4. INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

The publication of Bharata's 'Nātyaśāstra' gave an impetus to a critical study, not only of Rasa as an essence of literary compositions ( and among them of drama in particu- lar ) advocating the predominance of the Rasa school but also of drama and its structure. Since then several old Sanskrit dramas have been newly published ; so also many standard works on literary criticism in which theories of Rasa and the laws of dramatic compositions have been ex- pounded. Several discourses devoted to a methodical dis- cussion, each in its own way and from its own peculiar standpoint, of most of the relevant points have also been published. The above discourses are, no doubt, ample, admirable and enlightening on particular points, but in none of them is to be found a comprehensive treatment of the relation of Rasa to Sanskrit drama and of its place in the latter. This is a subject of great importance and demands careful attention of a scholar. I, therefore, set myself to this study and tried to bring out the results of my investigations in the form of a monograph presented in the following pages. Such a study, however, requires a full consideration of Sanskrit drama and of Rasa. But most of the works availa- ble in this connection, though illuminating, do not fully meet this requirement as they are more or less of a partial character, each of them being confined to a particular aspect or phase and not dealing in an integral way with the subject. Hence enough space has been devoted to separate consi-

4

derations of Sanskrit drama and of Rasa before illustrating fully the relation of Rasa to drama and its place in the latter. Drama represents the culmination of the development of art. It is, therefore, the highest point of interest in the field of Aesthetics. It is the flowering of a nation's mind which ever endeavours to express itself in the best form possible. The development in this direction corresponds with the march of civilization towards progress. Countries as Greece and India are credited with very ancient civilizations. The literary remains of the countries mentioned above stand out very prominently. Works on criticism as well as dramatic works written in these countries clearly bear out that there was an all round development of arts. In Greece Aristotle has made contributions to almost all arts and sciences. His 'Poetics' is a compendium which deals with the canons of criticism on various literary forms evolved and developed by his time. It is even now a source of inspiration as it serves as the 'Pierian spring' to Western scholars. The verdict of centuries stands justly and sincerely in favour of the 'Poetics.' In India Bharata still stands as honoured and authoritative as he must have been in his time. His 'Natyā- śāstra' is a compendium which sums up various traditions and views current in his time as well as his ideas and theories in connection with Sanskrit dramaturgy. His work deals mainly with the various rules of dramaturgy. It presupposes the development of different arts as Histrionics, Scenics, Music, Architecture etc. which have all been handled therein very cautiously and carefully. Of them some have under- gone subsequent development. Chapters on Music as dealt with by him contain details which baffle now even expert intellect. Rules on Sanskrit dramaturgy elaborated by the time of Bharata were binding in his time. But gradu-

5

ally many of the details as recorded by him began to lose importance and significance, so much so that many of them began to be simply hinted at by later dramaturgists. The preliminaries connected with the Pūrvaranga are instances in point. How they were considered. later on as insigni- ficant is reflected in the works of the dramatists who simply refer to them in some cases, while in others even maintain silence. These rules, however, are fine and subtle, and they bear testimony to the keen insight of the dramaturgists into human nature. Before Bharata many of these rules had been formulated ; whatever in this connection was left untouched was handled by Bharata. He, therefore, recorded what had already been done as well as made his contribution to the subject. After Bharata the period of the formulation of rules on dramaturgy was over. Later Sanskrit dramatur- gists followed him either slavishly or with departures which were unimportant or negligible. The study of these rules is a matter of great interest and importance. Modern scho- lars have attempted it from different points of view. S. Lévi in 'Le Théâtre Indien' and S. Konow in 'The Indian Drama' (both translated into English by Dr. S. C. Mukerji, the manuscripts of which I had the privilege of using) have tried to study these rules. Keith in 'The Sanskrit Drama' has also tried to study these rules in an exhaustive and com- prehensive way as far as possible. Though his canvas is sufficiently wide, full justice to the subject in all its details seems not to have been done. The author has attempted the study of the rules from the theoretical and the practical points of view separately. As has been shown in the course of the present exposition the two aspects cannot be separated. Another scholar, Kulkarni, in his 'Sanskrit Drama & Drama- tists' has summarized these rules in the first two chapters,

6 c

curtailing some of them to suit the canvas of his work. Miss Godavari Ketkar in her 'Bhāratīya Nātyasāstra' has studied them, and it is a study based solely on Bharata's Nātyaśāstra. Dr. Yajnik in 'The Indian Theatre' has made a rapid and preliminary study of these rules in the first part. Mankad in 'The Types of Sanskrit Drama' deals with the evolution of drama and records the constituents of different types of Sanskrit drama. Dr. Mainkar in 'The Theory of the Samdhis and Samdhyangas.'1 studies the rules principally in connection with the ingredients of the plot in the Sanskrit drama. The necessity, therefore, of a separate study of these rules in an exhaustive manner is keenly felt. But the study of these rules can be attempted only when the central aim of the dramaturgists and the dramatists is fully considered. It has been shown in the following pages that the principal aim of the dramatists as recognized by the dramaturgists is to evoke in the spectators the different Sthāyibhavas maturing into Rasas. Rasa may, therefore, be looked upon as the predominant constituent of Sanskrit drama. It controls the other constituents. The dramatists treat it in its different ways and arrangements in their works. Being of so much importance and significance, its study on a comprehensive scale is felt as a necessity for a clear under- standing of the rules on Sanskrit dramaturgy. Questions as the evolution and development of the concept of Rasa,

1. The Theory of the Samdhis and Samdhyangas by Dr. T. G. Mainkar, 9 Extension, Sangli. (An unpublished thesis approved for the Ph.D. Degree of the University of Bombay, which I had the privilege of using through the courtesy of Dr. Mainkar himself, 1946) Recently Published by Messrs. Joshi and Lokhande, Tilak Road, Poona 2.

7 the process of its realization, its classification etc. need full consideration. A few original and enlightening treatises dealing with various aspects of the problem of Rasa may better be very briefly surveyed here. Max Lindenau in his 'Rasa Lehre' and Dr. S. C. Mukerji in his 'Le Rasa' (both translated into English by Dr. S. C. Mukerji, the manuscripts of which I had the privilege of using ) have each attempted a study of Rasa. The above studies, though comprehensive in their own way, take into consideration only the orthodox and popular writers on Rasa. Sankaran in his 'Some Aspects of Literary Criticism in Sanskrit' discusses the problem of Rasa mainly in its evolution and development though other aspects of the problem are also touched upon. P. Śāstrī's 'The Philosophy of Aesthetic Pleasure'1 gives much more than a detailed description of the four orthodox theories ; it, however, hardly falls within its scope to consider almost all the aspects of the problem of Rasa. Vatve's 'Rasavi- marśa' is a study of Rasa on the basis of modern European psychology and is, therefore, concerned with the discussion of the aspects of the problem of Rasa mostly connected there- with. De's 'History of Sanskrit Poetics' and Kane's 'History of Alankära Literature'2 are general works on poetics and, as such, give the same significance to Rasa as to other constituents of poetry. Keith in 'A History of Sanskrit Literature'3 has, according to his scheme, devoted

1. The Philosophy of Aesthetic Pleasure by Pañcāpagesa Śāstrī, Annamalai University, Annamalainagar, 1940. 2. History of Alankāra Literature by P. V. Kane (An introduction to the Sāhityadarpana edited by P. V. Kane). 3. A History of Sanskrit Literature by A. B. Keith, Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1928.

8

a narrow space to the study of Rasa mainly in its evolution and development. The concept of Rasa as studied in Lahiri's 'Concepts of Rīti and Guna in Sanskrit Poetics' is connected with, and subordinate to, the concepts of Rīti and Guna. The treatment of Rasa in Joga's 'Saundaryaśodha Āni Ānandabodha' is mainly interpretative. De's 'Vaișņava Faith and Movement in Bengal' is naturally confined to the Bengal Vaisnava section of the Rasa writers. The canvas of Raghavan's 'Bhoja's Śņngāra Prakāśa' is, no doubt, wide but it is professedly based on, and devoted to the study of, Bhoja's work. His 'Some Concepts of the Alankāra Śāstra'1 deals with some of the constituents of poetry and other literary topics ; and his 'The Number of Rasas' does not at all go into the essential problem of Rasa but deals with its varieties only as recognized in the canonical works on the subjects. Dr. Bhagvan Das in his 'Science of Emotions'2 considers emotions and sentiments mainly on the basis of the Yoga system. R. N. Tagore in his lecture on art refers in his own way to the theory of Rasa, but it is only a passing reference and does not amount to a systematic ana- lysis of the concept. He says, "Our emotions are the gastric juices which transform this world of appearance into the more intimate world of sentiments. On the other hand, this outer world has its own juices, having their various qua- lities which excite our emotional activities. This is called in our Sanskrit rhetoric Rasa, which signifies outer juices having their response in inner juices of our emotions. And

1. Some Concepts of the Alankāra Śāstra by V. Raghavan, The Adyar Library, Adyar, 1942. 2. Science of Emotions by Dr. Bhagvan Das, Third Edition, The Theosophical.Publishing House, Adyar, Madras.

9

a poem, according to it, is a sentence or sentences containing juices, which stimulate the juices of emotion. It brings to us ideas, vitalized by feelings, ready to be made into the life- stuff of our nature."1 The above survey makes it quite evident that none of the aforesaid works in the avowed scheme has put before it a comprehensive study of the problem of Rasa, both in its historical and interpretative aspects, as a subject of its special investigation. But as without such an analysis it is not possible to make a critical study of Sanskrit drama of which Rasa is held to be the predominant element, it has been thought proper to attempt it in a separate section of the present study. The present work is divided into three parts, each having three chapters. In European literature drama is considered as an art. In Indian literature also it is enumerated as one of the sixty-four arts. Hence in the first chapter of the first part the Sanskrit drama has been studied as an art in its origin, its excellence over other forms of art and its being the best form even among all the literary forms ; questions as to whether drama is realistic or idealistic from different points of view have also been discussed here as they are quite re- levant. The second chapter deals with the evolution of Sanskrit drama as a literary form of art from different points of view and an appendix on the origin of Sanskrit drama has been added to it in order to show the origin of different constituents from different sources. The third chapter studies the different constituents and the different types of

1. Personality (pp. 14-15) by Rabindranath Tagore, Macmillan & Co. Limited, St. Martin's Street, London, 1942.

10

Sanskrit drama. Questions as to which type came first have also been discussed as far as possible. These three chapters constitute the first part. In it the effort has been directed to arrange in a regular and systematic form the materials that lie scattered here and there, and a comparative study has been undertaken which has not been made till now. Sanskrit drama has been treated in some details in order that the background may be fully prepared for a detailed study of Rasa, its chief constituent. This study forms the subject-matter of the second part. The fourth chapter is devoted to the question of the evolution of Rasa. It may be pointed out that in this connection the established chronology of the classical authorities has been accepted. In the fifth chapter an approach has been made to the problem, so far as the essentials are concerned, from different points of view. The process of the realization of Rasa, its classification, the various Rasa-syntheses, the contradiction between Rasa and Rasa and the ways in which they are reconciled etc. have all been dealt with. In the sixth chapter the constituents of Rasa have been considered. Problems in connection with their conjoined operation, different kinds of one and the same Rasa on the basis of the Vibhavas, the possibility of the Bhā- vas producing Rasas and the relation of Rasa with Nātya have been taken up. The arrangement in these chapters is novel and the contents are claimed to be mostly original. This part, too, contains a comparative study not only with the current literary criticisms of the West but also with some authors in modern Indian Languages. The third patt of the work is mostly original. The seventh chapter has been devoted to the illustration of Rasa as the predominant constituent of Sanskrit drama, whereas the eighth chapter illustrates its predominance in different

11

types of Sanskrit drama. The ninth chapter is a comparative study of English and Sanskrit dramaturgies. Significant and important departures from English dramaturgy have been noted. This comparative study was long felt as a great necessity for a clear understanding of drama. Yajnik in 'The Indian Theatre' in its first part only touches a few points in this connection. P. S. S. Pattar's 'Studies in Dhvanyā- loka'1 also makes an attempt at such a study but it is very meagre. The lines of study adopted have varied according to necessities. Due emphasis has been laid on the orthodox views of Sanskrit scholars. Where necessary they have been compared to the views of Western scholars. The psychological principles and rules have generally served as guide when attempting this comparison. At places detailed reports of the views of Western scholars have been given, as for instance accounting for the pleasure accruing to the audience at a dramatic representation. In this connection the views of some writers in modern Indian Languages on the subject have also received attention. A brief survey of the history of literary criticism in the West, summing up its views on tragedies, comedies and tragi-comedies, has been made in order that it may throw some light on the differences of the Eastern and the Western standpoints. This will account for the apparent impropriety and discursiveness of these details. Care has been taken to ensure freedom from prolixity : what appears as a repetition of thought or lan- guage here and there is really not repetition but mere summ- 1. Studies in Dhavanyāloka by P. S. Subbarama Pattar, Siromani, Printed at The Mangalodayam Press, Trichur, First Impression, 1938.

12

ing up of previous thoughts in the interest of clarification. The chronology of Sanskrit poeticians and dramaturgists followed in connection with the study of the evolution of Rasa is based on the conclusions1 arrived at by De in his standard work. An apology is needed for the technical terms. As the technical vocabulary of rhetorical terms in English corresponding to their Sanskrit originals is still in an imperfect condition, liberty has been taken in the use of these terms as accepted by standard writers. By way of illustration it may be pointed out that such terms as Rasa, the Sthāyibhāva ( sometimes written as the Bhāva only where the sense of the Sthayibhava is easily inferred from the con- text ), the Vyabhichāribhāva, the Ālambana Vibhāva, the Uddīpana Vibhāva and the Sāttvikabhāva have been rendered respectively as sentiment, permanent emotion (sometimes rendered as emotion only where the sense of permanent emotion is easily inferred from the context), transitory or impermanent emotion or accessary, dependent, excitant and psychic condition. It will not be out of place to consider in brief the impli-

1. The following works have also been consulted and utilized, when necessary, in connection with the chronology :- (a) Samskrta Sāhitya Kā Samkșipta Itihāsa by Profs. S. J. Joshi & V. N. Bharadvaja, Benares, 1933. (b) History of Alankāra Literature by P. V. Kane. (c) A History of Sanskrit Literature by A. B. Keith. (d) History of Classical Sanskrit Literature by M. Krishnamachariar, Madras, 1937. (e) Some Aspects of Literary Criticism in Sanskrit by Sankaran. (f) Rasavimarśa by K. N. Vatve. (g) The Theory of the Samdhis and Samdhyangas by Dr. Mainkar. (h) Samskrta Sāhitya Kā Itihāsa pt. I by K. L. Poddar.

13

cations of the title of the present work. The Sanskrit drama has many and different constituents. To study it from the standpoint of each and every constituent surely requires a very wide canvas. And the narrow limits of a single ex- position do not allow such a vast study. The present attempt has, therefore, been confined to the study of Sanskrit drama in the light of its predominant constituent, that is, Rasa which is the main consideration in a literary composition. It is only the ten principal types of Sanskrit drama to which the detailed study has been directed as it is in them that Rasa predominates. In other types the Bhāva predominates ; therefore they have been left out of consideration. As shown in the outlines of the present work as well as in the lines of study adopted, the study for thoroughness has been made a comparative one, that is to say views of European and other scholars on different points connected with dra- maturgy have received attention. Keeping all these consi- derations in mind it is not inappropriate to call this work, 'The Theory of Rasa in Sanskrit Drama with a Comparative study of general dramatic literature.' I have tried to make this study as thorough as possible, but in view of the vastness of the subject and of the peculiar difficulties involved in its study, it is very likely that inspite of utmost efforts for accuracy and precision there have been lapses here and there. I am conscious of the inadequacy of my equipment and of the limitations under which I had to work. Under such circumstances I can only look up to the indulgence of the scholarly readers. I consider it here my bounden duty to express my heart- felt gratitude to the learned professors of the Benares Hindu University, both of the Department of Sanskrit of the Central Hindu College and of the College of Oriental

14

Learning who have always extended their kindness in guiding and helping me in my study. I am deeply indebted to other renowned Sanskrit scholars and professors who have very kindly given me occasional guidance and help even at the expense of their precious time. I am thankful to the staff of the Benares Hindu University Library and of the Library of Sarasvatī Bhavana, Benares for all possible help rendered to me in procuring books, journals etc. for me and allowing me use of their volumes. In the end I also acknowledge my indebtedness to institutions, writers and others whose books, journals etc. I used as and when needed. HARI RAM MISHRA