The origin of the Indian drama may unhesitatingly be described as purely
native. The Mahommedans, when they overran India, brought no drama with
them; the Persians, the Arabs and the Egyptians were without a national
theatre. It would be absurd to suppose the Indian drama to have owed
anything to the Chinese or its offshoots. On the other hand, there is no
real evidence for assuming any influence of Greek examples upon the
Indian drama at any stage of its progress. Finally, it had passed into
its decline before the dramatic literature of modern Europe had sprung
into being.
Origin.
The Hindu writers ascribe the invention of dramatic entertainments to an
inspired sage Bharata, or to the communications made to him by the god
Brahma himself concerning an art gathered from the Vedas. As the word
_Bharata_ signifies an actor, we have clearly here a mere
personification of the invention of the drama. Three kinds of
entertainments, of which the _n[=a]tya_ (defined as a dance combined
with gesticulation and speech) comes nearest to the drama, were said to
have been exhibited before the gods by the spirits and nymphs of Indra's
heaven, and to these the god Siva added two new styles of dancing.
The origin of the Indian drama was thus unmistakably religious. Dramatic
elements first showed themselves in certain of the hymns of the _Rig
Veda_, which took the form of dialogues between divine personages, and
in one of which is to be found the germ of K[=a]lid[=a]sa's famous
_Vikrama and Urv[=a]s[=i]_. These hymns were combined with the dances in
the festivals of the gods, which soon assumed a more or less
conventional form. Thus, from the union of dance and song, to which were
afterwards added narrative recitation, and first sung, then spoken,
dialogue, was gradually evolved the acted drama. Such scenes and stories
from the mythology of Vishnu are still occasionally enacted by pantomime
or spoken dialogue in India (_j[=a]tras_ of the Bengalis; _r[=a]sas_ of
the Western Provinces); and the most ancient Indian play was said to
have treated an episode from the history of that deity--the choice of
him as a consort by Laxmi--a favourite kind of subject in the Indian
drama. The tradition connecting its earliest themes with the native
mythology of Vishnu agrees with that ascribing the origin of a
particular kind of dramatic performance--the _sang[=i]ta_--to Krishna
and the shepherdesses. The author's later poem, the _G[=i]tagovinda_,
has been conjectured to be suggestive of the earliest species of Hindu
dramas. But, while the epic poetry of the Hindus gradually approached
the dramatic in the way of dialogue, their drama developed itself
independently out of the union of the lyric and the epic forms. Their
dramatic poetry arose later than their epos, whose great works, the
_Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata_ and the _Ramayana_, had themselves been long
preceded by the hymnody of the _Vedas_--just as the Greek drama followed
upon the Homeric poems and these had been preceded by the early hymns.
There seems, indeed, no reason for dating the beginnings of the regular
Indian drama farther back than the 5th century A.D., though it is
probable that the earliest extant Sanskrit play, the delightful, and in
some respects incomparable, _Mrichchhakat[=i]k[=a]_ (_The Toy Cart_),
was considerably earlier in date than the works of K[=a]lid[=a]sa.
Indeed, of his predecessors in dramatic composition very little is
known, and even the contemporaries who competed with him as dramatists
are mere names. Thus, by the time the Indian drama produced almost the
earliest specimens with which we are acquainted, it had already reached
its zenith; and it was therefore looked upon as having sprung into being
as a perfect art. We know it only in its glory, in its decline, and in
its decay.
The history of Indian dramatic literature may be roughly divided into
the following periods.
First period (classical).
I. _To the 11th Century A.D._--This period virtually belongs to the
pre-Mahommedan age of Indian history; but already to that second
division of it in which Buddhism had become a powerful factor in the
social as well as in the moral and intellectual life of the land. It is
the classical period of the Hindu drama, and includes the works of its
two indisputably greatest masters. The earliest extant Sanskrit play is
the pathetic _Mrichchhakat[=i]k[=a]_ (_The Toy Cart_), which has been
dated back as far as the close of the 2nd century A.D. It is attributed
(as is not uncommon with Indian plays) to a royal author, named
S[=u]draka; but it was more probably written by his court poet, whose
name has been concluded to have been Dandin. It may be described as a
comedy of middle-class life, treating of the courtship and marriage of a
ruined Brahman and a wealthy and large-hearted courtesan.
K[=a]lid[=a]sa, the brightest of the "nine gems" of genius in whom the
Indian drama gloried, lived at the court of Ujjain, though whether in
the earlier half of the 6th century A.D., or in the 3rd century, or at a
yet earlier date, remains an unsettled question. He is the author of
_S[=a]kuntal[=a]_--the work which, in the translation by Sir William
Jones (1789), first revealed to the Western world of letters the
existence of an Indian drama, since reproduced in innumerable versions
in many tongues. This heroic comedy, in seven acts, takes its plot from
the first book of the _Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata_. It is a dramatic love-idyll
of surpassing beauty, and one of the masterpieces of the poetic
literature of the world. Another drama by K[=a]lid[=a]sa, _Vikrama and
Urv[=a]s[=i]_ (_The Hero and the Nymph_), though unequal as a whole to
_S[=a]kuntal[=a]_, contains one act of incomparable loveliness; and its
enduring effect upon Indian dramatic literature is shown by the
imitations of it in later plays. (It was translated into English in 1827
by H. H. Wilson.) To K[=a]lid[=a]sa has likewise been attributed a third
play, _M[=a]lavika and Agnimitra_; but it is possible that this
conventional comedy, though held to be of ancient date, was composed by
a different poet of the same name.
To Harsadeva, king of northern India, are ascribed three extant plays,
which were more probably composed by some poet in his pay. One of these,
_Nagananda_ (_Joy of the Serpents_), which begins as an erotic play, but
passes into a most impressive exemplification of the supreme virtue of
self-sacrifice, is notable as the only Buddhist drama which has been
preserved, though others are known to have existed and to have been
represented.
The palm of pre-eminence is disputed with K[=a]lid[=a]sa by the great
dramatic poet Babhav[=u]ti (called Crikantha, or he in whose throat is
fortune), who flourished in the earlier part of the 8th century. While
he is considered more artificial in language than his rival, and in
general more bound by rules, he can hardly be deemed his inferior in
dramatic genius. Of his three extant plays, _Mah[=a]v[=a]ra-Charitra_
and _Uttara-R[=a]ma-Charitra_ are heroic dramas concerned with the
adventures of R[=a]ma (the seventh incarnation of Vishnu); the third,
the powerful melodrama, in ten acts, of _M[=a]lat[=i] and M[=a]dhava_,
has love for its theme, and has been called (perhaps with more aptitude
than usually belongs to such comparisons) the _Romeo and Juliet_ of the
Hindus. It is considered by their critical authorities the best example
of the _prakarana_, or drama of domestic life. Babhav[=u]ti's plays, as
is indicated by the fact that no jester appears in them, are devoid of
the element of humour.
The plays of R[=a]jasekhara, who lived about the end of the 9th century,
deal, like those of Harsadeva, with harem and court life. One of them,
_Karpura Manjuri_ (_Camphor Cluster_), is stated to be the only example
of the _saltaka_ or minor heroic comedy, written entirely in Prakrit.
In this period may probably also be included Vis[=a]khadatta's
interesting drama of political intrigue, _Mudr[=a]-Rakshasa_ (_The
Signet of the Minister_), in which Chandragupta (Sandracottus) appears
as the founder of a dynasty. In subject, therefore, this production,
which is one of the few known Indian historical dramas, goes back to the
period following on the invasion of India by Alexander the Great; but
the date of composition is probably at least as late as A.D. 1000. The
plot of the play turns on the gaining-over of the prime minister of the
_ancien regime_.
Among the remaining chief works of this period is the _Veni-Samhara_
(_Binding of the Braid_) by N[=a]r[=a]yana Bhatta. Though described as a
play in which both pathos and horror are exaggerated--its subject is an
outrage resembling that which Dunstan is said to have inflicted on
Elgiva--it is stated to have been always a favourite, as written in
exact accordance with dramatic rules. Perhaps the _Candakansika_ by
Ksem[=i]svara should also be included, which deals with the working of a
curse pronounced by an aged priest upon a king who had innocently
offended him.
Second period (decline).
II. _The Period of Decline._--This may be reckoned from about the 11th
to about the 14th century of the Christian era, the beginning roughly
coinciding with that of a continuous series of Mahommedan invasions of
India. _Han[=u]man-Nataka_, or "the great Nataka" (for this irregular
play, the work of several hands, surpasses all other Indian dramas in
length, extending over no fewer than fourteen acts), dates from the 10th
or 11th century. Its story is taken from the R[=a]ma-cycle, and a
prominent character in it is the mythical monkey-chief King Han[=u]man,
to whom, indeed, tradition ascribed the original authorship of the play.
Krishnamicra's "theosophic mystery," as it has been called,--though it
rather resembles some of the moralities,--_Prabodha-Chandrodaya_ (_The
Rise of the Moon of Insight_, i.e. the victory of true doctrine over
error), is ascribed by one authority to the middle of the 11th century,
by another to about the end of the 12th. The famous _Ratnavali_ (_The
Necklace_), a court-comedy of love and intrigue, with a half-Terentian
plot, seems also to date from the earlier half of the period.
The remaining plays of which it has been possible to conjecture the
dates range in the time of their composition from the end of the 11th to
the 14th century. Of this period, as compared with the first, the
general characteristics seem to be an undue preponderance of narrative
and description, and an affected and over-elaborated style. As a
striking instance of this class is mentioned a play on the adventures of
R[=a]ma, the _Anargha-R[=a]ghava_, which in spite, or by reason, of the
commonplace character of its sentiments, the extravagance of its
diction, and the obscurity of its mythology, is stated to enjoy a higher
reputation with the pundits of the present age than the masterpieces of
K[=a]lid[=a]sa and Babhav[=u]ti. To the close of this period, the 14th
century, has likewise (but without any pretension to certainty) been
ascribed the only Tamil drama of which we possess an English version.
_Arichandra_ (_The Martyr of Truth_) exemplifies--with a strange
likeness in the contrivance of its plot to the _Book of Job_ and
_Faust_--by the trials of a heroically enduring king the force of the
maxim "Better die than lie."
Third period (decay).
III. _Period of Decay._--Isolated plays remain from centuries later than
the 14th; but these, which chiefly turn on the legends of Krishna (the
last incarnation of Vishnu), may be regarded as a mere aftergrowth, and
exhibit the Indian drama in its decay. Indeed, the latest of them,
_Chitra-Yajna_, which was composed about the beginning of the 19th
century, and still serves as a model for Bengali dramatic performances,
is imperfect in its dialogue, which (after the fashion of Italian
improvised comedy) it is left to the actors to supplement. Besides these
there are farces or farcical entertainments, more or less indelicate, of
uncertain dates.
The number of plays which have descended to us from so vast an expanse
of time is still comparatively small. But though, in 1827, Wilson
doubted whether all the plays to be found, and those mentioned by Hindu
writers on the drama, amounted to many more than sixty, M. Schuyler's
bibliography (1906) enumerates over five hundred Sanskrit plays. To
these have to be added the plays in Tamil, stated to be about a hundred
in number, and to have been composed by poets who enjoyed the patronage
of the Pandian kings of Madura, and some in other vernaculars.
Critical literature.
There certainly is among the Hindus no dearth of dramatic theory. The
sage Bharata, the reputed inventor of dramatic entertainments, was
likewise revered as the father of dramatic criticism--a combination of
functions to which the latter days of the English theatre might perhaps
furnish an occasional parallel. The commentators (possibly under the
influence of inspiration rather than as a strict matter of memory)
constantly cite his _s[=u]tras_, or aphorisms. (From _s[=u]tra_, thread,
was named the _s[=u]tra-dh[=a]ra_, thread-holder, carpenter, a term
applied to the architect and general manager of sacrificial solemnities,
then to the director of theatrical performances.) By the 11th century,
when the drama was already approaching its decline, dramatic criticism
had reached an advanced point; and the _Dasa-Rupaka_ (of which the text
belongs to that age) distinctly defines the ten several kinds of
dramatic composition. Other critical works followed at later dates,
exhibiting a rage for subdivision unsurpassed by the efforts of Western
theorists, ancient or modern; the misfortune is that there should not be
examples remaining (if they ever existed) to illustrate all the branches
of so elaborate a dramatic system.
Exclusiveness of the Indian drama.
"What," inquires the manager of an actor in the induction to one of the
most famous of Indian plays, "are those qualities which the virtuous,
the wise, the venerable, the learned and the Brahmans require in a
drama?" "Profound exposition of the various passions," is the reply,
"pleasing interchange of mutual affection, loftiness of character,
delicate expression of desire, a surprising story and elegant language."
"Then," says the manager (for the Indian dramatists, though not, like
Ben Jonson, wont to "rail" the public "into approbation," are unaffected
by _mauvaise honte_), "I recollect one." And he proceeds to state that
"Babhav[=u]ti has given us a drama composed by him, replete with all
qualities, to which indeed this sentence is applicable: 'How little do
they know who speak of us with censure! This entertainment is not for
them. Possibly some one exists, or will exist, of similar tastes with
myself; for time is boundless, and the world is wide!'" This disregard
of popularity, springing from a consciousness of lofty aims, accounts
for much that is characteristic of the higher class of Indian plays. It
explains both their relative paucity and their extraordinary length,
renders intelligible the chief peculiarity in their diction, and
furnishes the key to their most striking ethical as well as literary
qualities. Connected in their origin with religious worship, they were
only performed on solemn occasions, chiefly of a public nature, and more
especially at seasons sacred to some divinity. Thus, though they might
in some instances be reproduced, they were always written with a view to
one particular solemn representation. Again, the greater part of every
one of the plays of Northern India is written in Sanskrit, which ceased
to be a popular language by 300 B.C., but continued the classical and
learned, and at the same time the sacred and court form of speech of the
Brahmans. Sanskrit is spoken by the heroes and principal personages of
the plays, while the female and inferior characters use varieties, more
or less refined, of the Prakrit languages (as a rule not more than
three, that which is employed in the songs of the women being the poetic
dialect of the most common Prakrit language, the Sauras[=e]n[=i]).
Hence, part at least of each play cannot have been understood by the
large majority of the audience, except in so far as their general
acquaintance with the legends or stories treated enabled them to follow
the course of the action. Every audience thus contained an _inner_
audience, which could alone feel the full effect of the drama. It is,
then, easy to see why the Hindu critics should make demands upon the
art, into which only highly-trained and refined intellects were capable
of entering, or called upon to enter. The general public could not be
expected to appreciate the sentiments expressed in a drama, and thus
(according to the process prescribed by Hindu theory) to receive
instruction by means of amusement. These sentiments are termed
_r[=a]sas_ (tastes or flavours), and said to spring from the _bh[=a]vas_
(conditions of mind and body). A variety of subdivisions is added; but
the _santa r[=a]sa_ is logically enough excluded from dramatic
composition, inasmuch as it implies absolute quiescence.
Species of dramas.
The Hindu critics know of no distinction directly corresponding to that
between tragedy and comedy, still less of any determined by the nature
of the close of a play. For, in accordance with the child-like element
of their character, the Hindus dislike an unhappy ending to any story,
and a positive rule accordingly prohibits a fatal conclusion in their
dramas. The general term for all dramatic compositions is _r[=u]paka_
(from _r[=u]pa_, form), those of an inferior class being distinguished
as _upar[=u]pakas_. Of the various subdivisions of the _r[=u]paka_, in a
more limited sense, the _n[=a]t[=a]ka_, or play proper, represents the
most perfect kind. Its subject should always be celebrated and
important--it is virtually either heroism or love, and most frequently
the latter--and the hero should be a demigod or divinity (such as
_R[=a]ma_ in Babhav[=u]ti's heroic plays) or a king (such as the hero of
_S[=a]kuntal[=a]_). But although the earlier dramatists took their plots
from the sacred writings or Pur[=a]n[=a]s, they held themselves at
liberty to vary the incidents--a licence from which the later poets
abstained. Thus, in accordance, perhaps, with the respective
developments in the religious life of the two peoples, the Hindu drama
in this respect reversed the progressive practice of the Greek. The
_prakaranas_ agree in all essentials with the _n[=a]t[=a]kas_ except
that they are less elevated; their stories are mere fictions, taken from
actual life in a respectable class of society.[1] Among the species of
the _upar[=u]paka_ may be mentioned the _trotaka_, in which the
personages are partly human, partly divine, and of which a famous
example remains.[2] Of the _bhana_, a monologue in one act, one literary
example is extant--a curious picture of manners in which the speaker
describes the different persons he meets at a spring festival in the
streets of Kolahalapur.[3] The satire of the farcical _prahasanas_ is
usually directed against the hypocrisy of ascetics and Brahmans, and the
sensuality of the wealthy and powerful. These trifles represent the
lower extreme of the dramatic scale, to which, of course, the principles
that follow only partially apply.