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
We have no other play of which we can say with even the slightest
plausibility that it was a real shadow-drama. There are three works by
Vyāsa Çrīrāmadeva from the fifteenth century, his patrons being
Kalacuri princes of Raypur. The first, the Subhadrāpariṇayana, produced
under Brahmadeva or Haribrahmadeva, deals with the threadworn topic of
the winning of Arjuna’s bride; the second, the Rāmābhyudaya appeared
under the Mahārāṇa Meru, and deals with the conquest of Lan̄kā, the fire
ordeal of Sītā, and the return to Ayodhyā; the third, the
Pāṇḍavābhyudaya, written under Raṇamalladeva, describes in two Acts
Draupadī’s birth and marriage. But that these were really shadow-dramas
is not indicated by anything save the title, for they resemble ordinary
dramas in all other respects. The Sāvitrīcarita of Çan̄karalāla, son of
Maheçvara, calls itself a Chāyānāṭaka, but the work, written in 1882,
is an ordinary drama, and Lüders [570] is doubtless right in
recognizing that these are not shadow dramas at all. On the other hand,
he adds to the list the Haridūta, which tells the story given in the
Dūtavākya of Bhāsa of the mission of Kṛṣṇa to the Pāṇḍavas’ enemies to
seek to attain peace. This drama, however, does not describe itself as
a Chāyānāṭaka, and the argument is, accordingly, without value. But
what is most significant, there is no allusion to this sort of drama in
the theory which suggests that its introduction was decidedly late.
9. DRAMAS OF IRREGULAR TYPE
Professor Lüders [571] adds to the almost non-existing list of shadow
dramas, the Mahānāṭaka. He does this on the strength of the fact that
it is written mainly in verse, with little of prose; that the verse is
decidedly at times of the narrative as opposed to the dramatic type;
there is no Prākrit; the number of persons appearing is large, and
there is no Vidūṣaka, and these characteristics are found in the
Dūtān̄gada, which is a Chāyānāṭaka in name. The argument is clearly
inadequate in the absence of any real evidence, and the Mahānāṭaka can
be explained in other ways.
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