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 fourteenth century in all probability are three works of unequal
importance and merit. The Pratāparudrīya [604] of Vidyānātha is a
mediocre compilation from the Daçarūpa and the Kāvyaprakāça of Mammaṭa,
covering the whole field of poetics; it illustrates the formal rules of
the drama by the composition of a wretched drama in honour of
Pratāparudra of Warangal, whose inscriptions show dates from A.D. 1298
to 1314. Of much greater interest is Vidyādhara’s Ekāvalī; [605] like
Vidyānātha, the author celebrates in his illustrations of his text his
patron, in this case Narasiṅha II of Orissa, perhaps A.D. 1280–1314; as
a poet his merits are negligible, but he shows a lively interest in his
subject and intelligence in his views. Of greater popularity than
either is Viçvanātha Kavirāja, the author of the Sāhityadarpaṇa, [606]
a general treatise on poetics. His handling of the drama is based
largely on the Daçarūpa and its commentary, but he introduces a good
deal of matter from the Nāṭyaçāstra in his sixth chapter, including
details of the characteristics and ornaments of the drama, which the
Daçarūpa omits. In this Viçvanātha indicates his servile character,
which, however, renders his work the more valuable as an exposition of
the orthodox doctrine. Of his ancestry and his own works he makes free
mention, but the most definite evidence of his date is the existence in
the library at Jammu of a manuscript of his work whose date appears to
be A.D. 1383. The lack of order and the errors in his work are made the
basis of criticism by Rūpa Gosvāmin in the early part of the sixteenth
century, but his own Nāṭakacandrikā shows little improvement on the
work of his predecessor, whence it draws much of its material; its real
purpose is to eulogize the saint Caitanya, whose disciple Rūpa was and
in whose honour he composed dramas of no merit. Equally dependent on
Viçvanātha and the Daçarūpa is Sundaramiçra, whose Nāṭyapradīpa was
composed in A.D. 1613. Many other treatises on drama are known by name
or exist in manuscript, but none apparently of any great importance or
repute. Of the fourteenth century also is the Rasārṇavasudhākara [607]
of Çin̄ga Bhūpāla, lord of Rājācala and the land between the Vindhya and
Çrīçaila about A.D. 1330, who cites Vidyādhara.
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