Chapter 13

1Hopkins,The Great Epic of India, pp. 55 ff. NÄá¹aka in ii. 11. 36 is very late; JRAS. 1903, pp. 571 f.â†‘2xii. 140. 21.â†‘3xiii. 33. 12.â†‘4ii. 88 ff. See Â§ 3 below.â†‘5ii. 67. 15.â†‘6ii. 69. 3.â†‘7ii. 1. 27; Hillebrandt,ZDMG. lxxii. 229, n. 1;contra, SBAW. 1916, p. 730.â†‘8Barth,Inscr. Sansc. du Cambodge, p. 30. At the close of theMahÄbhÄratathe existence of such recitations is clearly recognized; Oldenberg,Das Mahabharata, p. 20.â†‘9Max MÃ¼ller,India, p. 81. Cf. Winternitz, GIL. iii. 162, n. 1.â†‘10E. Schlagintweit,India in Wort und Bild, i. 176.â†‘11vii. 93.â†‘12LÃ©vi, TI. i. 311 f.â†‘13Macdonell and Keith,Vedic Index, ii. 94 ff.â†‘14Konow, ID. p. 9; LÃ©vi, TI. ii. 51. On these rhapsodes, cf. Jacobi,Das RÄmÄyaá¹‡a, pp. 62 ff.; GGA. 1899, pp. 877 f.; Hopkins,The Great Epic of India, pp. 364 ff.â†‘15iv. 3. 110 f.â†‘16iii. 2. 111.â†‘17ye tÄvad ete Ã§obhanikÄ nÄmaite pratyaká¹£aá¹ Kaá¹…saá¹ ghÄtayanti pratyaká¹£am Balim bandhayantÄ«ti. citreá¹£u katham? citreá¹£v apy udgÅ«rá¹‡Ä nipÄtitÄÃ§ ca prahÄrÄ dá¹›Ã§yante Kaá¹…sakará¹£aá¹‡yaÃ§ ca. granthikeá¹£u kathaá¹ yatra Ã§abdagaá¸umÄtraá¹ laká¹£yate te â€™pi hi teá¹£Äm utpattiprabhá¹›ty Ä vinÄÃ§Äd á¹›ddhÄ«r vyÄcaká¹£Äá¹‡Äá¸¥ sato buddhiviá¹£ayÄn prakÄÃ§ayanti. ÄtaÃ§ ca sato vyÄmiÃ§rÄ hi dá¹›Ã§yante: kecit Kaá¹…sabhaktÄ bhavanti, kecid VÄsudevabhaktÄá¸¥. vará¹‡Änyatvaá¹ khalv api puá¹£yanti: kecit kÄlamukhÄ bhavanti, kecid raktamukhÄá¸¥.See iii. I. 26. The text, uncertain in detail, must be corrected by replacingbuddhÄ«rfor the absurdá¹›ddhÄ«rof some manuscripts only, defended by LÃ¼ders. See Weber, IS. xiii. 487 ff. Ã‡aubhika is a variant.â†‘18SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff. Cf. Hillebrandt, ZDMG. lxxii. 227 f.; Keith,Bulletin oftheSchool of Oriental Studies, I. iv. 27 ff. Winternitz (ZDMG. lxxiv. 118 ff.) ineffectively supports LÃ¼ders, though he recognizes the extraordinary difficulties of this view. The error is due to the idea that one can only describe (Äcaá¹£á¹e) in words, ignoring art and action.â†‘19TI. i. 315. The words are:Kaá¹…sÄdyanukÄriá¹‡Äá¹ naá¹anÄá¹ vyÄkhyÄnopÄdhyÄyÄá¸¥.â†‘20Weber might be interpreted as believing in an actual killing, but, if so, he was clearly in error, and in point of fact he merely gives this as possible (IS. xiii. 490). That Ã‡aubhikas did manual acts and were not talkers primarily, if at all, is suggested by the use elsewhere of the term; thus in theKÄvyamÄ«mÄá¹…sÄ, p. 55, they are classed with rope-dancers and wrestlers.â†‘21ye â€™pi citraá¹ vyÄcaká¹£ate â€™yam MathurÄprÄsÄdo â€™yaá¹ Kaá¹…so â€™yam bhagavÄn VÄsudevaá¸¥ praviá¹£á¹a etÄá¸¥ Kaá¹…sakará¹£iá¹‡yo rajjava etÄ udgÅ«rá¹‡Ä nipÄtitÄÃ§ ca prahÄrÄ ayaá¹ hataá¸¥ Kaá¹…so â€™yam Äká¹›á¹£á¹a iti te â€™pi citragataá¹ Kaá¹…saá¹ tÄdá¹›Ã§enaiva VÄsudevena ghÄtayanti. citre â€™pi hi tadbuddhir eva paÃ§yatÄm. etena citralekhakÄ vyÄkhyÄtÄá¸¥.On LÃ¼dersâ€™ view the second sentence is useless.â†‘22Genesis des MahÄbhÄrata, pp. 163 ff. Granthika occurs in MBh. xiv. 70. 7; cf.granthin, Manu, xii. 103.â†‘23SBAW. 1916, p. 736. Hillebrandt (ZDMG. lxxii. 228) criticises effectively LÃ¼dersâ€™s interpretation. Cf.granthagaá¸utvain R. i. 243.â†‘24It is a confirmation of the incorrectness of LÃ¼dersâ€™s view that he is driven to rendervá¹›ddhÄ«r, which he reads forbuddhÄ«r, as â€˜Schicksaleâ€™. Nowvá¹›ddhicannot possibly be used in this sense; it means â€˜prosperityâ€™, and, applied to Kaá¹…sa or Bali, it is ludicrous. What is meant is that, by forming parties, the Granthikas make real to the audience the feelings of the characters, a doctrine entirely in keeping with the duty of an actor according to N. Hillebrandtâ€™s view of the Ã‡aubhikas as explaining the subject of the play to the audience, like the SthÄpaka later (N. v. 154 ff.; DR. iii. 3; SD. 283), contradicts the wordpratyaká¹£am.â†‘25Winternitz (ZDMG. lxxiv. 122) desires inversion, even on LÃ¼dersâ€™s theory, although LÃ¼ders attaches importance to the text.â†‘26i. 4. 29 (naá¹asya Ã§á¹›á¹‡oti,granthikasya Ã§á¹›á¹‡oti); ii. 4. 77 (agÄsÄ«n naá¹aá¸¥); ii. 3. 67 (naá¹asya bhuktam); iii. 2. 127 (naá¹am ÄghnÄnÄá¸¥); iv. 1. 3.â†‘27vi. 3. 43.â†‘28Keith, ZDMG. lxiv. 534 f.; JRAS. 1911, pp. 979 ff.; 1912, pp. 411 ff.â†‘29The Cults of the Greek States, v. 233 ff. The variant theory of Miss Harrison, Prof. Gilbert Murray, and Dr. Cornford inThemis, and of Dieterich,Archivf.Religionswissenschaft, xi. 163 ff., is much less plausible.â†‘30Dawkins,Journ. Hell. Stud., 1906, pp. 191 ff.â†‘31LÃ¼ders (SBAW. 1916, p. 718, n. 3) is responsible for the view that Duryodhana is the hero. Lindenau (BS. p. 30) accepts this, but gives the true facts (pp. 32, 33), without apparently realizing that the views are contradictory. TheÅªrubhanÌ„gaâ€™sconclusion is happy, not tragic, for the worshipper of Ká¹›á¹£á¹‡a.â†‘32Poetics, 1449a10 ff.â†‘33Cf. the connexion of Greek Comedy with ritual cathartic cursing; Keith, JRAS. 1912, p. 425, n. For less plausible theories see F.Â M. Cornford,The Origin of Attic Comedy(1914); Ridgeway,Dramas and Dramatic Dances, pp. 401 ff.â†‘34AID. p. 27. Cf. below, p. 51, n. 1.â†‘35Weber,Ueber die Ká¹›á¹£á¹‡ajanmÄá¹£á¹amÄ«(1868).â†‘36The influence of the Ká¹›á¹£á¹‡a legend is suggested on theVikramorvaÃ§Ä«; GawroÅ„ski,Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 33 ff. Cf. below, p. 130.â†‘37LÃ©vi, TI. i. 331 f. Cf. Bloch,Langue Marathe, pp. ix. 12 f.â†‘38MathurÄ, pp. 91 f., 101 f.â†‘39JPASB. v. 351 ff.â†‘40Megasthenes ascribed the Kordax to the Indian Dionysos (Ã‡iva); Arrian,Ind.7. Bloch (ZDMG. lxii. 655) exaggerates his importance.â†‘41Cf. Ridgeway,Dramas and Dramatic Dances, p. 190, and pp. 192 ff. on modern Indian drama in general.â†‘42LÃ©vi, TI. i. 319 ff. That any of the early Buddhist texts (e.g.PadhÄnasutta,PabbajjÄsutta;MÄrasaá¹yutta,BhikkhunÄ«saá¹yutta;Chaddanta-,UmmadantÄ«-,MahÄjanaka-, orCandakinnara-jÄtaka;TheragÄthÄ, 866 ff.;TherÄ«gÄthÄ, 912 ff.) is really dramatic is out of the question; cf. Winternitz, VOJ. xxvii. 38 f.â†‘43xii. p. 178. Drama is alluded to inDivyÄvadÄna, pp. 357, 360, 361.â†‘44Schiefner, IS. iii. 483,Indian Tales, pp. 236 ff.â†‘45ii. 24 (75).â†‘46E. Schlagintweit,Buddhism in Tibet, p. 233; JASB. 1865, p. 71. Ridgewayâ€™sDramas, &c., ignores Tibet. For similar Chinese performances, seeAnnales Guimet, xii. 416 f.â†‘47Ä€yÄraá¹ga Sutta, ii. 11. 14;RÄjapraÃ§nÄ«ya, IS. xvi. 385. The love of the Indians for song and dance is recorded by Greek tradition; Arrian,Anabasis, vi. 2.â†‘48Unfortunately the date of this change of view is uncertain. No early Jain drama is certainly recorded. A number of mediaeval works have recently been printed; see E. Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 59 ff.â†‘49JA. sÃ©r. 9, xix. 95 ff. If this had been the case, one would have found references freely to the literature in HÄla, where only v. 344 alludes to the PÅ«rvaranÌ„ga of the NÄá¹aka (raiá¹‡Äá¸aapuvvaraá¹gassa).â†‘50The Origin of Tragedy(1910);Dramas and Dramatic Dances of non-European Races(1915); JRAS. 1916, pp. 821 ff.; Keith, JRAS. 1916, pp. 335 ff.; 1917, pp. 140 ff. G. Norwood (Greek Tragedy, pp. 2 f.) rejects Ridgewayâ€™s view for Greece, and see Keith, JRAS. 1912, pp. 411 ff.â†‘51Drama, &c., p. 129 asserts this as the view of â€˜the best authoritiesâ€™; very wisely he does not refer to these amazing authorities. Cf. E. Arbman,Rudra(Uppsala, 1922); Keith,Indian Mythology, pp. 81 ff.â†‘52ii. 88.â†‘53ii. 91. 26 ff.; 93. 1 ff. Cf. Hertel, VOJ. xxiv. 117 ff.; Ravivarman,PradyumnÄbhyudaya, Act III, p. 23.â†‘54Cf. von Schroeder,Mysterium und Mimus, pp. 292 ff. That this was originally a ritual drama is most improbable.â†‘55AID. pp. 22 ff.â†‘56ID. pp. 42 ff.â†‘57Hardy,Album Kern, pp. 61 f.; Thomas, JRAS. 1914, pp. 392 f.â†‘58ERE. iv. 868.â†‘59AID. p. 25. Lindenau (BS. p. 45) sees in Vá¹›á¹£Äkapi ofá¹šgveda, x. 86, the prototype of the VidÅ«á¹£aka, as a maker of mischief and as the godâ€™s companion, but this is far-fetched. Hertel (Literarisches Zentralbl.1917, pp. 1198 ff.) lays stress on the fact that at the royal courts the king had normally a jester to amuse him. This may easily have served to affect the figure of this character, if of religious origin. For older views, cf. J. Huizinga,DeVidÃ»á¹£akaen het indisch tooneel(Groningen, 1897); F.Cimmino,Atti della reale Accademia di Archeologia, LettereeBelle Arti(Naples, 1893), xv. 97 ff.; M. Schuyler, JAOS. xx. 338 ff.; P.Â E. Pavolini,Studi italiani di filologia indo-iranica, ii. 88 f.â†‘60TD. pp. 43 f. Cf.Niá¹£ikÃ¢ntaChattopÃ¢dhyÃ¢ya,The YÃ¢trÃ¢s(1882).â†‘61Die Heimat des Puppenspiels(1902). Obvious objections are given by Ridgeway,Dramas, &c., pp. 164 ff.â†‘62iii. 30. 23; v. 39. 1.â†‘63VikramorvaÃ§Ä«ya, pp. 4 f.â†‘64AID. p. 8; ZDMG. lxxii. 231.â†‘65SBAW. 1906, pp. 481 ff.â†‘66SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff.Contra, Hillebrandt, ZDMG. lxxii. 230 f. Winternitz (ZDMG. lxxiv. 120) reduces the Ã‡aubhikas to people who tell tales of what is depicted on pictures, a clearly impossible version, but valid against LÃ¼ders.â†‘67Based on Kaiyaá¹aâ€™s version of Ã‡aubhika:Kaá¹sÄdyanukÄriá¹‡Äá¹ naá¹ÄnÄá¹ vyÄkhyÄnopÄdhyÄyÄá¸¥. This is clearly incompatible with LÃ¼dersâ€™s view, as he admits (pp. 720 f.). Kaiyaá¹a is far too late for useful evidence.â†‘68See Vincent Smith,Asoka, (ed. 3), pp. 166 f.â†‘69Bloch,Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903â€“4, pp. 123 ff.â†‘70p. 344.â†‘71xii. 295. 5.â†‘72Bá¹›hatsaá¹hitÄ, v. 74; see Hillebrandt, ZDMG. lxxii. 227.â†‘73ZDMG. lxxv. 69 f.â†‘74See ch. xi, Â§ 8 below.â†‘75See ch. xiv, Â§ 2 below.â†‘76AID. p. 8, n. 2. On Javan drama, cf. Ridgeway,Dramas, &c., pp. 216 ff.â†‘77IS. ii. 148;Ind. Lit.2n. 210; SBAW. 1890, p. 920; cf. IS. xiii. 492.â†‘78Die Recensionen der Ã‡akuntalÄ(1875), p. 19; SBAW. 1906, p. 502.â†‘79Der griechische Einfluss im indischen Drama(1882);Sansk. Phil.pp. 398 ff. Cf. E. Brandes,Lervognen(1870), pp. iii ff.; Vincent Smith, JASB. lviii. 1. 184 ff.â†‘80MahÄyÄnasÅ«trÄlaá¹kÄra, ii. 16 f. Cf. Keith,Buddhist Philosophy, p. 217.â†‘81TI. i. 345.â†‘82Or Kuá¹£Äá¹‡a; CHI. i. 580 ff.â†‘83Plutarch,Alex.72;Fort. Alex.128 D;Crassus, 33. Marshall (JRAS. 1909, pp. 1060 f.) suggests a reproduction of a motif of theAntigonein a vase at Peshawar, but dubiously.â†‘84ii. 32.â†‘85TI. ii. 60.â†‘86Periplus, 48.â†‘87Cf. Hultzsch, JRAS. 1904, pp. 399 ff. on the Kanarese words found in a fragment of a Greek comedy preserved in a papyrus of the second centuryA.D.â†‘88This does not appear in the dramas of Menander so far as recovered, and is of uncertain date. Cf. Donatus on Terence,Andria, Prol.â†‘89Konow, ID. p. 5, n. 5; LÃ©vi, TI. i. 348; for the generic sense, cf. Amara, ii. 6. 3. 22; HalÄyudha, ii. 154.â†‘90Already in BhÄsa: cf. Lindenau, BS. p. 41, n. 2; LÃ©vi,Quid de Graecis, &c.[62](1890), pp. 41 f.; on Greek influence, cf. Kennedy, JRAS. 1912, pp. 993 ff., 1012 ff.; 1913, pp. 121 ff.; W.Â E. Clark,Classical Philology, xiv. 311 ff.; xv. 10 f., 18 f.; Weber, SBAW. 1890, pp. 900 ff.â†‘91Kauá¹ilÄ«ya ArthaÃ§Ästra, i. 21; Megasthenes, frag. 26; Strabo, xv. 1. 55.â†‘92For this motif cf. GawroÅ„ski,Les Sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 39 ff. On recognition in the Greek tragic drama see Aristotle,Poetics, 1452a29 ff.; Verrall,Choephorae, pp. xxxiiiâ€“lxx. Its alleged essential character as an element of primitive tragedy, the recognition of the god, is disposed of by Ridgeway,Dramas, &c., pp. 40 f.â†‘93Cf. BhÄsaâ€™sSvapnavÄsavadattÄ, vi. pp. 51 ff.â†‘94Poetics, 1449b12 ff.â†‘95TI. i. 358.â†‘96ID. p. 15.â†‘97Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903â€“4, pp. 123 ff., rashly followed by LÃ¼ders, ZDMG. lviii. 868. See Hillebrandt, AID. pp. 23 f.; GIL. iii. 175, n. 1.â†‘98Der Mimus, i. 694 ff.; DLZ. 1915, pp. 589 ff.; E. MÃ¼ller-Hess,Die Entstehung des indischen Dramas(1916), pp. 17 ff.; Lindenau,Festschrift Windisch,p. 41.â†‘99Cf. Oldenberg,Die Literatur des alten Indien, pp. 241 ff.â†‘100JA. sÃ©r. 9, xix. 95 ff.; IA. xxxiii. 163 ff. Cf. Bloch,MÃ©langes LÃ©vi, pp. 15 f.; Franke,PÄli und Sanskrit, pp. 87 ff.; Keith,Sansk. Lit.ch. 1.â†‘101ID. p. 49.â†‘102ID. p. 50. Contrast CHI. i. 583.â†‘103xvii. 75; cf.SÄhityadarpaá¹‡a, 431; R. iii. 314.â†‘104Cf. IS. xiii. 483 ff.; Kielhorn, IA. xiv. 326 f.â†‘105BruchstÃ¼cke buddhistischer Dramen, pp. 11, 64. Contrast his views in SBAW. 1912, pp. 808 ff., when he accepts the much later date, advocated by Oldenberg, GN. 1911, pp. 427 ff.â†‘106Jacobi,Ausgew. ErzÃ¤hlungen in MÃ¢hÃ¢rÃ¢shá¹rÃ®, pp. xiv ff., suggests the fifth centuryA.D.for SÄtavÄhana. V. Smithâ€™s date (first cent.A.D.) is certainly wrong. The poetry may probably be as early as the third century; Weberâ€™s ed., p. xxiii; LÃ©vi, TI. i. 326; GIL. iii. 102 f.â†‘107LÃ¼ders,BruchstÃ¼cke buddhistischer Dramen, pp.40 f.; SBAW. 1913, pp. 1003 ff.â†‘108See Keith in CHI. i. 123 f.â†‘109TI. i. 331.â†‘110IA. xxx. 556.â†‘111A transitional stage of PrÄkrit may, perhaps, be seen in theNÄá¹yaÃ§Ästra, but the text is very corrupt; cf. Jacobi,Bhavisattakaha, pp. 84 ff.â†‘112Cf. Aischylos in Athen., p. 347.â†‘113559. See Daá¹‡á¸in,KÄvyÄdarÃ§a, i. 14 ff., and cf. the analyses of ManÌ„khaâ€™sÃ‡rÄ«kaá¹‡á¹hacarita(twelfth cent.) and Haricandraâ€™sDharmaÃ§armÄbhyudayain LÃ©vi, TI. i. 337 ff.; Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 38 ff.â†‘114See Jacobi,Das RÄmÄyaá¹‡a, pp. 119 ff.; Walter,Indica, III.â†‘115Such a drama as theHaragaurÄ«vivÄhaof Jagajjyotirmalla of Nepal (A.D.1617â€“33), which is really a sort of opera with the verses, written in dialect, as the only fixed element (LÃ©vi,Le NÃ©pal, i. 242) is of no cogency for the early drama. The MaithilÄ« beginnings of drama, based on the classical, give song in dialect, dialogue in Sanskrit and PrÄkrit (LÃ©vi, TI. i. 393).â†‘116Kielhorn, IA. xiv. 326 f.; LÃ¼ders,BruchstÃ¼cke buddhistischer Dramen, p. 63.â†‘117Cf. Weber, IS. viii. 181 ff.; Jacobi, ZDMG. xxxviii. 615 f.â†‘

1Hopkins,The Great Epic of India, pp. 55 ff. NÄá¹aka in ii. 11. 36 is very late; JRAS. 1903, pp. 571 f.â†‘

2xii. 140. 21.â†‘

3xiii. 33. 12.â†‘

4ii. 88 ff. See Â§ 3 below.â†‘

5ii. 67. 15.â†‘

6ii. 69. 3.â†‘

7ii. 1. 27; Hillebrandt,ZDMG. lxxii. 229, n. 1;contra, SBAW. 1916, p. 730.â†‘

8Barth,Inscr. Sansc. du Cambodge, p. 30. At the close of theMahÄbhÄratathe existence of such recitations is clearly recognized; Oldenberg,Das Mahabharata, p. 20.â†‘

9Max MÃ¼ller,India, p. 81. Cf. Winternitz, GIL. iii. 162, n. 1.â†‘

10E. Schlagintweit,India in Wort und Bild, i. 176.â†‘

11vii. 93.â†‘

12LÃ©vi, TI. i. 311 f.â†‘

13Macdonell and Keith,Vedic Index, ii. 94 ff.â†‘

14Konow, ID. p. 9; LÃ©vi, TI. ii. 51. On these rhapsodes, cf. Jacobi,Das RÄmÄyaá¹‡a, pp. 62 ff.; GGA. 1899, pp. 877 f.; Hopkins,The Great Epic of India, pp. 364 ff.â†‘

15iv. 3. 110 f.â†‘

16iii. 2. 111.â†‘

17ye tÄvad ete Ã§obhanikÄ nÄmaite pratyaká¹£aá¹ Kaá¹…saá¹ ghÄtayanti pratyaká¹£am Balim bandhayantÄ«ti. citreá¹£u katham? citreá¹£v apy udgÅ«rá¹‡Ä nipÄtitÄÃ§ ca prahÄrÄ dá¹›Ã§yante Kaá¹…sakará¹£aá¹‡yaÃ§ ca. granthikeá¹£u kathaá¹ yatra Ã§abdagaá¸umÄtraá¹ laká¹£yate te â€™pi hi teá¹£Äm utpattiprabhá¹›ty Ä vinÄÃ§Äd á¹›ddhÄ«r vyÄcaká¹£Äá¹‡Äá¸¥ sato buddhiviá¹£ayÄn prakÄÃ§ayanti. ÄtaÃ§ ca sato vyÄmiÃ§rÄ hi dá¹›Ã§yante: kecit Kaá¹…sabhaktÄ bhavanti, kecid VÄsudevabhaktÄá¸¥. vará¹‡Änyatvaá¹ khalv api puá¹£yanti: kecit kÄlamukhÄ bhavanti, kecid raktamukhÄá¸¥.See iii. I. 26. The text, uncertain in detail, must be corrected by replacingbuddhÄ«rfor the absurdá¹›ddhÄ«rof some manuscripts only, defended by LÃ¼ders. See Weber, IS. xiii. 487 ff. Ã‡aubhika is a variant.â†‘

18SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff. Cf. Hillebrandt, ZDMG. lxxii. 227 f.; Keith,Bulletin oftheSchool of Oriental Studies, I. iv. 27 ff. Winternitz (ZDMG. lxxiv. 118 ff.) ineffectively supports LÃ¼ders, though he recognizes the extraordinary difficulties of this view. The error is due to the idea that one can only describe (Äcaá¹£á¹e) in words, ignoring art and action.â†‘

19TI. i. 315. The words are:Kaá¹…sÄdyanukÄriá¹‡Äá¹ naá¹anÄá¹ vyÄkhyÄnopÄdhyÄyÄá¸¥.â†‘

20Weber might be interpreted as believing in an actual killing, but, if so, he was clearly in error, and in point of fact he merely gives this as possible (IS. xiii. 490). That Ã‡aubhikas did manual acts and were not talkers primarily, if at all, is suggested by the use elsewhere of the term; thus in theKÄvyamÄ«mÄá¹…sÄ, p. 55, they are classed with rope-dancers and wrestlers.â†‘

21ye â€™pi citraá¹ vyÄcaká¹£ate â€™yam MathurÄprÄsÄdo â€™yaá¹ Kaá¹…so â€™yam bhagavÄn VÄsudevaá¸¥ praviá¹£á¹a etÄá¸¥ Kaá¹…sakará¹£iá¹‡yo rajjava etÄ udgÅ«rá¹‡Ä nipÄtitÄÃ§ ca prahÄrÄ ayaá¹ hataá¸¥ Kaá¹…so â€™yam Äká¹›á¹£á¹a iti te â€™pi citragataá¹ Kaá¹…saá¹ tÄdá¹›Ã§enaiva VÄsudevena ghÄtayanti. citre â€™pi hi tadbuddhir eva paÃ§yatÄm. etena citralekhakÄ vyÄkhyÄtÄá¸¥.On LÃ¼dersâ€™ view the second sentence is useless.â†‘

22Genesis des MahÄbhÄrata, pp. 163 ff. Granthika occurs in MBh. xiv. 70. 7; cf.granthin, Manu, xii. 103.â†‘

23SBAW. 1916, p. 736. Hillebrandt (ZDMG. lxxii. 228) criticises effectively LÃ¼dersâ€™s interpretation. Cf.granthagaá¸utvain R. i. 243.â†‘

24It is a confirmation of the incorrectness of LÃ¼dersâ€™s view that he is driven to rendervá¹›ddhÄ«r, which he reads forbuddhÄ«r, as â€˜Schicksaleâ€™. Nowvá¹›ddhicannot possibly be used in this sense; it means â€˜prosperityâ€™, and, applied to Kaá¹…sa or Bali, it is ludicrous. What is meant is that, by forming parties, the Granthikas make real to the audience the feelings of the characters, a doctrine entirely in keeping with the duty of an actor according to N. Hillebrandtâ€™s view of the Ã‡aubhikas as explaining the subject of the play to the audience, like the SthÄpaka later (N. v. 154 ff.; DR. iii. 3; SD. 283), contradicts the wordpratyaká¹£am.â†‘

25Winternitz (ZDMG. lxxiv. 122) desires inversion, even on LÃ¼dersâ€™s theory, although LÃ¼ders attaches importance to the text.â†‘

26i. 4. 29 (naá¹asya Ã§á¹›á¹‡oti,granthikasya Ã§á¹›á¹‡oti); ii. 4. 77 (agÄsÄ«n naá¹aá¸¥); ii. 3. 67 (naá¹asya bhuktam); iii. 2. 127 (naá¹am ÄghnÄnÄá¸¥); iv. 1. 3.â†‘

27vi. 3. 43.â†‘

28Keith, ZDMG. lxiv. 534 f.; JRAS. 1911, pp. 979 ff.; 1912, pp. 411 ff.â†‘

29The Cults of the Greek States, v. 233 ff. The variant theory of Miss Harrison, Prof. Gilbert Murray, and Dr. Cornford inThemis, and of Dieterich,Archivf.Religionswissenschaft, xi. 163 ff., is much less plausible.â†‘

30Dawkins,Journ. Hell. Stud., 1906, pp. 191 ff.â†‘

31LÃ¼ders (SBAW. 1916, p. 718, n. 3) is responsible for the view that Duryodhana is the hero. Lindenau (BS. p. 30) accepts this, but gives the true facts (pp. 32, 33), without apparently realizing that the views are contradictory. TheÅªrubhanÌ„gaâ€™sconclusion is happy, not tragic, for the worshipper of Ká¹›á¹£á¹‡a.â†‘

32Poetics, 1449a10 ff.â†‘

33Cf. the connexion of Greek Comedy with ritual cathartic cursing; Keith, JRAS. 1912, p. 425, n. For less plausible theories see F.Â M. Cornford,The Origin of Attic Comedy(1914); Ridgeway,Dramas and Dramatic Dances, pp. 401 ff.â†‘

34AID. p. 27. Cf. below, p. 51, n. 1.â†‘

35Weber,Ueber die Ká¹›á¹£á¹‡ajanmÄá¹£á¹amÄ«(1868).â†‘

36The influence of the Ká¹›á¹£á¹‡a legend is suggested on theVikramorvaÃ§Ä«; GawroÅ„ski,Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 33 ff. Cf. below, p. 130.â†‘

37LÃ©vi, TI. i. 331 f. Cf. Bloch,Langue Marathe, pp. ix. 12 f.â†‘

38MathurÄ, pp. 91 f., 101 f.â†‘

39JPASB. v. 351 ff.â†‘

40Megasthenes ascribed the Kordax to the Indian Dionysos (Ã‡iva); Arrian,Ind.7. Bloch (ZDMG. lxii. 655) exaggerates his importance.â†‘

41Cf. Ridgeway,Dramas and Dramatic Dances, p. 190, and pp. 192 ff. on modern Indian drama in general.â†‘

42LÃ©vi, TI. i. 319 ff. That any of the early Buddhist texts (e.g.PadhÄnasutta,PabbajjÄsutta;MÄrasaá¹yutta,BhikkhunÄ«saá¹yutta;Chaddanta-,UmmadantÄ«-,MahÄjanaka-, orCandakinnara-jÄtaka;TheragÄthÄ, 866 ff.;TherÄ«gÄthÄ, 912 ff.) is really dramatic is out of the question; cf. Winternitz, VOJ. xxvii. 38 f.â†‘

43xii. p. 178. Drama is alluded to inDivyÄvadÄna, pp. 357, 360, 361.â†‘

44Schiefner, IS. iii. 483,Indian Tales, pp. 236 ff.â†‘

45ii. 24 (75).â†‘

46E. Schlagintweit,Buddhism in Tibet, p. 233; JASB. 1865, p. 71. Ridgewayâ€™sDramas, &c., ignores Tibet. For similar Chinese performances, seeAnnales Guimet, xii. 416 f.â†‘

47Ä€yÄraá¹ga Sutta, ii. 11. 14;RÄjapraÃ§nÄ«ya, IS. xvi. 385. The love of the Indians for song and dance is recorded by Greek tradition; Arrian,Anabasis, vi. 2.â†‘

48Unfortunately the date of this change of view is uncertain. No early Jain drama is certainly recorded. A number of mediaeval works have recently been printed; see E. Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 59 ff.â†‘

49JA. sÃ©r. 9, xix. 95 ff. If this had been the case, one would have found references freely to the literature in HÄla, where only v. 344 alludes to the PÅ«rvaranÌ„ga of the NÄá¹aka (raiá¹‡Äá¸aapuvvaraá¹gassa).â†‘

50The Origin of Tragedy(1910);Dramas and Dramatic Dances of non-European Races(1915); JRAS. 1916, pp. 821 ff.; Keith, JRAS. 1916, pp. 335 ff.; 1917, pp. 140 ff. G. Norwood (Greek Tragedy, pp. 2 f.) rejects Ridgewayâ€™s view for Greece, and see Keith, JRAS. 1912, pp. 411 ff.â†‘

51Drama, &c., p. 129 asserts this as the view of â€˜the best authoritiesâ€™; very wisely he does not refer to these amazing authorities. Cf. E. Arbman,Rudra(Uppsala, 1922); Keith,Indian Mythology, pp. 81 ff.â†‘

52ii. 88.â†‘

53ii. 91. 26 ff.; 93. 1 ff. Cf. Hertel, VOJ. xxiv. 117 ff.; Ravivarman,PradyumnÄbhyudaya, Act III, p. 23.â†‘

54Cf. von Schroeder,Mysterium und Mimus, pp. 292 ff. That this was originally a ritual drama is most improbable.â†‘

55AID. pp. 22 ff.â†‘

56ID. pp. 42 ff.â†‘

57Hardy,Album Kern, pp. 61 f.; Thomas, JRAS. 1914, pp. 392 f.â†‘

58ERE. iv. 868.â†‘

59AID. p. 25. Lindenau (BS. p. 45) sees in Vá¹›á¹£Äkapi ofá¹šgveda, x. 86, the prototype of the VidÅ«á¹£aka, as a maker of mischief and as the godâ€™s companion, but this is far-fetched. Hertel (Literarisches Zentralbl.1917, pp. 1198 ff.) lays stress on the fact that at the royal courts the king had normally a jester to amuse him. This may easily have served to affect the figure of this character, if of religious origin. For older views, cf. J. Huizinga,DeVidÃ»á¹£akaen het indisch tooneel(Groningen, 1897); F.Cimmino,Atti della reale Accademia di Archeologia, LettereeBelle Arti(Naples, 1893), xv. 97 ff.; M. Schuyler, JAOS. xx. 338 ff.; P.Â E. Pavolini,Studi italiani di filologia indo-iranica, ii. 88 f.â†‘

60TD. pp. 43 f. Cf.Niá¹£ikÃ¢ntaChattopÃ¢dhyÃ¢ya,The YÃ¢trÃ¢s(1882).â†‘

61Die Heimat des Puppenspiels(1902). Obvious objections are given by Ridgeway,Dramas, &c., pp. 164 ff.â†‘

62iii. 30. 23; v. 39. 1.â†‘

63VikramorvaÃ§Ä«ya, pp. 4 f.â†‘

64AID. p. 8; ZDMG. lxxii. 231.â†‘

65SBAW. 1906, pp. 481 ff.â†‘

66SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff.Contra, Hillebrandt, ZDMG. lxxii. 230 f. Winternitz (ZDMG. lxxiv. 120) reduces the Ã‡aubhikas to people who tell tales of what is depicted on pictures, a clearly impossible version, but valid against LÃ¼ders.â†‘

67Based on Kaiyaá¹aâ€™s version of Ã‡aubhika:Kaá¹sÄdyanukÄriá¹‡Äá¹ naá¹ÄnÄá¹ vyÄkhyÄnopÄdhyÄyÄá¸¥. This is clearly incompatible with LÃ¼dersâ€™s view, as he admits (pp. 720 f.). Kaiyaá¹a is far too late for useful evidence.â†‘

68See Vincent Smith,Asoka, (ed. 3), pp. 166 f.â†‘

69Bloch,Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903â€“4, pp. 123 ff.â†‘

70p. 344.â†‘

71xii. 295. 5.â†‘

72Bá¹›hatsaá¹hitÄ, v. 74; see Hillebrandt, ZDMG. lxxii. 227.â†‘

73ZDMG. lxxv. 69 f.â†‘

74See ch. xi, Â§ 8 below.â†‘

75See ch. xiv, Â§ 2 below.â†‘

76AID. p. 8, n. 2. On Javan drama, cf. Ridgeway,Dramas, &c., pp. 216 ff.â†‘

77IS. ii. 148;Ind. Lit.2n. 210; SBAW. 1890, p. 920; cf. IS. xiii. 492.â†‘

78Die Recensionen der Ã‡akuntalÄ(1875), p. 19; SBAW. 1906, p. 502.â†‘

79Der griechische Einfluss im indischen Drama(1882);Sansk. Phil.pp. 398 ff. Cf. E. Brandes,Lervognen(1870), pp. iii ff.; Vincent Smith, JASB. lviii. 1. 184 ff.â†‘

80MahÄyÄnasÅ«trÄlaá¹kÄra, ii. 16 f. Cf. Keith,Buddhist Philosophy, p. 217.â†‘

81TI. i. 345.â†‘

82Or Kuá¹£Äá¹‡a; CHI. i. 580 ff.â†‘

83Plutarch,Alex.72;Fort. Alex.128 D;Crassus, 33. Marshall (JRAS. 1909, pp. 1060 f.) suggests a reproduction of a motif of theAntigonein a vase at Peshawar, but dubiously.â†‘

84ii. 32.â†‘

85TI. ii. 60.â†‘

86Periplus, 48.â†‘

87Cf. Hultzsch, JRAS. 1904, pp. 399 ff. on the Kanarese words found in a fragment of a Greek comedy preserved in a papyrus of the second centuryA.D.â†‘

88This does not appear in the dramas of Menander so far as recovered, and is of uncertain date. Cf. Donatus on Terence,Andria, Prol.â†‘

90Already in BhÄsa: cf. Lindenau, BS. p. 41, n. 2; LÃ©vi,Quid de Graecis, &c.[62](1890), pp. 41 f.; on Greek influence, cf. Kennedy, JRAS. 1912, pp. 993 ff., 1012 ff.; 1913, pp. 121 ff.; W.Â E. Clark,Classical Philology, xiv. 311 ff.; xv. 10 f., 18 f.; Weber, SBAW. 1890, pp. 900 ff.â†‘

91Kauá¹ilÄ«ya ArthaÃ§Ästra, i. 21; Megasthenes, frag. 26; Strabo, xv. 1. 55.â†‘

92For this motif cf. GawroÅ„ski,Les Sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 39 ff. On recognition in the Greek tragic drama see Aristotle,Poetics, 1452a29 ff.; Verrall,Choephorae, pp. xxxiiiâ€“lxx. Its alleged essential character as an element of primitive tragedy, the recognition of the god, is disposed of by Ridgeway,Dramas, &c., pp. 40 f.â†‘

93Cf. BhÄsaâ€™sSvapnavÄsavadattÄ, vi. pp. 51 ff.â†‘

94Poetics, 1449b12 ff.â†‘

95TI. i. 358.â†‘

96ID. p. 15.â†‘

97Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903â€“4, pp. 123 ff., rashly followed by LÃ¼ders, ZDMG. lviii. 868. See Hillebrandt, AID. pp. 23 f.; GIL. iii. 175, n. 1.â†‘

98Der Mimus, i. 694 ff.; DLZ. 1915, pp. 589 ff.; E. MÃ¼ller-Hess,Die Entstehung des indischen Dramas(1916), pp. 17 ff.; Lindenau,Festschrift Windisch,p. 41.â†‘

99Cf. Oldenberg,Die Literatur des alten Indien, pp. 241 ff.â†‘

100JA. sÃ©r. 9, xix. 95 ff.; IA. xxxiii. 163 ff. Cf. Bloch,MÃ©langes LÃ©vi, pp. 15 f.; Franke,PÄli und Sanskrit, pp. 87 ff.; Keith,Sansk. Lit.ch. 1.â†‘

101ID. p. 49.â†‘

102ID. p. 50. Contrast CHI. i. 583.â†‘

103xvii. 75; cf.SÄhityadarpaá¹‡a, 431; R. iii. 314.â†‘

104Cf. IS. xiii. 483 ff.; Kielhorn, IA. xiv. 326 f.â†‘

105BruchstÃ¼cke buddhistischer Dramen, pp. 11, 64. Contrast his views in SBAW. 1912, pp. 808 ff., when he accepts the much later date, advocated by Oldenberg, GN. 1911, pp. 427 ff.â†‘

106Jacobi,Ausgew. ErzÃ¤hlungen in MÃ¢hÃ¢rÃ¢shá¹rÃ®, pp. xiv ff., suggests the fifth centuryA.D.for SÄtavÄhana. V. Smithâ€™s date (first cent.A.D.) is certainly wrong. The poetry may probably be as early as the third century; Weberâ€™s ed., p. xxiii; LÃ©vi, TI. i. 326; GIL. iii. 102 f.â†‘

107LÃ¼ders,BruchstÃ¼cke buddhistischer Dramen, pp.40 f.; SBAW. 1913, pp. 1003 ff.â†‘

108See Keith in CHI. i. 123 f.â†‘

109TI. i. 331.â†‘

110IA. xxx. 556.â†‘

111A transitional stage of PrÄkrit may, perhaps, be seen in theNÄá¹yaÃ§Ästra, but the text is very corrupt; cf. Jacobi,Bhavisattakaha, pp. 84 ff.â†‘

112Cf. Aischylos in Athen., p. 347.â†‘

113559. See Daá¹‡á¸in,KÄvyÄdarÃ§a, i. 14 ff., and cf. the analyses of ManÌ„khaâ€™sÃ‡rÄ«kaá¹‡á¹hacarita(twelfth cent.) and Haricandraâ€™sDharmaÃ§armÄbhyudayain LÃ©vi, TI. i. 337 ff.; Keith,Sansk. Lit., pp. 38 ff.â†‘

114See Jacobi,Das RÄmÄyaá¹‡a, pp. 119 ff.; Walter,Indica, III.â†‘

115Such a drama as theHaragaurÄ«vivÄhaof Jagajjyotirmalla of Nepal (A.D.1617â€“33), which is really a sort of opera with the verses, written in dialect, as the only fixed element (LÃ©vi,Le NÃ©pal, i. 242) is of no cogency for the early drama. The MaithilÄ« beginnings of drama, based on the classical, give song in dialect, dialogue in Sanskrit and PrÄkrit (LÃ©vi, TI. i. 393).â†‘

116Kielhorn, IA. xiv. 326 f.; LÃ¼ders,BruchstÃ¼cke buddhistischer Dramen, p. 63.â†‘

117Cf. Weber, IS. viii. 181 ff.; Jacobi, ZDMG. xxxviii. 615 f.â†‘

Back to Index Next