referring to

the three kinds of excitement Bharata says :

Excitement (vidrava) is known to be of three kinds, such

as being due to battle, flood (lit. water), storm (lit. wind)

and fire, or to a big elephant at large, or the siege of a

city.46

The three kinds of excitement are expected to result from (i) a

natural agent such as the outbreak of fire, a hurricane, or a

Types of Drama

231

flood ; (ii) by a furious animal such as elephant ; (iii) by a

battle or the siege of a city. Though Bharata includes battle in

the first category, its inclusion in the third category appears

to be more natural.

Commenting on the three kinds of deception Bharata

stated :

Deception (kapāṭa) is known to be of three kinds, such as

being due to a devised plan, accident or that (practised)

by the enemy. It creates joy or sorrow (to persons).47

The deception is produced by (i) a devised plan, (ii) by acci-

dent or by a supernatural agent and (iii) by the enemy.

Regarding three kinds of love Bharata points out :

In this connection (lit. here) three kinds of love to be

presented through different actions are : that in relation

to duty (dharma), that actuated by material gain (artha)

and that actuated by passion (kāma).48

The three kinds of love are (i) the legitimate (ii) the interested

and (iii) the voluptuous. The denouement in Samavakāra leads

to the termination of hostilities.

Since no old speciment of Samavakāra except that of Amrta-

manthan, the churning of the ocean by Brāhmaṇa, is available

to us, it is certain that it was not a fully developed form of

drama. M. Ghosh has rightly stated that it was only "a drama-

tic spectacle based on a mythological story"49. That is why it

could not compete with full-fledged plays of Kālidāsa, Bhāsa

and Bhavabhūti. Though in the middle of the 13th century

Vatsarāja composed a Samavakāra known as Samudramanthan,

it could not impress the people on account of its artificiality.

Bhāsa's Pañcayātra may be considered to be the best speciment

of Samavakāra, but it does not conform strictly to the Bharatan

principles.

232

Theory of Drama

(4) Ihāmṛga

It is called ihāmṛga as in this type of play the hero pursues

(ihate) a maiden who is as difficult to attain as a gazelle

(mṛga). It is a play of intrigue where the hero is either a god or

an illustrious mortal and the cause of conflict is the attainment

of the divine lady which is a very difficult task. All kinds of

confusion and tension are seen in the drama but the crucial

conflict involving death is averted on one pretext or the other.

Commenting on this type of play Bharata has stated :

It (Ihāmṛga) has as its dramatis personae divine males

who are implicated in fights about divine females. It

should be constructed with a well-arranged plot and

should be convincing. It is to abound in vehement

(uddhata) Heroes and to have its construction dependent

on feminine anger which is to give rise to commotion

(saṁkṣobha), excitement (vidrava) and angry conflict

(sampheta)...(In the Ihāmṛga) when persons intent on

killing are on the point of killing, (the impending) battle

should be avoided on some pretext.50

Ihāmṛga normally consists of four Acts and possesses three

junctures. Here the main object of discord is the celestial

woman who is equally liked by two rival characters. She, how-

ever, refuses to love one of them who is bent on obtaining her

against her will even by carrying her off or some such means.

This leads to the point where the war may begin but it is some-

how or the other averted in the drama. The heroine thus is the

bone of contention in this type of drama and its prevailing

sentiments are love and mirth. The following are the plays of

this type available to us :

(i) Vatsarāja's Rukminīharaṇa, (ii) Kṛṣṇamicra's Vījavijaya

(iii) Kṛṣṇa Avadhūta's Sarvavinodanāṭaka.

(5) Dima

Though the origin of this word Dima is not known to us,

Dhanika, the commentator on Daśarūpa explains its origin from

Types of Drama

the root 'dim', to wound. It is considered to be equivalent to

samghāta meaning thereby 'injuring'. It is the representation of

terrific events, as is evident from Vatsaraja's Tripuradāha.

Dīma is a kind of play whose plot is properly constructed

and whose hero is a well-known legendary figure, as Bharata

has remarked. "The Dīma should be constructed with a well-

known plot and its Hero should be well-known and of the

exalted (udātta) type.51 In this type of play the playwright

may use all the Sentiments except the Comic and the Erotic

though its principal Sentiment is Furious (Raudra). It has

sixteen characters which include gods, demi-gods, gandharvās,

yakṣās, mahoragas, demons, rākṣasas, bhūtas, pretās, piśācas

who are all of noble and haughty nature. It consists of four

Acts and four junctures only without having any introductory

scene, though the late Manmathonmathana of Rāma is an excep-

tion to this. Commenting upon what type of incident should

be included in it, Bharata points out that it should include

"incidents such as an earthquake, fall of meteors, an eclipse of

the sun or the moon, fighting in battle and personal combat,

and angry conflict"52 which enhance the horror of the spectacle.

He further says that it "should abound in deceit and jugglery

and should include energetic activity of many persons, and dis-

sention (bheda) among themselves..."53 It should make use of

the Grand and the Energetic Styles. In the absence of adequate

material, it may be a popular form of entertainment, but is

never recognized as a full-fledged drama. The Tripuradāha of

Vatsarāja is the only Dīma which is referred to by Dhanamjaya

and Viśvanātha, though references of other two plays of this

type-venkaṭavarada's Kṛṣṇavijaya and Rāma's Manmathonma-

than are also available.

(6) Vyāyoga

The vyāyoga is, as its name indicates, a military spectacle.

It is so called as here the protagonists are violently opposed to

each other (vyāyujyante). Its theme is to be derived from a well

known legendary story and its hero should be either a god or a

royal sage or a man of high rank. It is a dramatic representa-

234

Theory of Drama

tion of only one act and it takes into account 'battle, personal

combat, challenge and angry conflict'. The action of the drama

should not extend over a day. The 'exciting Sentiments' like the

Vīra, Raudra, Bībhatsa, Adbhuta, Karuṇa and Bhayānaka

should be made the basis of this play. A woman should not

be the cause of conflict in this type of drama. The vengeance

that Paraśurāma takes after the death of his father, is a suitable

subject for the vyāyoga. All the Styles except the graceful and

all the articulations except garbha and vimarśa should be used.

Sylvan Levi says that its "tone is exclusively heroic, without

any erotic ornamentation"54.

Bhāsa's Madhyama-vyāyoga is an old and the best example

of this type of drama. His other play Dūtaghatoṭkaca is also a

specimen of the same variety. Though the vyāyogas continued

to be written till the 14th century, they lack the charm and

freshness of the early play. In the 12th century Prahalādana-

deva's Pārthaparākrama and Vatsarāja's Kīrātarjunīya and in the

14th century Viśvanātha's Saugandhikāharaṇa, Kāñcana

Paṇḍita's Dhanamjayavijaya and Rāmachandra's Nirbhayabhīma

were written but they don't reveal the earlier dramatic genius.

(7) Utaṛṣṭikāṅka or Aṅka

It is known as utsṛṭikāṅka rather than merely aṅka for the

purpose of distinguishing it from an act (aṅka) of a normal

drama. It is an one-act play having a well-known plot but deve-

loped with the help of the poet's imagination. Here the play-

wright should make use of human rather than divine characters.

Referring to the chief characteristics of this type of drama

Bharata has stated :

The Utsṛstikāṅka should abound in the Pathetic Senti-

ment ; it will treat women's lamentations and despondent

utterances at a time when battle and violent fighting have

ceased ; it should include bewildered movements (of

mourners), and it must be devoid of the Grand, the Ener-

getic and the Graceful Styles and its plot should relate to

one's fall (lit. end of the rise).55

Types of Drama

Its plot displays the downfall of one of the contending characters. Its dominant Sentiment is pathetic and its style verbal. The first and the last junctures alone should be used in this type of drama. The description of battles and fights should be followed by the lamentations of women which should not, however, be shown on the stage.

Bhāsa is considered to be the first and the best writer of this type of drama. His Urubhaṅga is certainly the best and the most powerful example. It is regarded as a kind of one-act tragedy. Viśvanātha gives another example of Sarmiṣṭhayāyāti which does not, however, fully conform to the normal rules of this type of drama.

(8) Prahasana

Prahasana is, says M. Ghosh, "a farce or a play in which the Comic Sentiment predominates..."56 It is very appealing to the popular taste. The playwright invents the theme with his own imagination, the theme being related with the tricks and quarrels of low characters. It consists of only one act and the first and the last junctures are to be used. Bharata and Rāma-chandra and Gunachandra divide Prahasana into two categories : (i) Suddha (pure) and Saṅkirṇa (mixed). Referring to the first type of Prahasana Bharata states :

The Prahasana is known, as pure (suddha); when it contains comic disputations by Śaiva gurus (bhagavat), ascetics, Bhikṣus, Srotriya Brahmins and others and abounds in jocular remarks by persons of low class ; and all this gives uniformly to the plot a realistic picture of the language and the conduct of all these in passages describing their special Psychological States.57

Bharata refers to the chief characteristics of second type of Prahasana in the following lines :

That Prahasana is called mixed in which courtezans, servants, eunuchs, vitas, and Dhūrtas and unchaste women

236

Theory of Drama

appear with their immodest appearance, dress and movements.58

Dhanamjaya, however, divides Prahasana into three categories :-

(i) pure (śuddha), (ii) impure (vikrata) and (iii) mixed (miśra or samkirṇa), the next two categories being combined into one by Bharata.

The main objective of Prahasana is to evoke laughter by choosing some popular topic of scandal, incident of hypocrisy or the vices of riches and sensuality. Though Bharata prescribes the use of only one act, later theorists suggested the possibility of two acts also. There is only one character in some of the Prahasanas such as Dhūrtacarita and a band of rogues in others such as Laṭakamelaka. Whereas the early Prahasana are powerful in taste and appeal, the later Prahasanas are monotonous in theme as well as treatment. The following are the well-known Prahasanas placed roughly in chronological order :

(i) Mahendra-vikrama-Varman – Mattavilāsa –620 A.D.

(ii) Baudhayīna Kavī

Bhagavadajjukīya

(iii) Vatsarāja

Hāsyacūdāmani

(iv) Saṅkhadhar Kavi-rāja

Laṭakamelaka–12th Cen. A.D.

(v) Jyotiriśvara

Dhūrtasa–15th māgama

(vi) Jagadīśvara

Hāsyarnava–date uncertain

(vii) Sāmarāja Dīkṣita

Dhūrtanar–17th century

Types of Drama

237

(9) Bhāṇa

It is a kind of monologue having only one act. Its theme is derived from love, war, fraud and intrigue etc. It is not taken from myth or legend but created by the poet's own imagination. It is a kind of play where a shrewd and clever parasite (viṭa or Dhūtra) describes the voguesh exploits undertaken either by himself or by some one else. Referring to the chief characteristics of Bhāṇa Bharata has stated :

The Bhāṇa is to be acted by a single character, and it is of two kinds : that (with one's) recounting of one's own feelings, and that (with) describing some one else's acts. (The Bhāṇa which is to include) some body else's words addressed to oneself, should be acted by means of replies in course of conversations with an imaginary person (ākāsabhāṣita) along with the (suitable) movements of the limbs. The Bhāṇa should include characters of Dhūrtas and viṭas and treat their different conditions, and it is always to consist of one Act, and should include many incidents which are to be acted by a Dhūrta or a vita.

The language of Bhāṇa should always be polished and its dramatic performance should begin and end with song and music. Its predominant Sentiments are heroic and erotic and it uses only the first and last junctures and also the ten subdivisions of the gentle Dance (lāsya). Here the playwright uses a single character who goes on describing his own adventures of experience unaided. The device Ākāsabhāṣita (speaking in the air) is adopted by the character for narrating his own experiences. The action of the drama lies in the manner of narration.

The four Bhāṇas which are available to us, had been published under the title Caturbhāṇī. They are as follows (i) Vararuci's Ubhayābhisārikā, (ii) Sūdraka's Padma Prābhrtaka, (iii) Iśvaradatta's Dhūrta-vita-samvāda and (iv) Śyamilaka's Pāda-tāditaka. They are very old specimens of this type of drama and represent the Bhāṇa type from the beginning up to circa 100 A.D. Though the Bhāṇa should be normally monotonous and insipid by its very nature, the four Bhāṇas mentioned

238

Theory of Drama

above, says B. Bhattacharya, "exhibit novelty and variety of

their own and speak eloquently of the great dramatic genius of

their authors'60. They show the Bhāna variety at the peak of

its perfection.

After Chaturbhāni the next specimen of Bhāna is the

Karpūracarita of Vatsarāja which roughly belongs to the end of

the 12th or the beginning of the 13th century. When we come

to the 14th and 15th countries, we find Śṛṅgārabhūṣaṇa of

Vāmana Bhatta Bhāṇa which clearly reveals the decadence of

the Bhāṇa type. The later Bhāṇas are of course vulgar and

monotonous. The sense of keen satire has been replaced by the

coarse vulgarity.

Though Bhāṇas were written from 8th to 18th century, the

early Bhāṇas known as Caturbhāṇi are of the best type.

Bhāṇas is of course the medium of attack over the social evils.

But whereas the attack in Prahasana is shallow, in Bhāṇa it is

serious and dignified. Bhāṇa may be considered to be the Mono

acting in many respects in the Western sense of the term.

(10) Vīthi

This type of play is known as vīthi which means either

'road' or 'series of subdivisions'. The play is infact "like a

road leading straight to the goal".61. It is a love story having

comic dialogues, quibble, jest and wistful misconstructions. It is

a short one-Act play and may have one, two or threec haracters.

It may include any of the three types of characters-superior,

middling or inferior. Any of the Sentiments may be used but

its predominant Sentiment is erotic. It uses only the first and

the last junctures and it is normally composed in the graceful

style. The Vīthi is of thirteen types, as Bharata has stated :

The Thirteen types of the Vīthi are : Accidental

Interpretation (udghatyaka), Transference (avalagita),

Ominous Significance (avaspandita), Incoherent Chatter

(Asatpralapa), Compliment (prapañca), Enigma (nali =

nalika), Repartée, (vakkeli), outvying (abhivala), Decep-

tion (chala), Declaration (vyahara), Crushing (mrdava),

Types of Drama

239

Three men's Talk (trigatā), and Undue combination of words (gaṇda),62

From 116 to 129 in chapter XX of his NŚ Bharata explains these thirteen types in detail and further comments :

If in a play any of these thirteen types with clear meanings occur and they possess all the characters, Sentiments and Psychological States prescribed for them by the Śāstra, it is called the Vithi53,

There are two specimens of Vithi available to us — (i) Bhāsa's Dūta-vākya and (ii) Karṇabhāra. Viśvanātha speaks of another Vithi—Mālvikā which is not of course Mālavikāgnimitra. Rāma-chandra mentions a Vithi in Indulekhā which has been lost.

III

Let us first take up Aristotle's concept of tragedy as a form of drama and try to find out whether is any one of Bharata's ten types of drama which comes very close to it. Aristotelian concept of tragedy has much in common with Bharata's concept of Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa, though many Indian commentators like Prof. Baldeo Upadhyaya and G.K. Bhat are of the opinion that no tragedy has ever been written in Sanskrit drama. The very concept of tragedy, they say, is alien to our Indian philosophy, as we never conceive of an unhappy ending of human life. Life is of course a continuous process of birth and dea'h till it attains salvation. Death is only a temporary phase in the continuous life of man. Moreover we believe that God is just and impartial and hence good will ultimately prosper and evil destroyed. If a man suffers, he suffers on account of the mis-deeds or sins committed by him in his previous life. Suffering is a means to the test of man's character and his integrity. There is nothing disastrous in it.

Our first dramaturgist Bharata was deeply rooted in our Indian philosophy and religion. He considered his NŚ to be the fifth Veda. He never thought of drama either to be a tale of sorrow or to be a story of pleasure exclusively. His

240

Theory of Drama

nāṭaka is a fine combination of the two as it reveals the sorrow as well as pleasure in proper prospective. There is no unhappy ending in Sanskrit nāṭakas and that is why most of the Indian commentators firmly assert that no tragedy has been written in Sanskrit drama. What we feel is that they have misunderstood the concept of tragedy, atleast the Aristotelian concept of tragedy. A.C. Bradley's book on Shakespearean Tragedy has created some confusion regarding Aristotelian theory of tragedy. Some critics consider Bradley's views on tragedy to be the Aristotelian concept of tragedy though Bradley has categorically stated in the Preface itself, that he does not intend to study Shakespeare's tragedies in the light of Aristotelian theory. Bradley's book gives an impression that unhappy ending is an essential requirement of tragedy, though when we scrutinize Aristotle's Poetics meticulously, we find that Aristotle nowhere mentions that. While discussing plot-construction in chapters XIII and XIV of his Poetics Aristotle clearly says that a drama with an unhappy ending may be moving to the spectators on the stage but unhappy ending is certainly not an indis-pensable element of tragedy. When he refers to the construction of a complex fortunate plot and considers the plot of Euripides' Iphigenia in Tauris as the best one, it is quite obvious that the unhappy ending is not an essential requirement of tragedy as Iphigenia in Tauris ends with the reunion of Iphigenia with her long lost brother Orestes. It is evident from the following statement of Aristotle :

The action may be done consciously and with knowledge of the persons, in the manner of the older poets. It is thus too that Euripides makes Medea slay her children. Or, again, the deed of horror may be done, but done in ignorance, and the tie of kinship or friendship be discovered afterwards. The Oedipus of Sophocles is an example...Again, there is a third case,– to be about to act with knowledge of the persons but then not to act. The fourth case is > when some one is about to do as irreparable deed through ignorance and makes the discovery before it is done...The last case is the best, an when in the Cresphontes Merope is about to slay her son,

Types of Drama

241

but recognizing who is, spares his life. So in the Iphi-

genia, the sister recognizes the brother just in time.

Again in the Halle, the son recognizes the mother when

on the point of giving her up.61

Aristotle considers the last type of plot to be the best plot in

tragedy where recognition takes place before the fatal act is

committed. This type of tragedy ends either with reunion or

reconciliation. He cites examples from three plays—Cresphontes,

Iphigenia in Tauris and Halle which ultimately come to a happy

ending.

While defining what tragedy is, Aristotle has very clearly

stated that "Tragedy, is an imitation of an action that is serious,

complete and of a certain magnitude."65 It means that the

seriousness of action that is to be imitated, is the most signific-

ant and indispensable characteristic of tragedy. Now the

question is : Do we feel that Sanskrit drama is lacking in

seriousness of theme and content ? Does Bhavabhūti's Uttara-

rāmacarita not reveal the seriousness of issue at stake ? Has it

been written just to evoke laughter by exposing the follies and

foibles of different characters in the drama ? Certainly not.

Regarding the second requirement that the action should be

complete i.e., should have a beginning, a middle and an end, it

would be enough to say that most of the Sanskrit plays fully

conform to it and are the ideal examples of it. So for as the

magnitude of drama is concerned, Sanskrit nāṭakas are neither

too big nor too small in size. They have the proper magnitude

and are capable of arousing our interest and sustaining it till

the end of the drama. If this is so, why cannot we consider

some of the Sanskrit plays to be the fine examples of Aristote-

lian concept of tragedy. Aristotle nowhere considers unhappy

ending or ending with the death of the hero to be an essential

requirement of tragedy. Even happy ending is not an obstacle

to the seriousness of drama which is certainly the most fund-

amental requirement of tragedy. If we judge sanskrit plays from

this point of view, numerous examples may be cited. We may

take, for example, the Sanskrit nāṭaka Mudrārākṣasa where we

meet with the happy ending. When the noble Candanadasa

242

Theory of Drama

who had annoyed Chānakya by giving shelter to the family of

his friend Rākṣasa, is to be executed, Rākṣasa arrives and

accepts all the terms and conditions which might save the life

of his friend. In the next famous nāṭaka Veṇīsamhāra we see

how a character intends to kill his own brother but withdraws

in time after recognition. Yudhisthir fails to recognize his own

brother Bhīmasena and mistakes him for Duryodhana as he is

besmeared with blood. He intends to kill him but then Bhīma

speaks in time and the nāṭaka comes to a happy ending. In

the greatest of the Prakaraṇas Mṛcchakatika we find the similar

situation. Here we see how the innocent Cārudatta has been

sentenced to death for the mistaken murder of Vasantasena.

The fatal ending, however, is averted just in time which it is

discovered that Vasantasena is alive. P.L. Bhargavas has,

therefore, rightly stated that there "can be no greater travesty

of truth than to use the word comedy for the Sanskrit Nāṭaka

or Prakaraṇa"66.

All the Sanskrit plays which end happily, cannot be con-

sidered to be comedies in the Aristotelian sense of the term.

Aristotle clearly suggests that comedy imitates characters which

are inferior to the common people or of a lower type. When

we scrutinize the Sanskrit plays from this point of view, do we

feel that the characters of the Sanskrit drama are of the lower

type or the trivial sort of people ? Certainly not. Who can

say that Rāma and Sītā in Bhavabhūti's Uttararāmacarita or

Duṣyanta and Śakuntalā in Kālidāsa's Abhijñānaśākuntalam are

trivial or ludicrous sort of people ? If we are clear on this

issue that tragedy imitates the action of the noble and exalted

people and it does not necessarily lead to an unhappy ending,

we may have no hesitation in accepting this fact that there are

so many Sanskrit plays which are very close to the Aristotelian

concept of tragedy.

There is, however, one subtle but significant difference

between the two theorists. Though Aristotle does not consider

the death of the hero as an essential ingredient of tragedy, he

does not prohibit its display on the stage at the same time.

Bharata, on the contrary, forbids war and death on the stage.

Types of Drama

243

He does so simply because the Indian hero is a model of ideal

virtues, cannot ultimately meet with utter disaster and death.

There are, however, some exceptions to this rule in Sanskrit

drama. In the plays of Bhāsa death-scene has been displayed—

Daśaratha's death in Pratimā and Duryodhana's in Ūrubhanga.

In Abhisekhanāṭakam the scene of Bāli's murder has been

shown. Mental suffering has been shown in the best possible

manner in Uttararāmacarita and Abhijñānaśakuntalam also

contains many scenes of Śakuntalā's acute suffering.

So far as the concept of comedy is concerned, Aristotle

unfortunately has said very little about it. However one thing

is very clear from what he has said, that it is not similar to

Bharata's concept of nāṭaka and prakaraṇa. It is rather very

close in spirit to Bharata's concept of Prahasana and Bhāṇa.

Like them it abounds in comic sentiment (hāsya rasa) and

evokes laughter. It is writtem in order to arouse the sentiment

of laughter by ridiculously distorting the sentiment of love and

by presenting a caricatured view of life. It temporarily displays

the dominance of matter over form which is finally demolished

to the utter discomfiture of the persons concerned. The senti-

ment of laughter is predominant in the Prahasana like the

Latākamelakam and the Hasyarnava-Prahasanam and the Bhāṇas

like the Sringār-Sarvasya-Bhān and the Sringār-Sudhākar-Bhāṇu.

Comedy is identical with Prahasana and Bhāṇa in another

sense also. Characters in both are of inferior and ludicrous

type. They are mainly the corrupt monks of different sects,

wicked persons at religious places, people of high pretensions

and snobberies. Their actions and behaviour are on the lower,

degraded level of life. Their pretence or the empty boasts of

learning are exposed to ridicule and caricature. Here we find a

striking similarity between our Prahasanas and the Greek

comedies of Aristophanes. Both of them try to expose the cor-

ruption of the society and thereby eradicate it. Aristophanes

in his comedy The Frogs ridicules the emotional and in-

tellectual corruption of his age which has resulted on account

of Sophistic philosophy. So is the case with Sri Sankhadhar's

prahasana Latakāmelakam which exposes the hypocrisy of

scholars, doctors, monks and other respected people of society.

244

Theory of Drama

The structure of comedy, however, was modified in the age of Shakespeare. It became rich and highly diversified and is certainly superior to our Sanskrit Prahasanas.

So far as the other forms of Sanskrit drama are concerned, there is very little similarity between them and the Western forms of drama. They were devised merely as forms of public entertainment. They were very crude in theme as well as stage representation. Most of the stories were based on gods, demons and devils. There was very little scope for imaginative composition. Even the episodes were not properly arranged and the continuity of theme maintained in those forms of drama.

REFERENCES

1. Maxwell Anderson, "The Essence of Tragedy", Aristotle's "Poetics" and English Literature ed. Elder Olson (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 119.

2. O.B. Hardison, Aristotle's Peotics, pp. 112-3.

3. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, VI. 2.

4. Robert B. Heilman, "Tragedy and Melodrama, Speculations on Generic Forms", Perspectives on Drama ed. James L. Calderwood and Harold E. Toliver (New York : O.U.P., 1968), p. 152.

5. O.B. Hardison, p. 233.

6. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, XXVI, 2-3.

7. Ibid, XXVI, 3.

8. Ibid., 5.

9. Ibid., 7.

10. K. Lever, The Art of Greek Comedy, (London : Methuen & Co., 1956), p. 187.

11. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, V., 2.

12. Humphry House & Colin Hardie, Aristotle's Poetics, p. 41.

Types of Drama

245

13. W.D. Howarth, "Introduction : Theoretical Considerations", Comic Drama : The European Heritage (London : Methuen & Co., 1978), p. 1.

14. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, V., 1.

15. Ibid., 2, 4.

16. G.S. Amur, The Concept of Comedy : A Re-Statement (Dharwar : Karnatak University Press, 1963), p. 89.

17. Butcher, trans., The Potics, IV, 9.

18. Elizabeth Drew, Discovering Drama (New York : W. N. Norton & Co., 1937), p. 171.

19. Gerald F. Else, Aristotle's Poetics : The Argument, p. 189.

20. G.S. Amur, The Concept of Comedy : A Re-Statement, p. 16.

21. Ibid., p. 20.

22. James L. Calderwood & Harold E. Toliver ed. Perspectives on Drama (New York : O.U.P., 1968), p. 163.

23. S.H. Butcher, com., Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, p. 375.

24. G.S. Amur, p. 173.

25. Ibid., p. 151.

26. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, IV. 7-9.

27. Albert Cook, The Dark voyage and the Golden Mean (Cambridge : Harward University Press, 1949), p. 32.

28. G.S. Amur, p. 148.

29. J.G. Warry, Greek Aesthetic Theory (London : Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1962), p. 146.

30. P.S. Sastri, Aristotle's theory of Poetry & Drama (Delhi : Kitab Mahal Pvt., Ltd., 1963), p. 32.

31. Wimsatt & Brooks, Literary Criticism : A Short History (New York : Alfred A. Knoff, 1957), p. 50

246

Theory of Drama

32. A. Nicoll, The Theory of Drama (Delhi : Doaba House, 1974), p. 92.

33. The Art of Drama, p. 13.

34. Robert B. Heilman, "Tragedy and Melodrama : Speculations on Generic Form", Perspectives on Drama, p. 161.

35 The Art of Drama, p. 122.

36. M. Ghosh, Com., NŚ, p. XI.

37. Adya Rangacharya, Introduction to Bharata's Nātyaśāstra (Bombay : Popular Prakashan, 1966), p. 50.

38. G.K. Bhat, Sanskrit Drama, p. 29.

39. M. Ghosh, Com., NŚ, p. xli.

40. A.B. Keith, The Sanskrit Drama, p. 345.

41. M. Ghosh, trans., NŚ, XX. 48.

42. Ibid, 52.

43. Ibid., 60-1.

44. A.B. Keith, The Sanskrit Drama, p. 346.

45. M. Ghosh, trans., NŚ XX, 64-5.

46. Ibid., 70.

47. Ibid., 71.

48. Ibid., 72.

49. M. Ghosh, com., NŚ, p. xliv.

50. M. Ghosh, trans., NŚ, XX. 78-82.

51. Ibid., 84.

52. Ibid., 86.

53. Ibid., 87.

54. Sylvain Levi, The Theatre of India p. 134.

55. M. Ghosh, trans., NŚ, XV. 95-6.

56. M. Ghosh com., NŚ, p. xlv.

57. M. Ghosh, trans., NŚ, XX. 103-4.

Types of Drama

58. Ibid., 105.

59. Ibid., 107-110.

60. B. Bhattacharya, Sanskrit Drama and Dramaturgy. p. 365.

61. Sylvain Levi, The Theatra of India, p. 123.

62. M. Ghosh, trans., NS, XX. 114-5.

63. Ibid., 150.

64. S.H. Butcher, trans., The Poetics, XIV. 6-9.

65. Ibid., VI. 2.

66. B.L. Bhargava, "A Comparative Study of the Sanskrit and the Greek Dramatic Theory, "Principles of Literary Criticism in Sanskrit, ed. R.C. Dwivedi (Delhi : Motilal Bhanarasidass, 196 9), p. 26.

7

Language of Drama

When plot and character have been conceived by the dramatist, there is an urgent need of the language for the expresion of his views. Both the theorists consider language to be an element of drama and devote some of their chapters for its explication. The present chapter discusses their views on the language of drama, though they are not very systematic on this issue.

I

Aristotle considers diction to be one of the six elkments of tragedy. From his point of view it is the fourth step in the processing of dramatic creation, whereas from the point of view of the reader or spectator it is the first. It is however, to be admitted that diction is a significant element of drama from either point of view. Hence Aristotle discusses it in detail in three long chapters of his Poetics i.e. chapter XX to chapter XXII.

Diction is certainly the fundamental requirement of all literary genres. It is a formal feature of drama on which its structure is verbally expressed. It is inseparable from other elements of drama. Eva Schaper has rightly stated that "whatever is being said, told or verbally expressed be analysable in respect of linguistic means of expression and formal word patterns"1. It is the means through which the imitative activity which is the core of literary productions including tragedy, reveals itself.

Aristotle defines diction as "the expression of the meaning in words"2 It is in fact the verbal expression of thought and

Language of Drama

249

includes all phases of the use of languge, whether in prose

or verse. Referring to the significance of language, Aristotle

in his famous definition of tragedy has said :

Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is

sarious, complete and of a certain magni:ude; in

language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament,

the several kinds being found in separate parts of the

play 2

By 'language embellished' he means the language that

assimilates rhythm, harmony and song together. By 'the

several kinds in separate parts' he means that some parts are

rendered through the medium of verse alone, others are render-

ed with the help of the song. Language is one the important

means of producing the effect upon the sudience.

In the later half of chapter XIX and the whole of chapter

XX Aristotle discusses language from a highly technical point

of view. He discusses 'the turns given to the language when

spoken' and the various component parts of language such as

the letter, syllable, conjunction, noun, verb, inflexion, sentence

or phrase. Here he is not concerned only with the use of

words in drama but with the words as such. It is certainly the

area of a grammarian and a linguist. That is why Else deleted

it from his discussion of Poetics.

In chapters XXI and XXII of Poetics Aristotle, however,

discusses such aspects of poetic diction as are of relevance to

us. Chapter XXI concentrates on those methods by which

words are used to enhance the appeal of a work of art. Words

may be simple, compound, triple, quadruple or multiple in

form. Aristotle further says :

Every word is either current, or strange, or metaphorical,

or ornamental, or newly coined, or lengthened, or cont-

racted, or altered.4

By the 'current' word Aristotle means the word which people in

general use in their speech or writing at a given time. It means

250

Theory of Drama

calling a spade 'a spade' on which Wordsworth, at least in his

theory, insisted. 'Strange' word refers to the word taken

from other dialects. The same word may be current for one

class of people but strange to the other set of people and vice

versa. Writers are fond of using words and phrases from

different languages in order to add elegance to their works.

Aristotle's discussion of metaphor contributes much to the

understanding of the nature of figurative language. Metaphor

is one of the artistic devices used for the elevation of language.

Its main function is to perceive similarities in dissimilarities

which is of course a mark of genius. Aristotle defines it as

follows :

Metaphor is the application of an alien name by trans-

ference either from genus to species or from species to

genus, or from species to species, or by analogy, that is,

proportion.5

Metaphor refers to the use of words in a figurative rather than

a literal sense. Aristotle's coprehensive discussion of metaphor

may not be appealing to the modern readers, it was highly

fascination to the writers of the seventeenth centuiy who, says

Hardison, 'elaborated it into an enormous and complex

mechanism for inventing poetic imagery... In the twentieth

century, the section has proved interesting to those 'new critics'

who treat imagery as the central element in poetry.'6 The

impact of metaphor lies in the revelation of similarities and the

interaction of resemblance and diversity.

Aristotle further refers to the use of ornamental words in

place of the common words for enhancing the effect of lang-

uage. If a writer uses the word benighted for ignorant or ethe-

real for heavenly and the like, it means that he is using the

ornamental words for beautifying the expression. A newly-

coined word is the word which has never been in use. It is

adopted by the writer himself with a new meaning and a novel

context. The coining of the word is technically known as neo-

logism. It is used as a device for supplying the deficiency of

language. In English there are some 'made up' words such as