IV

IVDRAMATIC PRACTICE[358][Contents]XIVTHE INDIAN THEATRE[Contents]1.The TheatreThe Sanskrit drama of the theorists is, despite its complexity, essentially intended for performance, nor is there the slightest doubt that the early dramatists were anything but composers of plays meant only to be read. They were connoisseurs, we may be certain, in the merits which would accrue to their works from the accessories of the dance, music, song, and the attractions of acting; theVikramorvaçīmust, for instance, have had much of the attraction of an opera, and as a mere literary work loses seriously in attraction.On the other hand, the existence of regular theatres for the exhibition of drama is not assumed in the theorists. A drama was, it is clear, normally performed on an occasion of special rejoicing and solemnity, such as a festival of a god, or a royal marriage, or the celebration of a victory, and the place of performance thus naturally came to be the temple of the god or the palace of the king. We learn often in the drama and tales of the existence of dancing halls and music rooms in the royal palace where the ladies of the harem were taught these pleasing arts, and one of these could easily be adapted for a dramatic performance. But we have from the second century B.C. the remains of a cave which seems to have been used, if not for the performance of plays, at any rate for purposes of recitation of poems or some similar end; it is found in the Rāmgarh hill1in Chota Nagpur, and, although it is quite impossible to prove that it had anything to do with plays, it is interesting to note that theNāṭyaçāstrastates that the play-house should have the form of a mountain cave and two stories.[359]According to the Çāstra,2the play-house as made ready for performance may be of three types, the first for the gods, 108 hands (18 inches) long; the second rectangular, 64 hands long and 32 broad; the third triangular, 32 hands long, the second being praised on acoustic grounds. The house falls into two parts, the places for the audience and the stage. The auditorium is marked off by pillars, in front a white pillar for the seats for the Brahmins, then a red pillar for the Kṣatriyas, in the north-west a yellow pillar marks the seats for the Vaiçyas, while the Çūdras have a blue-black pillar in the north-east. The seats are of wood and bricks, and arranged in rows. In front beside the stage is a veranda with four pillars, apparently also for the use of spectators. In front of the spectators is the stage (ran̄ga), adorned with pictures and reliefs; it is eight hands square in the second form of play-house; its end is the head of the stage (ran̄gaçīrṣa), decorated by figures, and there offerings are made.3Behind4the stage is the painted curtain (paṭī,apaṭī,tiraskaraṇī,pratisīrā), to which the name Yavanikā (Prākrit, Javanikā) is given, denoting merely that the material is foreign, and forbidding any conclusion as to the Greek origin of the curtain itself or the theatre. When one enters hastily, the curtain is violently thrown aside (apaṭīkṣepa). Behind the curtain are the actors’ quarters (nepathyagṛha) or tiring rooms. Here are performed the sounds necessary to represent uproar and confusion which cannot be represented on the stage; here also are uttered the voices of gods and other persons whose presence on the stage is impossible or undesirable.The colour of the curtain is given in some authorities as necessarily in harmony with the dominant sentiment of the play, in accordance with the classification of sentiments already given, but others permit the use of red in every instance. Normally the entry of any character is effected by the drawing aside of the curtain by two maidens, whose beauty marks them out for this[360]employment (dhṛtir yavanikāyāḥ). The term Nepathya has suggested an erroneous deduction as to the relative elevation of the stage and the foyer, for it is conceivable that it denotes a descending (ni-patha) way, and it has been concluded5that it was, therefore, below the level of the stage. But the regular phrase of the entry of an actor on the stage (ran̄gāvataraṇa) would suggest exactly the opposite, a descent from the foyer to the stage. In the case of stages hastily put together, often for merely very temporary aims, it would clearly be absurd to expect any fixed practice, nor can we say what was the normal height of the stage platform. In the case of a play within a play, in theBālarāmāyaṇaof Rājaçekhara, we find that both a stage and a tiring room are erected on the original stage, though we may assume that these were of a very simple structure.The number of doors leading to the tiring room from the stage is regularly given as two,6and apparently the place of the orchestra was between them.[Contents]2.The ActorsThe normal term for actor is Naṭa, a term which has the wider sense of dancer or acrobat; terms like Bharata, or Bhārata, Cāraṇa,7Kuçīlava, Çailūṣa, or Çaubhika have interest practically only for the history of the drama. The chief actor, whose name Sūtradhāra doubtless denotes him as primarily the architect of the theatre, the man who secures the erection of the temporary stage, is occasionally styled ‘troop-head of actors (naṭagāmaṇi)’,8and he is essentially the instructor of the other actors in their art (nāṭyācārya), so that his title Sūtradhāra can be used topically as equivalent to Professor. For this high position his qualifications were to be numerous; he was supposed to be learned in all the arts and sciences, to be acquainted with the habits and customs of all lands, to combine the completeness of technical knowledge with practical skill, and to be possessed of all the[361]moral qualities which an Indian genius can enumerate. To him falls not merely the very important function of introducing the play, but also of taking one of the chief parts; thus he plays Vatsa in theRatnāvalī, and in theMālatīmādhavaKāmandakī, the nun, who powerfully affects the current of the drama. He is normally the husband of one of the actresses (naṭī), who aids him in the opening scene, and who is compelled, poor woman, to combine the arduous life of an actress with the domestic duty of looking after her husband’s material wants. She is represented as devoted to him, fasting to secure reunion in another life, preparing his meal and seeking to remove by her good works the dangers which threaten him, and compelled to play her parts, although anxious, as in theRatnāvalī, over the difficulty of securing the marriage of her daughter to a fiancé who has gone overseas, or, as in theJānakīpariṇaya, over the wickedness of another actor in seeking to take her daughter from her.The Sthāpaka, according to the theory, is to resemble in his attributes the Sūtradhāra; as we have seen, to what extent he really in the dramas known to us was employed as distinct from the Sūtradhāra, it is impossible to say; the name suggests that he aided him in the structure of the stage, and then in his actor’s duties. But there is no ground to assume that he really had disappeared as a living figure before the classical drama; the occasional mention of him in actual dramas as well as in the theory need not be artificial. We have, however, a much more common attendant of the Sūtradhāra in the Pāripārçvika, who appears in the prologue of many plays, and in addition acted the parts of persons of middle rank. He receives the orders of his master and passes them on to the other actors, and directs the operations of the chorus, as in theVeṇīsaṁhāra. He is addressed by his master as Mārṣa, and he greets him as Bhāva.The other actors, of whom there must often have been many in pieces with crowds introduced, are to have the qualities of the Sūtradhāra in as generous a measure as may be; they are divided, however, according to their qualifications into superior, medium, and third-rate actors.9The principal parts in any drama are, however, few; the king, the Vidūṣaka, the parasite, the heroine, and a companion are stock types. The division of[362]rôles is seldom shown in the prologues, whence are derived most of the details of our knowledge of actual performances. The Sūtradhāra in theRatnāvalīand thePriyadarçikāplays the part of Vatsa, his younger brother that of Yaugandharāyaṇa in the former play and that of Dṛḍhavarman in the latter; the Sūtradhāra and the Pāripārçvika take in theMālatīmādhavathe rôles of Kāmandakī and her pupil Avalokitā respectively. This taking of women’s parts by men is not by any means the normal practice; the Naṭī normally plays an important female part;10in the embryo drama in thePriyadarçikāwe find that the heroine’s part is played by Āraṇyikā, and the hero’s part was to have been performed by another girl Manoramā, but Vatsa, without the queen’s knowledge, insinuated himself into the scenein propria persona. In the legend of Bharata’s exhibition of theLakṣmīsvayaṁvarathe nymph Urvaçī is represented as playing the chief rôle, and in Dāmodaragupta’sKuṭṭanīmata, where an actual representation of theRatnāvalīis described, we find a woman in the rôle of the princess. TheNāṭyaçāstra11expressly admits of three modes of representation; the rôles may be filled by persons of appropriate sex and age; the rôles of the old may be taken by the young andvice versa; and the rôles of men may be played by women andvice versa. The taking of women’s parts by men has, curiously enough, a very early piece of evidence, for theMahābhāṣyamentions the word Bhrūkuṅsa, which was used to denote a man who made up as a female.12We are, it is clear, to conceive of the troupe of actors under the Sūtradhāra as ready to wander hither and thither in search of a favourable opportunity of exhibiting their powers as interpreters. The performance of a drama became, it is clear, in later times at any rate, a worthy adornment of a festive occasion such as a religious festival, the consecration of a king, a marriage, the taking possession of a town or a new estate, the return of a traveller, and the birth of a son. The best patrons of the actors might be kings, but there was evidently no lack of appreciation of their services among men of lesser rank but of large means. The later prologues give us details of the rivalry between different troupes. In theAnargharāghavathe actor declares that[363]he has come to exhibit a superior sort of drama to that played by a rival, and asserts that the dearest desire of a player is to satisfy the public and to win back the favour he has lost. Rājaçekhara twice introduces the motive of a competition between actors to win the hand of an actress who has been offered by her father in marriage to the most adept of her suitors. Jayadeva invents a pleasing tale of an actor who won great success and reputation, inducing a comedian of the south to claim his name and steal his renown. The actor in revenge went south, and, striking up a partnership with a singer, won both repute and profit in the courts of the Deccan.The reputation of actors and actresses was low and unsavoury; they are reputed to live on the price of their wives’ honour (jāyājīva,rūpājīva), and Manu imposes only a minor penalty on illicit relations with the wife of an actor on the score of their willingness to hand over their wives to others and profit by their dishonour.13TheMahābhāṣyagives equally clear testimony of the lack of chastity among the actresses or their predecessors.14The law book of Viṣṇu15treats them as Āyogavas, a mixed caste representing the fruit of alliances, improper and undesirable, between Çūdras and the daughters of the Vaiçya; to be an actor or a teacher of the art is ranked as a lesser sin in Baudhāyana.16The Kuçīlava is described as a Çūdra, who ought to be banished;17his evidence, and indeed that of any actor, is not to be accepted in law,18and Brahmins may not accept food offered by an actor,19a fact attested by the Sūtradhāra in the prologue to theMṛcchakaṭikāwho can find no one in Ujjayinī to accept his hospitality. Actors again are classed in Manu with wrestlers and boxers. An actress was often, if not necessarily, one of the great army of courtesans; Vasantasenā, the hetaera of theCārudattaandMṛcchakaṭikā, is herself skilled in acting, and has in her household maidens learning to act, and Daṇḍin includes lessons in this art in his account of the education of the perfect courtesan in theDaçakumāracarita.On the other hand, we have traces of a higher side of the[364]profession, which doubtless can quite fairly be connected with the gradual elevation of the drama from humble origins to the rank of an elaborate and refined poetry. Bharata, the alleged founder of theNāṭyaçāstra, ranks as a Muni, or holy sage, and Urvaçī, a divine nymph, is treated as an actress. What is more important is that Bāṇa definitely enumerates in theHarṣacaritaamong his friends an actor and an actress; Bhartṛhari20refers to their friendship with kings, which is also attested in the legend of Vasumitra, son of Kālidāsa’s hero Agnimitra, who was slain amidst his actors by his enemy. Kālidāsa himself represents Agnivarṇa, king of Raghu’s line, as pleased to compete with actors in their own speciality. Vatsa, in thePriyadarçikā, is prepared to play a part without question, and Bhavabhūti in two of his prefaces asserts his friendship with his actors. In truth, men who could effectively declaim the stanzas of Bhavabhūti must have possessed both education and culture in a high degree, and have been very different from the acrobats and jugglers, dancers, and others whose humble occupations account for the censures of the law books and theArthaçāstra.[Contents]3.The Mise-en-scène and Representation of the DramaWe have no trace in the drama of any attempt to introduce scenery into the representation. The curtain remained as a background throughout the entertainment, and it was in the main left to the imagination of the spectator, aided by the descriptions of the poet, to conceive the beauties of the situation supposed to be presented to his eyes. We have for this conclusive proof, if any were needed beyond the silence of the text-books, in the abundant stage directions which accompany the text of our dramas, and are found even in the fragments of Açvaghoṣa. When actions such as watering a plant were ascribed to an actress, no serious effort was made to bring in plants and perform the ceremonial of watering; on the contrary, she went through a mimicry of the process, which was enough to satisfy the audience. The king may mount a chariot, but no effort is made to bring one for this purpose; he merely goes in[365]elaborate pantomime through the action of getting up off the ground, and the audience, trained and intelligent, realizes what has happened. At the beginning of theÇakuntalāthe gazelle which Duḥṣanta follows is not a real animal, but the Sūtradhāra tells us that the king is pursuing a gazelle, and the actor, who represents the monarch, by his eager gaze and his gestures reveals himself as in the act of seeking to shoot the deer. To pluck flowers is merely to imitate the movements of one who really does so, and an actress with any skill has no difficulty in persuading an audience by her marks of agitation that she is escaping from the attacks of a bee.There is thus no tedious attempt at realism, though the dramatists vary in the care with which they avoid the absurd in their use of conventions; the works of Bhāsa show doubtless an excessive tendency to allow of strain being placed on the credulity of the audience. The exits and entrances of the characters are often abrupt and unnatural, but the drama was not primarily intended as a realistic copy of events, and doubtless was not felt unsatisfactory by the audience. Nor, it may be remembered, has perfection in detail in any form of ceremonial ever made a strong appeal to Indian minds; in the most gorgeous celebrations there will occur, without exciting surprise or comment, strange deviations from western canons of good taste and elegance.To a limited extent, however, use was made of minor properties, which are classed under the generic style of model work (pusta).21TheNāṭyaçāstradistinguishes three forms of such objects; they may be made up (sandhima) from bamboos covered with skins or cloths; or mechanical means might be employed (vyājima); or merely clothes (veṣṭita) used. We hear of the making of an elephant in theUdayanacarita; theMṛcchakaṭikāowes its name to the toy cart which appears in it; theBālarāmāyaṇahas mechanical dolls, and doubtless there were represented houses, caves, chariots, rocks, horses, and so on; monsters with animal heads and many arms could be made of clay and bamboos, and covered with cloths; we are expressly told that weapons must not be made of hard material, but that[366]stocks of grass, bamboos, and lac may be made to serve, and naturally gestures served in lieu of hard blows.The dress22of the actors is carefully regulated, especially as regards colour, which evidently was regarded as an important item in matters of sentiment. Ascetics wear garments of rags or bark; those in charge in the harem red jackets, kings gay garments or, if there are portents described, garments without colour. Ābhīra maidens wear dark blue clothes; in other cases dirty or uncoloured garments are prescribed. Dirty clothes indicate madness, distraction, misery, or a journey; uncoloured garb, one engaged in worship or some solemn religious service, an interesting survival of antique custom, while gods, Dānavas, Gandharvas, Uragas, Yakṣas, and Rakṣases, as well as lovers and kings, normally wear gay clothing.Colour,23however, is by no means confined to garments; the actors are expected to adorn themselves with paint of hues appropriate to the rôles they play. There are, on one theory, four fundamental colours, white, blue-black, red, and yellow, from which others are developed, for instance pigeon colour by mixing the first two; a reddish yellow (gaura) from mixing the last two is also recorded. It or dark (çyāma) is given as suited for kings, while happiness is indicated by it. Kirātas, Barbaras, Andhras, Draviḍas, the people of Kāçi and Kosala, Pulindas, and the people of the Deccan are to be black (asita); the Çakas, Yavanas, Pahlavas, and Bālhikas24are to be reddish yellow; Pāñcālas, Çūrasenas, Māhiṣas, Uḍras, Māgadhas, An̄gas, Van̄gas, and Kalin̄gas are to be dark (çyāma), as also Vaiçyas and Çūdras in general, while Brahmins and Kṣatriyas are to be reddish-yellow.Naturally the hair25attracts attention; Piçācas, madmen, and Bhūtas wear it loose; the Vidūṣaka is bald; boys have three tufts of hair, and so also servants if it is not cut short; the maidens of Avantī, and usually those of Bengal, wear ringlets, in the case of women of the north it is worn high on the head, and otherwise plaits are usual. The beard may be bright in hue, dark, or bushy. There is also the same tendency to stereotype[367]the ornaments, made out of copper, mica, or wax, and the garlands carried by the various personages; Vidyādharīs, Yakṣīs, Apsarases and Nāgīs carry pearls and jewels, while the latter are at once recognizable by the snake’s hood rising over their heads, as are Yakṣas by a large tuft of hair.The dress and appearance of the actor thus serve in some measure to carry out his duty of representation (abhinaya), of presenting before our eyes the states orconditionsof the personage for whom he stands. This is the Āhāryābhinaya, the first of the four agencies enumerated by theNāṭyaçāstra. He has also to perform the duty of representation by speech (vācika), using his voice to convey the dramatist’s words, and by exhibitingin propria personathe appropriate physical counterparts of the feelings and emotions of the characters (sāttvikābhinaya). Finally, he has specially to concentrate on the expression by gesture (ān̄gikābhinaya) of the feelings which he is supposed to experience. In this regard most detailed rules are given, doubtless from the technique of a period when more importance attached to gestures than later seems natural. Each member of the body is singled out for description; deep significance lies in the mode in which the head is shaken, the eyes glance, the brows move; cheek, nose, lip, chin, and neck can all be used to convey subtle senses. The hands are invaluable for this purpose; the different manœuvres with the fingers can convey almost any possible combination of meanings to the person sufficiently acquainted with theNāṭyaçāstrato understand them. But other parts of the body down to the feet are valuable; great care is bestowed on their postures, and the gait is invaluable in distinguishing classes of persons and their deeds. Darkness need not artificially be induced; movements of hands and feet to indicate groping are enough; one set of movements shows the mounting of a chariot, another the climbing up to the top of a palace; if the garments are pulled up, the crossing of a river is plainly shown; if the motions of swimming are mimicked, clearly the river is too deep to wade; a dexterous movement of the hands shows that one is driving, and similarly one can mount an elephant or a horse.26[368]It is characteristic of the nature of the Indian theory that, while it descends into enormous detail, it leaves alone to all intents and purposes the obvious duty of defining precisely the relation of the varieties of representation described as Sāttvika and Ān̄gika. The true relation is that under the head of Sāttvika are described the physical states, which are deemed appropriate to feelings and emotions, while the Ān̄gika prescribes the precise physical movements which express most effectively both psychic states and physical movements, which cannot be conveniently presented on the stage. The division accordingly is unscientific, and, acute as is the investigation of theNāṭyaçāstrain detail, it is far from satisfying as a whole.The importance of such accessories to the representation as garlands, ornaments, and appropriate garments, is emphasized by Mātṛgupta, who admits a specific form of sentiment styled Nepathyarasa, a fact which illustrates the effect produced in the mind of the spectator by the details of themise-en-scène. The same impression may be derived from the elaboration of the stage directions in the dramas, comparable only to such as are given, for instance, in Mr. Bernard Shaw’s productions. It is clear that they were intended not only for the direction of the actors in actually performing one of the pieces, but as instruments to aid the reader of the drama in realizing mentally the form of the representation and in appreciating, therefore, the dramatic quality of what he studied. Moreover, we have independent evidence which aids us in seeing how complete these directions are. A fortunate chance has preserved in Dāmodaragupta’sKuṭṭanīmata,27written in the reign of Jayāpīḍa of Kashmir in the eighth centuryA.D., an account of the performance of theRatnāvalīof Harṣa. The description is incomplete, but it is perfectly clear that it was played exactly in accordance with the stage directions which have come down to us, embedded in the text of the drama as we have it.The actual performance of the play was preceded, as we have seen in describing the theory of the drama, by preliminaries, the essential aim of which was the securing of the favour of the gods for the play to be represented. Of the varied elements of the preliminaries special importance seems to have attached to the[369]praise of the world guardians (dikpālastuti), and the reverence paid to Indra’s banner. A reed with five knots is selected which is called Jarjara; the five sections are painted white, blue-black, yellow, red, and a mixture of hues; banners of every colour are tied to it, and the supplication is made to Gaṇeça, the god who removes obstacles and favours literature, and to the guardians of the quarters of the world.A religious aspect is given also to the mingling of the pigments, the materials employed being yellow arsenic, lamp black, and red among others. The arsenic is formally addressed as being created by Svayambhū for the purpose of serving as a pigment; then it is placed on a board with fragments of brick, the whole reduced to fine powder, and mingled, and then used as pigment.28The time of the performance is not in many cases stated, but in a number of plays, including theMālatīmādhava,Karṇasundarī, and the embryo drama in thePriyadarçikā, we find it assumed to be the moment when the sun is just appearing.29The beat of drum announces the beginning of the drama, the preliminaries, often reduced to little more than a vocal and instrumental concert of brief duration, are completed, and the benediction pronounced, to be followed by the prologue proper and the drama.[Contents]4.The AudienceA drama like the Sanskrit demanded the full attention of a cultivated audience, and it is assumed or expressly asserted, as in the dramas of Kālidāsa, Harṣa, and Bhavabhūti, that the spectators are critical and experienced. TheNāṭyaçāstra30requires from the ideal spectator (prekṣaka) keen susceptibility and excellent judgement, with ability to make his own the feelings and emotions of the characters depicted by the actors. But it is admitted that there are the usual degrees among the spectators, good, medium, and indifferent; the question of the success of a drama depends on the judgement of the critic[370](prāçnika), who is to possess every possible good quality to fit him for the delicate task. The audience, as it is to share the feelings of the characters, is expected to show them by the usual outward signs; laughter, tears, cries, hair standing on end, jumping up from their seats, clapping with the hands and other manifestations of pleasure, horror, fear, and other sentiments are both proper and natural.The rules for placing the patron at whose bidding the drama is performed, Sabhāpati, and his guests, are elaborate.31He sits himself on the Lion Throne, the equivalent of the royal box, with the ladies of his harem on the left, and on the right the personages of highest importance, such as the vassal princes of a great king like Harṣa. Behind the latter are the treasurer and other officers, and near them the learned men of the court, civil and religious, including the poets, and in their midst the astrologers and physicians. On the left again are the ministers and other courtiers; all around are maidens of the court. In front again of the king are Brahmins, behind the bearers of fans, radiant in youthful beauty. On the left in front are the reciters and panegyrists, eloquent and wise. Guards are present to protect the sacred person of the sovereign.How far the dramas were viewed by the public in general we cannot say; the rules regarding the play-house contemplate the presence of Çūdras, but that is a vague term, and may apply to a very restricted class of royal hangers on. We have the general rule32that barbarians, ignorant people, heretics, and those of low class should not be admitted, but such prescriptions mean very little. There must, it is clear, have been the utmost variation in the character of the audience according to the place and circumstances of representation. At great festivals, when plays were given in the temples, there must have been admission for as many as could be crowded in; in private exhibitions the audience may well have been more select. The fact that the dramas must have been largely unintelligible to all save a select few of the audience would not matter much; a drama was essentially a spectacle; in many cases its subject was perfectly familiar to the[371]audience, and the elaborate use of conventional signs must have been enough to aid many of the audience in following roughly the nature of the proceedings.When such dramatic exhibitions became rare we do not know; it is certain that in the eleventh century in Kashmir they were not uncommon; Kṣemendra advised aspirants to poetic fame to improve their taste by the study of such representations.33Doubtless the Mahomedan conquest seriously affected the vogue of the classical drama, which was obnoxious to Mahomedan fanaticism as being closely identified both with the national religion and the national spirit of India. The kings, who had been the main support of the actors and poets alike, disappeared from their thrones or suffered grave reverses in fortune. The tradition of dramatic performances gradually vanished. Other causes contributed to this end; the divorce between the language of the stage and that of the people steadily increasing with the passage of time made the Sanskrit drama more and more remote to the public, and the Mahomedans made it lose its position as the expression of the official and court life of the highest circles.34[373]1Bloch,Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903–4, pp. 123 ff.↑2ii; cf. JPASB. v. 353 ff.;Çilparatna(ed. TSS.), pp. 201 ff. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, p. 54.↑3For the Greek theatre, which presents certain points of similarity but many of difference, see Dorpfeld,Das griechische Theater; Haigh,Attic Theatre(3rd ed.); a brief summary is given in Norwood,Greek Tragedy, pp. 49 ff.↑4The theory of a transverse curtain (Wilson, I. lxviii) is not supported by evidence of any clear kind. Cf. p. 113, n. 1.↑5Weber, IS. xiv. 225. Cf. Lévi, TI. i. 374; ii. 62.↑6The Greek number was three, later five. The Chinese stage, which resembles the Indian in its primitive character, but has no curtain, has two doors, one for entry, one for exit; Ridgeway,Dramas, &c., pp. 274 f.↑7W. Crooke,The Tribes and Castes of the N. W. Provinces and Oudh, ii. 20 ff.↑8Hillebrandt, AID., p. 12; cf.naṭagrāma,Epigr. Ind.i. 381.↑9xxiv. 85 f.↑10Cf.Karpūramañjarī, i. 12/13.↑11xxvi.; cf. xii. 166 f.↑12Weber, IS. xiii. 493.↑13viii. 362; cf.Rāmāyaṇa, ii. 30. 8;Kuṭṭanīmata, 855.↑14vi. 1. 13.↑15xvi. 8.↑16ii. 1. 2. 13.↑17Kauṭilīya, p. 7.↑18Manu, viii. 65; Yājñ. ii. 70.↑19Manu, iv. 215; Yājñ. i. 161.↑20iii. 57.↑21N. xxi. 5 ff. Masks may have been used for animals, but not normally as in Greece; cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 137, n. 2.↑22N. xxi.↑23N. xxi. 62 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 388; ii. 69. Cf. theMahābhāṣya, iii. 1. 26; Yājñavalkya, iii. 162.↑24Also read Pāhravas and Bāhlikas. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 96 f.↑25N. xxi.↑26Cf. theAbhinayadarpaṇaof Nandikeçvara, trs. by A. Coomaraswamy and G. K. Duggirala, Cambridge, Mass., 1917.↑27856 ff. Cf. the accounts in theHarivaṅça, ii. 88–93.↑28Saṁgītadāmodara, 39.↑29Cf. Nīlakaṇṭha’s reason for the alleged abbreviation of theMṛcchakaṭikā(Lévi, TI. i. 210).↑30xxvii. 51 ff.; Lévi, TI. ii. 62 ff.↑31Saṁgītaratnākara, 1327 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 375 ff. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 54 f.↑32Tagore,Eight Principal Rasas, p. 61. That women as such were excluded (Wilson, ii. 212) cannot have held good for the early stage.↑33Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa, p. 15.↑34A certain revival of displays occurred in the nineteenth century; e.g. theCitrayajñaof Vaidyanātha Vācaspati Bhaṭṭācārya, written for the festival of Govinda by request of the Rājā of Nadiyā aboutA.D.1820. The Cakkyars of Malabar still act Çaktibhadra’sĀçcaryamañjarīand Kulaçekharavarman’s plays, as well as Act III of thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, under the style ofMantrān̄kanāṭaka, and theNāgānanda; JRAS. 1910, p. 637;Pratimānāṭaka(ed. TSS.), p. xl; A. K. and V. R. Pisharoti,Bulletin oftheSchool of Oriental Studies, III. i. 107 ff., who maintain the impossible view that Bhāsa’s plays are compilations or adaptations of the eighth century, or later, holding that theCārudattais an adaptation of theMṛcchakaṭikā(contrast p. 131), thePratimānāṭakais later than Kālidāsa, and theAvimārakathan Daṇḍin. The genealogy of Rāma in thePratimā(iv. 9 f.) is that of Kālidāsa, but is also Purāṇic, and Daṇḍin, of course, is not the inventor of the Kathā. Barnett (Bulletin, III. i. 35) accepts Pisharoti’s views, holding theNyāyaçāstraof Medhātithi (Pratimā, v. 8/9) to be theManubhāṣya(tenth century), but this is wholly against the context, and Barnett’s view is surely incompatible with the priority of theCārudattato theMṛcchakaṭikāwhich he admits, and the absence of Māhārāṣṭrī. Cf. also p. 341.↑

IVDRAMATIC PRACTICE[358][Contents]XIVTHE INDIAN THEATRE[Contents]1.The TheatreThe Sanskrit drama of the theorists is, despite its complexity, essentially intended for performance, nor is there the slightest doubt that the early dramatists were anything but composers of plays meant only to be read. They were connoisseurs, we may be certain, in the merits which would accrue to their works from the accessories of the dance, music, song, and the attractions of acting; theVikramorvaçīmust, for instance, have had much of the attraction of an opera, and as a mere literary work loses seriously in attraction.On the other hand, the existence of regular theatres for the exhibition of drama is not assumed in the theorists. A drama was, it is clear, normally performed on an occasion of special rejoicing and solemnity, such as a festival of a god, or a royal marriage, or the celebration of a victory, and the place of performance thus naturally came to be the temple of the god or the palace of the king. We learn often in the drama and tales of the existence of dancing halls and music rooms in the royal palace where the ladies of the harem were taught these pleasing arts, and one of these could easily be adapted for a dramatic performance. But we have from the second century B.C. the remains of a cave which seems to have been used, if not for the performance of plays, at any rate for purposes of recitation of poems or some similar end; it is found in the Rāmgarh hill1in Chota Nagpur, and, although it is quite impossible to prove that it had anything to do with plays, it is interesting to note that theNāṭyaçāstrastates that the play-house should have the form of a mountain cave and two stories.[359]According to the Çāstra,2the play-house as made ready for performance may be of three types, the first for the gods, 108 hands (18 inches) long; the second rectangular, 64 hands long and 32 broad; the third triangular, 32 hands long, the second being praised on acoustic grounds. The house falls into two parts, the places for the audience and the stage. The auditorium is marked off by pillars, in front a white pillar for the seats for the Brahmins, then a red pillar for the Kṣatriyas, in the north-west a yellow pillar marks the seats for the Vaiçyas, while the Çūdras have a blue-black pillar in the north-east. The seats are of wood and bricks, and arranged in rows. In front beside the stage is a veranda with four pillars, apparently also for the use of spectators. In front of the spectators is the stage (ran̄ga), adorned with pictures and reliefs; it is eight hands square in the second form of play-house; its end is the head of the stage (ran̄gaçīrṣa), decorated by figures, and there offerings are made.3Behind4the stage is the painted curtain (paṭī,apaṭī,tiraskaraṇī,pratisīrā), to which the name Yavanikā (Prākrit, Javanikā) is given, denoting merely that the material is foreign, and forbidding any conclusion as to the Greek origin of the curtain itself or the theatre. When one enters hastily, the curtain is violently thrown aside (apaṭīkṣepa). Behind the curtain are the actors’ quarters (nepathyagṛha) or tiring rooms. Here are performed the sounds necessary to represent uproar and confusion which cannot be represented on the stage; here also are uttered the voices of gods and other persons whose presence on the stage is impossible or undesirable.The colour of the curtain is given in some authorities as necessarily in harmony with the dominant sentiment of the play, in accordance with the classification of sentiments already given, but others permit the use of red in every instance. Normally the entry of any character is effected by the drawing aside of the curtain by two maidens, whose beauty marks them out for this[360]employment (dhṛtir yavanikāyāḥ). The term Nepathya has suggested an erroneous deduction as to the relative elevation of the stage and the foyer, for it is conceivable that it denotes a descending (ni-patha) way, and it has been concluded5that it was, therefore, below the level of the stage. But the regular phrase of the entry of an actor on the stage (ran̄gāvataraṇa) would suggest exactly the opposite, a descent from the foyer to the stage. In the case of stages hastily put together, often for merely very temporary aims, it would clearly be absurd to expect any fixed practice, nor can we say what was the normal height of the stage platform. In the case of a play within a play, in theBālarāmāyaṇaof Rājaçekhara, we find that both a stage and a tiring room are erected on the original stage, though we may assume that these were of a very simple structure.The number of doors leading to the tiring room from the stage is regularly given as two,6and apparently the place of the orchestra was between them.[Contents]2.The ActorsThe normal term for actor is Naṭa, a term which has the wider sense of dancer or acrobat; terms like Bharata, or Bhārata, Cāraṇa,7Kuçīlava, Çailūṣa, or Çaubhika have interest practically only for the history of the drama. The chief actor, whose name Sūtradhāra doubtless denotes him as primarily the architect of the theatre, the man who secures the erection of the temporary stage, is occasionally styled ‘troop-head of actors (naṭagāmaṇi)’,8and he is essentially the instructor of the other actors in their art (nāṭyācārya), so that his title Sūtradhāra can be used topically as equivalent to Professor. For this high position his qualifications were to be numerous; he was supposed to be learned in all the arts and sciences, to be acquainted with the habits and customs of all lands, to combine the completeness of technical knowledge with practical skill, and to be possessed of all the[361]moral qualities which an Indian genius can enumerate. To him falls not merely the very important function of introducing the play, but also of taking one of the chief parts; thus he plays Vatsa in theRatnāvalī, and in theMālatīmādhavaKāmandakī, the nun, who powerfully affects the current of the drama. He is normally the husband of one of the actresses (naṭī), who aids him in the opening scene, and who is compelled, poor woman, to combine the arduous life of an actress with the domestic duty of looking after her husband’s material wants. She is represented as devoted to him, fasting to secure reunion in another life, preparing his meal and seeking to remove by her good works the dangers which threaten him, and compelled to play her parts, although anxious, as in theRatnāvalī, over the difficulty of securing the marriage of her daughter to a fiancé who has gone overseas, or, as in theJānakīpariṇaya, over the wickedness of another actor in seeking to take her daughter from her.The Sthāpaka, according to the theory, is to resemble in his attributes the Sūtradhāra; as we have seen, to what extent he really in the dramas known to us was employed as distinct from the Sūtradhāra, it is impossible to say; the name suggests that he aided him in the structure of the stage, and then in his actor’s duties. But there is no ground to assume that he really had disappeared as a living figure before the classical drama; the occasional mention of him in actual dramas as well as in the theory need not be artificial. We have, however, a much more common attendant of the Sūtradhāra in the Pāripārçvika, who appears in the prologue of many plays, and in addition acted the parts of persons of middle rank. He receives the orders of his master and passes them on to the other actors, and directs the operations of the chorus, as in theVeṇīsaṁhāra. He is addressed by his master as Mārṣa, and he greets him as Bhāva.The other actors, of whom there must often have been many in pieces with crowds introduced, are to have the qualities of the Sūtradhāra in as generous a measure as may be; they are divided, however, according to their qualifications into superior, medium, and third-rate actors.9The principal parts in any drama are, however, few; the king, the Vidūṣaka, the parasite, the heroine, and a companion are stock types. The division of[362]rôles is seldom shown in the prologues, whence are derived most of the details of our knowledge of actual performances. The Sūtradhāra in theRatnāvalīand thePriyadarçikāplays the part of Vatsa, his younger brother that of Yaugandharāyaṇa in the former play and that of Dṛḍhavarman in the latter; the Sūtradhāra and the Pāripārçvika take in theMālatīmādhavathe rôles of Kāmandakī and her pupil Avalokitā respectively. This taking of women’s parts by men is not by any means the normal practice; the Naṭī normally plays an important female part;10in the embryo drama in thePriyadarçikāwe find that the heroine’s part is played by Āraṇyikā, and the hero’s part was to have been performed by another girl Manoramā, but Vatsa, without the queen’s knowledge, insinuated himself into the scenein propria persona. In the legend of Bharata’s exhibition of theLakṣmīsvayaṁvarathe nymph Urvaçī is represented as playing the chief rôle, and in Dāmodaragupta’sKuṭṭanīmata, where an actual representation of theRatnāvalīis described, we find a woman in the rôle of the princess. TheNāṭyaçāstra11expressly admits of three modes of representation; the rôles may be filled by persons of appropriate sex and age; the rôles of the old may be taken by the young andvice versa; and the rôles of men may be played by women andvice versa. The taking of women’s parts by men has, curiously enough, a very early piece of evidence, for theMahābhāṣyamentions the word Bhrūkuṅsa, which was used to denote a man who made up as a female.12We are, it is clear, to conceive of the troupe of actors under the Sūtradhāra as ready to wander hither and thither in search of a favourable opportunity of exhibiting their powers as interpreters. The performance of a drama became, it is clear, in later times at any rate, a worthy adornment of a festive occasion such as a religious festival, the consecration of a king, a marriage, the taking possession of a town or a new estate, the return of a traveller, and the birth of a son. The best patrons of the actors might be kings, but there was evidently no lack of appreciation of their services among men of lesser rank but of large means. The later prologues give us details of the rivalry between different troupes. In theAnargharāghavathe actor declares that[363]he has come to exhibit a superior sort of drama to that played by a rival, and asserts that the dearest desire of a player is to satisfy the public and to win back the favour he has lost. Rājaçekhara twice introduces the motive of a competition between actors to win the hand of an actress who has been offered by her father in marriage to the most adept of her suitors. Jayadeva invents a pleasing tale of an actor who won great success and reputation, inducing a comedian of the south to claim his name and steal his renown. The actor in revenge went south, and, striking up a partnership with a singer, won both repute and profit in the courts of the Deccan.The reputation of actors and actresses was low and unsavoury; they are reputed to live on the price of their wives’ honour (jāyājīva,rūpājīva), and Manu imposes only a minor penalty on illicit relations with the wife of an actor on the score of their willingness to hand over their wives to others and profit by their dishonour.13TheMahābhāṣyagives equally clear testimony of the lack of chastity among the actresses or their predecessors.14The law book of Viṣṇu15treats them as Āyogavas, a mixed caste representing the fruit of alliances, improper and undesirable, between Çūdras and the daughters of the Vaiçya; to be an actor or a teacher of the art is ranked as a lesser sin in Baudhāyana.16The Kuçīlava is described as a Çūdra, who ought to be banished;17his evidence, and indeed that of any actor, is not to be accepted in law,18and Brahmins may not accept food offered by an actor,19a fact attested by the Sūtradhāra in the prologue to theMṛcchakaṭikāwho can find no one in Ujjayinī to accept his hospitality. Actors again are classed in Manu with wrestlers and boxers. An actress was often, if not necessarily, one of the great army of courtesans; Vasantasenā, the hetaera of theCārudattaandMṛcchakaṭikā, is herself skilled in acting, and has in her household maidens learning to act, and Daṇḍin includes lessons in this art in his account of the education of the perfect courtesan in theDaçakumāracarita.On the other hand, we have traces of a higher side of the[364]profession, which doubtless can quite fairly be connected with the gradual elevation of the drama from humble origins to the rank of an elaborate and refined poetry. Bharata, the alleged founder of theNāṭyaçāstra, ranks as a Muni, or holy sage, and Urvaçī, a divine nymph, is treated as an actress. What is more important is that Bāṇa definitely enumerates in theHarṣacaritaamong his friends an actor and an actress; Bhartṛhari20refers to their friendship with kings, which is also attested in the legend of Vasumitra, son of Kālidāsa’s hero Agnimitra, who was slain amidst his actors by his enemy. Kālidāsa himself represents Agnivarṇa, king of Raghu’s line, as pleased to compete with actors in their own speciality. Vatsa, in thePriyadarçikā, is prepared to play a part without question, and Bhavabhūti in two of his prefaces asserts his friendship with his actors. In truth, men who could effectively declaim the stanzas of Bhavabhūti must have possessed both education and culture in a high degree, and have been very different from the acrobats and jugglers, dancers, and others whose humble occupations account for the censures of the law books and theArthaçāstra.[Contents]3.The Mise-en-scène and Representation of the DramaWe have no trace in the drama of any attempt to introduce scenery into the representation. The curtain remained as a background throughout the entertainment, and it was in the main left to the imagination of the spectator, aided by the descriptions of the poet, to conceive the beauties of the situation supposed to be presented to his eyes. We have for this conclusive proof, if any were needed beyond the silence of the text-books, in the abundant stage directions which accompany the text of our dramas, and are found even in the fragments of Açvaghoṣa. When actions such as watering a plant were ascribed to an actress, no serious effort was made to bring in plants and perform the ceremonial of watering; on the contrary, she went through a mimicry of the process, which was enough to satisfy the audience. The king may mount a chariot, but no effort is made to bring one for this purpose; he merely goes in[365]elaborate pantomime through the action of getting up off the ground, and the audience, trained and intelligent, realizes what has happened. At the beginning of theÇakuntalāthe gazelle which Duḥṣanta follows is not a real animal, but the Sūtradhāra tells us that the king is pursuing a gazelle, and the actor, who represents the monarch, by his eager gaze and his gestures reveals himself as in the act of seeking to shoot the deer. To pluck flowers is merely to imitate the movements of one who really does so, and an actress with any skill has no difficulty in persuading an audience by her marks of agitation that she is escaping from the attacks of a bee.There is thus no tedious attempt at realism, though the dramatists vary in the care with which they avoid the absurd in their use of conventions; the works of Bhāsa show doubtless an excessive tendency to allow of strain being placed on the credulity of the audience. The exits and entrances of the characters are often abrupt and unnatural, but the drama was not primarily intended as a realistic copy of events, and doubtless was not felt unsatisfactory by the audience. Nor, it may be remembered, has perfection in detail in any form of ceremonial ever made a strong appeal to Indian minds; in the most gorgeous celebrations there will occur, without exciting surprise or comment, strange deviations from western canons of good taste and elegance.To a limited extent, however, use was made of minor properties, which are classed under the generic style of model work (pusta).21TheNāṭyaçāstradistinguishes three forms of such objects; they may be made up (sandhima) from bamboos covered with skins or cloths; or mechanical means might be employed (vyājima); or merely clothes (veṣṭita) used. We hear of the making of an elephant in theUdayanacarita; theMṛcchakaṭikāowes its name to the toy cart which appears in it; theBālarāmāyaṇahas mechanical dolls, and doubtless there were represented houses, caves, chariots, rocks, horses, and so on; monsters with animal heads and many arms could be made of clay and bamboos, and covered with cloths; we are expressly told that weapons must not be made of hard material, but that[366]stocks of grass, bamboos, and lac may be made to serve, and naturally gestures served in lieu of hard blows.The dress22of the actors is carefully regulated, especially as regards colour, which evidently was regarded as an important item in matters of sentiment. Ascetics wear garments of rags or bark; those in charge in the harem red jackets, kings gay garments or, if there are portents described, garments without colour. Ābhīra maidens wear dark blue clothes; in other cases dirty or uncoloured garments are prescribed. Dirty clothes indicate madness, distraction, misery, or a journey; uncoloured garb, one engaged in worship or some solemn religious service, an interesting survival of antique custom, while gods, Dānavas, Gandharvas, Uragas, Yakṣas, and Rakṣases, as well as lovers and kings, normally wear gay clothing.Colour,23however, is by no means confined to garments; the actors are expected to adorn themselves with paint of hues appropriate to the rôles they play. There are, on one theory, four fundamental colours, white, blue-black, red, and yellow, from which others are developed, for instance pigeon colour by mixing the first two; a reddish yellow (gaura) from mixing the last two is also recorded. It or dark (çyāma) is given as suited for kings, while happiness is indicated by it. Kirātas, Barbaras, Andhras, Draviḍas, the people of Kāçi and Kosala, Pulindas, and the people of the Deccan are to be black (asita); the Çakas, Yavanas, Pahlavas, and Bālhikas24are to be reddish yellow; Pāñcālas, Çūrasenas, Māhiṣas, Uḍras, Māgadhas, An̄gas, Van̄gas, and Kalin̄gas are to be dark (çyāma), as also Vaiçyas and Çūdras in general, while Brahmins and Kṣatriyas are to be reddish-yellow.Naturally the hair25attracts attention; Piçācas, madmen, and Bhūtas wear it loose; the Vidūṣaka is bald; boys have three tufts of hair, and so also servants if it is not cut short; the maidens of Avantī, and usually those of Bengal, wear ringlets, in the case of women of the north it is worn high on the head, and otherwise plaits are usual. The beard may be bright in hue, dark, or bushy. There is also the same tendency to stereotype[367]the ornaments, made out of copper, mica, or wax, and the garlands carried by the various personages; Vidyādharīs, Yakṣīs, Apsarases and Nāgīs carry pearls and jewels, while the latter are at once recognizable by the snake’s hood rising over their heads, as are Yakṣas by a large tuft of hair.The dress and appearance of the actor thus serve in some measure to carry out his duty of representation (abhinaya), of presenting before our eyes the states orconditionsof the personage for whom he stands. This is the Āhāryābhinaya, the first of the four agencies enumerated by theNāṭyaçāstra. He has also to perform the duty of representation by speech (vācika), using his voice to convey the dramatist’s words, and by exhibitingin propria personathe appropriate physical counterparts of the feelings and emotions of the characters (sāttvikābhinaya). Finally, he has specially to concentrate on the expression by gesture (ān̄gikābhinaya) of the feelings which he is supposed to experience. In this regard most detailed rules are given, doubtless from the technique of a period when more importance attached to gestures than later seems natural. Each member of the body is singled out for description; deep significance lies in the mode in which the head is shaken, the eyes glance, the brows move; cheek, nose, lip, chin, and neck can all be used to convey subtle senses. The hands are invaluable for this purpose; the different manœuvres with the fingers can convey almost any possible combination of meanings to the person sufficiently acquainted with theNāṭyaçāstrato understand them. But other parts of the body down to the feet are valuable; great care is bestowed on their postures, and the gait is invaluable in distinguishing classes of persons and their deeds. Darkness need not artificially be induced; movements of hands and feet to indicate groping are enough; one set of movements shows the mounting of a chariot, another the climbing up to the top of a palace; if the garments are pulled up, the crossing of a river is plainly shown; if the motions of swimming are mimicked, clearly the river is too deep to wade; a dexterous movement of the hands shows that one is driving, and similarly one can mount an elephant or a horse.26[368]It is characteristic of the nature of the Indian theory that, while it descends into enormous detail, it leaves alone to all intents and purposes the obvious duty of defining precisely the relation of the varieties of representation described as Sāttvika and Ān̄gika. The true relation is that under the head of Sāttvika are described the physical states, which are deemed appropriate to feelings and emotions, while the Ān̄gika prescribes the precise physical movements which express most effectively both psychic states and physical movements, which cannot be conveniently presented on the stage. The division accordingly is unscientific, and, acute as is the investigation of theNāṭyaçāstrain detail, it is far from satisfying as a whole.The importance of such accessories to the representation as garlands, ornaments, and appropriate garments, is emphasized by Mātṛgupta, who admits a specific form of sentiment styled Nepathyarasa, a fact which illustrates the effect produced in the mind of the spectator by the details of themise-en-scène. The same impression may be derived from the elaboration of the stage directions in the dramas, comparable only to such as are given, for instance, in Mr. Bernard Shaw’s productions. It is clear that they were intended not only for the direction of the actors in actually performing one of the pieces, but as instruments to aid the reader of the drama in realizing mentally the form of the representation and in appreciating, therefore, the dramatic quality of what he studied. Moreover, we have independent evidence which aids us in seeing how complete these directions are. A fortunate chance has preserved in Dāmodaragupta’sKuṭṭanīmata,27written in the reign of Jayāpīḍa of Kashmir in the eighth centuryA.D., an account of the performance of theRatnāvalīof Harṣa. The description is incomplete, but it is perfectly clear that it was played exactly in accordance with the stage directions which have come down to us, embedded in the text of the drama as we have it.The actual performance of the play was preceded, as we have seen in describing the theory of the drama, by preliminaries, the essential aim of which was the securing of the favour of the gods for the play to be represented. Of the varied elements of the preliminaries special importance seems to have attached to the[369]praise of the world guardians (dikpālastuti), and the reverence paid to Indra’s banner. A reed with five knots is selected which is called Jarjara; the five sections are painted white, blue-black, yellow, red, and a mixture of hues; banners of every colour are tied to it, and the supplication is made to Gaṇeça, the god who removes obstacles and favours literature, and to the guardians of the quarters of the world.A religious aspect is given also to the mingling of the pigments, the materials employed being yellow arsenic, lamp black, and red among others. The arsenic is formally addressed as being created by Svayambhū for the purpose of serving as a pigment; then it is placed on a board with fragments of brick, the whole reduced to fine powder, and mingled, and then used as pigment.28The time of the performance is not in many cases stated, but in a number of plays, including theMālatīmādhava,Karṇasundarī, and the embryo drama in thePriyadarçikā, we find it assumed to be the moment when the sun is just appearing.29The beat of drum announces the beginning of the drama, the preliminaries, often reduced to little more than a vocal and instrumental concert of brief duration, are completed, and the benediction pronounced, to be followed by the prologue proper and the drama.[Contents]4.The AudienceA drama like the Sanskrit demanded the full attention of a cultivated audience, and it is assumed or expressly asserted, as in the dramas of Kālidāsa, Harṣa, and Bhavabhūti, that the spectators are critical and experienced. TheNāṭyaçāstra30requires from the ideal spectator (prekṣaka) keen susceptibility and excellent judgement, with ability to make his own the feelings and emotions of the characters depicted by the actors. But it is admitted that there are the usual degrees among the spectators, good, medium, and indifferent; the question of the success of a drama depends on the judgement of the critic[370](prāçnika), who is to possess every possible good quality to fit him for the delicate task. The audience, as it is to share the feelings of the characters, is expected to show them by the usual outward signs; laughter, tears, cries, hair standing on end, jumping up from their seats, clapping with the hands and other manifestations of pleasure, horror, fear, and other sentiments are both proper and natural.The rules for placing the patron at whose bidding the drama is performed, Sabhāpati, and his guests, are elaborate.31He sits himself on the Lion Throne, the equivalent of the royal box, with the ladies of his harem on the left, and on the right the personages of highest importance, such as the vassal princes of a great king like Harṣa. Behind the latter are the treasurer and other officers, and near them the learned men of the court, civil and religious, including the poets, and in their midst the astrologers and physicians. On the left again are the ministers and other courtiers; all around are maidens of the court. In front again of the king are Brahmins, behind the bearers of fans, radiant in youthful beauty. On the left in front are the reciters and panegyrists, eloquent and wise. Guards are present to protect the sacred person of the sovereign.How far the dramas were viewed by the public in general we cannot say; the rules regarding the play-house contemplate the presence of Çūdras, but that is a vague term, and may apply to a very restricted class of royal hangers on. We have the general rule32that barbarians, ignorant people, heretics, and those of low class should not be admitted, but such prescriptions mean very little. There must, it is clear, have been the utmost variation in the character of the audience according to the place and circumstances of representation. At great festivals, when plays were given in the temples, there must have been admission for as many as could be crowded in; in private exhibitions the audience may well have been more select. The fact that the dramas must have been largely unintelligible to all save a select few of the audience would not matter much; a drama was essentially a spectacle; in many cases its subject was perfectly familiar to the[371]audience, and the elaborate use of conventional signs must have been enough to aid many of the audience in following roughly the nature of the proceedings.When such dramatic exhibitions became rare we do not know; it is certain that in the eleventh century in Kashmir they were not uncommon; Kṣemendra advised aspirants to poetic fame to improve their taste by the study of such representations.33Doubtless the Mahomedan conquest seriously affected the vogue of the classical drama, which was obnoxious to Mahomedan fanaticism as being closely identified both with the national religion and the national spirit of India. The kings, who had been the main support of the actors and poets alike, disappeared from their thrones or suffered grave reverses in fortune. The tradition of dramatic performances gradually vanished. Other causes contributed to this end; the divorce between the language of the stage and that of the people steadily increasing with the passage of time made the Sanskrit drama more and more remote to the public, and the Mahomedans made it lose its position as the expression of the official and court life of the highest circles.34[373]1Bloch,Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903–4, pp. 123 ff.↑2ii; cf. JPASB. v. 353 ff.;Çilparatna(ed. TSS.), pp. 201 ff. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, p. 54.↑3For the Greek theatre, which presents certain points of similarity but many of difference, see Dorpfeld,Das griechische Theater; Haigh,Attic Theatre(3rd ed.); a brief summary is given in Norwood,Greek Tragedy, pp. 49 ff.↑4The theory of a transverse curtain (Wilson, I. lxviii) is not supported by evidence of any clear kind. Cf. p. 113, n. 1.↑5Weber, IS. xiv. 225. Cf. Lévi, TI. i. 374; ii. 62.↑6The Greek number was three, later five. The Chinese stage, which resembles the Indian in its primitive character, but has no curtain, has two doors, one for entry, one for exit; Ridgeway,Dramas, &c., pp. 274 f.↑7W. Crooke,The Tribes and Castes of the N. W. Provinces and Oudh, ii. 20 ff.↑8Hillebrandt, AID., p. 12; cf.naṭagrāma,Epigr. Ind.i. 381.↑9xxiv. 85 f.↑10Cf.Karpūramañjarī, i. 12/13.↑11xxvi.; cf. xii. 166 f.↑12Weber, IS. xiii. 493.↑13viii. 362; cf.Rāmāyaṇa, ii. 30. 8;Kuṭṭanīmata, 855.↑14vi. 1. 13.↑15xvi. 8.↑16ii. 1. 2. 13.↑17Kauṭilīya, p. 7.↑18Manu, viii. 65; Yājñ. ii. 70.↑19Manu, iv. 215; Yājñ. i. 161.↑20iii. 57.↑21N. xxi. 5 ff. Masks may have been used for animals, but not normally as in Greece; cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 137, n. 2.↑22N. xxi.↑23N. xxi. 62 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 388; ii. 69. Cf. theMahābhāṣya, iii. 1. 26; Yājñavalkya, iii. 162.↑24Also read Pāhravas and Bāhlikas. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 96 f.↑25N. xxi.↑26Cf. theAbhinayadarpaṇaof Nandikeçvara, trs. by A. Coomaraswamy and G. K. Duggirala, Cambridge, Mass., 1917.↑27856 ff. Cf. the accounts in theHarivaṅça, ii. 88–93.↑28Saṁgītadāmodara, 39.↑29Cf. Nīlakaṇṭha’s reason for the alleged abbreviation of theMṛcchakaṭikā(Lévi, TI. i. 210).↑30xxvii. 51 ff.; Lévi, TI. ii. 62 ff.↑31Saṁgītaratnākara, 1327 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 375 ff. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 54 f.↑32Tagore,Eight Principal Rasas, p. 61. That women as such were excluded (Wilson, ii. 212) cannot have held good for the early stage.↑33Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa, p. 15.↑34A certain revival of displays occurred in the nineteenth century; e.g. theCitrayajñaof Vaidyanātha Vācaspati Bhaṭṭācārya, written for the festival of Govinda by request of the Rājā of Nadiyā aboutA.D.1820. The Cakkyars of Malabar still act Çaktibhadra’sĀçcaryamañjarīand Kulaçekharavarman’s plays, as well as Act III of thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, under the style ofMantrān̄kanāṭaka, and theNāgānanda; JRAS. 1910, p. 637;Pratimānāṭaka(ed. TSS.), p. xl; A. K. and V. R. Pisharoti,Bulletin oftheSchool of Oriental Studies, III. i. 107 ff., who maintain the impossible view that Bhāsa’s plays are compilations or adaptations of the eighth century, or later, holding that theCārudattais an adaptation of theMṛcchakaṭikā(contrast p. 131), thePratimānāṭakais later than Kālidāsa, and theAvimārakathan Daṇḍin. The genealogy of Rāma in thePratimā(iv. 9 f.) is that of Kālidāsa, but is also Purāṇic, and Daṇḍin, of course, is not the inventor of the Kathā. Barnett (Bulletin, III. i. 35) accepts Pisharoti’s views, holding theNyāyaçāstraof Medhātithi (Pratimā, v. 8/9) to be theManubhāṣya(tenth century), but this is wholly against the context, and Barnett’s view is surely incompatible with the priority of theCārudattato theMṛcchakaṭikāwhich he admits, and the absence of Māhārāṣṭrī. Cf. also p. 341.↑

[358]

[Contents]XIVTHE INDIAN THEATRE[Contents]1.The TheatreThe Sanskrit drama of the theorists is, despite its complexity, essentially intended for performance, nor is there the slightest doubt that the early dramatists were anything but composers of plays meant only to be read. They were connoisseurs, we may be certain, in the merits which would accrue to their works from the accessories of the dance, music, song, and the attractions of acting; theVikramorvaçīmust, for instance, have had much of the attraction of an opera, and as a mere literary work loses seriously in attraction.On the other hand, the existence of regular theatres for the exhibition of drama is not assumed in the theorists. A drama was, it is clear, normally performed on an occasion of special rejoicing and solemnity, such as a festival of a god, or a royal marriage, or the celebration of a victory, and the place of performance thus naturally came to be the temple of the god or the palace of the king. We learn often in the drama and tales of the existence of dancing halls and music rooms in the royal palace where the ladies of the harem were taught these pleasing arts, and one of these could easily be adapted for a dramatic performance. But we have from the second century B.C. the remains of a cave which seems to have been used, if not for the performance of plays, at any rate for purposes of recitation of poems or some similar end; it is found in the Rāmgarh hill1in Chota Nagpur, and, although it is quite impossible to prove that it had anything to do with plays, it is interesting to note that theNāṭyaçāstrastates that the play-house should have the form of a mountain cave and two stories.[359]According to the Çāstra,2the play-house as made ready for performance may be of three types, the first for the gods, 108 hands (18 inches) long; the second rectangular, 64 hands long and 32 broad; the third triangular, 32 hands long, the second being praised on acoustic grounds. The house falls into two parts, the places for the audience and the stage. The auditorium is marked off by pillars, in front a white pillar for the seats for the Brahmins, then a red pillar for the Kṣatriyas, in the north-west a yellow pillar marks the seats for the Vaiçyas, while the Çūdras have a blue-black pillar in the north-east. The seats are of wood and bricks, and arranged in rows. In front beside the stage is a veranda with four pillars, apparently also for the use of spectators. In front of the spectators is the stage (ran̄ga), adorned with pictures and reliefs; it is eight hands square in the second form of play-house; its end is the head of the stage (ran̄gaçīrṣa), decorated by figures, and there offerings are made.3Behind4the stage is the painted curtain (paṭī,apaṭī,tiraskaraṇī,pratisīrā), to which the name Yavanikā (Prākrit, Javanikā) is given, denoting merely that the material is foreign, and forbidding any conclusion as to the Greek origin of the curtain itself or the theatre. When one enters hastily, the curtain is violently thrown aside (apaṭīkṣepa). Behind the curtain are the actors’ quarters (nepathyagṛha) or tiring rooms. Here are performed the sounds necessary to represent uproar and confusion which cannot be represented on the stage; here also are uttered the voices of gods and other persons whose presence on the stage is impossible or undesirable.The colour of the curtain is given in some authorities as necessarily in harmony with the dominant sentiment of the play, in accordance with the classification of sentiments already given, but others permit the use of red in every instance. Normally the entry of any character is effected by the drawing aside of the curtain by two maidens, whose beauty marks them out for this[360]employment (dhṛtir yavanikāyāḥ). The term Nepathya has suggested an erroneous deduction as to the relative elevation of the stage and the foyer, for it is conceivable that it denotes a descending (ni-patha) way, and it has been concluded5that it was, therefore, below the level of the stage. But the regular phrase of the entry of an actor on the stage (ran̄gāvataraṇa) would suggest exactly the opposite, a descent from the foyer to the stage. In the case of stages hastily put together, often for merely very temporary aims, it would clearly be absurd to expect any fixed practice, nor can we say what was the normal height of the stage platform. In the case of a play within a play, in theBālarāmāyaṇaof Rājaçekhara, we find that both a stage and a tiring room are erected on the original stage, though we may assume that these were of a very simple structure.The number of doors leading to the tiring room from the stage is regularly given as two,6and apparently the place of the orchestra was between them.[Contents]2.The ActorsThe normal term for actor is Naṭa, a term which has the wider sense of dancer or acrobat; terms like Bharata, or Bhārata, Cāraṇa,7Kuçīlava, Çailūṣa, or Çaubhika have interest practically only for the history of the drama. The chief actor, whose name Sūtradhāra doubtless denotes him as primarily the architect of the theatre, the man who secures the erection of the temporary stage, is occasionally styled ‘troop-head of actors (naṭagāmaṇi)’,8and he is essentially the instructor of the other actors in their art (nāṭyācārya), so that his title Sūtradhāra can be used topically as equivalent to Professor. For this high position his qualifications were to be numerous; he was supposed to be learned in all the arts and sciences, to be acquainted with the habits and customs of all lands, to combine the completeness of technical knowledge with practical skill, and to be possessed of all the[361]moral qualities which an Indian genius can enumerate. To him falls not merely the very important function of introducing the play, but also of taking one of the chief parts; thus he plays Vatsa in theRatnāvalī, and in theMālatīmādhavaKāmandakī, the nun, who powerfully affects the current of the drama. He is normally the husband of one of the actresses (naṭī), who aids him in the opening scene, and who is compelled, poor woman, to combine the arduous life of an actress with the domestic duty of looking after her husband’s material wants. She is represented as devoted to him, fasting to secure reunion in another life, preparing his meal and seeking to remove by her good works the dangers which threaten him, and compelled to play her parts, although anxious, as in theRatnāvalī, over the difficulty of securing the marriage of her daughter to a fiancé who has gone overseas, or, as in theJānakīpariṇaya, over the wickedness of another actor in seeking to take her daughter from her.The Sthāpaka, according to the theory, is to resemble in his attributes the Sūtradhāra; as we have seen, to what extent he really in the dramas known to us was employed as distinct from the Sūtradhāra, it is impossible to say; the name suggests that he aided him in the structure of the stage, and then in his actor’s duties. But there is no ground to assume that he really had disappeared as a living figure before the classical drama; the occasional mention of him in actual dramas as well as in the theory need not be artificial. We have, however, a much more common attendant of the Sūtradhāra in the Pāripārçvika, who appears in the prologue of many plays, and in addition acted the parts of persons of middle rank. He receives the orders of his master and passes them on to the other actors, and directs the operations of the chorus, as in theVeṇīsaṁhāra. He is addressed by his master as Mārṣa, and he greets him as Bhāva.The other actors, of whom there must often have been many in pieces with crowds introduced, are to have the qualities of the Sūtradhāra in as generous a measure as may be; they are divided, however, according to their qualifications into superior, medium, and third-rate actors.9The principal parts in any drama are, however, few; the king, the Vidūṣaka, the parasite, the heroine, and a companion are stock types. The division of[362]rôles is seldom shown in the prologues, whence are derived most of the details of our knowledge of actual performances. The Sūtradhāra in theRatnāvalīand thePriyadarçikāplays the part of Vatsa, his younger brother that of Yaugandharāyaṇa in the former play and that of Dṛḍhavarman in the latter; the Sūtradhāra and the Pāripārçvika take in theMālatīmādhavathe rôles of Kāmandakī and her pupil Avalokitā respectively. This taking of women’s parts by men is not by any means the normal practice; the Naṭī normally plays an important female part;10in the embryo drama in thePriyadarçikāwe find that the heroine’s part is played by Āraṇyikā, and the hero’s part was to have been performed by another girl Manoramā, but Vatsa, without the queen’s knowledge, insinuated himself into the scenein propria persona. In the legend of Bharata’s exhibition of theLakṣmīsvayaṁvarathe nymph Urvaçī is represented as playing the chief rôle, and in Dāmodaragupta’sKuṭṭanīmata, where an actual representation of theRatnāvalīis described, we find a woman in the rôle of the princess. TheNāṭyaçāstra11expressly admits of three modes of representation; the rôles may be filled by persons of appropriate sex and age; the rôles of the old may be taken by the young andvice versa; and the rôles of men may be played by women andvice versa. The taking of women’s parts by men has, curiously enough, a very early piece of evidence, for theMahābhāṣyamentions the word Bhrūkuṅsa, which was used to denote a man who made up as a female.12We are, it is clear, to conceive of the troupe of actors under the Sūtradhāra as ready to wander hither and thither in search of a favourable opportunity of exhibiting their powers as interpreters. The performance of a drama became, it is clear, in later times at any rate, a worthy adornment of a festive occasion such as a religious festival, the consecration of a king, a marriage, the taking possession of a town or a new estate, the return of a traveller, and the birth of a son. The best patrons of the actors might be kings, but there was evidently no lack of appreciation of their services among men of lesser rank but of large means. The later prologues give us details of the rivalry between different troupes. In theAnargharāghavathe actor declares that[363]he has come to exhibit a superior sort of drama to that played by a rival, and asserts that the dearest desire of a player is to satisfy the public and to win back the favour he has lost. Rājaçekhara twice introduces the motive of a competition between actors to win the hand of an actress who has been offered by her father in marriage to the most adept of her suitors. Jayadeva invents a pleasing tale of an actor who won great success and reputation, inducing a comedian of the south to claim his name and steal his renown. The actor in revenge went south, and, striking up a partnership with a singer, won both repute and profit in the courts of the Deccan.The reputation of actors and actresses was low and unsavoury; they are reputed to live on the price of their wives’ honour (jāyājīva,rūpājīva), and Manu imposes only a minor penalty on illicit relations with the wife of an actor on the score of their willingness to hand over their wives to others and profit by their dishonour.13TheMahābhāṣyagives equally clear testimony of the lack of chastity among the actresses or their predecessors.14The law book of Viṣṇu15treats them as Āyogavas, a mixed caste representing the fruit of alliances, improper and undesirable, between Çūdras and the daughters of the Vaiçya; to be an actor or a teacher of the art is ranked as a lesser sin in Baudhāyana.16The Kuçīlava is described as a Çūdra, who ought to be banished;17his evidence, and indeed that of any actor, is not to be accepted in law,18and Brahmins may not accept food offered by an actor,19a fact attested by the Sūtradhāra in the prologue to theMṛcchakaṭikāwho can find no one in Ujjayinī to accept his hospitality. Actors again are classed in Manu with wrestlers and boxers. An actress was often, if not necessarily, one of the great army of courtesans; Vasantasenā, the hetaera of theCārudattaandMṛcchakaṭikā, is herself skilled in acting, and has in her household maidens learning to act, and Daṇḍin includes lessons in this art in his account of the education of the perfect courtesan in theDaçakumāracarita.On the other hand, we have traces of a higher side of the[364]profession, which doubtless can quite fairly be connected with the gradual elevation of the drama from humble origins to the rank of an elaborate and refined poetry. Bharata, the alleged founder of theNāṭyaçāstra, ranks as a Muni, or holy sage, and Urvaçī, a divine nymph, is treated as an actress. What is more important is that Bāṇa definitely enumerates in theHarṣacaritaamong his friends an actor and an actress; Bhartṛhari20refers to their friendship with kings, which is also attested in the legend of Vasumitra, son of Kālidāsa’s hero Agnimitra, who was slain amidst his actors by his enemy. Kālidāsa himself represents Agnivarṇa, king of Raghu’s line, as pleased to compete with actors in their own speciality. Vatsa, in thePriyadarçikā, is prepared to play a part without question, and Bhavabhūti in two of his prefaces asserts his friendship with his actors. In truth, men who could effectively declaim the stanzas of Bhavabhūti must have possessed both education and culture in a high degree, and have been very different from the acrobats and jugglers, dancers, and others whose humble occupations account for the censures of the law books and theArthaçāstra.[Contents]3.The Mise-en-scène and Representation of the DramaWe have no trace in the drama of any attempt to introduce scenery into the representation. The curtain remained as a background throughout the entertainment, and it was in the main left to the imagination of the spectator, aided by the descriptions of the poet, to conceive the beauties of the situation supposed to be presented to his eyes. We have for this conclusive proof, if any were needed beyond the silence of the text-books, in the abundant stage directions which accompany the text of our dramas, and are found even in the fragments of Açvaghoṣa. When actions such as watering a plant were ascribed to an actress, no serious effort was made to bring in plants and perform the ceremonial of watering; on the contrary, she went through a mimicry of the process, which was enough to satisfy the audience. The king may mount a chariot, but no effort is made to bring one for this purpose; he merely goes in[365]elaborate pantomime through the action of getting up off the ground, and the audience, trained and intelligent, realizes what has happened. At the beginning of theÇakuntalāthe gazelle which Duḥṣanta follows is not a real animal, but the Sūtradhāra tells us that the king is pursuing a gazelle, and the actor, who represents the monarch, by his eager gaze and his gestures reveals himself as in the act of seeking to shoot the deer. To pluck flowers is merely to imitate the movements of one who really does so, and an actress with any skill has no difficulty in persuading an audience by her marks of agitation that she is escaping from the attacks of a bee.There is thus no tedious attempt at realism, though the dramatists vary in the care with which they avoid the absurd in their use of conventions; the works of Bhāsa show doubtless an excessive tendency to allow of strain being placed on the credulity of the audience. The exits and entrances of the characters are often abrupt and unnatural, but the drama was not primarily intended as a realistic copy of events, and doubtless was not felt unsatisfactory by the audience. Nor, it may be remembered, has perfection in detail in any form of ceremonial ever made a strong appeal to Indian minds; in the most gorgeous celebrations there will occur, without exciting surprise or comment, strange deviations from western canons of good taste and elegance.To a limited extent, however, use was made of minor properties, which are classed under the generic style of model work (pusta).21TheNāṭyaçāstradistinguishes three forms of such objects; they may be made up (sandhima) from bamboos covered with skins or cloths; or mechanical means might be employed (vyājima); or merely clothes (veṣṭita) used. We hear of the making of an elephant in theUdayanacarita; theMṛcchakaṭikāowes its name to the toy cart which appears in it; theBālarāmāyaṇahas mechanical dolls, and doubtless there were represented houses, caves, chariots, rocks, horses, and so on; monsters with animal heads and many arms could be made of clay and bamboos, and covered with cloths; we are expressly told that weapons must not be made of hard material, but that[366]stocks of grass, bamboos, and lac may be made to serve, and naturally gestures served in lieu of hard blows.The dress22of the actors is carefully regulated, especially as regards colour, which evidently was regarded as an important item in matters of sentiment. Ascetics wear garments of rags or bark; those in charge in the harem red jackets, kings gay garments or, if there are portents described, garments without colour. Ābhīra maidens wear dark blue clothes; in other cases dirty or uncoloured garments are prescribed. Dirty clothes indicate madness, distraction, misery, or a journey; uncoloured garb, one engaged in worship or some solemn religious service, an interesting survival of antique custom, while gods, Dānavas, Gandharvas, Uragas, Yakṣas, and Rakṣases, as well as lovers and kings, normally wear gay clothing.Colour,23however, is by no means confined to garments; the actors are expected to adorn themselves with paint of hues appropriate to the rôles they play. There are, on one theory, four fundamental colours, white, blue-black, red, and yellow, from which others are developed, for instance pigeon colour by mixing the first two; a reddish yellow (gaura) from mixing the last two is also recorded. It or dark (çyāma) is given as suited for kings, while happiness is indicated by it. Kirātas, Barbaras, Andhras, Draviḍas, the people of Kāçi and Kosala, Pulindas, and the people of the Deccan are to be black (asita); the Çakas, Yavanas, Pahlavas, and Bālhikas24are to be reddish yellow; Pāñcālas, Çūrasenas, Māhiṣas, Uḍras, Māgadhas, An̄gas, Van̄gas, and Kalin̄gas are to be dark (çyāma), as also Vaiçyas and Çūdras in general, while Brahmins and Kṣatriyas are to be reddish-yellow.Naturally the hair25attracts attention; Piçācas, madmen, and Bhūtas wear it loose; the Vidūṣaka is bald; boys have three tufts of hair, and so also servants if it is not cut short; the maidens of Avantī, and usually those of Bengal, wear ringlets, in the case of women of the north it is worn high on the head, and otherwise plaits are usual. The beard may be bright in hue, dark, or bushy. There is also the same tendency to stereotype[367]the ornaments, made out of copper, mica, or wax, and the garlands carried by the various personages; Vidyādharīs, Yakṣīs, Apsarases and Nāgīs carry pearls and jewels, while the latter are at once recognizable by the snake’s hood rising over their heads, as are Yakṣas by a large tuft of hair.The dress and appearance of the actor thus serve in some measure to carry out his duty of representation (abhinaya), of presenting before our eyes the states orconditionsof the personage for whom he stands. This is the Āhāryābhinaya, the first of the four agencies enumerated by theNāṭyaçāstra. He has also to perform the duty of representation by speech (vācika), using his voice to convey the dramatist’s words, and by exhibitingin propria personathe appropriate physical counterparts of the feelings and emotions of the characters (sāttvikābhinaya). Finally, he has specially to concentrate on the expression by gesture (ān̄gikābhinaya) of the feelings which he is supposed to experience. In this regard most detailed rules are given, doubtless from the technique of a period when more importance attached to gestures than later seems natural. Each member of the body is singled out for description; deep significance lies in the mode in which the head is shaken, the eyes glance, the brows move; cheek, nose, lip, chin, and neck can all be used to convey subtle senses. The hands are invaluable for this purpose; the different manœuvres with the fingers can convey almost any possible combination of meanings to the person sufficiently acquainted with theNāṭyaçāstrato understand them. But other parts of the body down to the feet are valuable; great care is bestowed on their postures, and the gait is invaluable in distinguishing classes of persons and their deeds. Darkness need not artificially be induced; movements of hands and feet to indicate groping are enough; one set of movements shows the mounting of a chariot, another the climbing up to the top of a palace; if the garments are pulled up, the crossing of a river is plainly shown; if the motions of swimming are mimicked, clearly the river is too deep to wade; a dexterous movement of the hands shows that one is driving, and similarly one can mount an elephant or a horse.26[368]It is characteristic of the nature of the Indian theory that, while it descends into enormous detail, it leaves alone to all intents and purposes the obvious duty of defining precisely the relation of the varieties of representation described as Sāttvika and Ān̄gika. The true relation is that under the head of Sāttvika are described the physical states, which are deemed appropriate to feelings and emotions, while the Ān̄gika prescribes the precise physical movements which express most effectively both psychic states and physical movements, which cannot be conveniently presented on the stage. The division accordingly is unscientific, and, acute as is the investigation of theNāṭyaçāstrain detail, it is far from satisfying as a whole.The importance of such accessories to the representation as garlands, ornaments, and appropriate garments, is emphasized by Mātṛgupta, who admits a specific form of sentiment styled Nepathyarasa, a fact which illustrates the effect produced in the mind of the spectator by the details of themise-en-scène. The same impression may be derived from the elaboration of the stage directions in the dramas, comparable only to such as are given, for instance, in Mr. Bernard Shaw’s productions. It is clear that they were intended not only for the direction of the actors in actually performing one of the pieces, but as instruments to aid the reader of the drama in realizing mentally the form of the representation and in appreciating, therefore, the dramatic quality of what he studied. Moreover, we have independent evidence which aids us in seeing how complete these directions are. A fortunate chance has preserved in Dāmodaragupta’sKuṭṭanīmata,27written in the reign of Jayāpīḍa of Kashmir in the eighth centuryA.D., an account of the performance of theRatnāvalīof Harṣa. The description is incomplete, but it is perfectly clear that it was played exactly in accordance with the stage directions which have come down to us, embedded in the text of the drama as we have it.The actual performance of the play was preceded, as we have seen in describing the theory of the drama, by preliminaries, the essential aim of which was the securing of the favour of the gods for the play to be represented. Of the varied elements of the preliminaries special importance seems to have attached to the[369]praise of the world guardians (dikpālastuti), and the reverence paid to Indra’s banner. A reed with five knots is selected which is called Jarjara; the five sections are painted white, blue-black, yellow, red, and a mixture of hues; banners of every colour are tied to it, and the supplication is made to Gaṇeça, the god who removes obstacles and favours literature, and to the guardians of the quarters of the world.A religious aspect is given also to the mingling of the pigments, the materials employed being yellow arsenic, lamp black, and red among others. The arsenic is formally addressed as being created by Svayambhū for the purpose of serving as a pigment; then it is placed on a board with fragments of brick, the whole reduced to fine powder, and mingled, and then used as pigment.28The time of the performance is not in many cases stated, but in a number of plays, including theMālatīmādhava,Karṇasundarī, and the embryo drama in thePriyadarçikā, we find it assumed to be the moment when the sun is just appearing.29The beat of drum announces the beginning of the drama, the preliminaries, often reduced to little more than a vocal and instrumental concert of brief duration, are completed, and the benediction pronounced, to be followed by the prologue proper and the drama.[Contents]4.The AudienceA drama like the Sanskrit demanded the full attention of a cultivated audience, and it is assumed or expressly asserted, as in the dramas of Kālidāsa, Harṣa, and Bhavabhūti, that the spectators are critical and experienced. TheNāṭyaçāstra30requires from the ideal spectator (prekṣaka) keen susceptibility and excellent judgement, with ability to make his own the feelings and emotions of the characters depicted by the actors. But it is admitted that there are the usual degrees among the spectators, good, medium, and indifferent; the question of the success of a drama depends on the judgement of the critic[370](prāçnika), who is to possess every possible good quality to fit him for the delicate task. The audience, as it is to share the feelings of the characters, is expected to show them by the usual outward signs; laughter, tears, cries, hair standing on end, jumping up from their seats, clapping with the hands and other manifestations of pleasure, horror, fear, and other sentiments are both proper and natural.The rules for placing the patron at whose bidding the drama is performed, Sabhāpati, and his guests, are elaborate.31He sits himself on the Lion Throne, the equivalent of the royal box, with the ladies of his harem on the left, and on the right the personages of highest importance, such as the vassal princes of a great king like Harṣa. Behind the latter are the treasurer and other officers, and near them the learned men of the court, civil and religious, including the poets, and in their midst the astrologers and physicians. On the left again are the ministers and other courtiers; all around are maidens of the court. In front again of the king are Brahmins, behind the bearers of fans, radiant in youthful beauty. On the left in front are the reciters and panegyrists, eloquent and wise. Guards are present to protect the sacred person of the sovereign.How far the dramas were viewed by the public in general we cannot say; the rules regarding the play-house contemplate the presence of Çūdras, but that is a vague term, and may apply to a very restricted class of royal hangers on. We have the general rule32that barbarians, ignorant people, heretics, and those of low class should not be admitted, but such prescriptions mean very little. There must, it is clear, have been the utmost variation in the character of the audience according to the place and circumstances of representation. At great festivals, when plays were given in the temples, there must have been admission for as many as could be crowded in; in private exhibitions the audience may well have been more select. The fact that the dramas must have been largely unintelligible to all save a select few of the audience would not matter much; a drama was essentially a spectacle; in many cases its subject was perfectly familiar to the[371]audience, and the elaborate use of conventional signs must have been enough to aid many of the audience in following roughly the nature of the proceedings.When such dramatic exhibitions became rare we do not know; it is certain that in the eleventh century in Kashmir they were not uncommon; Kṣemendra advised aspirants to poetic fame to improve their taste by the study of such representations.33Doubtless the Mahomedan conquest seriously affected the vogue of the classical drama, which was obnoxious to Mahomedan fanaticism as being closely identified both with the national religion and the national spirit of India. The kings, who had been the main support of the actors and poets alike, disappeared from their thrones or suffered grave reverses in fortune. The tradition of dramatic performances gradually vanished. Other causes contributed to this end; the divorce between the language of the stage and that of the people steadily increasing with the passage of time made the Sanskrit drama more and more remote to the public, and the Mahomedans made it lose its position as the expression of the official and court life of the highest circles.34[373]1Bloch,Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903–4, pp. 123 ff.↑2ii; cf. JPASB. v. 353 ff.;Çilparatna(ed. TSS.), pp. 201 ff. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, p. 54.↑3For the Greek theatre, which presents certain points of similarity but many of difference, see Dorpfeld,Das griechische Theater; Haigh,Attic Theatre(3rd ed.); a brief summary is given in Norwood,Greek Tragedy, pp. 49 ff.↑4The theory of a transverse curtain (Wilson, I. lxviii) is not supported by evidence of any clear kind. Cf. p. 113, n. 1.↑5Weber, IS. xiv. 225. Cf. Lévi, TI. i. 374; ii. 62.↑6The Greek number was three, later five. The Chinese stage, which resembles the Indian in its primitive character, but has no curtain, has two doors, one for entry, one for exit; Ridgeway,Dramas, &c., pp. 274 f.↑7W. Crooke,The Tribes and Castes of the N. W. Provinces and Oudh, ii. 20 ff.↑8Hillebrandt, AID., p. 12; cf.naṭagrāma,Epigr. Ind.i. 381.↑9xxiv. 85 f.↑10Cf.Karpūramañjarī, i. 12/13.↑11xxvi.; cf. xii. 166 f.↑12Weber, IS. xiii. 493.↑13viii. 362; cf.Rāmāyaṇa, ii. 30. 8;Kuṭṭanīmata, 855.↑14vi. 1. 13.↑15xvi. 8.↑16ii. 1. 2. 13.↑17Kauṭilīya, p. 7.↑18Manu, viii. 65; Yājñ. ii. 70.↑19Manu, iv. 215; Yājñ. i. 161.↑20iii. 57.↑21N. xxi. 5 ff. Masks may have been used for animals, but not normally as in Greece; cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 137, n. 2.↑22N. xxi.↑23N. xxi. 62 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 388; ii. 69. Cf. theMahābhāṣya, iii. 1. 26; Yājñavalkya, iii. 162.↑24Also read Pāhravas and Bāhlikas. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 96 f.↑25N. xxi.↑26Cf. theAbhinayadarpaṇaof Nandikeçvara, trs. by A. Coomaraswamy and G. K. Duggirala, Cambridge, Mass., 1917.↑27856 ff. Cf. the accounts in theHarivaṅça, ii. 88–93.↑28Saṁgītadāmodara, 39.↑29Cf. Nīlakaṇṭha’s reason for the alleged abbreviation of theMṛcchakaṭikā(Lévi, TI. i. 210).↑30xxvii. 51 ff.; Lévi, TI. ii. 62 ff.↑31Saṁgītaratnākara, 1327 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 375 ff. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 54 f.↑32Tagore,Eight Principal Rasas, p. 61. That women as such were excluded (Wilson, ii. 212) cannot have held good for the early stage.↑33Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa, p. 15.↑34A certain revival of displays occurred in the nineteenth century; e.g. theCitrayajñaof Vaidyanātha Vācaspati Bhaṭṭācārya, written for the festival of Govinda by request of the Rājā of Nadiyā aboutA.D.1820. The Cakkyars of Malabar still act Çaktibhadra’sĀçcaryamañjarīand Kulaçekharavarman’s plays, as well as Act III of thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, under the style ofMantrān̄kanāṭaka, and theNāgānanda; JRAS. 1910, p. 637;Pratimānāṭaka(ed. TSS.), p. xl; A. K. and V. R. Pisharoti,Bulletin oftheSchool of Oriental Studies, III. i. 107 ff., who maintain the impossible view that Bhāsa’s plays are compilations or adaptations of the eighth century, or later, holding that theCārudattais an adaptation of theMṛcchakaṭikā(contrast p. 131), thePratimānāṭakais later than Kālidāsa, and theAvimārakathan Daṇḍin. The genealogy of Rāma in thePratimā(iv. 9 f.) is that of Kālidāsa, but is also Purāṇic, and Daṇḍin, of course, is not the inventor of the Kathā. Barnett (Bulletin, III. i. 35) accepts Pisharoti’s views, holding theNyāyaçāstraof Medhātithi (Pratimā, v. 8/9) to be theManubhāṣya(tenth century), but this is wholly against the context, and Barnett’s view is surely incompatible with the priority of theCārudattato theMṛcchakaṭikāwhich he admits, and the absence of Māhārāṣṭrī. Cf. also p. 341.↑

XIVTHE INDIAN THEATRE

[Contents]1.The TheatreThe Sanskrit drama of the theorists is, despite its complexity, essentially intended for performance, nor is there the slightest doubt that the early dramatists were anything but composers of plays meant only to be read. They were connoisseurs, we may be certain, in the merits which would accrue to their works from the accessories of the dance, music, song, and the attractions of acting; theVikramorvaçīmust, for instance, have had much of the attraction of an opera, and as a mere literary work loses seriously in attraction.On the other hand, the existence of regular theatres for the exhibition of drama is not assumed in the theorists. A drama was, it is clear, normally performed on an occasion of special rejoicing and solemnity, such as a festival of a god, or a royal marriage, or the celebration of a victory, and the place of performance thus naturally came to be the temple of the god or the palace of the king. We learn often in the drama and tales of the existence of dancing halls and music rooms in the royal palace where the ladies of the harem were taught these pleasing arts, and one of these could easily be adapted for a dramatic performance. But we have from the second century B.C. the remains of a cave which seems to have been used, if not for the performance of plays, at any rate for purposes of recitation of poems or some similar end; it is found in the Rāmgarh hill1in Chota Nagpur, and, although it is quite impossible to prove that it had anything to do with plays, it is interesting to note that theNāṭyaçāstrastates that the play-house should have the form of a mountain cave and two stories.[359]According to the Çāstra,2the play-house as made ready for performance may be of three types, the first for the gods, 108 hands (18 inches) long; the second rectangular, 64 hands long and 32 broad; the third triangular, 32 hands long, the second being praised on acoustic grounds. The house falls into two parts, the places for the audience and the stage. The auditorium is marked off by pillars, in front a white pillar for the seats for the Brahmins, then a red pillar for the Kṣatriyas, in the north-west a yellow pillar marks the seats for the Vaiçyas, while the Çūdras have a blue-black pillar in the north-east. The seats are of wood and bricks, and arranged in rows. In front beside the stage is a veranda with four pillars, apparently also for the use of spectators. In front of the spectators is the stage (ran̄ga), adorned with pictures and reliefs; it is eight hands square in the second form of play-house; its end is the head of the stage (ran̄gaçīrṣa), decorated by figures, and there offerings are made.3Behind4the stage is the painted curtain (paṭī,apaṭī,tiraskaraṇī,pratisīrā), to which the name Yavanikā (Prākrit, Javanikā) is given, denoting merely that the material is foreign, and forbidding any conclusion as to the Greek origin of the curtain itself or the theatre. When one enters hastily, the curtain is violently thrown aside (apaṭīkṣepa). Behind the curtain are the actors’ quarters (nepathyagṛha) or tiring rooms. Here are performed the sounds necessary to represent uproar and confusion which cannot be represented on the stage; here also are uttered the voices of gods and other persons whose presence on the stage is impossible or undesirable.The colour of the curtain is given in some authorities as necessarily in harmony with the dominant sentiment of the play, in accordance with the classification of sentiments already given, but others permit the use of red in every instance. Normally the entry of any character is effected by the drawing aside of the curtain by two maidens, whose beauty marks them out for this[360]employment (dhṛtir yavanikāyāḥ). The term Nepathya has suggested an erroneous deduction as to the relative elevation of the stage and the foyer, for it is conceivable that it denotes a descending (ni-patha) way, and it has been concluded5that it was, therefore, below the level of the stage. But the regular phrase of the entry of an actor on the stage (ran̄gāvataraṇa) would suggest exactly the opposite, a descent from the foyer to the stage. In the case of stages hastily put together, often for merely very temporary aims, it would clearly be absurd to expect any fixed practice, nor can we say what was the normal height of the stage platform. In the case of a play within a play, in theBālarāmāyaṇaof Rājaçekhara, we find that both a stage and a tiring room are erected on the original stage, though we may assume that these were of a very simple structure.The number of doors leading to the tiring room from the stage is regularly given as two,6and apparently the place of the orchestra was between them.[Contents]2.The ActorsThe normal term for actor is Naṭa, a term which has the wider sense of dancer or acrobat; terms like Bharata, or Bhārata, Cāraṇa,7Kuçīlava, Çailūṣa, or Çaubhika have interest practically only for the history of the drama. The chief actor, whose name Sūtradhāra doubtless denotes him as primarily the architect of the theatre, the man who secures the erection of the temporary stage, is occasionally styled ‘troop-head of actors (naṭagāmaṇi)’,8and he is essentially the instructor of the other actors in their art (nāṭyācārya), so that his title Sūtradhāra can be used topically as equivalent to Professor. For this high position his qualifications were to be numerous; he was supposed to be learned in all the arts and sciences, to be acquainted with the habits and customs of all lands, to combine the completeness of technical knowledge with practical skill, and to be possessed of all the[361]moral qualities which an Indian genius can enumerate. To him falls not merely the very important function of introducing the play, but also of taking one of the chief parts; thus he plays Vatsa in theRatnāvalī, and in theMālatīmādhavaKāmandakī, the nun, who powerfully affects the current of the drama. He is normally the husband of one of the actresses (naṭī), who aids him in the opening scene, and who is compelled, poor woman, to combine the arduous life of an actress with the domestic duty of looking after her husband’s material wants. She is represented as devoted to him, fasting to secure reunion in another life, preparing his meal and seeking to remove by her good works the dangers which threaten him, and compelled to play her parts, although anxious, as in theRatnāvalī, over the difficulty of securing the marriage of her daughter to a fiancé who has gone overseas, or, as in theJānakīpariṇaya, over the wickedness of another actor in seeking to take her daughter from her.The Sthāpaka, according to the theory, is to resemble in his attributes the Sūtradhāra; as we have seen, to what extent he really in the dramas known to us was employed as distinct from the Sūtradhāra, it is impossible to say; the name suggests that he aided him in the structure of the stage, and then in his actor’s duties. But there is no ground to assume that he really had disappeared as a living figure before the classical drama; the occasional mention of him in actual dramas as well as in the theory need not be artificial. We have, however, a much more common attendant of the Sūtradhāra in the Pāripārçvika, who appears in the prologue of many plays, and in addition acted the parts of persons of middle rank. He receives the orders of his master and passes them on to the other actors, and directs the operations of the chorus, as in theVeṇīsaṁhāra. He is addressed by his master as Mārṣa, and he greets him as Bhāva.The other actors, of whom there must often have been many in pieces with crowds introduced, are to have the qualities of the Sūtradhāra in as generous a measure as may be; they are divided, however, according to their qualifications into superior, medium, and third-rate actors.9The principal parts in any drama are, however, few; the king, the Vidūṣaka, the parasite, the heroine, and a companion are stock types. The division of[362]rôles is seldom shown in the prologues, whence are derived most of the details of our knowledge of actual performances. The Sūtradhāra in theRatnāvalīand thePriyadarçikāplays the part of Vatsa, his younger brother that of Yaugandharāyaṇa in the former play and that of Dṛḍhavarman in the latter; the Sūtradhāra and the Pāripārçvika take in theMālatīmādhavathe rôles of Kāmandakī and her pupil Avalokitā respectively. This taking of women’s parts by men is not by any means the normal practice; the Naṭī normally plays an important female part;10in the embryo drama in thePriyadarçikāwe find that the heroine’s part is played by Āraṇyikā, and the hero’s part was to have been performed by another girl Manoramā, but Vatsa, without the queen’s knowledge, insinuated himself into the scenein propria persona. In the legend of Bharata’s exhibition of theLakṣmīsvayaṁvarathe nymph Urvaçī is represented as playing the chief rôle, and in Dāmodaragupta’sKuṭṭanīmata, where an actual representation of theRatnāvalīis described, we find a woman in the rôle of the princess. TheNāṭyaçāstra11expressly admits of three modes of representation; the rôles may be filled by persons of appropriate sex and age; the rôles of the old may be taken by the young andvice versa; and the rôles of men may be played by women andvice versa. The taking of women’s parts by men has, curiously enough, a very early piece of evidence, for theMahābhāṣyamentions the word Bhrūkuṅsa, which was used to denote a man who made up as a female.12We are, it is clear, to conceive of the troupe of actors under the Sūtradhāra as ready to wander hither and thither in search of a favourable opportunity of exhibiting their powers as interpreters. The performance of a drama became, it is clear, in later times at any rate, a worthy adornment of a festive occasion such as a religious festival, the consecration of a king, a marriage, the taking possession of a town or a new estate, the return of a traveller, and the birth of a son. The best patrons of the actors might be kings, but there was evidently no lack of appreciation of their services among men of lesser rank but of large means. The later prologues give us details of the rivalry between different troupes. In theAnargharāghavathe actor declares that[363]he has come to exhibit a superior sort of drama to that played by a rival, and asserts that the dearest desire of a player is to satisfy the public and to win back the favour he has lost. Rājaçekhara twice introduces the motive of a competition between actors to win the hand of an actress who has been offered by her father in marriage to the most adept of her suitors. Jayadeva invents a pleasing tale of an actor who won great success and reputation, inducing a comedian of the south to claim his name and steal his renown. The actor in revenge went south, and, striking up a partnership with a singer, won both repute and profit in the courts of the Deccan.The reputation of actors and actresses was low and unsavoury; they are reputed to live on the price of their wives’ honour (jāyājīva,rūpājīva), and Manu imposes only a minor penalty on illicit relations with the wife of an actor on the score of their willingness to hand over their wives to others and profit by their dishonour.13TheMahābhāṣyagives equally clear testimony of the lack of chastity among the actresses or their predecessors.14The law book of Viṣṇu15treats them as Āyogavas, a mixed caste representing the fruit of alliances, improper and undesirable, between Çūdras and the daughters of the Vaiçya; to be an actor or a teacher of the art is ranked as a lesser sin in Baudhāyana.16The Kuçīlava is described as a Çūdra, who ought to be banished;17his evidence, and indeed that of any actor, is not to be accepted in law,18and Brahmins may not accept food offered by an actor,19a fact attested by the Sūtradhāra in the prologue to theMṛcchakaṭikāwho can find no one in Ujjayinī to accept his hospitality. Actors again are classed in Manu with wrestlers and boxers. An actress was often, if not necessarily, one of the great army of courtesans; Vasantasenā, the hetaera of theCārudattaandMṛcchakaṭikā, is herself skilled in acting, and has in her household maidens learning to act, and Daṇḍin includes lessons in this art in his account of the education of the perfect courtesan in theDaçakumāracarita.On the other hand, we have traces of a higher side of the[364]profession, which doubtless can quite fairly be connected with the gradual elevation of the drama from humble origins to the rank of an elaborate and refined poetry. Bharata, the alleged founder of theNāṭyaçāstra, ranks as a Muni, or holy sage, and Urvaçī, a divine nymph, is treated as an actress. What is more important is that Bāṇa definitely enumerates in theHarṣacaritaamong his friends an actor and an actress; Bhartṛhari20refers to their friendship with kings, which is also attested in the legend of Vasumitra, son of Kālidāsa’s hero Agnimitra, who was slain amidst his actors by his enemy. Kālidāsa himself represents Agnivarṇa, king of Raghu’s line, as pleased to compete with actors in their own speciality. Vatsa, in thePriyadarçikā, is prepared to play a part without question, and Bhavabhūti in two of his prefaces asserts his friendship with his actors. In truth, men who could effectively declaim the stanzas of Bhavabhūti must have possessed both education and culture in a high degree, and have been very different from the acrobats and jugglers, dancers, and others whose humble occupations account for the censures of the law books and theArthaçāstra.[Contents]3.The Mise-en-scène and Representation of the DramaWe have no trace in the drama of any attempt to introduce scenery into the representation. The curtain remained as a background throughout the entertainment, and it was in the main left to the imagination of the spectator, aided by the descriptions of the poet, to conceive the beauties of the situation supposed to be presented to his eyes. We have for this conclusive proof, if any were needed beyond the silence of the text-books, in the abundant stage directions which accompany the text of our dramas, and are found even in the fragments of Açvaghoṣa. When actions such as watering a plant were ascribed to an actress, no serious effort was made to bring in plants and perform the ceremonial of watering; on the contrary, she went through a mimicry of the process, which was enough to satisfy the audience. The king may mount a chariot, but no effort is made to bring one for this purpose; he merely goes in[365]elaborate pantomime through the action of getting up off the ground, and the audience, trained and intelligent, realizes what has happened. At the beginning of theÇakuntalāthe gazelle which Duḥṣanta follows is not a real animal, but the Sūtradhāra tells us that the king is pursuing a gazelle, and the actor, who represents the monarch, by his eager gaze and his gestures reveals himself as in the act of seeking to shoot the deer. To pluck flowers is merely to imitate the movements of one who really does so, and an actress with any skill has no difficulty in persuading an audience by her marks of agitation that she is escaping from the attacks of a bee.There is thus no tedious attempt at realism, though the dramatists vary in the care with which they avoid the absurd in their use of conventions; the works of Bhāsa show doubtless an excessive tendency to allow of strain being placed on the credulity of the audience. The exits and entrances of the characters are often abrupt and unnatural, but the drama was not primarily intended as a realistic copy of events, and doubtless was not felt unsatisfactory by the audience. Nor, it may be remembered, has perfection in detail in any form of ceremonial ever made a strong appeal to Indian minds; in the most gorgeous celebrations there will occur, without exciting surprise or comment, strange deviations from western canons of good taste and elegance.To a limited extent, however, use was made of minor properties, which are classed under the generic style of model work (pusta).21TheNāṭyaçāstradistinguishes three forms of such objects; they may be made up (sandhima) from bamboos covered with skins or cloths; or mechanical means might be employed (vyājima); or merely clothes (veṣṭita) used. We hear of the making of an elephant in theUdayanacarita; theMṛcchakaṭikāowes its name to the toy cart which appears in it; theBālarāmāyaṇahas mechanical dolls, and doubtless there were represented houses, caves, chariots, rocks, horses, and so on; monsters with animal heads and many arms could be made of clay and bamboos, and covered with cloths; we are expressly told that weapons must not be made of hard material, but that[366]stocks of grass, bamboos, and lac may be made to serve, and naturally gestures served in lieu of hard blows.The dress22of the actors is carefully regulated, especially as regards colour, which evidently was regarded as an important item in matters of sentiment. Ascetics wear garments of rags or bark; those in charge in the harem red jackets, kings gay garments or, if there are portents described, garments without colour. Ābhīra maidens wear dark blue clothes; in other cases dirty or uncoloured garments are prescribed. Dirty clothes indicate madness, distraction, misery, or a journey; uncoloured garb, one engaged in worship or some solemn religious service, an interesting survival of antique custom, while gods, Dānavas, Gandharvas, Uragas, Yakṣas, and Rakṣases, as well as lovers and kings, normally wear gay clothing.Colour,23however, is by no means confined to garments; the actors are expected to adorn themselves with paint of hues appropriate to the rôles they play. There are, on one theory, four fundamental colours, white, blue-black, red, and yellow, from which others are developed, for instance pigeon colour by mixing the first two; a reddish yellow (gaura) from mixing the last two is also recorded. It or dark (çyāma) is given as suited for kings, while happiness is indicated by it. Kirātas, Barbaras, Andhras, Draviḍas, the people of Kāçi and Kosala, Pulindas, and the people of the Deccan are to be black (asita); the Çakas, Yavanas, Pahlavas, and Bālhikas24are to be reddish yellow; Pāñcālas, Çūrasenas, Māhiṣas, Uḍras, Māgadhas, An̄gas, Van̄gas, and Kalin̄gas are to be dark (çyāma), as also Vaiçyas and Çūdras in general, while Brahmins and Kṣatriyas are to be reddish-yellow.Naturally the hair25attracts attention; Piçācas, madmen, and Bhūtas wear it loose; the Vidūṣaka is bald; boys have three tufts of hair, and so also servants if it is not cut short; the maidens of Avantī, and usually those of Bengal, wear ringlets, in the case of women of the north it is worn high on the head, and otherwise plaits are usual. The beard may be bright in hue, dark, or bushy. There is also the same tendency to stereotype[367]the ornaments, made out of copper, mica, or wax, and the garlands carried by the various personages; Vidyādharīs, Yakṣīs, Apsarases and Nāgīs carry pearls and jewels, while the latter are at once recognizable by the snake’s hood rising over their heads, as are Yakṣas by a large tuft of hair.The dress and appearance of the actor thus serve in some measure to carry out his duty of representation (abhinaya), of presenting before our eyes the states orconditionsof the personage for whom he stands. This is the Āhāryābhinaya, the first of the four agencies enumerated by theNāṭyaçāstra. He has also to perform the duty of representation by speech (vācika), using his voice to convey the dramatist’s words, and by exhibitingin propria personathe appropriate physical counterparts of the feelings and emotions of the characters (sāttvikābhinaya). Finally, he has specially to concentrate on the expression by gesture (ān̄gikābhinaya) of the feelings which he is supposed to experience. In this regard most detailed rules are given, doubtless from the technique of a period when more importance attached to gestures than later seems natural. Each member of the body is singled out for description; deep significance lies in the mode in which the head is shaken, the eyes glance, the brows move; cheek, nose, lip, chin, and neck can all be used to convey subtle senses. The hands are invaluable for this purpose; the different manœuvres with the fingers can convey almost any possible combination of meanings to the person sufficiently acquainted with theNāṭyaçāstrato understand them. But other parts of the body down to the feet are valuable; great care is bestowed on their postures, and the gait is invaluable in distinguishing classes of persons and their deeds. Darkness need not artificially be induced; movements of hands and feet to indicate groping are enough; one set of movements shows the mounting of a chariot, another the climbing up to the top of a palace; if the garments are pulled up, the crossing of a river is plainly shown; if the motions of swimming are mimicked, clearly the river is too deep to wade; a dexterous movement of the hands shows that one is driving, and similarly one can mount an elephant or a horse.26[368]It is characteristic of the nature of the Indian theory that, while it descends into enormous detail, it leaves alone to all intents and purposes the obvious duty of defining precisely the relation of the varieties of representation described as Sāttvika and Ān̄gika. The true relation is that under the head of Sāttvika are described the physical states, which are deemed appropriate to feelings and emotions, while the Ān̄gika prescribes the precise physical movements which express most effectively both psychic states and physical movements, which cannot be conveniently presented on the stage. The division accordingly is unscientific, and, acute as is the investigation of theNāṭyaçāstrain detail, it is far from satisfying as a whole.The importance of such accessories to the representation as garlands, ornaments, and appropriate garments, is emphasized by Mātṛgupta, who admits a specific form of sentiment styled Nepathyarasa, a fact which illustrates the effect produced in the mind of the spectator by the details of themise-en-scène. The same impression may be derived from the elaboration of the stage directions in the dramas, comparable only to such as are given, for instance, in Mr. Bernard Shaw’s productions. It is clear that they were intended not only for the direction of the actors in actually performing one of the pieces, but as instruments to aid the reader of the drama in realizing mentally the form of the representation and in appreciating, therefore, the dramatic quality of what he studied. Moreover, we have independent evidence which aids us in seeing how complete these directions are. A fortunate chance has preserved in Dāmodaragupta’sKuṭṭanīmata,27written in the reign of Jayāpīḍa of Kashmir in the eighth centuryA.D., an account of the performance of theRatnāvalīof Harṣa. The description is incomplete, but it is perfectly clear that it was played exactly in accordance with the stage directions which have come down to us, embedded in the text of the drama as we have it.The actual performance of the play was preceded, as we have seen in describing the theory of the drama, by preliminaries, the essential aim of which was the securing of the favour of the gods for the play to be represented. Of the varied elements of the preliminaries special importance seems to have attached to the[369]praise of the world guardians (dikpālastuti), and the reverence paid to Indra’s banner. A reed with five knots is selected which is called Jarjara; the five sections are painted white, blue-black, yellow, red, and a mixture of hues; banners of every colour are tied to it, and the supplication is made to Gaṇeça, the god who removes obstacles and favours literature, and to the guardians of the quarters of the world.A religious aspect is given also to the mingling of the pigments, the materials employed being yellow arsenic, lamp black, and red among others. The arsenic is formally addressed as being created by Svayambhū for the purpose of serving as a pigment; then it is placed on a board with fragments of brick, the whole reduced to fine powder, and mingled, and then used as pigment.28The time of the performance is not in many cases stated, but in a number of plays, including theMālatīmādhava,Karṇasundarī, and the embryo drama in thePriyadarçikā, we find it assumed to be the moment when the sun is just appearing.29The beat of drum announces the beginning of the drama, the preliminaries, often reduced to little more than a vocal and instrumental concert of brief duration, are completed, and the benediction pronounced, to be followed by the prologue proper and the drama.[Contents]4.The AudienceA drama like the Sanskrit demanded the full attention of a cultivated audience, and it is assumed or expressly asserted, as in the dramas of Kālidāsa, Harṣa, and Bhavabhūti, that the spectators are critical and experienced. TheNāṭyaçāstra30requires from the ideal spectator (prekṣaka) keen susceptibility and excellent judgement, with ability to make his own the feelings and emotions of the characters depicted by the actors. But it is admitted that there are the usual degrees among the spectators, good, medium, and indifferent; the question of the success of a drama depends on the judgement of the critic[370](prāçnika), who is to possess every possible good quality to fit him for the delicate task. The audience, as it is to share the feelings of the characters, is expected to show them by the usual outward signs; laughter, tears, cries, hair standing on end, jumping up from their seats, clapping with the hands and other manifestations of pleasure, horror, fear, and other sentiments are both proper and natural.The rules for placing the patron at whose bidding the drama is performed, Sabhāpati, and his guests, are elaborate.31He sits himself on the Lion Throne, the equivalent of the royal box, with the ladies of his harem on the left, and on the right the personages of highest importance, such as the vassal princes of a great king like Harṣa. Behind the latter are the treasurer and other officers, and near them the learned men of the court, civil and religious, including the poets, and in their midst the astrologers and physicians. On the left again are the ministers and other courtiers; all around are maidens of the court. In front again of the king are Brahmins, behind the bearers of fans, radiant in youthful beauty. On the left in front are the reciters and panegyrists, eloquent and wise. Guards are present to protect the sacred person of the sovereign.How far the dramas were viewed by the public in general we cannot say; the rules regarding the play-house contemplate the presence of Çūdras, but that is a vague term, and may apply to a very restricted class of royal hangers on. We have the general rule32that barbarians, ignorant people, heretics, and those of low class should not be admitted, but such prescriptions mean very little. There must, it is clear, have been the utmost variation in the character of the audience according to the place and circumstances of representation. At great festivals, when plays were given in the temples, there must have been admission for as many as could be crowded in; in private exhibitions the audience may well have been more select. The fact that the dramas must have been largely unintelligible to all save a select few of the audience would not matter much; a drama was essentially a spectacle; in many cases its subject was perfectly familiar to the[371]audience, and the elaborate use of conventional signs must have been enough to aid many of the audience in following roughly the nature of the proceedings.When such dramatic exhibitions became rare we do not know; it is certain that in the eleventh century in Kashmir they were not uncommon; Kṣemendra advised aspirants to poetic fame to improve their taste by the study of such representations.33Doubtless the Mahomedan conquest seriously affected the vogue of the classical drama, which was obnoxious to Mahomedan fanaticism as being closely identified both with the national religion and the national spirit of India. The kings, who had been the main support of the actors and poets alike, disappeared from their thrones or suffered grave reverses in fortune. The tradition of dramatic performances gradually vanished. Other causes contributed to this end; the divorce between the language of the stage and that of the people steadily increasing with the passage of time made the Sanskrit drama more and more remote to the public, and the Mahomedans made it lose its position as the expression of the official and court life of the highest circles.34[373]

[Contents]1.The TheatreThe Sanskrit drama of the theorists is, despite its complexity, essentially intended for performance, nor is there the slightest doubt that the early dramatists were anything but composers of plays meant only to be read. They were connoisseurs, we may be certain, in the merits which would accrue to their works from the accessories of the dance, music, song, and the attractions of acting; theVikramorvaçīmust, for instance, have had much of the attraction of an opera, and as a mere literary work loses seriously in attraction.On the other hand, the existence of regular theatres for the exhibition of drama is not assumed in the theorists. A drama was, it is clear, normally performed on an occasion of special rejoicing and solemnity, such as a festival of a god, or a royal marriage, or the celebration of a victory, and the place of performance thus naturally came to be the temple of the god or the palace of the king. We learn often in the drama and tales of the existence of dancing halls and music rooms in the royal palace where the ladies of the harem were taught these pleasing arts, and one of these could easily be adapted for a dramatic performance. But we have from the second century B.C. the remains of a cave which seems to have been used, if not for the performance of plays, at any rate for purposes of recitation of poems or some similar end; it is found in the Rāmgarh hill1in Chota Nagpur, and, although it is quite impossible to prove that it had anything to do with plays, it is interesting to note that theNāṭyaçāstrastates that the play-house should have the form of a mountain cave and two stories.[359]According to the Çāstra,2the play-house as made ready for performance may be of three types, the first for the gods, 108 hands (18 inches) long; the second rectangular, 64 hands long and 32 broad; the third triangular, 32 hands long, the second being praised on acoustic grounds. The house falls into two parts, the places for the audience and the stage. The auditorium is marked off by pillars, in front a white pillar for the seats for the Brahmins, then a red pillar for the Kṣatriyas, in the north-west a yellow pillar marks the seats for the Vaiçyas, while the Çūdras have a blue-black pillar in the north-east. The seats are of wood and bricks, and arranged in rows. In front beside the stage is a veranda with four pillars, apparently also for the use of spectators. In front of the spectators is the stage (ran̄ga), adorned with pictures and reliefs; it is eight hands square in the second form of play-house; its end is the head of the stage (ran̄gaçīrṣa), decorated by figures, and there offerings are made.3Behind4the stage is the painted curtain (paṭī,apaṭī,tiraskaraṇī,pratisīrā), to which the name Yavanikā (Prākrit, Javanikā) is given, denoting merely that the material is foreign, and forbidding any conclusion as to the Greek origin of the curtain itself or the theatre. When one enters hastily, the curtain is violently thrown aside (apaṭīkṣepa). Behind the curtain are the actors’ quarters (nepathyagṛha) or tiring rooms. Here are performed the sounds necessary to represent uproar and confusion which cannot be represented on the stage; here also are uttered the voices of gods and other persons whose presence on the stage is impossible or undesirable.The colour of the curtain is given in some authorities as necessarily in harmony with the dominant sentiment of the play, in accordance with the classification of sentiments already given, but others permit the use of red in every instance. Normally the entry of any character is effected by the drawing aside of the curtain by two maidens, whose beauty marks them out for this[360]employment (dhṛtir yavanikāyāḥ). The term Nepathya has suggested an erroneous deduction as to the relative elevation of the stage and the foyer, for it is conceivable that it denotes a descending (ni-patha) way, and it has been concluded5that it was, therefore, below the level of the stage. But the regular phrase of the entry of an actor on the stage (ran̄gāvataraṇa) would suggest exactly the opposite, a descent from the foyer to the stage. In the case of stages hastily put together, often for merely very temporary aims, it would clearly be absurd to expect any fixed practice, nor can we say what was the normal height of the stage platform. In the case of a play within a play, in theBālarāmāyaṇaof Rājaçekhara, we find that both a stage and a tiring room are erected on the original stage, though we may assume that these were of a very simple structure.The number of doors leading to the tiring room from the stage is regularly given as two,6and apparently the place of the orchestra was between them.

1.The Theatre

The Sanskrit drama of the theorists is, despite its complexity, essentially intended for performance, nor is there the slightest doubt that the early dramatists were anything but composers of plays meant only to be read. They were connoisseurs, we may be certain, in the merits which would accrue to their works from the accessories of the dance, music, song, and the attractions of acting; theVikramorvaçīmust, for instance, have had much of the attraction of an opera, and as a mere literary work loses seriously in attraction.On the other hand, the existence of regular theatres for the exhibition of drama is not assumed in the theorists. A drama was, it is clear, normally performed on an occasion of special rejoicing and solemnity, such as a festival of a god, or a royal marriage, or the celebration of a victory, and the place of performance thus naturally came to be the temple of the god or the palace of the king. We learn often in the drama and tales of the existence of dancing halls and music rooms in the royal palace where the ladies of the harem were taught these pleasing arts, and one of these could easily be adapted for a dramatic performance. But we have from the second century B.C. the remains of a cave which seems to have been used, if not for the performance of plays, at any rate for purposes of recitation of poems or some similar end; it is found in the Rāmgarh hill1in Chota Nagpur, and, although it is quite impossible to prove that it had anything to do with plays, it is interesting to note that theNāṭyaçāstrastates that the play-house should have the form of a mountain cave and two stories.[359]According to the Çāstra,2the play-house as made ready for performance may be of three types, the first for the gods, 108 hands (18 inches) long; the second rectangular, 64 hands long and 32 broad; the third triangular, 32 hands long, the second being praised on acoustic grounds. The house falls into two parts, the places for the audience and the stage. The auditorium is marked off by pillars, in front a white pillar for the seats for the Brahmins, then a red pillar for the Kṣatriyas, in the north-west a yellow pillar marks the seats for the Vaiçyas, while the Çūdras have a blue-black pillar in the north-east. The seats are of wood and bricks, and arranged in rows. In front beside the stage is a veranda with four pillars, apparently also for the use of spectators. In front of the spectators is the stage (ran̄ga), adorned with pictures and reliefs; it is eight hands square in the second form of play-house; its end is the head of the stage (ran̄gaçīrṣa), decorated by figures, and there offerings are made.3Behind4the stage is the painted curtain (paṭī,apaṭī,tiraskaraṇī,pratisīrā), to which the name Yavanikā (Prākrit, Javanikā) is given, denoting merely that the material is foreign, and forbidding any conclusion as to the Greek origin of the curtain itself or the theatre. When one enters hastily, the curtain is violently thrown aside (apaṭīkṣepa). Behind the curtain are the actors’ quarters (nepathyagṛha) or tiring rooms. Here are performed the sounds necessary to represent uproar and confusion which cannot be represented on the stage; here also are uttered the voices of gods and other persons whose presence on the stage is impossible or undesirable.The colour of the curtain is given in some authorities as necessarily in harmony with the dominant sentiment of the play, in accordance with the classification of sentiments already given, but others permit the use of red in every instance. Normally the entry of any character is effected by the drawing aside of the curtain by two maidens, whose beauty marks them out for this[360]employment (dhṛtir yavanikāyāḥ). The term Nepathya has suggested an erroneous deduction as to the relative elevation of the stage and the foyer, for it is conceivable that it denotes a descending (ni-patha) way, and it has been concluded5that it was, therefore, below the level of the stage. But the regular phrase of the entry of an actor on the stage (ran̄gāvataraṇa) would suggest exactly the opposite, a descent from the foyer to the stage. In the case of stages hastily put together, often for merely very temporary aims, it would clearly be absurd to expect any fixed practice, nor can we say what was the normal height of the stage platform. In the case of a play within a play, in theBālarāmāyaṇaof Rājaçekhara, we find that both a stage and a tiring room are erected on the original stage, though we may assume that these were of a very simple structure.The number of doors leading to the tiring room from the stage is regularly given as two,6and apparently the place of the orchestra was between them.

The Sanskrit drama of the theorists is, despite its complexity, essentially intended for performance, nor is there the slightest doubt that the early dramatists were anything but composers of plays meant only to be read. They were connoisseurs, we may be certain, in the merits which would accrue to their works from the accessories of the dance, music, song, and the attractions of acting; theVikramorvaçīmust, for instance, have had much of the attraction of an opera, and as a mere literary work loses seriously in attraction.

On the other hand, the existence of regular theatres for the exhibition of drama is not assumed in the theorists. A drama was, it is clear, normally performed on an occasion of special rejoicing and solemnity, such as a festival of a god, or a royal marriage, or the celebration of a victory, and the place of performance thus naturally came to be the temple of the god or the palace of the king. We learn often in the drama and tales of the existence of dancing halls and music rooms in the royal palace where the ladies of the harem were taught these pleasing arts, and one of these could easily be adapted for a dramatic performance. But we have from the second century B.C. the remains of a cave which seems to have been used, if not for the performance of plays, at any rate for purposes of recitation of poems or some similar end; it is found in the Rāmgarh hill1in Chota Nagpur, and, although it is quite impossible to prove that it had anything to do with plays, it is interesting to note that theNāṭyaçāstrastates that the play-house should have the form of a mountain cave and two stories.[359]

According to the Çāstra,2the play-house as made ready for performance may be of three types, the first for the gods, 108 hands (18 inches) long; the second rectangular, 64 hands long and 32 broad; the third triangular, 32 hands long, the second being praised on acoustic grounds. The house falls into two parts, the places for the audience and the stage. The auditorium is marked off by pillars, in front a white pillar for the seats for the Brahmins, then a red pillar for the Kṣatriyas, in the north-west a yellow pillar marks the seats for the Vaiçyas, while the Çūdras have a blue-black pillar in the north-east. The seats are of wood and bricks, and arranged in rows. In front beside the stage is a veranda with four pillars, apparently also for the use of spectators. In front of the spectators is the stage (ran̄ga), adorned with pictures and reliefs; it is eight hands square in the second form of play-house; its end is the head of the stage (ran̄gaçīrṣa), decorated by figures, and there offerings are made.3

Behind4the stage is the painted curtain (paṭī,apaṭī,tiraskaraṇī,pratisīrā), to which the name Yavanikā (Prākrit, Javanikā) is given, denoting merely that the material is foreign, and forbidding any conclusion as to the Greek origin of the curtain itself or the theatre. When one enters hastily, the curtain is violently thrown aside (apaṭīkṣepa). Behind the curtain are the actors’ quarters (nepathyagṛha) or tiring rooms. Here are performed the sounds necessary to represent uproar and confusion which cannot be represented on the stage; here also are uttered the voices of gods and other persons whose presence on the stage is impossible or undesirable.

The colour of the curtain is given in some authorities as necessarily in harmony with the dominant sentiment of the play, in accordance with the classification of sentiments already given, but others permit the use of red in every instance. Normally the entry of any character is effected by the drawing aside of the curtain by two maidens, whose beauty marks them out for this[360]employment (dhṛtir yavanikāyāḥ). The term Nepathya has suggested an erroneous deduction as to the relative elevation of the stage and the foyer, for it is conceivable that it denotes a descending (ni-patha) way, and it has been concluded5that it was, therefore, below the level of the stage. But the regular phrase of the entry of an actor on the stage (ran̄gāvataraṇa) would suggest exactly the opposite, a descent from the foyer to the stage. In the case of stages hastily put together, often for merely very temporary aims, it would clearly be absurd to expect any fixed practice, nor can we say what was the normal height of the stage platform. In the case of a play within a play, in theBālarāmāyaṇaof Rājaçekhara, we find that both a stage and a tiring room are erected on the original stage, though we may assume that these were of a very simple structure.

The number of doors leading to the tiring room from the stage is regularly given as two,6and apparently the place of the orchestra was between them.

[Contents]2.The ActorsThe normal term for actor is Naṭa, a term which has the wider sense of dancer or acrobat; terms like Bharata, or Bhārata, Cāraṇa,7Kuçīlava, Çailūṣa, or Çaubhika have interest practically only for the history of the drama. The chief actor, whose name Sūtradhāra doubtless denotes him as primarily the architect of the theatre, the man who secures the erection of the temporary stage, is occasionally styled ‘troop-head of actors (naṭagāmaṇi)’,8and he is essentially the instructor of the other actors in their art (nāṭyācārya), so that his title Sūtradhāra can be used topically as equivalent to Professor. For this high position his qualifications were to be numerous; he was supposed to be learned in all the arts and sciences, to be acquainted with the habits and customs of all lands, to combine the completeness of technical knowledge with practical skill, and to be possessed of all the[361]moral qualities which an Indian genius can enumerate. To him falls not merely the very important function of introducing the play, but also of taking one of the chief parts; thus he plays Vatsa in theRatnāvalī, and in theMālatīmādhavaKāmandakī, the nun, who powerfully affects the current of the drama. He is normally the husband of one of the actresses (naṭī), who aids him in the opening scene, and who is compelled, poor woman, to combine the arduous life of an actress with the domestic duty of looking after her husband’s material wants. She is represented as devoted to him, fasting to secure reunion in another life, preparing his meal and seeking to remove by her good works the dangers which threaten him, and compelled to play her parts, although anxious, as in theRatnāvalī, over the difficulty of securing the marriage of her daughter to a fiancé who has gone overseas, or, as in theJānakīpariṇaya, over the wickedness of another actor in seeking to take her daughter from her.The Sthāpaka, according to the theory, is to resemble in his attributes the Sūtradhāra; as we have seen, to what extent he really in the dramas known to us was employed as distinct from the Sūtradhāra, it is impossible to say; the name suggests that he aided him in the structure of the stage, and then in his actor’s duties. But there is no ground to assume that he really had disappeared as a living figure before the classical drama; the occasional mention of him in actual dramas as well as in the theory need not be artificial. We have, however, a much more common attendant of the Sūtradhāra in the Pāripārçvika, who appears in the prologue of many plays, and in addition acted the parts of persons of middle rank. He receives the orders of his master and passes them on to the other actors, and directs the operations of the chorus, as in theVeṇīsaṁhāra. He is addressed by his master as Mārṣa, and he greets him as Bhāva.The other actors, of whom there must often have been many in pieces with crowds introduced, are to have the qualities of the Sūtradhāra in as generous a measure as may be; they are divided, however, according to their qualifications into superior, medium, and third-rate actors.9The principal parts in any drama are, however, few; the king, the Vidūṣaka, the parasite, the heroine, and a companion are stock types. The division of[362]rôles is seldom shown in the prologues, whence are derived most of the details of our knowledge of actual performances. The Sūtradhāra in theRatnāvalīand thePriyadarçikāplays the part of Vatsa, his younger brother that of Yaugandharāyaṇa in the former play and that of Dṛḍhavarman in the latter; the Sūtradhāra and the Pāripārçvika take in theMālatīmādhavathe rôles of Kāmandakī and her pupil Avalokitā respectively. This taking of women’s parts by men is not by any means the normal practice; the Naṭī normally plays an important female part;10in the embryo drama in thePriyadarçikāwe find that the heroine’s part is played by Āraṇyikā, and the hero’s part was to have been performed by another girl Manoramā, but Vatsa, without the queen’s knowledge, insinuated himself into the scenein propria persona. In the legend of Bharata’s exhibition of theLakṣmīsvayaṁvarathe nymph Urvaçī is represented as playing the chief rôle, and in Dāmodaragupta’sKuṭṭanīmata, where an actual representation of theRatnāvalīis described, we find a woman in the rôle of the princess. TheNāṭyaçāstra11expressly admits of three modes of representation; the rôles may be filled by persons of appropriate sex and age; the rôles of the old may be taken by the young andvice versa; and the rôles of men may be played by women andvice versa. The taking of women’s parts by men has, curiously enough, a very early piece of evidence, for theMahābhāṣyamentions the word Bhrūkuṅsa, which was used to denote a man who made up as a female.12We are, it is clear, to conceive of the troupe of actors under the Sūtradhāra as ready to wander hither and thither in search of a favourable opportunity of exhibiting their powers as interpreters. The performance of a drama became, it is clear, in later times at any rate, a worthy adornment of a festive occasion such as a religious festival, the consecration of a king, a marriage, the taking possession of a town or a new estate, the return of a traveller, and the birth of a son. The best patrons of the actors might be kings, but there was evidently no lack of appreciation of their services among men of lesser rank but of large means. The later prologues give us details of the rivalry between different troupes. In theAnargharāghavathe actor declares that[363]he has come to exhibit a superior sort of drama to that played by a rival, and asserts that the dearest desire of a player is to satisfy the public and to win back the favour he has lost. Rājaçekhara twice introduces the motive of a competition between actors to win the hand of an actress who has been offered by her father in marriage to the most adept of her suitors. Jayadeva invents a pleasing tale of an actor who won great success and reputation, inducing a comedian of the south to claim his name and steal his renown. The actor in revenge went south, and, striking up a partnership with a singer, won both repute and profit in the courts of the Deccan.The reputation of actors and actresses was low and unsavoury; they are reputed to live on the price of their wives’ honour (jāyājīva,rūpājīva), and Manu imposes only a minor penalty on illicit relations with the wife of an actor on the score of their willingness to hand over their wives to others and profit by their dishonour.13TheMahābhāṣyagives equally clear testimony of the lack of chastity among the actresses or their predecessors.14The law book of Viṣṇu15treats them as Āyogavas, a mixed caste representing the fruit of alliances, improper and undesirable, between Çūdras and the daughters of the Vaiçya; to be an actor or a teacher of the art is ranked as a lesser sin in Baudhāyana.16The Kuçīlava is described as a Çūdra, who ought to be banished;17his evidence, and indeed that of any actor, is not to be accepted in law,18and Brahmins may not accept food offered by an actor,19a fact attested by the Sūtradhāra in the prologue to theMṛcchakaṭikāwho can find no one in Ujjayinī to accept his hospitality. Actors again are classed in Manu with wrestlers and boxers. An actress was often, if not necessarily, one of the great army of courtesans; Vasantasenā, the hetaera of theCārudattaandMṛcchakaṭikā, is herself skilled in acting, and has in her household maidens learning to act, and Daṇḍin includes lessons in this art in his account of the education of the perfect courtesan in theDaçakumāracarita.On the other hand, we have traces of a higher side of the[364]profession, which doubtless can quite fairly be connected with the gradual elevation of the drama from humble origins to the rank of an elaborate and refined poetry. Bharata, the alleged founder of theNāṭyaçāstra, ranks as a Muni, or holy sage, and Urvaçī, a divine nymph, is treated as an actress. What is more important is that Bāṇa definitely enumerates in theHarṣacaritaamong his friends an actor and an actress; Bhartṛhari20refers to their friendship with kings, which is also attested in the legend of Vasumitra, son of Kālidāsa’s hero Agnimitra, who was slain amidst his actors by his enemy. Kālidāsa himself represents Agnivarṇa, king of Raghu’s line, as pleased to compete with actors in their own speciality. Vatsa, in thePriyadarçikā, is prepared to play a part without question, and Bhavabhūti in two of his prefaces asserts his friendship with his actors. In truth, men who could effectively declaim the stanzas of Bhavabhūti must have possessed both education and culture in a high degree, and have been very different from the acrobats and jugglers, dancers, and others whose humble occupations account for the censures of the law books and theArthaçāstra.

2.The Actors

The normal term for actor is Naṭa, a term which has the wider sense of dancer or acrobat; terms like Bharata, or Bhārata, Cāraṇa,7Kuçīlava, Çailūṣa, or Çaubhika have interest practically only for the history of the drama. The chief actor, whose name Sūtradhāra doubtless denotes him as primarily the architect of the theatre, the man who secures the erection of the temporary stage, is occasionally styled ‘troop-head of actors (naṭagāmaṇi)’,8and he is essentially the instructor of the other actors in their art (nāṭyācārya), so that his title Sūtradhāra can be used topically as equivalent to Professor. For this high position his qualifications were to be numerous; he was supposed to be learned in all the arts and sciences, to be acquainted with the habits and customs of all lands, to combine the completeness of technical knowledge with practical skill, and to be possessed of all the[361]moral qualities which an Indian genius can enumerate. To him falls not merely the very important function of introducing the play, but also of taking one of the chief parts; thus he plays Vatsa in theRatnāvalī, and in theMālatīmādhavaKāmandakī, the nun, who powerfully affects the current of the drama. He is normally the husband of one of the actresses (naṭī), who aids him in the opening scene, and who is compelled, poor woman, to combine the arduous life of an actress with the domestic duty of looking after her husband’s material wants. She is represented as devoted to him, fasting to secure reunion in another life, preparing his meal and seeking to remove by her good works the dangers which threaten him, and compelled to play her parts, although anxious, as in theRatnāvalī, over the difficulty of securing the marriage of her daughter to a fiancé who has gone overseas, or, as in theJānakīpariṇaya, over the wickedness of another actor in seeking to take her daughter from her.The Sthāpaka, according to the theory, is to resemble in his attributes the Sūtradhāra; as we have seen, to what extent he really in the dramas known to us was employed as distinct from the Sūtradhāra, it is impossible to say; the name suggests that he aided him in the structure of the stage, and then in his actor’s duties. But there is no ground to assume that he really had disappeared as a living figure before the classical drama; the occasional mention of him in actual dramas as well as in the theory need not be artificial. We have, however, a much more common attendant of the Sūtradhāra in the Pāripārçvika, who appears in the prologue of many plays, and in addition acted the parts of persons of middle rank. He receives the orders of his master and passes them on to the other actors, and directs the operations of the chorus, as in theVeṇīsaṁhāra. He is addressed by his master as Mārṣa, and he greets him as Bhāva.The other actors, of whom there must often have been many in pieces with crowds introduced, are to have the qualities of the Sūtradhāra in as generous a measure as may be; they are divided, however, according to their qualifications into superior, medium, and third-rate actors.9The principal parts in any drama are, however, few; the king, the Vidūṣaka, the parasite, the heroine, and a companion are stock types. The division of[362]rôles is seldom shown in the prologues, whence are derived most of the details of our knowledge of actual performances. The Sūtradhāra in theRatnāvalīand thePriyadarçikāplays the part of Vatsa, his younger brother that of Yaugandharāyaṇa in the former play and that of Dṛḍhavarman in the latter; the Sūtradhāra and the Pāripārçvika take in theMālatīmādhavathe rôles of Kāmandakī and her pupil Avalokitā respectively. This taking of women’s parts by men is not by any means the normal practice; the Naṭī normally plays an important female part;10in the embryo drama in thePriyadarçikāwe find that the heroine’s part is played by Āraṇyikā, and the hero’s part was to have been performed by another girl Manoramā, but Vatsa, without the queen’s knowledge, insinuated himself into the scenein propria persona. In the legend of Bharata’s exhibition of theLakṣmīsvayaṁvarathe nymph Urvaçī is represented as playing the chief rôle, and in Dāmodaragupta’sKuṭṭanīmata, where an actual representation of theRatnāvalīis described, we find a woman in the rôle of the princess. TheNāṭyaçāstra11expressly admits of three modes of representation; the rôles may be filled by persons of appropriate sex and age; the rôles of the old may be taken by the young andvice versa; and the rôles of men may be played by women andvice versa. The taking of women’s parts by men has, curiously enough, a very early piece of evidence, for theMahābhāṣyamentions the word Bhrūkuṅsa, which was used to denote a man who made up as a female.12We are, it is clear, to conceive of the troupe of actors under the Sūtradhāra as ready to wander hither and thither in search of a favourable opportunity of exhibiting their powers as interpreters. The performance of a drama became, it is clear, in later times at any rate, a worthy adornment of a festive occasion such as a religious festival, the consecration of a king, a marriage, the taking possession of a town or a new estate, the return of a traveller, and the birth of a son. The best patrons of the actors might be kings, but there was evidently no lack of appreciation of their services among men of lesser rank but of large means. The later prologues give us details of the rivalry between different troupes. In theAnargharāghavathe actor declares that[363]he has come to exhibit a superior sort of drama to that played by a rival, and asserts that the dearest desire of a player is to satisfy the public and to win back the favour he has lost. Rājaçekhara twice introduces the motive of a competition between actors to win the hand of an actress who has been offered by her father in marriage to the most adept of her suitors. Jayadeva invents a pleasing tale of an actor who won great success and reputation, inducing a comedian of the south to claim his name and steal his renown. The actor in revenge went south, and, striking up a partnership with a singer, won both repute and profit in the courts of the Deccan.The reputation of actors and actresses was low and unsavoury; they are reputed to live on the price of their wives’ honour (jāyājīva,rūpājīva), and Manu imposes only a minor penalty on illicit relations with the wife of an actor on the score of their willingness to hand over their wives to others and profit by their dishonour.13TheMahābhāṣyagives equally clear testimony of the lack of chastity among the actresses or their predecessors.14The law book of Viṣṇu15treats them as Āyogavas, a mixed caste representing the fruit of alliances, improper and undesirable, between Çūdras and the daughters of the Vaiçya; to be an actor or a teacher of the art is ranked as a lesser sin in Baudhāyana.16The Kuçīlava is described as a Çūdra, who ought to be banished;17his evidence, and indeed that of any actor, is not to be accepted in law,18and Brahmins may not accept food offered by an actor,19a fact attested by the Sūtradhāra in the prologue to theMṛcchakaṭikāwho can find no one in Ujjayinī to accept his hospitality. Actors again are classed in Manu with wrestlers and boxers. An actress was often, if not necessarily, one of the great army of courtesans; Vasantasenā, the hetaera of theCārudattaandMṛcchakaṭikā, is herself skilled in acting, and has in her household maidens learning to act, and Daṇḍin includes lessons in this art in his account of the education of the perfect courtesan in theDaçakumāracarita.On the other hand, we have traces of a higher side of the[364]profession, which doubtless can quite fairly be connected with the gradual elevation of the drama from humble origins to the rank of an elaborate and refined poetry. Bharata, the alleged founder of theNāṭyaçāstra, ranks as a Muni, or holy sage, and Urvaçī, a divine nymph, is treated as an actress. What is more important is that Bāṇa definitely enumerates in theHarṣacaritaamong his friends an actor and an actress; Bhartṛhari20refers to their friendship with kings, which is also attested in the legend of Vasumitra, son of Kālidāsa’s hero Agnimitra, who was slain amidst his actors by his enemy. Kālidāsa himself represents Agnivarṇa, king of Raghu’s line, as pleased to compete with actors in their own speciality. Vatsa, in thePriyadarçikā, is prepared to play a part without question, and Bhavabhūti in two of his prefaces asserts his friendship with his actors. In truth, men who could effectively declaim the stanzas of Bhavabhūti must have possessed both education and culture in a high degree, and have been very different from the acrobats and jugglers, dancers, and others whose humble occupations account for the censures of the law books and theArthaçāstra.

The normal term for actor is Naṭa, a term which has the wider sense of dancer or acrobat; terms like Bharata, or Bhārata, Cāraṇa,7Kuçīlava, Çailūṣa, or Çaubhika have interest practically only for the history of the drama. The chief actor, whose name Sūtradhāra doubtless denotes him as primarily the architect of the theatre, the man who secures the erection of the temporary stage, is occasionally styled ‘troop-head of actors (naṭagāmaṇi)’,8and he is essentially the instructor of the other actors in their art (nāṭyācārya), so that his title Sūtradhāra can be used topically as equivalent to Professor. For this high position his qualifications were to be numerous; he was supposed to be learned in all the arts and sciences, to be acquainted with the habits and customs of all lands, to combine the completeness of technical knowledge with practical skill, and to be possessed of all the[361]moral qualities which an Indian genius can enumerate. To him falls not merely the very important function of introducing the play, but also of taking one of the chief parts; thus he plays Vatsa in theRatnāvalī, and in theMālatīmādhavaKāmandakī, the nun, who powerfully affects the current of the drama. He is normally the husband of one of the actresses (naṭī), who aids him in the opening scene, and who is compelled, poor woman, to combine the arduous life of an actress with the domestic duty of looking after her husband’s material wants. She is represented as devoted to him, fasting to secure reunion in another life, preparing his meal and seeking to remove by her good works the dangers which threaten him, and compelled to play her parts, although anxious, as in theRatnāvalī, over the difficulty of securing the marriage of her daughter to a fiancé who has gone overseas, or, as in theJānakīpariṇaya, over the wickedness of another actor in seeking to take her daughter from her.

The Sthāpaka, according to the theory, is to resemble in his attributes the Sūtradhāra; as we have seen, to what extent he really in the dramas known to us was employed as distinct from the Sūtradhāra, it is impossible to say; the name suggests that he aided him in the structure of the stage, and then in his actor’s duties. But there is no ground to assume that he really had disappeared as a living figure before the classical drama; the occasional mention of him in actual dramas as well as in the theory need not be artificial. We have, however, a much more common attendant of the Sūtradhāra in the Pāripārçvika, who appears in the prologue of many plays, and in addition acted the parts of persons of middle rank. He receives the orders of his master and passes them on to the other actors, and directs the operations of the chorus, as in theVeṇīsaṁhāra. He is addressed by his master as Mārṣa, and he greets him as Bhāva.

The other actors, of whom there must often have been many in pieces with crowds introduced, are to have the qualities of the Sūtradhāra in as generous a measure as may be; they are divided, however, according to their qualifications into superior, medium, and third-rate actors.9The principal parts in any drama are, however, few; the king, the Vidūṣaka, the parasite, the heroine, and a companion are stock types. The division of[362]rôles is seldom shown in the prologues, whence are derived most of the details of our knowledge of actual performances. The Sūtradhāra in theRatnāvalīand thePriyadarçikāplays the part of Vatsa, his younger brother that of Yaugandharāyaṇa in the former play and that of Dṛḍhavarman in the latter; the Sūtradhāra and the Pāripārçvika take in theMālatīmādhavathe rôles of Kāmandakī and her pupil Avalokitā respectively. This taking of women’s parts by men is not by any means the normal practice; the Naṭī normally plays an important female part;10in the embryo drama in thePriyadarçikāwe find that the heroine’s part is played by Āraṇyikā, and the hero’s part was to have been performed by another girl Manoramā, but Vatsa, without the queen’s knowledge, insinuated himself into the scenein propria persona. In the legend of Bharata’s exhibition of theLakṣmīsvayaṁvarathe nymph Urvaçī is represented as playing the chief rôle, and in Dāmodaragupta’sKuṭṭanīmata, where an actual representation of theRatnāvalīis described, we find a woman in the rôle of the princess. TheNāṭyaçāstra11expressly admits of three modes of representation; the rôles may be filled by persons of appropriate sex and age; the rôles of the old may be taken by the young andvice versa; and the rôles of men may be played by women andvice versa. The taking of women’s parts by men has, curiously enough, a very early piece of evidence, for theMahābhāṣyamentions the word Bhrūkuṅsa, which was used to denote a man who made up as a female.12

We are, it is clear, to conceive of the troupe of actors under the Sūtradhāra as ready to wander hither and thither in search of a favourable opportunity of exhibiting their powers as interpreters. The performance of a drama became, it is clear, in later times at any rate, a worthy adornment of a festive occasion such as a religious festival, the consecration of a king, a marriage, the taking possession of a town or a new estate, the return of a traveller, and the birth of a son. The best patrons of the actors might be kings, but there was evidently no lack of appreciation of their services among men of lesser rank but of large means. The later prologues give us details of the rivalry between different troupes. In theAnargharāghavathe actor declares that[363]he has come to exhibit a superior sort of drama to that played by a rival, and asserts that the dearest desire of a player is to satisfy the public and to win back the favour he has lost. Rājaçekhara twice introduces the motive of a competition between actors to win the hand of an actress who has been offered by her father in marriage to the most adept of her suitors. Jayadeva invents a pleasing tale of an actor who won great success and reputation, inducing a comedian of the south to claim his name and steal his renown. The actor in revenge went south, and, striking up a partnership with a singer, won both repute and profit in the courts of the Deccan.

The reputation of actors and actresses was low and unsavoury; they are reputed to live on the price of their wives’ honour (jāyājīva,rūpājīva), and Manu imposes only a minor penalty on illicit relations with the wife of an actor on the score of their willingness to hand over their wives to others and profit by their dishonour.13TheMahābhāṣyagives equally clear testimony of the lack of chastity among the actresses or their predecessors.14The law book of Viṣṇu15treats them as Āyogavas, a mixed caste representing the fruit of alliances, improper and undesirable, between Çūdras and the daughters of the Vaiçya; to be an actor or a teacher of the art is ranked as a lesser sin in Baudhāyana.16The Kuçīlava is described as a Çūdra, who ought to be banished;17his evidence, and indeed that of any actor, is not to be accepted in law,18and Brahmins may not accept food offered by an actor,19a fact attested by the Sūtradhāra in the prologue to theMṛcchakaṭikāwho can find no one in Ujjayinī to accept his hospitality. Actors again are classed in Manu with wrestlers and boxers. An actress was often, if not necessarily, one of the great army of courtesans; Vasantasenā, the hetaera of theCārudattaandMṛcchakaṭikā, is herself skilled in acting, and has in her household maidens learning to act, and Daṇḍin includes lessons in this art in his account of the education of the perfect courtesan in theDaçakumāracarita.

On the other hand, we have traces of a higher side of the[364]profession, which doubtless can quite fairly be connected with the gradual elevation of the drama from humble origins to the rank of an elaborate and refined poetry. Bharata, the alleged founder of theNāṭyaçāstra, ranks as a Muni, or holy sage, and Urvaçī, a divine nymph, is treated as an actress. What is more important is that Bāṇa definitely enumerates in theHarṣacaritaamong his friends an actor and an actress; Bhartṛhari20refers to their friendship with kings, which is also attested in the legend of Vasumitra, son of Kālidāsa’s hero Agnimitra, who was slain amidst his actors by his enemy. Kālidāsa himself represents Agnivarṇa, king of Raghu’s line, as pleased to compete with actors in their own speciality. Vatsa, in thePriyadarçikā, is prepared to play a part without question, and Bhavabhūti in two of his prefaces asserts his friendship with his actors. In truth, men who could effectively declaim the stanzas of Bhavabhūti must have possessed both education and culture in a high degree, and have been very different from the acrobats and jugglers, dancers, and others whose humble occupations account for the censures of the law books and theArthaçāstra.

[Contents]3.The Mise-en-scène and Representation of the DramaWe have no trace in the drama of any attempt to introduce scenery into the representation. The curtain remained as a background throughout the entertainment, and it was in the main left to the imagination of the spectator, aided by the descriptions of the poet, to conceive the beauties of the situation supposed to be presented to his eyes. We have for this conclusive proof, if any were needed beyond the silence of the text-books, in the abundant stage directions which accompany the text of our dramas, and are found even in the fragments of Açvaghoṣa. When actions such as watering a plant were ascribed to an actress, no serious effort was made to bring in plants and perform the ceremonial of watering; on the contrary, she went through a mimicry of the process, which was enough to satisfy the audience. The king may mount a chariot, but no effort is made to bring one for this purpose; he merely goes in[365]elaborate pantomime through the action of getting up off the ground, and the audience, trained and intelligent, realizes what has happened. At the beginning of theÇakuntalāthe gazelle which Duḥṣanta follows is not a real animal, but the Sūtradhāra tells us that the king is pursuing a gazelle, and the actor, who represents the monarch, by his eager gaze and his gestures reveals himself as in the act of seeking to shoot the deer. To pluck flowers is merely to imitate the movements of one who really does so, and an actress with any skill has no difficulty in persuading an audience by her marks of agitation that she is escaping from the attacks of a bee.There is thus no tedious attempt at realism, though the dramatists vary in the care with which they avoid the absurd in their use of conventions; the works of Bhāsa show doubtless an excessive tendency to allow of strain being placed on the credulity of the audience. The exits and entrances of the characters are often abrupt and unnatural, but the drama was not primarily intended as a realistic copy of events, and doubtless was not felt unsatisfactory by the audience. Nor, it may be remembered, has perfection in detail in any form of ceremonial ever made a strong appeal to Indian minds; in the most gorgeous celebrations there will occur, without exciting surprise or comment, strange deviations from western canons of good taste and elegance.To a limited extent, however, use was made of minor properties, which are classed under the generic style of model work (pusta).21TheNāṭyaçāstradistinguishes three forms of such objects; they may be made up (sandhima) from bamboos covered with skins or cloths; or mechanical means might be employed (vyājima); or merely clothes (veṣṭita) used. We hear of the making of an elephant in theUdayanacarita; theMṛcchakaṭikāowes its name to the toy cart which appears in it; theBālarāmāyaṇahas mechanical dolls, and doubtless there were represented houses, caves, chariots, rocks, horses, and so on; monsters with animal heads and many arms could be made of clay and bamboos, and covered with cloths; we are expressly told that weapons must not be made of hard material, but that[366]stocks of grass, bamboos, and lac may be made to serve, and naturally gestures served in lieu of hard blows.The dress22of the actors is carefully regulated, especially as regards colour, which evidently was regarded as an important item in matters of sentiment. Ascetics wear garments of rags or bark; those in charge in the harem red jackets, kings gay garments or, if there are portents described, garments without colour. Ābhīra maidens wear dark blue clothes; in other cases dirty or uncoloured garments are prescribed. Dirty clothes indicate madness, distraction, misery, or a journey; uncoloured garb, one engaged in worship or some solemn religious service, an interesting survival of antique custom, while gods, Dānavas, Gandharvas, Uragas, Yakṣas, and Rakṣases, as well as lovers and kings, normally wear gay clothing.Colour,23however, is by no means confined to garments; the actors are expected to adorn themselves with paint of hues appropriate to the rôles they play. There are, on one theory, four fundamental colours, white, blue-black, red, and yellow, from which others are developed, for instance pigeon colour by mixing the first two; a reddish yellow (gaura) from mixing the last two is also recorded. It or dark (çyāma) is given as suited for kings, while happiness is indicated by it. Kirātas, Barbaras, Andhras, Draviḍas, the people of Kāçi and Kosala, Pulindas, and the people of the Deccan are to be black (asita); the Çakas, Yavanas, Pahlavas, and Bālhikas24are to be reddish yellow; Pāñcālas, Çūrasenas, Māhiṣas, Uḍras, Māgadhas, An̄gas, Van̄gas, and Kalin̄gas are to be dark (çyāma), as also Vaiçyas and Çūdras in general, while Brahmins and Kṣatriyas are to be reddish-yellow.Naturally the hair25attracts attention; Piçācas, madmen, and Bhūtas wear it loose; the Vidūṣaka is bald; boys have three tufts of hair, and so also servants if it is not cut short; the maidens of Avantī, and usually those of Bengal, wear ringlets, in the case of women of the north it is worn high on the head, and otherwise plaits are usual. The beard may be bright in hue, dark, or bushy. There is also the same tendency to stereotype[367]the ornaments, made out of copper, mica, or wax, and the garlands carried by the various personages; Vidyādharīs, Yakṣīs, Apsarases and Nāgīs carry pearls and jewels, while the latter are at once recognizable by the snake’s hood rising over their heads, as are Yakṣas by a large tuft of hair.The dress and appearance of the actor thus serve in some measure to carry out his duty of representation (abhinaya), of presenting before our eyes the states orconditionsof the personage for whom he stands. This is the Āhāryābhinaya, the first of the four agencies enumerated by theNāṭyaçāstra. He has also to perform the duty of representation by speech (vācika), using his voice to convey the dramatist’s words, and by exhibitingin propria personathe appropriate physical counterparts of the feelings and emotions of the characters (sāttvikābhinaya). Finally, he has specially to concentrate on the expression by gesture (ān̄gikābhinaya) of the feelings which he is supposed to experience. In this regard most detailed rules are given, doubtless from the technique of a period when more importance attached to gestures than later seems natural. Each member of the body is singled out for description; deep significance lies in the mode in which the head is shaken, the eyes glance, the brows move; cheek, nose, lip, chin, and neck can all be used to convey subtle senses. The hands are invaluable for this purpose; the different manœuvres with the fingers can convey almost any possible combination of meanings to the person sufficiently acquainted with theNāṭyaçāstrato understand them. But other parts of the body down to the feet are valuable; great care is bestowed on their postures, and the gait is invaluable in distinguishing classes of persons and their deeds. Darkness need not artificially be induced; movements of hands and feet to indicate groping are enough; one set of movements shows the mounting of a chariot, another the climbing up to the top of a palace; if the garments are pulled up, the crossing of a river is plainly shown; if the motions of swimming are mimicked, clearly the river is too deep to wade; a dexterous movement of the hands shows that one is driving, and similarly one can mount an elephant or a horse.26[368]It is characteristic of the nature of the Indian theory that, while it descends into enormous detail, it leaves alone to all intents and purposes the obvious duty of defining precisely the relation of the varieties of representation described as Sāttvika and Ān̄gika. The true relation is that under the head of Sāttvika are described the physical states, which are deemed appropriate to feelings and emotions, while the Ān̄gika prescribes the precise physical movements which express most effectively both psychic states and physical movements, which cannot be conveniently presented on the stage. The division accordingly is unscientific, and, acute as is the investigation of theNāṭyaçāstrain detail, it is far from satisfying as a whole.The importance of such accessories to the representation as garlands, ornaments, and appropriate garments, is emphasized by Mātṛgupta, who admits a specific form of sentiment styled Nepathyarasa, a fact which illustrates the effect produced in the mind of the spectator by the details of themise-en-scène. The same impression may be derived from the elaboration of the stage directions in the dramas, comparable only to such as are given, for instance, in Mr. Bernard Shaw’s productions. It is clear that they were intended not only for the direction of the actors in actually performing one of the pieces, but as instruments to aid the reader of the drama in realizing mentally the form of the representation and in appreciating, therefore, the dramatic quality of what he studied. Moreover, we have independent evidence which aids us in seeing how complete these directions are. A fortunate chance has preserved in Dāmodaragupta’sKuṭṭanīmata,27written in the reign of Jayāpīḍa of Kashmir in the eighth centuryA.D., an account of the performance of theRatnāvalīof Harṣa. The description is incomplete, but it is perfectly clear that it was played exactly in accordance with the stage directions which have come down to us, embedded in the text of the drama as we have it.The actual performance of the play was preceded, as we have seen in describing the theory of the drama, by preliminaries, the essential aim of which was the securing of the favour of the gods for the play to be represented. Of the varied elements of the preliminaries special importance seems to have attached to the[369]praise of the world guardians (dikpālastuti), and the reverence paid to Indra’s banner. A reed with five knots is selected which is called Jarjara; the five sections are painted white, blue-black, yellow, red, and a mixture of hues; banners of every colour are tied to it, and the supplication is made to Gaṇeça, the god who removes obstacles and favours literature, and to the guardians of the quarters of the world.A religious aspect is given also to the mingling of the pigments, the materials employed being yellow arsenic, lamp black, and red among others. The arsenic is formally addressed as being created by Svayambhū for the purpose of serving as a pigment; then it is placed on a board with fragments of brick, the whole reduced to fine powder, and mingled, and then used as pigment.28The time of the performance is not in many cases stated, but in a number of plays, including theMālatīmādhava,Karṇasundarī, and the embryo drama in thePriyadarçikā, we find it assumed to be the moment when the sun is just appearing.29The beat of drum announces the beginning of the drama, the preliminaries, often reduced to little more than a vocal and instrumental concert of brief duration, are completed, and the benediction pronounced, to be followed by the prologue proper and the drama.

3.The Mise-en-scène and Representation of the Drama

We have no trace in the drama of any attempt to introduce scenery into the representation. The curtain remained as a background throughout the entertainment, and it was in the main left to the imagination of the spectator, aided by the descriptions of the poet, to conceive the beauties of the situation supposed to be presented to his eyes. We have for this conclusive proof, if any were needed beyond the silence of the text-books, in the abundant stage directions which accompany the text of our dramas, and are found even in the fragments of Açvaghoṣa. When actions such as watering a plant were ascribed to an actress, no serious effort was made to bring in plants and perform the ceremonial of watering; on the contrary, she went through a mimicry of the process, which was enough to satisfy the audience. The king may mount a chariot, but no effort is made to bring one for this purpose; he merely goes in[365]elaborate pantomime through the action of getting up off the ground, and the audience, trained and intelligent, realizes what has happened. At the beginning of theÇakuntalāthe gazelle which Duḥṣanta follows is not a real animal, but the Sūtradhāra tells us that the king is pursuing a gazelle, and the actor, who represents the monarch, by his eager gaze and his gestures reveals himself as in the act of seeking to shoot the deer. To pluck flowers is merely to imitate the movements of one who really does so, and an actress with any skill has no difficulty in persuading an audience by her marks of agitation that she is escaping from the attacks of a bee.There is thus no tedious attempt at realism, though the dramatists vary in the care with which they avoid the absurd in their use of conventions; the works of Bhāsa show doubtless an excessive tendency to allow of strain being placed on the credulity of the audience. The exits and entrances of the characters are often abrupt and unnatural, but the drama was not primarily intended as a realistic copy of events, and doubtless was not felt unsatisfactory by the audience. Nor, it may be remembered, has perfection in detail in any form of ceremonial ever made a strong appeal to Indian minds; in the most gorgeous celebrations there will occur, without exciting surprise or comment, strange deviations from western canons of good taste and elegance.To a limited extent, however, use was made of minor properties, which are classed under the generic style of model work (pusta).21TheNāṭyaçāstradistinguishes three forms of such objects; they may be made up (sandhima) from bamboos covered with skins or cloths; or mechanical means might be employed (vyājima); or merely clothes (veṣṭita) used. We hear of the making of an elephant in theUdayanacarita; theMṛcchakaṭikāowes its name to the toy cart which appears in it; theBālarāmāyaṇahas mechanical dolls, and doubtless there were represented houses, caves, chariots, rocks, horses, and so on; monsters with animal heads and many arms could be made of clay and bamboos, and covered with cloths; we are expressly told that weapons must not be made of hard material, but that[366]stocks of grass, bamboos, and lac may be made to serve, and naturally gestures served in lieu of hard blows.The dress22of the actors is carefully regulated, especially as regards colour, which evidently was regarded as an important item in matters of sentiment. Ascetics wear garments of rags or bark; those in charge in the harem red jackets, kings gay garments or, if there are portents described, garments without colour. Ābhīra maidens wear dark blue clothes; in other cases dirty or uncoloured garments are prescribed. Dirty clothes indicate madness, distraction, misery, or a journey; uncoloured garb, one engaged in worship or some solemn religious service, an interesting survival of antique custom, while gods, Dānavas, Gandharvas, Uragas, Yakṣas, and Rakṣases, as well as lovers and kings, normally wear gay clothing.Colour,23however, is by no means confined to garments; the actors are expected to adorn themselves with paint of hues appropriate to the rôles they play. There are, on one theory, four fundamental colours, white, blue-black, red, and yellow, from which others are developed, for instance pigeon colour by mixing the first two; a reddish yellow (gaura) from mixing the last two is also recorded. It or dark (çyāma) is given as suited for kings, while happiness is indicated by it. Kirātas, Barbaras, Andhras, Draviḍas, the people of Kāçi and Kosala, Pulindas, and the people of the Deccan are to be black (asita); the Çakas, Yavanas, Pahlavas, and Bālhikas24are to be reddish yellow; Pāñcālas, Çūrasenas, Māhiṣas, Uḍras, Māgadhas, An̄gas, Van̄gas, and Kalin̄gas are to be dark (çyāma), as also Vaiçyas and Çūdras in general, while Brahmins and Kṣatriyas are to be reddish-yellow.Naturally the hair25attracts attention; Piçācas, madmen, and Bhūtas wear it loose; the Vidūṣaka is bald; boys have three tufts of hair, and so also servants if it is not cut short; the maidens of Avantī, and usually those of Bengal, wear ringlets, in the case of women of the north it is worn high on the head, and otherwise plaits are usual. The beard may be bright in hue, dark, or bushy. There is also the same tendency to stereotype[367]the ornaments, made out of copper, mica, or wax, and the garlands carried by the various personages; Vidyādharīs, Yakṣīs, Apsarases and Nāgīs carry pearls and jewels, while the latter are at once recognizable by the snake’s hood rising over their heads, as are Yakṣas by a large tuft of hair.The dress and appearance of the actor thus serve in some measure to carry out his duty of representation (abhinaya), of presenting before our eyes the states orconditionsof the personage for whom he stands. This is the Āhāryābhinaya, the first of the four agencies enumerated by theNāṭyaçāstra. He has also to perform the duty of representation by speech (vācika), using his voice to convey the dramatist’s words, and by exhibitingin propria personathe appropriate physical counterparts of the feelings and emotions of the characters (sāttvikābhinaya). Finally, he has specially to concentrate on the expression by gesture (ān̄gikābhinaya) of the feelings which he is supposed to experience. In this regard most detailed rules are given, doubtless from the technique of a period when more importance attached to gestures than later seems natural. Each member of the body is singled out for description; deep significance lies in the mode in which the head is shaken, the eyes glance, the brows move; cheek, nose, lip, chin, and neck can all be used to convey subtle senses. The hands are invaluable for this purpose; the different manœuvres with the fingers can convey almost any possible combination of meanings to the person sufficiently acquainted with theNāṭyaçāstrato understand them. But other parts of the body down to the feet are valuable; great care is bestowed on their postures, and the gait is invaluable in distinguishing classes of persons and their deeds. Darkness need not artificially be induced; movements of hands and feet to indicate groping are enough; one set of movements shows the mounting of a chariot, another the climbing up to the top of a palace; if the garments are pulled up, the crossing of a river is plainly shown; if the motions of swimming are mimicked, clearly the river is too deep to wade; a dexterous movement of the hands shows that one is driving, and similarly one can mount an elephant or a horse.26[368]It is characteristic of the nature of the Indian theory that, while it descends into enormous detail, it leaves alone to all intents and purposes the obvious duty of defining precisely the relation of the varieties of representation described as Sāttvika and Ān̄gika. The true relation is that under the head of Sāttvika are described the physical states, which are deemed appropriate to feelings and emotions, while the Ān̄gika prescribes the precise physical movements which express most effectively both psychic states and physical movements, which cannot be conveniently presented on the stage. The division accordingly is unscientific, and, acute as is the investigation of theNāṭyaçāstrain detail, it is far from satisfying as a whole.The importance of such accessories to the representation as garlands, ornaments, and appropriate garments, is emphasized by Mātṛgupta, who admits a specific form of sentiment styled Nepathyarasa, a fact which illustrates the effect produced in the mind of the spectator by the details of themise-en-scène. The same impression may be derived from the elaboration of the stage directions in the dramas, comparable only to such as are given, for instance, in Mr. Bernard Shaw’s productions. It is clear that they were intended not only for the direction of the actors in actually performing one of the pieces, but as instruments to aid the reader of the drama in realizing mentally the form of the representation and in appreciating, therefore, the dramatic quality of what he studied. Moreover, we have independent evidence which aids us in seeing how complete these directions are. A fortunate chance has preserved in Dāmodaragupta’sKuṭṭanīmata,27written in the reign of Jayāpīḍa of Kashmir in the eighth centuryA.D., an account of the performance of theRatnāvalīof Harṣa. The description is incomplete, but it is perfectly clear that it was played exactly in accordance with the stage directions which have come down to us, embedded in the text of the drama as we have it.The actual performance of the play was preceded, as we have seen in describing the theory of the drama, by preliminaries, the essential aim of which was the securing of the favour of the gods for the play to be represented. Of the varied elements of the preliminaries special importance seems to have attached to the[369]praise of the world guardians (dikpālastuti), and the reverence paid to Indra’s banner. A reed with five knots is selected which is called Jarjara; the five sections are painted white, blue-black, yellow, red, and a mixture of hues; banners of every colour are tied to it, and the supplication is made to Gaṇeça, the god who removes obstacles and favours literature, and to the guardians of the quarters of the world.A religious aspect is given also to the mingling of the pigments, the materials employed being yellow arsenic, lamp black, and red among others. The arsenic is formally addressed as being created by Svayambhū for the purpose of serving as a pigment; then it is placed on a board with fragments of brick, the whole reduced to fine powder, and mingled, and then used as pigment.28The time of the performance is not in many cases stated, but in a number of plays, including theMālatīmādhava,Karṇasundarī, and the embryo drama in thePriyadarçikā, we find it assumed to be the moment when the sun is just appearing.29The beat of drum announces the beginning of the drama, the preliminaries, often reduced to little more than a vocal and instrumental concert of brief duration, are completed, and the benediction pronounced, to be followed by the prologue proper and the drama.

We have no trace in the drama of any attempt to introduce scenery into the representation. The curtain remained as a background throughout the entertainment, and it was in the main left to the imagination of the spectator, aided by the descriptions of the poet, to conceive the beauties of the situation supposed to be presented to his eyes. We have for this conclusive proof, if any were needed beyond the silence of the text-books, in the abundant stage directions which accompany the text of our dramas, and are found even in the fragments of Açvaghoṣa. When actions such as watering a plant were ascribed to an actress, no serious effort was made to bring in plants and perform the ceremonial of watering; on the contrary, she went through a mimicry of the process, which was enough to satisfy the audience. The king may mount a chariot, but no effort is made to bring one for this purpose; he merely goes in[365]elaborate pantomime through the action of getting up off the ground, and the audience, trained and intelligent, realizes what has happened. At the beginning of theÇakuntalāthe gazelle which Duḥṣanta follows is not a real animal, but the Sūtradhāra tells us that the king is pursuing a gazelle, and the actor, who represents the monarch, by his eager gaze and his gestures reveals himself as in the act of seeking to shoot the deer. To pluck flowers is merely to imitate the movements of one who really does so, and an actress with any skill has no difficulty in persuading an audience by her marks of agitation that she is escaping from the attacks of a bee.

There is thus no tedious attempt at realism, though the dramatists vary in the care with which they avoid the absurd in their use of conventions; the works of Bhāsa show doubtless an excessive tendency to allow of strain being placed on the credulity of the audience. The exits and entrances of the characters are often abrupt and unnatural, but the drama was not primarily intended as a realistic copy of events, and doubtless was not felt unsatisfactory by the audience. Nor, it may be remembered, has perfection in detail in any form of ceremonial ever made a strong appeal to Indian minds; in the most gorgeous celebrations there will occur, without exciting surprise or comment, strange deviations from western canons of good taste and elegance.

To a limited extent, however, use was made of minor properties, which are classed under the generic style of model work (pusta).21TheNāṭyaçāstradistinguishes three forms of such objects; they may be made up (sandhima) from bamboos covered with skins or cloths; or mechanical means might be employed (vyājima); or merely clothes (veṣṭita) used. We hear of the making of an elephant in theUdayanacarita; theMṛcchakaṭikāowes its name to the toy cart which appears in it; theBālarāmāyaṇahas mechanical dolls, and doubtless there were represented houses, caves, chariots, rocks, horses, and so on; monsters with animal heads and many arms could be made of clay and bamboos, and covered with cloths; we are expressly told that weapons must not be made of hard material, but that[366]stocks of grass, bamboos, and lac may be made to serve, and naturally gestures served in lieu of hard blows.

The dress22of the actors is carefully regulated, especially as regards colour, which evidently was regarded as an important item in matters of sentiment. Ascetics wear garments of rags or bark; those in charge in the harem red jackets, kings gay garments or, if there are portents described, garments without colour. Ābhīra maidens wear dark blue clothes; in other cases dirty or uncoloured garments are prescribed. Dirty clothes indicate madness, distraction, misery, or a journey; uncoloured garb, one engaged in worship or some solemn religious service, an interesting survival of antique custom, while gods, Dānavas, Gandharvas, Uragas, Yakṣas, and Rakṣases, as well as lovers and kings, normally wear gay clothing.

Colour,23however, is by no means confined to garments; the actors are expected to adorn themselves with paint of hues appropriate to the rôles they play. There are, on one theory, four fundamental colours, white, blue-black, red, and yellow, from which others are developed, for instance pigeon colour by mixing the first two; a reddish yellow (gaura) from mixing the last two is also recorded. It or dark (çyāma) is given as suited for kings, while happiness is indicated by it. Kirātas, Barbaras, Andhras, Draviḍas, the people of Kāçi and Kosala, Pulindas, and the people of the Deccan are to be black (asita); the Çakas, Yavanas, Pahlavas, and Bālhikas24are to be reddish yellow; Pāñcālas, Çūrasenas, Māhiṣas, Uḍras, Māgadhas, An̄gas, Van̄gas, and Kalin̄gas are to be dark (çyāma), as also Vaiçyas and Çūdras in general, while Brahmins and Kṣatriyas are to be reddish-yellow.

Naturally the hair25attracts attention; Piçācas, madmen, and Bhūtas wear it loose; the Vidūṣaka is bald; boys have three tufts of hair, and so also servants if it is not cut short; the maidens of Avantī, and usually those of Bengal, wear ringlets, in the case of women of the north it is worn high on the head, and otherwise plaits are usual. The beard may be bright in hue, dark, or bushy. There is also the same tendency to stereotype[367]the ornaments, made out of copper, mica, or wax, and the garlands carried by the various personages; Vidyādharīs, Yakṣīs, Apsarases and Nāgīs carry pearls and jewels, while the latter are at once recognizable by the snake’s hood rising over their heads, as are Yakṣas by a large tuft of hair.

The dress and appearance of the actor thus serve in some measure to carry out his duty of representation (abhinaya), of presenting before our eyes the states orconditionsof the personage for whom he stands. This is the Āhāryābhinaya, the first of the four agencies enumerated by theNāṭyaçāstra. He has also to perform the duty of representation by speech (vācika), using his voice to convey the dramatist’s words, and by exhibitingin propria personathe appropriate physical counterparts of the feelings and emotions of the characters (sāttvikābhinaya). Finally, he has specially to concentrate on the expression by gesture (ān̄gikābhinaya) of the feelings which he is supposed to experience. In this regard most detailed rules are given, doubtless from the technique of a period when more importance attached to gestures than later seems natural. Each member of the body is singled out for description; deep significance lies in the mode in which the head is shaken, the eyes glance, the brows move; cheek, nose, lip, chin, and neck can all be used to convey subtle senses. The hands are invaluable for this purpose; the different manœuvres with the fingers can convey almost any possible combination of meanings to the person sufficiently acquainted with theNāṭyaçāstrato understand them. But other parts of the body down to the feet are valuable; great care is bestowed on their postures, and the gait is invaluable in distinguishing classes of persons and their deeds. Darkness need not artificially be induced; movements of hands and feet to indicate groping are enough; one set of movements shows the mounting of a chariot, another the climbing up to the top of a palace; if the garments are pulled up, the crossing of a river is plainly shown; if the motions of swimming are mimicked, clearly the river is too deep to wade; a dexterous movement of the hands shows that one is driving, and similarly one can mount an elephant or a horse.26[368]

It is characteristic of the nature of the Indian theory that, while it descends into enormous detail, it leaves alone to all intents and purposes the obvious duty of defining precisely the relation of the varieties of representation described as Sāttvika and Ān̄gika. The true relation is that under the head of Sāttvika are described the physical states, which are deemed appropriate to feelings and emotions, while the Ān̄gika prescribes the precise physical movements which express most effectively both psychic states and physical movements, which cannot be conveniently presented on the stage. The division accordingly is unscientific, and, acute as is the investigation of theNāṭyaçāstrain detail, it is far from satisfying as a whole.

The importance of such accessories to the representation as garlands, ornaments, and appropriate garments, is emphasized by Mātṛgupta, who admits a specific form of sentiment styled Nepathyarasa, a fact which illustrates the effect produced in the mind of the spectator by the details of themise-en-scène. The same impression may be derived from the elaboration of the stage directions in the dramas, comparable only to such as are given, for instance, in Mr. Bernard Shaw’s productions. It is clear that they were intended not only for the direction of the actors in actually performing one of the pieces, but as instruments to aid the reader of the drama in realizing mentally the form of the representation and in appreciating, therefore, the dramatic quality of what he studied. Moreover, we have independent evidence which aids us in seeing how complete these directions are. A fortunate chance has preserved in Dāmodaragupta’sKuṭṭanīmata,27written in the reign of Jayāpīḍa of Kashmir in the eighth centuryA.D., an account of the performance of theRatnāvalīof Harṣa. The description is incomplete, but it is perfectly clear that it was played exactly in accordance with the stage directions which have come down to us, embedded in the text of the drama as we have it.

The actual performance of the play was preceded, as we have seen in describing the theory of the drama, by preliminaries, the essential aim of which was the securing of the favour of the gods for the play to be represented. Of the varied elements of the preliminaries special importance seems to have attached to the[369]praise of the world guardians (dikpālastuti), and the reverence paid to Indra’s banner. A reed with five knots is selected which is called Jarjara; the five sections are painted white, blue-black, yellow, red, and a mixture of hues; banners of every colour are tied to it, and the supplication is made to Gaṇeça, the god who removes obstacles and favours literature, and to the guardians of the quarters of the world.

A religious aspect is given also to the mingling of the pigments, the materials employed being yellow arsenic, lamp black, and red among others. The arsenic is formally addressed as being created by Svayambhū for the purpose of serving as a pigment; then it is placed on a board with fragments of brick, the whole reduced to fine powder, and mingled, and then used as pigment.28

The time of the performance is not in many cases stated, but in a number of plays, including theMālatīmādhava,Karṇasundarī, and the embryo drama in thePriyadarçikā, we find it assumed to be the moment when the sun is just appearing.29The beat of drum announces the beginning of the drama, the preliminaries, often reduced to little more than a vocal and instrumental concert of brief duration, are completed, and the benediction pronounced, to be followed by the prologue proper and the drama.

[Contents]4.The AudienceA drama like the Sanskrit demanded the full attention of a cultivated audience, and it is assumed or expressly asserted, as in the dramas of Kālidāsa, Harṣa, and Bhavabhūti, that the spectators are critical and experienced. TheNāṭyaçāstra30requires from the ideal spectator (prekṣaka) keen susceptibility and excellent judgement, with ability to make his own the feelings and emotions of the characters depicted by the actors. But it is admitted that there are the usual degrees among the spectators, good, medium, and indifferent; the question of the success of a drama depends on the judgement of the critic[370](prāçnika), who is to possess every possible good quality to fit him for the delicate task. The audience, as it is to share the feelings of the characters, is expected to show them by the usual outward signs; laughter, tears, cries, hair standing on end, jumping up from their seats, clapping with the hands and other manifestations of pleasure, horror, fear, and other sentiments are both proper and natural.The rules for placing the patron at whose bidding the drama is performed, Sabhāpati, and his guests, are elaborate.31He sits himself on the Lion Throne, the equivalent of the royal box, with the ladies of his harem on the left, and on the right the personages of highest importance, such as the vassal princes of a great king like Harṣa. Behind the latter are the treasurer and other officers, and near them the learned men of the court, civil and religious, including the poets, and in their midst the astrologers and physicians. On the left again are the ministers and other courtiers; all around are maidens of the court. In front again of the king are Brahmins, behind the bearers of fans, radiant in youthful beauty. On the left in front are the reciters and panegyrists, eloquent and wise. Guards are present to protect the sacred person of the sovereign.How far the dramas were viewed by the public in general we cannot say; the rules regarding the play-house contemplate the presence of Çūdras, but that is a vague term, and may apply to a very restricted class of royal hangers on. We have the general rule32that barbarians, ignorant people, heretics, and those of low class should not be admitted, but such prescriptions mean very little. There must, it is clear, have been the utmost variation in the character of the audience according to the place and circumstances of representation. At great festivals, when plays were given in the temples, there must have been admission for as many as could be crowded in; in private exhibitions the audience may well have been more select. The fact that the dramas must have been largely unintelligible to all save a select few of the audience would not matter much; a drama was essentially a spectacle; in many cases its subject was perfectly familiar to the[371]audience, and the elaborate use of conventional signs must have been enough to aid many of the audience in following roughly the nature of the proceedings.When such dramatic exhibitions became rare we do not know; it is certain that in the eleventh century in Kashmir they were not uncommon; Kṣemendra advised aspirants to poetic fame to improve their taste by the study of such representations.33Doubtless the Mahomedan conquest seriously affected the vogue of the classical drama, which was obnoxious to Mahomedan fanaticism as being closely identified both with the national religion and the national spirit of India. The kings, who had been the main support of the actors and poets alike, disappeared from their thrones or suffered grave reverses in fortune. The tradition of dramatic performances gradually vanished. Other causes contributed to this end; the divorce between the language of the stage and that of the people steadily increasing with the passage of time made the Sanskrit drama more and more remote to the public, and the Mahomedans made it lose its position as the expression of the official and court life of the highest circles.34[373]

4.The Audience

A drama like the Sanskrit demanded the full attention of a cultivated audience, and it is assumed or expressly asserted, as in the dramas of Kālidāsa, Harṣa, and Bhavabhūti, that the spectators are critical and experienced. TheNāṭyaçāstra30requires from the ideal spectator (prekṣaka) keen susceptibility and excellent judgement, with ability to make his own the feelings and emotions of the characters depicted by the actors. But it is admitted that there are the usual degrees among the spectators, good, medium, and indifferent; the question of the success of a drama depends on the judgement of the critic[370](prāçnika), who is to possess every possible good quality to fit him for the delicate task. The audience, as it is to share the feelings of the characters, is expected to show them by the usual outward signs; laughter, tears, cries, hair standing on end, jumping up from their seats, clapping with the hands and other manifestations of pleasure, horror, fear, and other sentiments are both proper and natural.The rules for placing the patron at whose bidding the drama is performed, Sabhāpati, and his guests, are elaborate.31He sits himself on the Lion Throne, the equivalent of the royal box, with the ladies of his harem on the left, and on the right the personages of highest importance, such as the vassal princes of a great king like Harṣa. Behind the latter are the treasurer and other officers, and near them the learned men of the court, civil and religious, including the poets, and in their midst the astrologers and physicians. On the left again are the ministers and other courtiers; all around are maidens of the court. In front again of the king are Brahmins, behind the bearers of fans, radiant in youthful beauty. On the left in front are the reciters and panegyrists, eloquent and wise. Guards are present to protect the sacred person of the sovereign.How far the dramas were viewed by the public in general we cannot say; the rules regarding the play-house contemplate the presence of Çūdras, but that is a vague term, and may apply to a very restricted class of royal hangers on. We have the general rule32that barbarians, ignorant people, heretics, and those of low class should not be admitted, but such prescriptions mean very little. There must, it is clear, have been the utmost variation in the character of the audience according to the place and circumstances of representation. At great festivals, when plays were given in the temples, there must have been admission for as many as could be crowded in; in private exhibitions the audience may well have been more select. The fact that the dramas must have been largely unintelligible to all save a select few of the audience would not matter much; a drama was essentially a spectacle; in many cases its subject was perfectly familiar to the[371]audience, and the elaborate use of conventional signs must have been enough to aid many of the audience in following roughly the nature of the proceedings.When such dramatic exhibitions became rare we do not know; it is certain that in the eleventh century in Kashmir they were not uncommon; Kṣemendra advised aspirants to poetic fame to improve their taste by the study of such representations.33Doubtless the Mahomedan conquest seriously affected the vogue of the classical drama, which was obnoxious to Mahomedan fanaticism as being closely identified both with the national religion and the national spirit of India. The kings, who had been the main support of the actors and poets alike, disappeared from their thrones or suffered grave reverses in fortune. The tradition of dramatic performances gradually vanished. Other causes contributed to this end; the divorce between the language of the stage and that of the people steadily increasing with the passage of time made the Sanskrit drama more and more remote to the public, and the Mahomedans made it lose its position as the expression of the official and court life of the highest circles.34[373]

A drama like the Sanskrit demanded the full attention of a cultivated audience, and it is assumed or expressly asserted, as in the dramas of Kālidāsa, Harṣa, and Bhavabhūti, that the spectators are critical and experienced. TheNāṭyaçāstra30requires from the ideal spectator (prekṣaka) keen susceptibility and excellent judgement, with ability to make his own the feelings and emotions of the characters depicted by the actors. But it is admitted that there are the usual degrees among the spectators, good, medium, and indifferent; the question of the success of a drama depends on the judgement of the critic[370](prāçnika), who is to possess every possible good quality to fit him for the delicate task. The audience, as it is to share the feelings of the characters, is expected to show them by the usual outward signs; laughter, tears, cries, hair standing on end, jumping up from their seats, clapping with the hands and other manifestations of pleasure, horror, fear, and other sentiments are both proper and natural.

The rules for placing the patron at whose bidding the drama is performed, Sabhāpati, and his guests, are elaborate.31He sits himself on the Lion Throne, the equivalent of the royal box, with the ladies of his harem on the left, and on the right the personages of highest importance, such as the vassal princes of a great king like Harṣa. Behind the latter are the treasurer and other officers, and near them the learned men of the court, civil and religious, including the poets, and in their midst the astrologers and physicians. On the left again are the ministers and other courtiers; all around are maidens of the court. In front again of the king are Brahmins, behind the bearers of fans, radiant in youthful beauty. On the left in front are the reciters and panegyrists, eloquent and wise. Guards are present to protect the sacred person of the sovereign.

How far the dramas were viewed by the public in general we cannot say; the rules regarding the play-house contemplate the presence of Çūdras, but that is a vague term, and may apply to a very restricted class of royal hangers on. We have the general rule32that barbarians, ignorant people, heretics, and those of low class should not be admitted, but such prescriptions mean very little. There must, it is clear, have been the utmost variation in the character of the audience according to the place and circumstances of representation. At great festivals, when plays were given in the temples, there must have been admission for as many as could be crowded in; in private exhibitions the audience may well have been more select. The fact that the dramas must have been largely unintelligible to all save a select few of the audience would not matter much; a drama was essentially a spectacle; in many cases its subject was perfectly familiar to the[371]audience, and the elaborate use of conventional signs must have been enough to aid many of the audience in following roughly the nature of the proceedings.

When such dramatic exhibitions became rare we do not know; it is certain that in the eleventh century in Kashmir they were not uncommon; Kṣemendra advised aspirants to poetic fame to improve their taste by the study of such representations.33Doubtless the Mahomedan conquest seriously affected the vogue of the classical drama, which was obnoxious to Mahomedan fanaticism as being closely identified both with the national religion and the national spirit of India. The kings, who had been the main support of the actors and poets alike, disappeared from their thrones or suffered grave reverses in fortune. The tradition of dramatic performances gradually vanished. Other causes contributed to this end; the divorce between the language of the stage and that of the people steadily increasing with the passage of time made the Sanskrit drama more and more remote to the public, and the Mahomedans made it lose its position as the expression of the official and court life of the highest circles.34[373]

1Bloch,Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903–4, pp. 123 ff.↑2ii; cf. JPASB. v. 353 ff.;Çilparatna(ed. TSS.), pp. 201 ff. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, p. 54.↑3For the Greek theatre, which presents certain points of similarity but many of difference, see Dorpfeld,Das griechische Theater; Haigh,Attic Theatre(3rd ed.); a brief summary is given in Norwood,Greek Tragedy, pp. 49 ff.↑4The theory of a transverse curtain (Wilson, I. lxviii) is not supported by evidence of any clear kind. Cf. p. 113, n. 1.↑5Weber, IS. xiv. 225. Cf. Lévi, TI. i. 374; ii. 62.↑6The Greek number was three, later five. The Chinese stage, which resembles the Indian in its primitive character, but has no curtain, has two doors, one for entry, one for exit; Ridgeway,Dramas, &c., pp. 274 f.↑7W. Crooke,The Tribes and Castes of the N. W. Provinces and Oudh, ii. 20 ff.↑8Hillebrandt, AID., p. 12; cf.naṭagrāma,Epigr. Ind.i. 381.↑9xxiv. 85 f.↑10Cf.Karpūramañjarī, i. 12/13.↑11xxvi.; cf. xii. 166 f.↑12Weber, IS. xiii. 493.↑13viii. 362; cf.Rāmāyaṇa, ii. 30. 8;Kuṭṭanīmata, 855.↑14vi. 1. 13.↑15xvi. 8.↑16ii. 1. 2. 13.↑17Kauṭilīya, p. 7.↑18Manu, viii. 65; Yājñ. ii. 70.↑19Manu, iv. 215; Yājñ. i. 161.↑20iii. 57.↑21N. xxi. 5 ff. Masks may have been used for animals, but not normally as in Greece; cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 137, n. 2.↑22N. xxi.↑23N. xxi. 62 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 388; ii. 69. Cf. theMahābhāṣya, iii. 1. 26; Yājñavalkya, iii. 162.↑24Also read Pāhravas and Bāhlikas. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 96 f.↑25N. xxi.↑26Cf. theAbhinayadarpaṇaof Nandikeçvara, trs. by A. Coomaraswamy and G. K. Duggirala, Cambridge, Mass., 1917.↑27856 ff. Cf. the accounts in theHarivaṅça, ii. 88–93.↑28Saṁgītadāmodara, 39.↑29Cf. Nīlakaṇṭha’s reason for the alleged abbreviation of theMṛcchakaṭikā(Lévi, TI. i. 210).↑30xxvii. 51 ff.; Lévi, TI. ii. 62 ff.↑31Saṁgītaratnākara, 1327 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 375 ff. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 54 f.↑32Tagore,Eight Principal Rasas, p. 61. That women as such were excluded (Wilson, ii. 212) cannot have held good for the early stage.↑33Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa, p. 15.↑34A certain revival of displays occurred in the nineteenth century; e.g. theCitrayajñaof Vaidyanātha Vācaspati Bhaṭṭācārya, written for the festival of Govinda by request of the Rājā of Nadiyā aboutA.D.1820. The Cakkyars of Malabar still act Çaktibhadra’sĀçcaryamañjarīand Kulaçekharavarman’s plays, as well as Act III of thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, under the style ofMantrān̄kanāṭaka, and theNāgānanda; JRAS. 1910, p. 637;Pratimānāṭaka(ed. TSS.), p. xl; A. K. and V. R. Pisharoti,Bulletin oftheSchool of Oriental Studies, III. i. 107 ff., who maintain the impossible view that Bhāsa’s plays are compilations or adaptations of the eighth century, or later, holding that theCārudattais an adaptation of theMṛcchakaṭikā(contrast p. 131), thePratimānāṭakais later than Kālidāsa, and theAvimārakathan Daṇḍin. The genealogy of Rāma in thePratimā(iv. 9 f.) is that of Kālidāsa, but is also Purāṇic, and Daṇḍin, of course, is not the inventor of the Kathā. Barnett (Bulletin, III. i. 35) accepts Pisharoti’s views, holding theNyāyaçāstraof Medhātithi (Pratimā, v. 8/9) to be theManubhāṣya(tenth century), but this is wholly against the context, and Barnett’s view is surely incompatible with the priority of theCārudattato theMṛcchakaṭikāwhich he admits, and the absence of Māhārāṣṭrī. Cf. also p. 341.↑

1Bloch,Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903–4, pp. 123 ff.↑2ii; cf. JPASB. v. 353 ff.;Çilparatna(ed. TSS.), pp. 201 ff. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, p. 54.↑3For the Greek theatre, which presents certain points of similarity but many of difference, see Dorpfeld,Das griechische Theater; Haigh,Attic Theatre(3rd ed.); a brief summary is given in Norwood,Greek Tragedy, pp. 49 ff.↑4The theory of a transverse curtain (Wilson, I. lxviii) is not supported by evidence of any clear kind. Cf. p. 113, n. 1.↑5Weber, IS. xiv. 225. Cf. Lévi, TI. i. 374; ii. 62.↑6The Greek number was three, later five. The Chinese stage, which resembles the Indian in its primitive character, but has no curtain, has two doors, one for entry, one for exit; Ridgeway,Dramas, &c., pp. 274 f.↑7W. Crooke,The Tribes and Castes of the N. W. Provinces and Oudh, ii. 20 ff.↑8Hillebrandt, AID., p. 12; cf.naṭagrāma,Epigr. Ind.i. 381.↑9xxiv. 85 f.↑10Cf.Karpūramañjarī, i. 12/13.↑11xxvi.; cf. xii. 166 f.↑12Weber, IS. xiii. 493.↑13viii. 362; cf.Rāmāyaṇa, ii. 30. 8;Kuṭṭanīmata, 855.↑14vi. 1. 13.↑15xvi. 8.↑16ii. 1. 2. 13.↑17Kauṭilīya, p. 7.↑18Manu, viii. 65; Yājñ. ii. 70.↑19Manu, iv. 215; Yājñ. i. 161.↑20iii. 57.↑21N. xxi. 5 ff. Masks may have been used for animals, but not normally as in Greece; cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 137, n. 2.↑22N. xxi.↑23N. xxi. 62 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 388; ii. 69. Cf. theMahābhāṣya, iii. 1. 26; Yājñavalkya, iii. 162.↑24Also read Pāhravas and Bāhlikas. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 96 f.↑25N. xxi.↑26Cf. theAbhinayadarpaṇaof Nandikeçvara, trs. by A. Coomaraswamy and G. K. Duggirala, Cambridge, Mass., 1917.↑27856 ff. Cf. the accounts in theHarivaṅça, ii. 88–93.↑28Saṁgītadāmodara, 39.↑29Cf. Nīlakaṇṭha’s reason for the alleged abbreviation of theMṛcchakaṭikā(Lévi, TI. i. 210).↑30xxvii. 51 ff.; Lévi, TI. ii. 62 ff.↑31Saṁgītaratnākara, 1327 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 375 ff. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 54 f.↑32Tagore,Eight Principal Rasas, p. 61. That women as such were excluded (Wilson, ii. 212) cannot have held good for the early stage.↑33Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa, p. 15.↑34A certain revival of displays occurred in the nineteenth century; e.g. theCitrayajñaof Vaidyanātha Vācaspati Bhaṭṭācārya, written for the festival of Govinda by request of the Rājā of Nadiyā aboutA.D.1820. The Cakkyars of Malabar still act Çaktibhadra’sĀçcaryamañjarīand Kulaçekharavarman’s plays, as well as Act III of thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, under the style ofMantrān̄kanāṭaka, and theNāgānanda; JRAS. 1910, p. 637;Pratimānāṭaka(ed. TSS.), p. xl; A. K. and V. R. Pisharoti,Bulletin oftheSchool of Oriental Studies, III. i. 107 ff., who maintain the impossible view that Bhāsa’s plays are compilations or adaptations of the eighth century, or later, holding that theCārudattais an adaptation of theMṛcchakaṭikā(contrast p. 131), thePratimānāṭakais later than Kālidāsa, and theAvimārakathan Daṇḍin. The genealogy of Rāma in thePratimā(iv. 9 f.) is that of Kālidāsa, but is also Purāṇic, and Daṇḍin, of course, is not the inventor of the Kathā. Barnett (Bulletin, III. i. 35) accepts Pisharoti’s views, holding theNyāyaçāstraof Medhātithi (Pratimā, v. 8/9) to be theManubhāṣya(tenth century), but this is wholly against the context, and Barnett’s view is surely incompatible with the priority of theCārudattato theMṛcchakaṭikāwhich he admits, and the absence of Māhārāṣṭrī. Cf. also p. 341.↑

1Bloch,Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903–4, pp. 123 ff.↑

1Bloch,Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903–4, pp. 123 ff.↑

2ii; cf. JPASB. v. 353 ff.;Çilparatna(ed. TSS.), pp. 201 ff. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, p. 54.↑

2ii; cf. JPASB. v. 353 ff.;Çilparatna(ed. TSS.), pp. 201 ff. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, p. 54.↑

3For the Greek theatre, which presents certain points of similarity but many of difference, see Dorpfeld,Das griechische Theater; Haigh,Attic Theatre(3rd ed.); a brief summary is given in Norwood,Greek Tragedy, pp. 49 ff.↑

3For the Greek theatre, which presents certain points of similarity but many of difference, see Dorpfeld,Das griechische Theater; Haigh,Attic Theatre(3rd ed.); a brief summary is given in Norwood,Greek Tragedy, pp. 49 ff.↑

4The theory of a transverse curtain (Wilson, I. lxviii) is not supported by evidence of any clear kind. Cf. p. 113, n. 1.↑

4The theory of a transverse curtain (Wilson, I. lxviii) is not supported by evidence of any clear kind. Cf. p. 113, n. 1.↑

5Weber, IS. xiv. 225. Cf. Lévi, TI. i. 374; ii. 62.↑

5Weber, IS. xiv. 225. Cf. Lévi, TI. i. 374; ii. 62.↑

6The Greek number was three, later five. The Chinese stage, which resembles the Indian in its primitive character, but has no curtain, has two doors, one for entry, one for exit; Ridgeway,Dramas, &c., pp. 274 f.↑

6The Greek number was three, later five. The Chinese stage, which resembles the Indian in its primitive character, but has no curtain, has two doors, one for entry, one for exit; Ridgeway,Dramas, &c., pp. 274 f.↑

7W. Crooke,The Tribes and Castes of the N. W. Provinces and Oudh, ii. 20 ff.↑

7W. Crooke,The Tribes and Castes of the N. W. Provinces and Oudh, ii. 20 ff.↑

8Hillebrandt, AID., p. 12; cf.naṭagrāma,Epigr. Ind.i. 381.↑

8Hillebrandt, AID., p. 12; cf.naṭagrāma,Epigr. Ind.i. 381.↑

9xxiv. 85 f.↑

9xxiv. 85 f.↑

10Cf.Karpūramañjarī, i. 12/13.↑

10Cf.Karpūramañjarī, i. 12/13.↑

11xxvi.; cf. xii. 166 f.↑

11xxvi.; cf. xii. 166 f.↑

12Weber, IS. xiii. 493.↑

12Weber, IS. xiii. 493.↑

13viii. 362; cf.Rāmāyaṇa, ii. 30. 8;Kuṭṭanīmata, 855.↑

13viii. 362; cf.Rāmāyaṇa, ii. 30. 8;Kuṭṭanīmata, 855.↑

14vi. 1. 13.↑

14vi. 1. 13.↑

15xvi. 8.↑

15xvi. 8.↑

16ii. 1. 2. 13.↑

16ii. 1. 2. 13.↑

17Kauṭilīya, p. 7.↑

17Kauṭilīya, p. 7.↑

18Manu, viii. 65; Yājñ. ii. 70.↑

18Manu, viii. 65; Yājñ. ii. 70.↑

19Manu, iv. 215; Yājñ. i. 161.↑

19Manu, iv. 215; Yājñ. i. 161.↑

20iii. 57.↑

20iii. 57.↑

21N. xxi. 5 ff. Masks may have been used for animals, but not normally as in Greece; cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 137, n. 2.↑

21N. xxi. 5 ff. Masks may have been used for animals, but not normally as in Greece; cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 137, n. 2.↑

22N. xxi.↑

22N. xxi.↑

23N. xxi. 62 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 388; ii. 69. Cf. theMahābhāṣya, iii. 1. 26; Yājñavalkya, iii. 162.↑

23N. xxi. 62 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 388; ii. 69. Cf. theMahābhāṣya, iii. 1. 26; Yājñavalkya, iii. 162.↑

24Also read Pāhravas and Bāhlikas. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 96 f.↑

24Also read Pāhravas and Bāhlikas. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 96 f.↑

25N. xxi.↑

25N. xxi.↑

26Cf. theAbhinayadarpaṇaof Nandikeçvara, trs. by A. Coomaraswamy and G. K. Duggirala, Cambridge, Mass., 1917.↑

26Cf. theAbhinayadarpaṇaof Nandikeçvara, trs. by A. Coomaraswamy and G. K. Duggirala, Cambridge, Mass., 1917.↑

27856 ff. Cf. the accounts in theHarivaṅça, ii. 88–93.↑

27856 ff. Cf. the accounts in theHarivaṅça, ii. 88–93.↑

28Saṁgītadāmodara, 39.↑

28Saṁgītadāmodara, 39.↑

29Cf. Nīlakaṇṭha’s reason for the alleged abbreviation of theMṛcchakaṭikā(Lévi, TI. i. 210).↑

29Cf. Nīlakaṇṭha’s reason for the alleged abbreviation of theMṛcchakaṭikā(Lévi, TI. i. 210).↑

30xxvii. 51 ff.; Lévi, TI. ii. 62 ff.↑

30xxvii. 51 ff.; Lévi, TI. ii. 62 ff.↑

31Saṁgītaratnākara, 1327 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 375 ff. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 54 f.↑

31Saṁgītaratnākara, 1327 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 375 ff. Cf.Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 54 f.↑

32Tagore,Eight Principal Rasas, p. 61. That women as such were excluded (Wilson, ii. 212) cannot have held good for the early stage.↑

32Tagore,Eight Principal Rasas, p. 61. That women as such were excluded (Wilson, ii. 212) cannot have held good for the early stage.↑

33Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa, p. 15.↑

33Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa, p. 15.↑

34A certain revival of displays occurred in the nineteenth century; e.g. theCitrayajñaof Vaidyanātha Vācaspati Bhaṭṭācārya, written for the festival of Govinda by request of the Rājā of Nadiyā aboutA.D.1820. The Cakkyars of Malabar still act Çaktibhadra’sĀçcaryamañjarīand Kulaçekharavarman’s plays, as well as Act III of thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, under the style ofMantrān̄kanāṭaka, and theNāgānanda; JRAS. 1910, p. 637;Pratimānāṭaka(ed. TSS.), p. xl; A. K. and V. R. Pisharoti,Bulletin oftheSchool of Oriental Studies, III. i. 107 ff., who maintain the impossible view that Bhāsa’s plays are compilations or adaptations of the eighth century, or later, holding that theCārudattais an adaptation of theMṛcchakaṭikā(contrast p. 131), thePratimānāṭakais later than Kālidāsa, and theAvimārakathan Daṇḍin. The genealogy of Rāma in thePratimā(iv. 9 f.) is that of Kālidāsa, but is also Purāṇic, and Daṇḍin, of course, is not the inventor of the Kathā. Barnett (Bulletin, III. i. 35) accepts Pisharoti’s views, holding theNyāyaçāstraof Medhātithi (Pratimā, v. 8/9) to be theManubhāṣya(tenth century), but this is wholly against the context, and Barnett’s view is surely incompatible with the priority of theCārudattato theMṛcchakaṭikāwhich he admits, and the absence of Māhārāṣṭrī. Cf. also p. 341.↑

34A certain revival of displays occurred in the nineteenth century; e.g. theCitrayajñaof Vaidyanātha Vācaspati Bhaṭṭācārya, written for the festival of Govinda by request of the Rājā of Nadiyā aboutA.D.1820. The Cakkyars of Malabar still act Çaktibhadra’sĀçcaryamañjarīand Kulaçekharavarman’s plays, as well as Act III of thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, under the style ofMantrān̄kanāṭaka, and theNāgānanda; JRAS. 1910, p. 637;Pratimānāṭaka(ed. TSS.), p. xl; A. K. and V. R. Pisharoti,Bulletin oftheSchool of Oriental Studies, III. i. 107 ff., who maintain the impossible view that Bhāsa’s plays are compilations or adaptations of the eighth century, or later, holding that theCārudattais an adaptation of theMṛcchakaṭikā(contrast p. 131), thePratimānāṭakais later than Kālidāsa, and theAvimārakathan Daṇḍin. The genealogy of Rāma in thePratimā(iv. 9 f.) is that of Kālidāsa, but is also Purāṇic, and Daṇḍin, of course, is not the inventor of the Kathā. Barnett (Bulletin, III. i. 35) accepts Pisharoti’s views, holding theNyāyaçāstraof Medhātithi (Pratimā, v. 8/9) to be theManubhāṣya(tenth century), but this is wholly against the context, and Barnett’s view is surely incompatible with the priority of theCārudattato theMṛcchakaṭikāwhich he admits, and the absence of Māhārāṣṭrī. Cf. also p. 341.↑

Back to IndexNext