The Sanskrit drama : $b in its origin, development, theory and practiceKeith, Arthur Berriedale
History
The Sanskrit drama : $b in its origin, development, theory and practice
Keith, Arthur Berriedale
Sanskrit drama -- History and criticism
This is essentially the period when the dramatic rules, strong in their
hold earlier over the minds of dramatists, attain even greater sway. It
is to this that we owe the few specimens we have of the rarer types of
drama which are not represented among the scanty remains of the
classical drama. There is no reason to suppose that these types were
popular among the earlier dramatists; they had, it seems, their vogue
in the time before the Nāṭyaçāstra assumed its present form, but were
rejected as unsuitable by the classical drama. We have also specimens
of types which may have been regularly produced in classical times, but
none of which are represented in the extant literature. Finally, we
have specimens of new forms, the result of efforts to introduce into
Sanskrit dramatic forms which had sprung up in more popular circles.
2. THE NĀṬAKA
The Nāṭaka remains throughout the post-classical period of the drama
the natural exponent of the higher form of the dramatic art. No change
of importance appears in its character; it merely steadily develops
those features which we have seen in full process of production in
Murāri and Rājaçekhara, the subordination of action to description, and
the degeneration of the description into a mere exercise in style and
in the use of sounds.
The character of the decline is obvious enough in the Prasannarāghava,
[499] a Nāṭaka in seven Acts, in which the logician Jayadeva (c. A.D.
1200), son of Mahādeva and Sumitrā, of Kuṇḍina in Berar, endeavours to
tell again the story of the Rāmāyaṇa. [500] In Act I a disciple of
Yājñavalkya appears and repeats from the speech of two bees heard
behind the scene the news they are discussing; the Asura Bāṇa is to
rival Rāvaṇa for the hand of Sītā. Two heralds then appear to describe
the suitors for the maiden’s hand; they are interrupted and insulted by
a gross and rough arrival who casts a contemptuous eye on the bow which
the suitor must bend, and would forcibly seize the prize. The heralds
soothe him, but he assumes the monstrous form of Rāvaṇa with his ten
heads. Bāṇa then appears, tries in vain the bow, insults Rāvaṇa and
retires. In Act II we have a ludicrous scene in which Rāma watches Sītā
and her friend; both he and she describe the beauties of the union of
the Vāsantī creeper and the mango-tree, an allusion to their own state
to be, and confronted shyly whisper love. In Act III we have an
intolerable series of compliments exchanged by all the parties,
Viçvāmitra, Çatānanda, Janaka, Daçaratha, Rāma, and Lakṣmaṇa;
Viçvāmitra bids Rāma bend the bow of Çiva, though a message from
Paraçurāma deprecates such an insult. The bow is broken, there is great
joy, and the marriage is celebrated. In Act IV Paraçurāma himself
arrives; his great feats are set out in a dialogue of Rāma and
Lakṣmaṇa; he encounters them, exchanges harangues, is dissuaded by
Janaka, Çatānanda, and Viçvāmitra from battle, but an insult of his to
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