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
Of the types of Uparūpaka, other than the Nāṭikā and Saṭṭaka, there are
very few represented, and these only obviously written in accord with
the text-book definitions. Thus Rūpa Gosvāmin has left a Bhāṇikā, the
Dānakelikaumudī, [566] among his varied efforts to adapt the drama to
the tenets of his faith, and the Subhadrāharaṇa [567] of Mādhava, son
of the Maṇḍaleçvara Bhaṭṭa and Indumatī, and brother of Harihara,
styles itself a Çrīgadita. As it describes itself in terms similar to
those used in the Sāhityadarpaṇa, it is quite possibly posterior to
that work, and, on the other hand, there exists a manuscript of A.D.
1610. The story of the play is the old legend of the elopement of
Kṛṣṇa’s friend Arjuna with Subhadrā, whom he meets by going to her
father’s house as a beggar. The presence of a narrative verse has
suggested comparison with a shadow-drama, but for this there is
inadequate evidence.
8. THE SHADOW PLAY
It is extremely doubtful at what date the shadow-drama appeared in
India; the first play which we can be certain was represented in this
way is the Dharmābhyudaya [568] of Meghaprabhācārya, which in the stage
direction mentions once clearly a puppet (putraka) and calls itself a
Chāyānāṭyaprabandha. Unluckily the age of this work does not seem to be
ascertainable with any certainty.
It is natural to suggest, as did Pischel, that the Dūtān̄gada of
Subhaṭa, which is styled a Chāyānāṭaka, really was a shadow play. On
the other hand, Rājendralālamitra [569] suggested that the drama was
perhaps simply intended as an entr’acte, and this may be justified on
the interpretation of the term of drama in the form of a shadow: i.e.
reduced to the minimum for representation in such a form. The play
itself unluckily contains nothing to help us to a decision as to its
real character. It was represented in A.D. 1243 in honour of the dead
king Kumārapāla at the court of Tribhuvanapāla, a Caulukya of
Aṇahilapāṭaka, and it has come down to us in various forms. A longer
and shorter recension may be distinguished, though not very definitely;
in the longer form occur epic verses, and an introduction is prefixed
in thirty-nine stanzas, partly placed in the mouths of Rāma and
Hanumant, describing the finding of Sītā’s hiding-place. The story is
the simple one of An̄gada’s mission as an ambassador to Rāvaṇa to demand
back Sītā; Rāvaṇa endeavours to persuade An̄gada that Sītā is in love
with him. An̄gada is not deceived, and leaves Rāvaṇa with threats, and
we learn shortly afterwards that Rāvaṇa has met his doom. The merits of
the work are negligible.
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