A History of Sanskrit LiteratureMacdonell, Arthur Anthony
History
A History of Sanskrit Literature
Macdonell, Arthur Anthony
Sanskrit literature -- History and criticism
In accordance with their social position, the various characters in a
Sanskrit play speak different dialects. Sanskrit is employed only by
heroes, kings, Brahmans, and men of high rank; Prakrit by all women
and by men of the lower orders. Distinctions are further made in the
use of Prakrit itself. Thus women of high position employ Maharashtri
in lyrical passages, but otherwise they, as well as children and
the better class of servants, speak Çauraseni. Magadhi is used,
for instance, by attendants in the royal palace, Avanti by rogues
or gamblers, Abhiri by cowherds, Paiçachi by charcoal-burners,
and Apabhramça by the lowest and most despised people as well as
barbarians.
The Sanskrit dramatists show considerable skill in weaving the
incidents of the plot and in the portrayal of individual character,
but do not show much fertility of invention, commonly borrowing
the story of their plays from history or epic legend. Love is the
subject of most Indian dramas. The hero, usually a king, already
the husband of one or more wives, is smitten at first sight with
the charms of some fair maiden. The heroine, equally susceptible,
at once reciprocates his affection, but concealing her passion, keeps
her lover in agonies of suspense. Harassed by doubts, obstacles, and
delays, both are reduced to a melancholy and emaciated condition. The
somewhat doleful effect produced by their plight is relieved by the
animated doings of the heroine's confidantes, but especially by the
proceedings of the court-jester (vidushaka), the constant companion
of the hero. He excites ridicule by his bodily defects no less than
his clumsy interference with the course of the hero's affairs. His
attempts at wit are, however, not of a high order. It is somewhat
strange that a character occupying the position of a universal,
butt should always be a Brahman.
While the Indian drama shows some affinities with Greek comedy, it
affords more striking points of resemblance to the productions of the
Elizabethan playwrights, and in particular of Shakespeare. The aim
of the Indian dramatists is not to portray types of character, but
individual persons; nor do they observe the rule of unity of time or
place. They are given to introducing romantic and fabulous elements;
they mix prose with verse; they blend the comic with the serious, and
introduce puns and comic distortions of words. The character of the
vidushaka, too, is a close parallel to the fool in Shakespeare. Common
to both are also several contrivances intended to further the action
of the drama, such as the writing of letters, the introduction of a
play within a play, the restoration of the dead to life, and the use
of intoxication on the stage as a humorous device. Such a series of
coincidences, in a case where influence or borrowing is absolutely out
of the question, is an instructive instance of how similar developments
can arise independently.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account