Chapter 48

1AID., pp. 3 ff.; above, p. 31.↑2Ed. KM. 1894, i–xiv; by J. Grosset, Paris, 1898; xviii–xx, xxxiv in F. Hall’sDaçarūpa; xv–xvii (xiv–xvi), in Regnaud,Annales du Musée Guimet, i and ii; xxviii in Grosset’sContribution à l’étude de la musique hindoue, Paris, 1888; vi and vii in Regnaud,Rhétorique sanskrite.↑3Bhau Daji, JBRAS. vi. 218 ff. Lévi (TI. ii. 4) suggests that theÇāstrais largely made out of a versified comment on original Sūtras. For various guesses as to Mātṛgupta, cf. JRAS. 1903, p. 570; see Peterson,Subhāṣitāvali, p. 89. It is probable that theÇāstrais related to an original Sūtra in the same way as theKāmandakīya Nītiçāstrato theArthaçāstra. Cf. S. K. De, SP. i. 27 ff.↑4Avimāraka, ii. A treatise on drama is also attributed to him;Arthadyotanikā, 2.↑5That in theÇāstraitself there is contradiction in this regard between x. 83 f. and xviii. 19 f. is shown by Lindenau, BS., p. 34.↑6Cf. Jacobi,Bhavisattakaha, pp. 83 ff., who suggests the third century; the Prākrit seems anterior to Māhārāṣṭrī in development; Jacobi suggests Ujjayinī as a possible location in view of the affinity to Māhārāṣṭrī and Çaurasenī. Cf. GIL. iii. 8.↑7Ed. F. Hall, Calcutta, 1865; trs. G. C. O. Haas, New York, 1912. Jacobi (GGA. 1913, p. 301) presses for the identity of the writers, but the difference of the name is fatal.↑8Ed. K. P. Trivedī, Bombay, 1909.↑9Ed. K. P. Trivedī, Bombay, 1903;cf. R. G. Bhandarkar,Report(1897) pp. lxviii f.↑10Ed. BI. with trs., 1851–75; in part by P. V. Kane, Bombay, 1910.↑11Ed. TSS. no. L, 1916. It freely uses theDaçarūpa. Cf. Seshagiri,Report for 1896–97, pp. 7 ff. Many verses by the author are cited.↑12For the authorship of theKāvyaprakāçasee Hari Chand,Kālidāsa, pp. 103 ff.↑13cc. 337–41. On Dhvani see Keith,Sansk. Lit.ch. x.↑14Bharata cited in Rucipati’s comm. onAnargharāghava, 9. Cf. DR. i. 7; SD. 274.↑15Cf. Hall, DR. pp. 6 f.↑16N. xviii. 89; xix. 1; AP. cccxxxvii. 18, 27.↑17DR. i. 15; iii. 20–22.↑18N. xix. 2–6, 25 f.; DR. i. 11, 12, 16; SD. 296 f., 323.↑19N. xix. 23; DR. i. 13; SD. 320–3; R. iii. 13 f.↑20N. xix. 7–13; DR. i. 18–20; SD. 324–9; R. iii. 22–5.↑21N. xix. 19–21; DR. i. 16 f.; SD. 317–19. The parallelism is faulty: neither episode nor incident is necessary nor corresponds to Prāptyāçā and Niyatāpti nor Garbha and Vimarça; Dhanika, DR. i. 33, admits this in effect; there is no episode inRatnāvalī, III. Cf. R. iii. 22.↑22N. xix. 16, 35 ff.; DR. i. 22 ff.; SD. 330 ff. Hali (DR., p. 11 n.) suggestsnibarhaṇaas correct (N. xix. 36), wrongly. Cf. R. iii. 26–74. The precise parallelism of the Sandhis and Avasthās in theBālarāmāyaṇais given in R. iii. 23–5.↑23Abhinavagupta (Dhvanyāloka, p. 140) frankly treats the Avasthās as the Sandhis as parts of the story, and distinguishes the Arthaprakṛtis. DR. is responsible for the doctrine that each Sandhi rests on an Avasthā and an Arthaprakṛti, accepted inPratāparudrīya, iii. 3; GGA. 1913, pp. 306–8; R. iii. 26 f.↑24SD. 321.↑25N. xix. 28; DR. i. 33.↑26N. xix. 103; SD. 406.↑27N. xix. 50 f.; SD. 407.↑28SD. 342, 407.↑29N. xviii. 16 ff.; DR. i. 51; iii. 31 f.; SD. 278.↑30The rule is dubious; see Dhanika on DR. iii. 32, where he allows the performance of essential religious rites.↑31Jackson, AJP. xix. 247 ff.↑32SD. 278, no doubt by misreading.↑33N. xviii. 14 f., 22–4; DR. iii. 27, 32–4; SD. 278; R. iii. 205; JAOS. xx. 341 ff.↑34N. xviii. 28, 34 f.; xix. 109–16; DR. i. 52–6; SD. 305–13; R. iii. 178 ff.↑35Bhāsa has three in several cases; Lindenau, BS. p. 40 says Prākrit is never used alone, as stated by Lévi, TI. i. 59, and Konow, ID. p. 13, but see Vatsarāja’sTripuradāha, II.↑36R. iii. 185 f. calls Khaṇḍacūlikā an exchange of words between one on and one off the stage at the beginning only of an act; e.g.Bālarāmāyaṇa, VII.↑37Mātṛgupta inArthadyotanikā, 20.↑38xix. 53–7, 105–9; R. iii. 95; 79–92.↑39SD. 279.↑40N. xix. 30–4; DR. i. 14; SD. 299–303; R. iii. 15–17, where N. is cited with variant readings.↑41This is differently taken by R. iii. 16 as an allusion to Vāsavadattā’s anger to come.↑42DR. i. 57–61; SD. 425; R. iii. 200 ff.↑43DR. ii. 1; SD. 64; R. i. 61 ff.↑44N. xxiv. (Hall, xxxiv.) 4–6; DR. ii. 3–5; SD. 67–9; R. i. 72–8.↑45DR. ii. 4.↑46ii. 10, 16; iv. 22.↑47DR. ii. 6; SD. 71–5; R. i. 80–2. R. i. 79, 83–8 has a division into husbands, adulterers (upapati), and the connoisseur of hetaerae (vaiçika). For the courteous lover, see p. 205.↑48DR. ii. 9–13; SD. 89–95; R. i. 215–19; 64, 69.↑49DR. ii. 8; SD. 159.↑50DR. ii. 7; SD. 76. Cf.Kāmasūtra, p. 60; R. i. 89, 90.↑51DR. ii. 14 f.; SD. 96–100; R. i. 94–120, who takes the unusual view that Irāvatī in theMālavikāgnimitrais a hetaera.↑52N. xxii. 197–206; DR. ii. 22–5; SD. 113–21; R. i. 121–51.↑53N. xxii. 4–29; DR. ii. 28–39; SD. 126–55; R. i. 190–214, with Bhoja’s views.↑54N. xii. 121 f.; xxi. 126; xxiv. 106; DR. ii. 8; SD. 79; R. i. 92.↑55N. xii. 97; xxiv. 104; DR. ii. 8; SD. 78;Kāmasūtra, p. 58; Schmidt,Beiträge zur indischen Erotik, pp. 200 ff.↑56N. xii. 130; xxiv. 105; DR. ii. 42; SD. 81.↑57SD. 86 f., 158.↑58N. xxiv. 107; DR. ii. 41; SD. 82.↑59N. xxiv. 60 ff.↑60N. xxiv. 15 ff. TheKāmasūtra, of course, covers much the same ground.↑61N. xxiv. 50 ff.↑62SD. 426. R. iii. 323–38 gives very elaborate details.↑63N. xvii. 73 ff.; DR. ii. 62–6; SD. 431 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 129, corrected JA. sér. 9, xix. 97 f.; R. iii. 306–22.↑64A child may thus be addressed by persons of low rank, SD. 431; cf.Mṛcchakaṭikā, x. p. 160.↑65For another style, cf.Hāsyacūḍāmaṇi, p. 124;Upādhyāya, R. iii. 309.↑66P. Regnaud,Rhétorique Sanskrite, pp. 266 ff.; Jacobi,ZDMG. lvi. 394 f.; M. Lindenau,Beiträge zur altindischen Rasalehre, Leipzig, 1913. See N. vi. and vii.; DR. iv.; SD. iii.; R.i.298–ii. 265.↑67Mātṛgupta (Hall, DR., p. 33) subdivides sentiment asvācika, produced by words;nepathya, generated by appropriate garlands, ornaments, clothes, &c.;svābhāvika, produced by such natural excellencies as beauty, youth, grace, firmness, courage, &c.↑68Ekāvalī, iii, pp. 86 ff.;Kāvyaprakāça(ed. 1889), pp. 86 ff. Cf. R., pp. 173–5.↑69See also Abhinavagupta,Dhvanisaṁketa, pp. 67 f.;Alaṁkārasarvasva, p. 9.↑70The term isvyutpatti; it is explained by Abhinavagupta,op. cit., p. 70; GGA. 1913, p. 305, n. 1.↑71The reference to Brahman shows that we have here the same fusion of doctrine as in Sadānanda’sVedāntasāra.↑72In the same sense we haverasikaandbhāvaka(e.g. R., p. 170).↑73vi. 7 ff.; Huizinga,De Vidūṣaka in het indisch tooneel, pp. 67 ff.↑74vibhāvair anubhāvaiç ca sāttvikair vyabhicāribhiḥānīyamānaḥ svādyatvaṁ sthāyī bhāvo rasaḥ smṛtaḥ.(iv. 1.) Cf. R. ii. 169.75iv. 36 ff.↑76iv. 41; R., p. 175, l. 1.↑77vi. 39–41.↑78Dhvanisaṁketa, pp. 68, 70.↑79See § 6 below.↑80iv. 33. Cf. R., p. 171.↑81SD. 41. This possibility is denied by Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka.↑82xxvi. 18 f. Cf. Aristotle,Poetics, xvii. 1455a30.↑83SD. 50 ff. So such a great actress as Sarah Bernhardt might feel emotion in acquiring her part, but not in the daily performance.↑84Ekāvalī, p. 88; DR. iv. 40.↑85Vyaktiviveka(Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, no. v).↑86iv. 47 ff. Cf. R. ii. 170 ff.↑87Cf. Haas, DR., pp. 133, 150; R. ii. 178–201, where a list of twelve, with desire and eagerness prefixed, is rejected.↑88Cf. R., pp. 189 f.↑89Cf. Aristotle,Poetics, v. 1449a36.↑90Save for a late reading in vi. 15.↑91See Dhanika, DR. iv. 33; SD. 240;Ekāvalī, pp. 96 ff. Other sentiments are sometimes recognized, such as friendship, faith, and devotion; cf.Rasagan̄gādhara, p. 45. Bhoja admits love only. An example of calm is thePrabodhacandrodaya. Cf. Jacobi, ZDMG. lvi. 395; R., p. 171.↑92N. xx. 25–62; DR. ii. 44–57; iii. 5; SD. 285,410–21; R. i. 244–94, which expressly denies a fifth manner composed of the four.↑93Ratnāvalī, ii. R. i. 275 givespā pā pāhi hi hītias an instance of comic fear exhibited in speech.↑94Ornarmasphañja.↑95An alternative is love enjoyment interrupted, as in theRatnāvalī, ii. 17; R. i. 278.↑96A variant ascribed to Bharata is given in R. i. 279, where a hero dies and another fills his place, e.g. Rāvaṇa replaced by Vibhīṣaṇa.↑97N. xviii. 106–16; DR. iii. 11–18; SD. 289, 293, 521–32; R. i. 164–74.↑98The first kind is illustrated byUttararāmacarita, i; the second by a citation from theChalitarāma.↑99As in theVīrabhadravijṛmbhaṇa, R. i. 168.↑100As in theAbhirāmarāghava.↑101SD. 471–503.↑102N. xvii. 6–39; SD. 435–70; 36bhūṣaṇāni, R. iii. 97–127.↑103TheSaṁgītadāmodaramerges them in one (Lévi, TI. i. 104). Cf. DR. iv. 78.↑104xvii. 40 ff. The Alaṁkāra doctrine later develops enormously; cf. Jacobi, GN. 1908, pp. 1 ff.↑105xvii. 99 ff.↑106See Weber, IS. viii. 377 ff.↑107i. 41 ff.↑108iii. i and 2; cf. Regnaud,Rhétorique Sanskrite, ch. v.↑109Kāvyaprakāça, pp. 542 ff.;Ekāvalī, pp. 147–9;Alaṁkārasarvasva, pp. 20 f. R. i. 229–43 has the ten Guṇas andkomalā,kaṭhinā, andmiçrāas the three names.↑110Mammaṭa,Kāvyaprakāça, viii. 1 ff.;Ekāvalī, v.;Sāhityadarpaṇa, viii;Alaṁkārasarvasva, p. 7.↑111iii. 1. 1–3.↑112pp. 57, 60. Cf. Jacobi,Bhavisattakaha, pp. 68.↑113vi. 147. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 48 ff.↑114Jacobi, GN. 1911, pp. 962 f.; 1912, p.841 f.↑115Jacobi,Bhavisattakaha, pp. 74, 76. Cf. HaranchandraChakladar,Vātsyāyana(1921).↑116N. xvii. 31 ff.; DR. ii. 58–61; SD. 432; R. iii. 299–305.↑117Including, of course, persons assuming such rôles, e.g. in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇaandMudrārākṣasa. For the use of Sanskrit by women, usually in verse, as by Vasantasenā in theMṛcchakaṭikā, and by inferior characters, see Pischel,Prākrit Grammatik, pp. 31 f.↑118R. iii. 300 assigns it as Prākṛta to low persons and Jains. He assigns Apabhraṅça to Caṇḍālas, Yavanas, &c., but admits that others give Māgadhī, &c.↑119Grierson, JRAS. 1918, pp. 489 ff. Cf. R. i. 297 which has seven; Çabara, Dramiḷa, Andhraja, Çakāra, Abhīra, Caṇḍāla, foresters.↑120Contrast the Aristotelian doctrine as to the use of the lyric choruses;Poetics, 1456a25 ff.; G. Norwood,Greek Tragedy, pp. 75–80; Haigh,The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, ch. v, § 6.↑121xviii. 117–29; DR. iii. 47 f.; SD. 504–9. On gesture see theAbhinayadarpaṇaof Nandikeçvara, trs. Cambridge, Mass., 1917. R. iii. 236–48 gives other details of the Lāsya from theÇṛn̄gāramañjarī; dialect is allowed in theSaindhava. He follows N. in having Trimūḍhaka as expressing male emotions in smooth words, and has Dvimūḍhaka.↑122Lévi, TI. ii. 18 f. For N. xxviii see J. Grosset,Contributionàl’étude de la musique hindoue, Paris, 1888. The hints as to musical accompaniment inVikramorvaçīiv. and theGītagovindaare unfortunately largely unintelligible. Cf. also Çivarāma onNāgānanda, i. 15.↑123v. 1 ff.; Konow, ID., pp. 23 ff.↑124These nine acts gratify the Apsarases, Gandharvas, Daityas, Dānavas, Rakṣases, Guhyakas, and Yakṣas. They are performed behind the curtain according to Konow, but cf. Lévi, TI. i. 376.↑125N. v. 149 ff.; DR. iii. 2 ff.; SD. 283 ff. Cf. R. iii. 150 ff.↑126An effort to discriminate Prastāvanā and Sthāpanā is made, R. iii. 158.↑127These are more common than formerly thought; the Sthāpaka is found in various connexions in thePārthaparākramaof Prahlādana, and Vatsarāja’sKirātārjunīya,Rukmiṇīharaṇa,Samudramathana. But theRasārṇavasudhākaraignores him.[342]Çivarāma’s comm. onNāgānanda, i. 1 shows that great doubt then existed both as to the preliminaries (p. 2), and the Sūtradhāra, Sūcaka, or Sthāpaka (pp. 6, 7). Cf. p. 273.↑128GGA. 1883, p. 1234; 1891, p. 361. Bhāsa’s use of Sthāpanā for the prologue suggests accord with theDaçarūpa.↑129E.g.TapatīsaṁvaraṇaandSubhadrādhanaṁjaya, where Sthāpanā is used.↑130A classification of poets on the basis of their confidence in themselves as expressed in this place is given in R. i. 246 f.; Kālidāsa is elevated (udātta) in theMālavikāgnimitra; Bhavabhūti haughty (uddhata) in theMālatīmādhava; self assertion (prauḍha) is seen in theKaruṇākandala; modesty (vinīta) in theRāmānanda.↑131Konow, ID. p. 25.↑132Lévi, TI. i. 135, 379; ii. 26 f., 64, 66. Cf.Harivaṅça, ii. 93;Kuṭṭanīmata, 856 ff.↑133Lévi, TI. i. 132 f.; ii. 24 f.; Hall, DR., pp. 25 f. TheVeṇīsaṁhārahas six stanzas. R. iii. 137 f. takes Pada as word, giving theMahāvīracarita,Abhirāmarāghava, andAnargharāghavaas examples of 8, 10, and 12 Padas.↑134For a general reference seePañcarātra, i. 1. In a Jain drama like theMoharājaparājaya, the benediction is addressed to the three Tīrthakaras; in theNāgānandato the Buddha.↑135N. xviii. 10 ff.; DR. iii. 1–34; SD. 278, 433, 510; R. iii. 130 ff.↑136Ghanaçyāma’sNavagrahacaritahas three acts; Madhusūdana’sJānakīpariṇaya(A.D.1705) has four.↑137N. xviii. 41 ff.; DR. iii. 35–8; SD. 511 f.; R. iii. 214–18, who givesKāmadattaas the name of a hetaera drama.↑138N. xviii. 57–70; xix. 43 f.; DR. iii. 56–61; SD. 515 f.; R. iii. 249–64.↑139N. xviii. 72–6; xix. 44 f.; DR. iii. 66–8; SD. 518; R. iii. 284–8 (typeMāyākuran̄gikā).↑140N. xviii. 78–82; xix. 43 f.; DR. iii. 51–3; SD. 517; R. iii. 280–4 (typeVīrabhadravijṛmbhaṇa).↑141N. xviii. 83–5; xix. 44 f.; DR. iii. 54 f.; SD. 514; R. iii. 229–32 (typeDhanaṁjayajaya).↑142N. xviii. 86–9; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 64 f.; SD. 519;R. iii. 224–8 (typeKaruṇākandala) who differs.↑143N. xviii. 93–8; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 49 f.; SD. 534–8; R. iii. 268–79 (typeĀnandakoça).↑144N. xviii. 99–101; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 44–6; SD. 513; R. iii. 232–5.↑145N. xviii. 102 f.; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 62 f.; SD. 520. Konow (ID. p. 32) is in error as to N. R. iii. 265–70 hasMādhavī-Vīthikā.↑146SD. 276.↑147Hall, DR., p. 6.↑148cccxxxvii. 2–4. R. iii. 218–23 denies the separate character of the Nāṭikā or Prakaraṇikā.↑149DR. i. 8.↑150xviii. 54–6; DR. iii. 39–43; SD. 539.↑151SD. 554.↑152SD. 542. Cf. the Bharhut bas-relief of a dance,Sāḍika; Hultzsch, ZDMG. xl. 66, no. 50.↑153SD. 540.↑154SD. 541. Cf. Hall, DR., p. 6.↑155SD. 555.↑156SD. 543.↑157SD. 544.↑158SD. 556; for the others see 546 ff. Names of plays are given, but they are lost, and were probably late.↑159vii. 90 f.; xi. 36.↑160ii. 18.↑161iv. 3.↑162Mālatīmādhava, p. 79.↑163vi. 48, and see pp. 108 f.; Lévi, TI. ii. 38.↑164Cf. the later view in Rome, which forbids death on the stage, Horace,Ars Poetica, 183 ff., with Aristotle,Poetics, 1452b10 ff., which approves the presentation of death and other acts on the stage.↑165M. Lindenau,Festschrift Windisch, pp. 38 ff.↑166Poetics, 1449bsq.with Butcher’s trs. and Bywater’s notes.↑167Poetics, 1449b13. For time analysis in Kālidāsa, see Jackson, JAOS. xx. 341–59; in Harṣa, xxi. 88–108.↑

1AID., pp. 3 ff.; above, p. 31.↑

2Ed. KM. 1894, i–xiv; by J. Grosset, Paris, 1898; xviii–xx, xxxiv in F. Hall’sDaçarūpa; xv–xvii (xiv–xvi), in Regnaud,Annales du Musée Guimet, i and ii; xxviii in Grosset’sContribution à l’étude de la musique hindoue, Paris, 1888; vi and vii in Regnaud,Rhétorique sanskrite.↑

3Bhau Daji, JBRAS. vi. 218 ff. Lévi (TI. ii. 4) suggests that theÇāstrais largely made out of a versified comment on original Sūtras. For various guesses as to Mātṛgupta, cf. JRAS. 1903, p. 570; see Peterson,Subhāṣitāvali, p. 89. It is probable that theÇāstrais related to an original Sūtra in the same way as theKāmandakīya Nītiçāstrato theArthaçāstra. Cf. S. K. De, SP. i. 27 ff.↑

4Avimāraka, ii. A treatise on drama is also attributed to him;Arthadyotanikā, 2.↑

5That in theÇāstraitself there is contradiction in this regard between x. 83 f. and xviii. 19 f. is shown by Lindenau, BS., p. 34.↑

6Cf. Jacobi,Bhavisattakaha, pp. 83 ff., who suggests the third century; the Prākrit seems anterior to Māhārāṣṭrī in development; Jacobi suggests Ujjayinī as a possible location in view of the affinity to Māhārāṣṭrī and Çaurasenī. Cf. GIL. iii. 8.↑

7Ed. F. Hall, Calcutta, 1865; trs. G. C. O. Haas, New York, 1912. Jacobi (GGA. 1913, p. 301) presses for the identity of the writers, but the difference of the name is fatal.↑

8Ed. K. P. Trivedī, Bombay, 1909.↑

9Ed. K. P. Trivedī, Bombay, 1903;cf. R. G. Bhandarkar,Report(1897) pp. lxviii f.↑

10Ed. BI. with trs., 1851–75; in part by P. V. Kane, Bombay, 1910.↑

11Ed. TSS. no. L, 1916. It freely uses theDaçarūpa. Cf. Seshagiri,Report for 1896–97, pp. 7 ff. Many verses by the author are cited.↑

12For the authorship of theKāvyaprakāçasee Hari Chand,Kālidāsa, pp. 103 ff.↑

13cc. 337–41. On Dhvani see Keith,Sansk. Lit.ch. x.↑

14Bharata cited in Rucipati’s comm. onAnargharāghava, 9. Cf. DR. i. 7; SD. 274.↑

15Cf. Hall, DR. pp. 6 f.↑

16N. xviii. 89; xix. 1; AP. cccxxxvii. 18, 27.↑

17DR. i. 15; iii. 20–22.↑

18N. xix. 2–6, 25 f.; DR. i. 11, 12, 16; SD. 296 f., 323.↑

19N. xix. 23; DR. i. 13; SD. 320–3; R. iii. 13 f.↑

20N. xix. 7–13; DR. i. 18–20; SD. 324–9; R. iii. 22–5.↑

21N. xix. 19–21; DR. i. 16 f.; SD. 317–19. The parallelism is faulty: neither episode nor incident is necessary nor corresponds to Prāptyāçā and Niyatāpti nor Garbha and Vimarça; Dhanika, DR. i. 33, admits this in effect; there is no episode inRatnāvalī, III. Cf. R. iii. 22.↑

22N. xix. 16, 35 ff.; DR. i. 22 ff.; SD. 330 ff. Hali (DR., p. 11 n.) suggestsnibarhaṇaas correct (N. xix. 36), wrongly. Cf. R. iii. 26–74. The precise parallelism of the Sandhis and Avasthās in theBālarāmāyaṇais given in R. iii. 23–5.↑

23Abhinavagupta (Dhvanyāloka, p. 140) frankly treats the Avasthās as the Sandhis as parts of the story, and distinguishes the Arthaprakṛtis. DR. is responsible for the doctrine that each Sandhi rests on an Avasthā and an Arthaprakṛti, accepted inPratāparudrīya, iii. 3; GGA. 1913, pp. 306–8; R. iii. 26 f.↑

24SD. 321.↑

25N. xix. 28; DR. i. 33.↑

26N. xix. 103; SD. 406.↑

27N. xix. 50 f.; SD. 407.↑

28SD. 342, 407.↑

29N. xviii. 16 ff.; DR. i. 51; iii. 31 f.; SD. 278.↑

30The rule is dubious; see Dhanika on DR. iii. 32, where he allows the performance of essential religious rites.↑

31Jackson, AJP. xix. 247 ff.↑

32SD. 278, no doubt by misreading.↑

33N. xviii. 14 f., 22–4; DR. iii. 27, 32–4; SD. 278; R. iii. 205; JAOS. xx. 341 ff.↑

34N. xviii. 28, 34 f.; xix. 109–16; DR. i. 52–6; SD. 305–13; R. iii. 178 ff.↑

35Bhāsa has three in several cases; Lindenau, BS. p. 40 says Prākrit is never used alone, as stated by Lévi, TI. i. 59, and Konow, ID. p. 13, but see Vatsarāja’sTripuradāha, II.↑

36R. iii. 185 f. calls Khaṇḍacūlikā an exchange of words between one on and one off the stage at the beginning only of an act; e.g.Bālarāmāyaṇa, VII.↑

37Mātṛgupta inArthadyotanikā, 20.↑

38xix. 53–7, 105–9; R. iii. 95; 79–92.↑

39SD. 279.↑

40N. xix. 30–4; DR. i. 14; SD. 299–303; R. iii. 15–17, where N. is cited with variant readings.↑

41This is differently taken by R. iii. 16 as an allusion to Vāsavadattā’s anger to come.↑

42DR. i. 57–61; SD. 425; R. iii. 200 ff.↑

43DR. ii. 1; SD. 64; R. i. 61 ff.↑

44N. xxiv. (Hall, xxxiv.) 4–6; DR. ii. 3–5; SD. 67–9; R. i. 72–8.↑

45DR. ii. 4.↑

46ii. 10, 16; iv. 22.↑

47DR. ii. 6; SD. 71–5; R. i. 80–2. R. i. 79, 83–8 has a division into husbands, adulterers (upapati), and the connoisseur of hetaerae (vaiçika). For the courteous lover, see p. 205.↑

48DR. ii. 9–13; SD. 89–95; R. i. 215–19; 64, 69.↑

49DR. ii. 8; SD. 159.↑

50DR. ii. 7; SD. 76. Cf.Kāmasūtra, p. 60; R. i. 89, 90.↑

51DR. ii. 14 f.; SD. 96–100; R. i. 94–120, who takes the unusual view that Irāvatī in theMālavikāgnimitrais a hetaera.↑

52N. xxii. 197–206; DR. ii. 22–5; SD. 113–21; R. i. 121–51.↑

53N. xxii. 4–29; DR. ii. 28–39; SD. 126–55; R. i. 190–214, with Bhoja’s views.↑

54N. xii. 121 f.; xxi. 126; xxiv. 106; DR. ii. 8; SD. 79; R. i. 92.↑

55N. xii. 97; xxiv. 104; DR. ii. 8; SD. 78;Kāmasūtra, p. 58; Schmidt,Beiträge zur indischen Erotik, pp. 200 ff.↑

56N. xii. 130; xxiv. 105; DR. ii. 42; SD. 81.↑

57SD. 86 f., 158.↑

58N. xxiv. 107; DR. ii. 41; SD. 82.↑

59N. xxiv. 60 ff.↑

60N. xxiv. 15 ff. TheKāmasūtra, of course, covers much the same ground.↑

61N. xxiv. 50 ff.↑

62SD. 426. R. iii. 323–38 gives very elaborate details.↑

63N. xvii. 73 ff.; DR. ii. 62–6; SD. 431 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 129, corrected JA. sér. 9, xix. 97 f.; R. iii. 306–22.↑

64A child may thus be addressed by persons of low rank, SD. 431; cf.Mṛcchakaṭikā, x. p. 160.↑

65For another style, cf.Hāsyacūḍāmaṇi, p. 124;Upādhyāya, R. iii. 309.↑

66P. Regnaud,Rhétorique Sanskrite, pp. 266 ff.; Jacobi,ZDMG. lvi. 394 f.; M. Lindenau,Beiträge zur altindischen Rasalehre, Leipzig, 1913. See N. vi. and vii.; DR. iv.; SD. iii.; R.i.298–ii. 265.↑

67Mātṛgupta (Hall, DR., p. 33) subdivides sentiment asvācika, produced by words;nepathya, generated by appropriate garlands, ornaments, clothes, &c.;svābhāvika, produced by such natural excellencies as beauty, youth, grace, firmness, courage, &c.↑

68Ekāvalī, iii, pp. 86 ff.;Kāvyaprakāça(ed. 1889), pp. 86 ff. Cf. R., pp. 173–5.↑

69See also Abhinavagupta,Dhvanisaṁketa, pp. 67 f.;Alaṁkārasarvasva, p. 9.↑

70The term isvyutpatti; it is explained by Abhinavagupta,op. cit., p. 70; GGA. 1913, p. 305, n. 1.↑

71The reference to Brahman shows that we have here the same fusion of doctrine as in Sadānanda’sVedāntasāra.↑

72In the same sense we haverasikaandbhāvaka(e.g. R., p. 170).↑

73vi. 7 ff.; Huizinga,De Vidūṣaka in het indisch tooneel, pp. 67 ff.↑

74vibhāvair anubhāvaiç ca sāttvikair vyabhicāribhiḥānīyamānaḥ svādyatvaṁ sthāyī bhāvo rasaḥ smṛtaḥ.(iv. 1.) Cf. R. ii. 169.

vibhāvair anubhāvaiç ca sāttvikair vyabhicāribhiḥānīyamānaḥ svādyatvaṁ sthāyī bhāvo rasaḥ smṛtaḥ.(iv. 1.) Cf. R. ii. 169.

vibhāvair anubhāvaiç ca sāttvikair vyabhicāribhiḥ

ānīyamānaḥ svādyatvaṁ sthāyī bhāvo rasaḥ smṛtaḥ.(iv. 1.) Cf. R. ii. 169.

75iv. 36 ff.↑

76iv. 41; R., p. 175, l. 1.↑

77vi. 39–41.↑

78Dhvanisaṁketa, pp. 68, 70.↑

79See § 6 below.↑

80iv. 33. Cf. R., p. 171.↑

81SD. 41. This possibility is denied by Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka.↑

82xxvi. 18 f. Cf. Aristotle,Poetics, xvii. 1455a30.↑

83SD. 50 ff. So such a great actress as Sarah Bernhardt might feel emotion in acquiring her part, but not in the daily performance.↑

84Ekāvalī, p. 88; DR. iv. 40.↑

85Vyaktiviveka(Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, no. v).↑

86iv. 47 ff. Cf. R. ii. 170 ff.↑

87Cf. Haas, DR., pp. 133, 150; R. ii. 178–201, where a list of twelve, with desire and eagerness prefixed, is rejected.↑

88Cf. R., pp. 189 f.↑

89Cf. Aristotle,Poetics, v. 1449a36.↑

90Save for a late reading in vi. 15.↑

91See Dhanika, DR. iv. 33; SD. 240;Ekāvalī, pp. 96 ff. Other sentiments are sometimes recognized, such as friendship, faith, and devotion; cf.Rasagan̄gādhara, p. 45. Bhoja admits love only. An example of calm is thePrabodhacandrodaya. Cf. Jacobi, ZDMG. lvi. 395; R., p. 171.↑

92N. xx. 25–62; DR. ii. 44–57; iii. 5; SD. 285,410–21; R. i. 244–94, which expressly denies a fifth manner composed of the four.↑

93Ratnāvalī, ii. R. i. 275 givespā pā pāhi hi hītias an instance of comic fear exhibited in speech.↑

94Ornarmasphañja.↑

95An alternative is love enjoyment interrupted, as in theRatnāvalī, ii. 17; R. i. 278.↑

96A variant ascribed to Bharata is given in R. i. 279, where a hero dies and another fills his place, e.g. Rāvaṇa replaced by Vibhīṣaṇa.↑

97N. xviii. 106–16; DR. iii. 11–18; SD. 289, 293, 521–32; R. i. 164–74.↑

98The first kind is illustrated byUttararāmacarita, i; the second by a citation from theChalitarāma.↑

99As in theVīrabhadravijṛmbhaṇa, R. i. 168.↑

100As in theAbhirāmarāghava.↑

101SD. 471–503.↑

102N. xvii. 6–39; SD. 435–70; 36bhūṣaṇāni, R. iii. 97–127.↑

103TheSaṁgītadāmodaramerges them in one (Lévi, TI. i. 104). Cf. DR. iv. 78.↑

104xvii. 40 ff. The Alaṁkāra doctrine later develops enormously; cf. Jacobi, GN. 1908, pp. 1 ff.↑

105xvii. 99 ff.↑

106See Weber, IS. viii. 377 ff.↑

107i. 41 ff.↑

108iii. i and 2; cf. Regnaud,Rhétorique Sanskrite, ch. v.↑

109Kāvyaprakāça, pp. 542 ff.;Ekāvalī, pp. 147–9;Alaṁkārasarvasva, pp. 20 f. R. i. 229–43 has the ten Guṇas andkomalā,kaṭhinā, andmiçrāas the three names.↑

110Mammaṭa,Kāvyaprakāça, viii. 1 ff.;Ekāvalī, v.;Sāhityadarpaṇa, viii;Alaṁkārasarvasva, p. 7.↑

111iii. 1. 1–3.↑

112pp. 57, 60. Cf. Jacobi,Bhavisattakaha, pp. 68.↑

113vi. 147. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 48 ff.↑

114Jacobi, GN. 1911, pp. 962 f.; 1912, p.841 f.↑

115Jacobi,Bhavisattakaha, pp. 74, 76. Cf. HaranchandraChakladar,Vātsyāyana(1921).↑

116N. xvii. 31 ff.; DR. ii. 58–61; SD. 432; R. iii. 299–305.↑

117Including, of course, persons assuming such rôles, e.g. in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇaandMudrārākṣasa. For the use of Sanskrit by women, usually in verse, as by Vasantasenā in theMṛcchakaṭikā, and by inferior characters, see Pischel,Prākrit Grammatik, pp. 31 f.↑

118R. iii. 300 assigns it as Prākṛta to low persons and Jains. He assigns Apabhraṅça to Caṇḍālas, Yavanas, &c., but admits that others give Māgadhī, &c.↑

119Grierson, JRAS. 1918, pp. 489 ff. Cf. R. i. 297 which has seven; Çabara, Dramiḷa, Andhraja, Çakāra, Abhīra, Caṇḍāla, foresters.↑

120Contrast the Aristotelian doctrine as to the use of the lyric choruses;Poetics, 1456a25 ff.; G. Norwood,Greek Tragedy, pp. 75–80; Haigh,The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, ch. v, § 6.↑

121xviii. 117–29; DR. iii. 47 f.; SD. 504–9. On gesture see theAbhinayadarpaṇaof Nandikeçvara, trs. Cambridge, Mass., 1917. R. iii. 236–48 gives other details of the Lāsya from theÇṛn̄gāramañjarī; dialect is allowed in theSaindhava. He follows N. in having Trimūḍhaka as expressing male emotions in smooth words, and has Dvimūḍhaka.↑

122Lévi, TI. ii. 18 f. For N. xxviii see J. Grosset,Contributionàl’étude de la musique hindoue, Paris, 1888. The hints as to musical accompaniment inVikramorvaçīiv. and theGītagovindaare unfortunately largely unintelligible. Cf. also Çivarāma onNāgānanda, i. 15.↑

123v. 1 ff.; Konow, ID., pp. 23 ff.↑

124These nine acts gratify the Apsarases, Gandharvas, Daityas, Dānavas, Rakṣases, Guhyakas, and Yakṣas. They are performed behind the curtain according to Konow, but cf. Lévi, TI. i. 376.↑

125N. v. 149 ff.; DR. iii. 2 ff.; SD. 283 ff. Cf. R. iii. 150 ff.↑

126An effort to discriminate Prastāvanā and Sthāpanā is made, R. iii. 158.↑

127These are more common than formerly thought; the Sthāpaka is found in various connexions in thePārthaparākramaof Prahlādana, and Vatsarāja’sKirātārjunīya,Rukmiṇīharaṇa,Samudramathana. But theRasārṇavasudhākaraignores him.[342]Çivarāma’s comm. onNāgānanda, i. 1 shows that great doubt then existed both as to the preliminaries (p. 2), and the Sūtradhāra, Sūcaka, or Sthāpaka (pp. 6, 7). Cf. p. 273.↑

128GGA. 1883, p. 1234; 1891, p. 361. Bhāsa’s use of Sthāpanā for the prologue suggests accord with theDaçarūpa.↑

129E.g.TapatīsaṁvaraṇaandSubhadrādhanaṁjaya, where Sthāpanā is used.↑

130A classification of poets on the basis of their confidence in themselves as expressed in this place is given in R. i. 246 f.; Kālidāsa is elevated (udātta) in theMālavikāgnimitra; Bhavabhūti haughty (uddhata) in theMālatīmādhava; self assertion (prauḍha) is seen in theKaruṇākandala; modesty (vinīta) in theRāmānanda.↑

131Konow, ID. p. 25.↑

132Lévi, TI. i. 135, 379; ii. 26 f., 64, 66. Cf.Harivaṅça, ii. 93;Kuṭṭanīmata, 856 ff.↑

133Lévi, TI. i. 132 f.; ii. 24 f.; Hall, DR., pp. 25 f. TheVeṇīsaṁhārahas six stanzas. R. iii. 137 f. takes Pada as word, giving theMahāvīracarita,Abhirāmarāghava, andAnargharāghavaas examples of 8, 10, and 12 Padas.↑

134For a general reference seePañcarātra, i. 1. In a Jain drama like theMoharājaparājaya, the benediction is addressed to the three Tīrthakaras; in theNāgānandato the Buddha.↑

135N. xviii. 10 ff.; DR. iii. 1–34; SD. 278, 433, 510; R. iii. 130 ff.↑

136Ghanaçyāma’sNavagrahacaritahas three acts; Madhusūdana’sJānakīpariṇaya(A.D.1705) has four.↑

137N. xviii. 41 ff.; DR. iii. 35–8; SD. 511 f.; R. iii. 214–18, who givesKāmadattaas the name of a hetaera drama.↑

138N. xviii. 57–70; xix. 43 f.; DR. iii. 56–61; SD. 515 f.; R. iii. 249–64.↑

139N. xviii. 72–6; xix. 44 f.; DR. iii. 66–8; SD. 518; R. iii. 284–8 (typeMāyākuran̄gikā).↑

140N. xviii. 78–82; xix. 43 f.; DR. iii. 51–3; SD. 517; R. iii. 280–4 (typeVīrabhadravijṛmbhaṇa).↑

141N. xviii. 83–5; xix. 44 f.; DR. iii. 54 f.; SD. 514; R. iii. 229–32 (typeDhanaṁjayajaya).↑

142N. xviii. 86–9; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 64 f.; SD. 519;R. iii. 224–8 (typeKaruṇākandala) who differs.↑

143N. xviii. 93–8; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 49 f.; SD. 534–8; R. iii. 268–79 (typeĀnandakoça).↑

144N. xviii. 99–101; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 44–6; SD. 513; R. iii. 232–5.↑

145N. xviii. 102 f.; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 62 f.; SD. 520. Konow (ID. p. 32) is in error as to N. R. iii. 265–70 hasMādhavī-Vīthikā.↑

146SD. 276.↑

147Hall, DR., p. 6.↑

148cccxxxvii. 2–4. R. iii. 218–23 denies the separate character of the Nāṭikā or Prakaraṇikā.↑

149DR. i. 8.↑

150xviii. 54–6; DR. iii. 39–43; SD. 539.↑

151SD. 554.↑

152SD. 542. Cf. the Bharhut bas-relief of a dance,Sāḍika; Hultzsch, ZDMG. xl. 66, no. 50.↑

153SD. 540.↑

154SD. 541. Cf. Hall, DR., p. 6.↑

155SD. 555.↑

156SD. 543.↑

157SD. 544.↑

158SD. 556; for the others see 546 ff. Names of plays are given, but they are lost, and were probably late.↑

159vii. 90 f.; xi. 36.↑

160ii. 18.↑

161iv. 3.↑

162Mālatīmādhava, p. 79.↑

163vi. 48, and see pp. 108 f.; Lévi, TI. ii. 38.↑

164Cf. the later view in Rome, which forbids death on the stage, Horace,Ars Poetica, 183 ff., with Aristotle,Poetics, 1452b10 ff., which approves the presentation of death and other acts on the stage.↑

165M. Lindenau,Festschrift Windisch, pp. 38 ff.↑

166Poetics, 1449bsq.with Butcher’s trs. and Bywater’s notes.↑

167Poetics, 1449b13. For time analysis in Kālidāsa, see Jackson, JAOS. xx. 341–59; in Harṣa, xxi. 88–108.↑

Back to Index Next