PART IV

DRAMATIC PRACTICE

XIV

THE INDIAN THEATRE

1. THE THEATRE

The Sanskrit drama of the theorists is, despite its complexity, essentially intended for performance, nor is there the slightest doubt that the early dramatists were anything but composers of plays meant only to be read. They were connoisseurs, we may be certain, in the merits which would accrue to their works from the accessories of the dance, music, song, and the attractions of acting; the Vikramorvaçī must, for instance, have had much of the attraction of an opera, and as a mere literary work loses seriously in attraction.

On the other hand, the existence of regular theatres for the exhibition of drama is not assumed in the theorists. A drama was, it is clear, normally performed on an occasion of special rejoicing and solemnity, such as a festival of a god, or a royal marriage, or the celebration of a victory, and the place of performance thus naturally came to be the temple of the god or the palace of the king. We learn often in the drama and tales of the existence of dancing halls and music rooms in the royal palace where the ladies of the harem were taught these pleasing arts, and one of these could easily be adapted for a dramatic performance. But we have from the second century B.C. the remains of a cave which seems to have been used, if not for the performance of plays, at any rate for purposes of recitation of poems or some similar end; it is found in the Rāmgarh hill [764] in Chota Nagpur, and, although it is quite impossible to prove that it had anything to do with plays, it is interesting to note that the Nāṭyaçāstra states that the play-house should have the form of a mountain cave and two stories.

According to the Çāstra, [765] the play-house as made ready for performance may be of three types, the first for the gods, 108 hands (18 inches) long; the second rectangular, 64 hands long and 32 broad; the third triangular, 32 hands long, the second being praised on acoustic grounds. The house falls into two parts, the places for the audience and the stage. The auditorium is marked off by pillars, in front a white pillar for the seats for the Brahmins, then a red pillar for the Kṣatriyas, in the north-west a yellow pillar marks the seats for the Vaiçyas, while the Çūdras have a blue-black pillar in the north-east. The seats are of wood and bricks, and arranged in rows. In front beside the stage is a veranda with four pillars, apparently also for the use of spectators. In front of the spectators is the stage (ran̄ga), adorned with pictures and reliefs; it is eight hands square in the second form of play-house; its end is the head of the stage (ran̄gaçīrṣa), decorated by figures, and there offerings are made. [766]

Behind [767] the stage is the painted curtain (paṭī, apaṭī, tiraskaraṇī, pratisīrā), to which the name Yavanikā (Prākrit, Javanikā) is given, denoting merely that the material is foreign, and forbidding any conclusion as to the Greek origin of the curtain itself or the theatre. When one enters hastily, the curtain is violently thrown aside (apaṭīkṣepa). Behind the curtain are the actors’ quarters (nepathyagṛha) or tiring rooms. Here are performed the sounds necessary to represent uproar and confusion which cannot be represented on the stage; here also are uttered the voices of gods and other persons whose presence on the stage is impossible or undesirable.

The colour of the curtain is given in some authorities as necessarily in harmony with the dominant sentiment of the play, in accordance with the classification of sentiments already given, but others permit the use of red in every instance. Normally the entry of any character is effected by the drawing aside of the curtain by two maidens, whose beauty marks them out for this employment (dhṛtir yavanikāyāḥ). The term Nepathya has suggested an erroneous deduction as to the relative elevation of the stage and the foyer, for it is conceivable that it denotes a descending (ni-patha) way, and it has been concluded [768] that it was, therefore, below the level of the stage. But the regular phrase of the entry of an actor on the stage (ran̄gāvataraṇa) would suggest exactly the opposite, a descent from the foyer to the stage. In the case of stages hastily put together, often for merely very temporary aims, it would clearly be absurd to expect any fixed practice, nor can we say what was the normal height of the stage platform. In the case of a play within a play, in the Bālarāmāyaṇa of Rājaçekhara, we find that both a stage and a tiring room are erected on the original stage, though we may assume that these were of a very simple structure.

The number of doors leading to the tiring room from the stage is regularly given as two, [769] and apparently the place of the orchestra was between them.

2. THE ACTORS

The normal term for actor is Naṭa, a term which has the wider sense of dancer or acrobat; terms like Bharata, or Bhārata, Cāraṇa, [770] Kuçīlava, Çailūṣa, or Çaubhika have interest practically only for the history of the drama. The chief actor, whose name Sūtradhāra doubtless denotes him as primarily the architect of the theatre, the man who secures the erection of the temporary stage, is occasionally styled ‘troop-head of actors (naṭagāmaṇi)’, [771] and he is essentially the instructor of the other actors in their art (nāṭyācārya), so that his title Sūtradhāra can be used topically as equivalent to Professor. For this high position his qualifications were to be numerous; he was supposed to be learned in all the arts and sciences, to be acquainted with the habits and customs of all lands, to combine the completeness of technical knowledge with practical skill, and to be possessed of all the moral qualities which an Indian genius can enumerate. To him falls not merely the very important function of introducing the play, but also of taking one of the chief parts; thus he plays Vatsa in the Ratnāvalī, and in the Mālatīmādhava Kāmandakī, the nun, who powerfully affects the current of the drama. He is normally the husband of one of the actresses (naṭī), who aids him in the opening scene, and who is compelled, poor woman, to combine the arduous life of an actress with the domestic duty of looking after her husband’s material wants. She is represented as devoted to him, fasting to secure reunion in another life, preparing his meal and seeking to remove by her good works the dangers which threaten him, and compelled to play her parts, although anxious, as in the Ratnāvalī, over the difficulty of securing the marriage of her daughter to a fiancé who has gone overseas, or, as in the Jānakīpariṇaya, over the wickedness of another actor in seeking to take her daughter from her.

The Sthāpaka, according to the theory, is to resemble in his attributes the Sūtradhāra; as we have seen, to what extent he really in the dramas known to us was employed as distinct from the Sūtradhāra, it is impossible to say; the name suggests that he aided him in the structure of the stage, and then in his actor’s duties. But there is no ground to assume that he really had disappeared as a living figure before the classical drama; the occasional mention of him in actual dramas as well as in the theory need not be artificial. We have, however, a much more common attendant of the Sūtradhāra in the Pāripārçvika, who appears in the prologue of many plays, and in addition acted the parts of persons of middle rank. He receives the orders of his master and passes them on to the other actors, and directs the operations of the chorus, as in the Veṇīsaṁhāra. He is addressed by his master as Mārṣa, and he greets him as Bhāva.

The other actors, of whom there must often have been many in pieces with crowds introduced, are to have the qualities of the Sūtradhāra in as generous a measure as may be; they are divided, however, according to their qualifications into superior, medium, and third-rate actors. [772] The principal parts in any drama are, however, few; the king, the Vidūṣaka, the parasite, the heroine, and a companion are stock types. The division of rôles is seldom shown in the prologues, whence are derived most of the details of our knowledge of actual performances. The Sūtradhāra in the Ratnāvalī and the Priyadarçikā plays the part of Vatsa, his younger brother that of Yaugandharāyaṇa in the former play and that of Dṛḍhavarman in the latter; the Sūtradhāra and the Pāripārçvika take in the Mālatīmādhava the rôles of Kāmandakī and her pupil Avalokitā respectively. This taking of women’s parts by men is not by any means the normal practice; the Naṭī normally plays an important female part; [773] in the embryo drama in the Priyadarçikā we find that the heroine’s part is played by Āraṇyikā, and the hero’s part was to have been performed by another girl Manoramā, but Vatsa, without the queen’s knowledge, insinuated himself into the scene in propria persona. In the legend of Bharata’s exhibition of the Lakṣmīsvayaṁvara the nymph Urvaçī is represented as playing the chief rôle, and in Dāmodaragupta’s Kuṭṭanīmata, where an actual representation of the Ratnāvalī is described, we find a woman in the rôle of the princess. The Nāṭyaçāstra [774] expressly admits of three modes of representation; the rôles may be filled by persons of appropriate sex and age; the rôles of the old may be taken by the young and vice versa; and the rôles of men may be played by women and vice versa. The taking of women’s parts by men has, curiously enough, a very early piece of evidence, for the Mahābhāṣya mentions the word Bhrūkuṅsa, which was used to denote a man who made up as a female. [775]

We are, it is clear, to conceive of the troupe of actors under the Sūtradhāra as ready to wander hither and thither in search of a favourable opportunity of exhibiting their powers as interpreters. The performance of a drama became, it is clear, in later times at any rate, a worthy adornment of a festive occasion such as a religious festival, the consecration of a king, a marriage, the taking possession of a town or a new estate, the return of a traveller, and the birth of a son. The best patrons of the actors might be kings, but there was evidently no lack of appreciation of their services among men of lesser rank but of large means. The later prologues give us details of the rivalry between different troupes. In the Anargharāghava the actor declares that he has come to exhibit a superior sort of drama to that played by a rival, and asserts that the dearest desire of a player is to satisfy the public and to win back the favour he has lost. Rājaçekhara twice introduces the motive of a competition between actors to win the hand of an actress who has been offered by her father in marriage to the most adept of her suitors. Jayadeva invents a pleasing tale of an actor who won great success and reputation, inducing a comedian of the south to claim his name and steal his renown. The actor in revenge went south, and, striking up a partnership with a singer, won both repute and profit in the courts of the Deccan.

The reputation of actors and actresses was low and unsavoury; they are reputed to live on the price of their wives’ honour (jāyājīva, rūpājīva), and Manu imposes only a minor penalty on illicit relations with the wife of an actor on the score of their willingness to hand over their wives to others and profit by their dishonour. [776] The Mahābhāṣya gives equally clear testimony of the lack of chastity among the actresses or their predecessors. [777] The law book of Viṣṇu [778] treats them as Āyogavas, a mixed caste representing the fruit of alliances, improper and undesirable, between Çūdras and the daughters of the Vaiçya; to be an actor or a teacher of the art is ranked as a lesser sin in Baudhāyana. [779] The Kuçīlava is described as a Çūdra, who ought to be banished; [780] his evidence, and indeed that of any actor, is not to be accepted in law, [781] and Brahmins may not accept food offered by an actor, [782] a fact attested by the Sūtradhāra in the prologue to the Mṛcchakaṭikā who can find no one in Ujjayinī to accept his hospitality. Actors again are classed in Manu with wrestlers and boxers. An actress was often, if not necessarily, one of the great army of courtesans; Vasantasenā, the hetaera of the Cārudatta and Mṛcchakaṭikā, is herself skilled in acting, and has in her household maidens learning to act, and Daṇḍin includes lessons in this art in his account of the education of the perfect courtesan in the Daçakumāracarita.

On the other hand, we have traces of a higher side of the profession, which doubtless can quite fairly be connected with the gradual elevation of the drama from humble origins to the rank of an elaborate and refined poetry. Bharata, the alleged founder of the Nāṭyaçāstra, ranks as a Muni, or holy sage, and Urvaçī, a divine nymph, is treated as an actress. What is more important is that Bāṇa definitely enumerates in the Harṣacarita among his friends an actor and an actress; Bhartṛhari [783] refers to their friendship with kings, which is also attested in the legend of Vasumitra, son of Kālidāsa’s hero Agnimitra, who was slain amidst his actors by his enemy. Kālidāsa himself represents Agnivarṇa, king of Raghu’s line, as pleased to compete with actors in their own speciality. Vatsa, in the Priyadarçikā, is prepared to play a part without question, and Bhavabhūti in two of his prefaces asserts his friendship with his actors. In truth, men who could effectively declaim the stanzas of Bhavabhūti must have possessed both education and culture in a high degree, and have been very different from the acrobats and jugglers, dancers, and others whose humble occupations account for the censures of the law books and the Arthaçāstra.

3. THE MISE-EN-SCÈNE AND REPRESENTATION OF THE DRAMA

We have no trace in the drama of any attempt to introduce scenery into the representation. The curtain remained as a background throughout the entertainment, and it was in the main left to the imagination of the spectator, aided by the descriptions of the poet, to conceive the beauties of the situation supposed to be presented to his eyes. We have for this conclusive proof, if any were needed beyond the silence of the text-books, in the abundant stage directions which accompany the text of our dramas, and are found even in the fragments of Açvaghoṣa. When actions such as watering a plant were ascribed to an actress, no serious effort was made to bring in plants and perform the ceremonial of watering; on the contrary, she went through a mimicry of the process, which was enough to satisfy the audience. The king may mount a chariot, but no effort is made to bring one for this purpose; he merely goes in elaborate pantomime through the action of getting up off the ground, and the audience, trained and intelligent, realizes what has happened. At the beginning of the Çakuntalā the gazelle which Duḥṣanta follows is not a real animal, but the Sūtradhāra tells us that the king is pursuing a gazelle, and the actor, who represents the monarch, by his eager gaze and his gestures reveals himself as in the act of seeking to shoot the deer. To pluck flowers is merely to imitate the movements of one who really does so, and an actress with any skill has no difficulty in persuading an audience by her marks of agitation that she is escaping from the attacks of a bee.

There is thus no tedious attempt at realism, though the dramatists vary in the care with which they avoid the absurd in their use of conventions; the works of Bhāsa show doubtless an excessive tendency to allow of strain being placed on the credulity of the audience. The exits and entrances of the characters are often abrupt and unnatural, but the drama was not primarily intended as a realistic copy of events, and doubtless was not felt unsatisfactory by the audience. Nor, it may be remembered, has perfection in detail in any form of ceremonial ever made a strong appeal to Indian minds; in the most gorgeous celebrations there will occur, without exciting surprise or comment, strange deviations from western canons of good taste and elegance.

To a limited extent, however, use was made of minor properties, which are classed under the generic style of model work (pusta). [784] The Nāṭyaçāstra distinguishes three forms of such objects; they may be made up (sandhima) from bamboos covered with skins or cloths; or mechanical means might be employed (vyājima); or merely clothes (veṣṭita) used. We hear of the making of an elephant in the Udayanacarita; the Mṛcchakaṭikā owes its name to the toy cart which appears in it; the Bālarāmāyaṇa has mechanical dolls, and doubtless there were represented houses, caves, chariots, rocks, horses, and so on; monsters with animal heads and many arms could be made of clay and bamboos, and covered with cloths; we are expressly told that weapons must not be made of hard material, but that stocks of grass, bamboos, and lac may be made to serve, and naturally gestures served in lieu of hard blows.

The dress [785] of the actors is carefully regulated, especially as regards colour, which evidently was regarded as an important item in matters of sentiment. Ascetics wear garments of rags or bark; those in charge in the harem red jackets, kings gay garments or, if there are portents described, garments without colour. Ābhīra maidens wear dark blue clothes; in other cases dirty or uncoloured garments are prescribed. Dirty clothes indicate madness, distraction, misery, or a journey; uncoloured garb, one engaged in worship or some solemn religious service, an interesting survival of antique custom, while gods, Dānavas, Gandharvas, Uragas, Yakṣas, and Rakṣases, as well as lovers and kings, normally wear gay clothing.

Colour, [786] however, is by no means confined to garments; the actors are expected to adorn themselves with paint of hues appropriate to the rôles they play. There are, on one theory, four fundamental colours, white, blue-black, red, and yellow, from which others are developed, for instance pigeon colour by mixing the first two; a reddish yellow (gaura) from mixing the last two is also recorded. It or dark (çyāma) is given as suited for kings, while happiness is indicated by it. Kirātas, Barbaras, Andhras, Draviḍas, the people of Kāçi and Kosala, Pulindas, and the people of the Deccan are to be black (asita); the Çakas, Yavanas, Pahlavas, and Bālhikas [787] are to be reddish yellow; Pāñcālas, Çūrasenas, Māhiṣas, Uḍras, Māgadhas, An̄gas, Van̄gas, and Kalin̄gas are to be dark (çyāma), as also Vaiçyas and Çūdras in general, while Brahmins and Kṣatriyas are to be reddish-yellow.

Naturally the hair [788] attracts attention; Piçācas, madmen, and Bhūtas wear it loose; the Vidūṣaka is bald; boys have three tufts of hair, and so also servants if it is not cut short; the maidens of Avantī, and usually those of Bengal, wear ringlets, in the case of women of the north it is worn high on the head, and otherwise plaits are usual. The beard may be bright in hue, dark, or bushy. There is also the same tendency to stereotype the ornaments, made out of copper, mica, or wax, and the garlands carried by the various personages; Vidyādharīs, Yakṣīs, Apsarases and Nāgīs carry pearls and jewels, while the latter are at once recognizable by the snake’s hood rising over their heads, as are Yakṣas by a large tuft of hair.

The dress and appearance of the actor thus serve in some measure to carry out his duty of representation (abhinaya), of presenting before our eyes the states or conditions of the personage for whom he stands. This is the Āhāryābhinaya, the first of the four agencies enumerated by the Nāṭyaçāstra. He has also to perform the duty of representation by speech (vācika), using his voice to convey the dramatist’s words, and by exhibiting in propria persona the appropriate physical counterparts of the feelings and emotions of the characters (sāttvikābhinaya). Finally, he has specially to concentrate on the expression by gesture (ān̄gikābhinaya) of the feelings which he is supposed to experience. In this regard most detailed rules are given, doubtless from the technique of a period when more importance attached to gestures than later seems natural. Each member of the body is singled out for description; deep significance lies in the mode in which the head is shaken, the eyes glance, the brows move; cheek, nose, lip, chin, and neck can all be used to convey subtle senses. The hands are invaluable for this purpose; the different manœuvres with the fingers can convey almost any possible combination of meanings to the person sufficiently acquainted with the Nāṭyaçāstra to understand them. But other parts of the body down to the feet are valuable; great care is bestowed on their postures, and the gait is invaluable in distinguishing classes of persons and their deeds. Darkness need not artificially be induced; movements of hands and feet to indicate groping are enough; one set of movements shows the mounting of a chariot, another the climbing up to the top of a palace; if the garments are pulled up, the crossing of a river is plainly shown; if the motions of swimming are mimicked, clearly the river is too deep to wade; a dexterous movement of the hands shows that one is driving, and similarly one can mount an elephant or a horse. [789]

It is characteristic of the nature of the Indian theory that, while it descends into enormous detail, it leaves alone to all intents and purposes the obvious duty of defining precisely the relation of the varieties of representation described as Sāttvika and Ān̄gika. The true relation is that under the head of Sāttvika are described the physical states, which are deemed appropriate to feelings and emotions, while the Ān̄gika prescribes the precise physical movements which express most effectively both psychic states and physical movements, which cannot be conveniently presented on the stage. The division accordingly is unscientific, and, acute as is the investigation of the Nāṭyaçāstra in detail, it is far from satisfying as a whole.

The importance of such accessories to the representation as garlands, ornaments, and appropriate garments, is emphasized by Mātṛgupta, who admits a specific form of sentiment styled Nepathyarasa, a fact which illustrates the effect produced in the mind of the spectator by the details of the mise-en-scène. The same impression may be derived from the elaboration of the stage directions in the dramas, comparable only to such as are given, for instance, in Mr. Bernard Shaw’s productions. It is clear that they were intended not only for the direction of the actors in actually performing one of the pieces, but as instruments to aid the reader of the drama in realizing mentally the form of the representation and in appreciating, therefore, the dramatic quality of what he studied. Moreover, we have independent evidence which aids us in seeing how complete these directions are. A fortunate chance has preserved in Dāmodaragupta’s Kuṭṭanīmata, [790] written in the reign of Jayāpīḍa of Kashmir in the eighth century A.D., an account of the performance of the Ratnāvalī of Harṣa. The description is incomplete, but it is perfectly clear that it was played exactly in accordance with the stage directions which have come down to us, embedded in the text of the drama as we have it.

The actual performance of the play was preceded, as we have seen in describing the theory of the drama, by preliminaries, the essential aim of which was the securing of the favour of the gods for the play to be represented. Of the varied elements of the preliminaries special importance seems to have attached to the praise of the world guardians (dikpālastuti), and the reverence paid to Indra’s banner. A reed with five knots is selected which is called Jarjara; the five sections are painted white, blue-black, yellow, red, and a mixture of hues; banners of every colour are tied to it, and the supplication is made to Gaṇeça, the god who removes obstacles and favours literature, and to the guardians of the quarters of the world.

A religious aspect is given also to the mingling of the pigments, the materials employed being yellow arsenic, lamp black, and red among others. The arsenic is formally addressed as being created by Svayambhū for the purpose of serving as a pigment; then it is placed on a board with fragments of brick, the whole reduced to fine powder, and mingled, and then used as pigment. [791]

The time of the performance is not in many cases stated, but in a number of plays, including the Mālatīmādhava, Karṇasundarī, and the embryo drama in the Priyadarçikā, we find it assumed to be the moment when the sun is just appearing. [792] The beat of drum announces the beginning of the drama, the preliminaries, often reduced to little more than a vocal and instrumental concert of brief duration, are completed, and the benediction pronounced, to be followed by the prologue proper and the drama.

4. THE AUDIENCE

A drama like the Sanskrit demanded the full attention of a cultivated audience, and it is assumed or expressly asserted, as in the dramas of Kālidāsa, Harṣa, and Bhavabhūti, that the spectators are critical and experienced. The Nāṭyaçāstra [793] requires from the ideal spectator (prekṣaka) keen susceptibility and excellent judgement, with ability to make his own the feelings and emotions of the characters depicted by the actors. But it is admitted that there are the usual degrees among the spectators, good, medium, and indifferent; the question of the success of a drama depends on the judgement of the critic (prāçnika), who is to possess every possible good quality to fit him for the delicate task. The audience, as it is to share the feelings of the characters, is expected to show them by the usual outward signs; laughter, tears, cries, hair standing on end, jumping up from their seats, clapping with the hands and other manifestations of pleasure, horror, fear, and other sentiments are both proper and natural.

The rules for placing the patron at whose bidding the drama is performed, Sabhāpati, and his guests, are elaborate. [794] He sits himself on the Lion Throne, the equivalent of the royal box, with the ladies of his harem on the left, and on the right the personages of highest importance, such as the vassal princes of a great king like Harṣa. Behind the latter are the treasurer and other officers, and near them the learned men of the court, civil and religious, including the poets, and in their midst the astrologers and physicians. On the left again are the ministers and other courtiers; all around are maidens of the court. In front again of the king are Brahmins, behind the bearers of fans, radiant in youthful beauty. On the left in front are the reciters and panegyrists, eloquent and wise. Guards are present to protect the sacred person of the sovereign.

How far the dramas were viewed by the public in general we cannot say; the rules regarding the play-house contemplate the presence of Çūdras, but that is a vague term, and may apply to a very restricted class of royal hangers on. We have the general rule [795] that barbarians, ignorant people, heretics, and those of low class should not be admitted, but such prescriptions mean very little. There must, it is clear, have been the utmost variation in the character of the audience according to the place and circumstances of representation. At great festivals, when plays were given in the temples, there must have been admission for as many as could be crowded in; in private exhibitions the audience may well have been more select. The fact that the dramas must have been largely unintelligible to all save a select few of the audience would not matter much; a drama was essentially a spectacle; in many cases its subject was perfectly familiar to the audience, and the elaborate use of conventional signs must have been enough to aid many of the audience in following roughly the nature of the proceedings.

When such dramatic exhibitions became rare we do not know; it is certain that in the eleventh century in Kashmir they were not uncommon; Kṣemendra advised aspirants to poetic fame to improve their taste by the study of such representations. [796] Doubtless the Mahomedan conquest seriously affected the vogue of the classical drama, which was obnoxious to Mahomedan fanaticism as being closely identified both with the national religion and the national spirit of India. The kings, who had been the main support of the actors and poets alike, disappeared from their thrones or suffered grave reverses in fortune. The tradition of dramatic performances gradually vanished. Other causes contributed to this end; the divorce between the language of the stage and that of the people steadily increasing with the passage of time made the Sanskrit drama more and more remote to the public, and the Mahomedans made it lose its position as the expression of the official and court life of the highest circles. [797]

NOTES

[1] i. 2 ff.

[2] Hopkins, Great Epic of India, pp. 7, 10, 53.

[3] Keith, JRAS. 1911, pp. 981 ff.

[4] Sieg, Die Sagenstoffe des Ṛgveda, p. 27.

[5] SBE. xxxii. 182 f.

[6] TI. i. 307 f.

[7] i. 92. 4.

[8] xii. 1. 41.

[9] Mysterium und Mimus im Rigveda (1908); VOJ. xxii. 223 ff.; xxiii. 1 ff., 270 f.

[10] VOJ. xviii. 59 ff., 137 ff.; xxiii. 273 ff.; xxiv. 117 ff. Cf. Charpentier, VOJ. xxiii. 33 ff.; Die Suparṇasage (1922) is somewhat confused and uncritical.

[11] See ch. xi., § 9; Winternitz, GIL. iii. 130 f.

[12] See also Jarl Charpentier, Die Suparṇasage (Uppsala, 1922).

[13] This is quite consistent with the ritual use in a Soma ‘wish’ offering suggested by Oldenberg, GGA. 1909, pp. 79 ff. Cf. his remarks on vii. 103 in Ṛgveda-Noten, ii. 67.

[14] Oldenberg, GGA. 1909, p. 77, n. 4.

[15] Keith, JRAS. 1911, p. 1006.

[16] Cf. Sansk. Phil. pp. 404 ff.

[17] ZDMG. xxxvii. 54 ff.; xxxix. 52 ff.; GGA. 1909, pp. 66 ff.; GN. 1911, pp. 441 ff.; Zur Geschichte der altindischen Prosa (1917), pp. 53 ff.; Das Mahabharata, pp. 21 ff.

[18] VS. ii. 42 ff. GGA. 1891, pp. 351 ff.

[19] Compare Oldenberg, Die Literatur des alten Indien, p. 241.

[20] See Keith, JRAS. 1911, pp. 981 ff.; 1912, pp. 429 ff.; Rigveda Brāhmaṇas, pp. 68 ff.

[21] Die indische Balladendichtung (1913). Cf. G. M. Miller, The Popular Ballad (1905).

[22] The existence of this type in the Epic is certainly most improbable, and in the Jātakas it is not frequent; cf. Charpentier, Die Suparṇasage, and Winternitz’s admissions, GIL. ii. 368 with Oldenberg, GN. 1918, pp. 429 ff.; 1919, pp. 61 ff.

[23] Hillebrandt, Ved. Myth., i. 69 ff.

[24] Keith, Śāṅkhāyana Āraṇyaka, pp. 72 ff.

[25] Keith, HOS. XVIII. cxxxv.

[26] VS. xxx. 4; TB. iii. 4. 2.

[27] AID. pp. 22 f.

[28] ID. pp. 42 ff.

[29] xxix. 5.

[30] ii. 7. 3.

[31] The Prākritic form of the term as opposed to Vedic nṛtu and nṛtta is legitimate evidence for the development of pantomimic dancing in circles more popular than priestly. But it does nothing to show that such dancing was originally secular, or that it rather than religious dancing gave a factor to drama.

[32] Çān̄khāyana Gṛhya Sūtra, i. 11. 5.

[33] Caland, Die altindischen Todten- und Bestattungsgebräuche, pp. 138 ff.

[34] Die Literatur des alten Indien, p. 237; Macdonell, Sanskrit Literature, p. 347.

[35] Die Literatur des alten Indien, p. 241. In Mexico we have the material of a ritual drama (K. Th. Preuss, Archiv für Anthropologie, 1904, pp. 158 ff.), but not the epic element.

[36] Hopkins, The Great Epic of India, pp. 55 ff. Nāṭaka in ii. 11. 36 is very late; JRAS. 1903, pp. 571 f.

[37] xii. 140. 21.

[38] xiii. 33. 12.

[39] ii. 88 ff. See § 3 below.

[40] ii. 67. 15.

[41] ii. 69. 3.

[42] ii. 1. 27; Hillebrandt, ZDMG. lxxii. 229, n. 1; contra, SBAW. 1916, p. 730.

[43] Barth, Inscr. Sansc. du Cambodge, p. 30. At the close of the Mahābhārata the existence of such recitations is clearly recognized; Oldenberg, Das Mahabharata, p. 20.

[44] Max Müller, India, p. 81. Cf. Winternitz, GIL. iii. 162, n. 1.

[45] E. Schlagintweit, India in Wort und Bild, i. 176.

[46] vii. 93.

[47] Lévi, TI. i. 311 f.

[48] Macdonell and Keith, Vedic Index, ii. 94 ff.

[49] Konow, ID. p. 9; Lévi, TI. ii. 51. On these rhapsodes, cf. Jacobi, Das Rāmāyaṇa, pp. 62 ff.; GGA. 1899, pp. 877 f.; Hopkins, The Great Epic of India, pp. 364 ff.

[50] iv. 3. 110 f.

[51] iii. 2. 111.

[52] ye tāvad ete çobhanikā nāmaite pratyakṣaṁ Kaṅsaṁ ghātayanti pratyakṣam Balim bandhayantīti. citreṣu katham? citreṣv apy udgūrṇā nipātitāç ca prahārā dṛçyante Kaṅsakarṣaṇyaç ca. granthikeṣu kathaṁ yatra çabdagaḍumātraṁ lakṣyate te ’pi hi teṣām utpattiprabhṛty ā vināçād ṛddhīr vyācakṣāṇāḥ sato buddhiviṣayān prakāçayanti. ātaç ca sato vyāmiçrā hi dṛçyante: kecit Kaṅsabhaktā bhavanti, kecid Vāsudevabhaktāḥ. varṇānyatvaṁ khalv api puṣyanti: kecit kālamukhā bhavanti, kecid raktamukhāḥ. See iii. I. 26. The text, uncertain in detail, must be corrected by replacing buddhīr for the absurd ṛddhīr of some manuscripts only, defended by Lüders. See Weber, IS. xiii. 487 ff. Çaubhika is a variant.

[53] SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff. Cf. Hillebrandt, ZDMG. lxxii. 227 f.; Keith, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, I. iv. 27 ff. Winternitz (ZDMG. lxxiv. 118 ff.) ineffectively supports Lüders, though he recognizes the extraordinary difficulties of this view. The error is due to the idea that one can only describe (ācaṣṭe) in words, ignoring art and action.

[54] TI. i. 315. The words are: Kaṅsādyanukāriṇāṁ naṭanāṁ vyākhyānopādhyāyāḥ.

[55] Weber might be interpreted as believing in an actual killing, but, if so, he was clearly in error, and in point of fact he merely gives this as possible (IS. xiii. 490). That Çaubhikas did manual acts and were not talkers primarily, if at all, is suggested by the use elsewhere of the term; thus in the Kāvyamīmāṅsā, p. 55, they are classed with rope-dancers and wrestlers.

[56] ye ’pi citraṁ vyācakṣate ’yam Mathurāprāsādo ’yaṁ Kaṅso ’yam bhagavān Vāsudevaḥ praviṣṭa etāḥ Kaṅsakarṣiṇyo rajjava etā udgūrṇā nipātitāç ca prahārā ayaṁ hataḥ Kaṅso ’yam ākṛṣṭa iti te ’pi citragataṁ Kaṅsaṁ tādṛçenaiva Vāsudevena ghātayanti. citre ’pi hi tadbuddhir eva paçyatām. etena citralekhakā vyākhyātāḥ. On Lüders’ view the second sentence is useless.

[57] Genesis des Mahābhārata, pp. 163 ff. Granthika occurs in MBh. xiv. 70. 7; cf. granthin, Manu, xii. 103.

[58] SBAW. 1916, p. 736. Hillebrandt (ZDMG. lxxii. 228) criticises effectively Lüders’s interpretation. Cf. granthagaḍutva in R. i. 243.

[59] It is a confirmation of the incorrectness of Lüders’s view that he is driven to render vṛddhīr, which he reads for buddhīr, as ‘Schicksale’. Now vṛddhi cannot possibly be used in this sense; it means ‘prosperity’, and, applied to Kaṅsa or Bali, it is ludicrous. What is meant is that, by forming parties, the Granthikas make real to the audience the feelings of the characters, a doctrine entirely in keeping with the duty of an actor according to N. Hillebrandt’s view of the Çaubhikas as explaining the subject of the play to the audience, like the Sthāpaka later (N. v. 154 ff.; DR. iii. 3; SD. 283), contradicts the word pratyakṣam.

[60] Winternitz (ZDMG. lxxiv. 122) desires inversion, even on Lüders’s theory, although Lüders attaches importance to the text.

[61] i. 4. 29 (naṭasya çṛṇoti, granthikasya çṛṇoti); ii. 4. 77 (agāsīn naṭaḥ); ii. 3. 67 (naṭasya bhuktam); iii. 2. 127 (naṭam āghnānāḥ); iv. 1. 3.

[62] vi. 3. 43.

[63] Keith, ZDMG. lxiv. 534 f.; JRAS. 1911, pp. 979 ff.; 1912, pp. 411 ff.

[64] The Cults of the Greek States, v. 233 ff. The variant theory of Miss Harrison, Prof. Gilbert Murray, and Dr. Cornford in Themis, and of Dieterich, Archiv f. Religionswissenschaft, xi. 163 ff., is much less plausible.

[65] Dawkins, Journ. Hell. Stud., 1906, pp. 191 ff.

[66] Lüders (SBAW. 1916, p. 718, n. 3) is responsible for the view that Duryodhana is the hero. Lindenau (BS. p. 30) accepts this, but gives the true facts (pp. 32, 33), without apparently realizing that the views are contradictory. The Ūrubhan̄ga’s conclusion is happy, not tragic, for the worshipper of Kṛṣṇa.

[67] Poetics, 1449 a 10 ff.

[68] Cf. the connexion of Greek Comedy with ritual cathartic cursing; Keith, JRAS. 1912, p. 425, n. For less plausible theories see F. M. Cornford, The Origin of Attic Comedy (1914); Ridgeway, Dramas and Dramatic Dances, pp. 401 ff.

[69] AID. p. 27. Cf. below, p. 51, n. 1.

[70] Weber, Ueber die Kṛṣṇajanmāṣṭamī (1868).

[71] The influence of the Kṛṣṇa legend is suggested on the Vikramorvaçī; Gawroński, Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 33 ff. Cf. below, p. 130.

[72] Lévi, TI. i. 331 f. Cf. Bloch, Langue Marathe, pp. ix. 12 f.

[73] Mathurā, pp. 91 f., 101 f.

[74] JPASB. v. 351 ff.

[75] Megasthenes ascribed the Kordax to the Indian Dionysos (Çiva); Arrian, Ind. 7. Bloch (ZDMG. lxii. 655) exaggerates his importance.

[76] Cf. Ridgeway, Dramas and Dramatic Dances, p. 190, and pp. 192 ff. on modern Indian drama in general.

[77] Lévi, TI. i. 319 ff. That any of the early Buddhist texts (e.g. Padhānasutta, Pabbajjāsutta; Mārasaṁyutta, Bhikkhunīsaṁyutta; Chaddanta-, Ummadantī-, Mahājanaka-, or Candakinnara-jātaka; Theragāthā, 866 ff.; Therīgāthā, 912 ff.) is really dramatic is out of the question; cf. Winternitz, VOJ. xxvii. 38 f.

[78] xii. p. 178. Drama is alluded to in Divyāvadāna, pp. 357, 360, 361.

[79] Schiefner, IS. iii. 483, Indian Tales, pp. 236 ff.

[80] ii. 24 (75).

[81] E. Schlagintweit, Buddhism in Tibet, p. 233; JASB. 1865, p. 71. Ridgeway’s Dramas, &c., ignores Tibet. For similar Chinese performances, see Annales Guimet, xii. 416 f.

[82] Āyāraṁga Sutta, ii. 11. 14; Rājapraçnīya, IS. xvi. 385. The love of the Indians for song and dance is recorded by Greek tradition; Arrian, Anabasis, vi. 2.

[83] Unfortunately the date of this change of view is uncertain. No early Jain drama is certainly recorded. A number of mediaeval works have recently been printed; see E. Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 59 ff.

[84] JA. sér. 9, xix. 95 ff. If this had been the case, one would have found references freely to the literature in Hāla, where only v. 344 alludes to the Pūrvaran̄ga of the Nāṭaka (raiṇāḍaapuvvaraṁgassa).

[85] The Origin of Tragedy (1910); Dramas and Dramatic Dances of non-European Races (1915); JRAS. 1916, pp. 821 ff.; Keith, JRAS. 1916, pp. 335 ff.; 1917, pp. 140 ff. G. Norwood (Greek Tragedy, pp. 2 f.) rejects Ridgeway’s view for Greece, and see Keith, JRAS. 1912, pp. 411 ff.

[86] Drama, &c., p. 129 asserts this as the view of ‘the best authorities’; very wisely he does not refer to these amazing authorities. Cf. E. Arbman, Rudra (Uppsala, 1922); Keith, Indian Mythology, pp. 81 ff.

[87] ii. 88.

[88] ii. 91. 26 ff.; 93. 1 ff. Cf. Hertel, VOJ. xxiv. 117 ff.; Ravivarman, Pradyumnābhyudaya, Act III, p. 23.

[89] Cf. von Schroeder, Mysterium und Mimus, pp. 292 ff. That this was originally a ritual drama is most improbable.

[90] AID. pp. 22 ff.

[91] ID. pp. 42 ff.

[92] Hardy, Album Kern, pp. 61 f.; Thomas, JRAS. 1914, pp. 392 f.

[93] ERE. iv. 868.

[94] AID. p. 25. Lindenau (BS. p. 45) sees in Vṛṣākapi of Ṛgveda, x. 86, the prototype of the Vidūṣaka, as a maker of mischief and as the god’s companion, but this is far-fetched. Hertel (Literarisches Zentralbl. 1917, pp. 1198 ff.) lays stress on the fact that at the royal courts the king had normally a jester to amuse him. This may easily have served to affect the figure of this character, if of religious origin. For older views, cf. J. Huizinga, De Vidûṣaka en het indisch tooneel (Groningen, 1897); F. Cimmino, Atti della reale Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti (Naples, 1893), xv. 97 ff.; M. Schuyler, JAOS. xx. 338 ff.; P. E. Pavolini, Studi italiani di filologia indo-iranica, ii. 88 f.

[95] TD. pp. 43 f. Cf. Niṣikânta Chattopâdhyâya, The Yâtrâs (1882).

[96] Die Heimat des Puppenspiels (1902). Obvious objections are given by Ridgeway, Dramas, &c., pp. 164 ff.

[97] iii. 30. 23; v. 39. 1.

[98] Vikramorvaçīya, pp. 4 f.

[99] AID. p. 8; ZDMG. lxxii. 231.

[100] SBAW. 1906, pp. 481 ff.

[101] SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff. Contra, Hillebrandt, ZDMG. lxxii. 230 f. Winternitz (ZDMG. lxxiv. 120) reduces the Çaubhikas to people who tell tales of what is depicted on pictures, a clearly impossible version, but valid against Lüders.

[102] Based on Kaiyaṭa’s version of Çaubhika: Kaṁsādyanukāriṇāṁ naṭānāṁ vyākhyānopādhyāyāḥ. This is clearly incompatible with Lüders’s view, as he admits (pp. 720 f.). Kaiyaṭa is far too late for useful evidence.

[103] See Vincent Smith, Asoka, (ed. 3), pp. 166 f.

[104] Bloch, Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903–4, pp. 123 ff.

[105] p. 344.

[106] xii. 295. 5.

[107] Bṛhatsaṁhitā, v. 74; see Hillebrandt, ZDMG. lxxii. 227.

[108] ZDMG. lxxv. 69 f.

[109] See ch. xi, § 8 below.

[110] See ch. xiv, § 2 below.

[111] AID. p. 8, n. 2. On Javan drama, cf. Ridgeway, Dramas, &c., pp. 216 ff.

[112] IS. ii. 148; Ind. Lit.2 n. 210; SBAW. 1890, p. 920; cf. IS. xiii. 492.

[113] Die Recensionen der Çakuntalā (1875), p. 19; SBAW. 1906, p. 502.

[114] Der griechische Einfluss im indischen Drama (1882); Sansk. Phil. pp. 398 ff. Cf. E. Brandes, Lervognen (1870), pp. iii ff.; Vincent Smith, JASB. lviii. 1. 184 ff.

[115] Mahāyānasūtrālaṁkāra, ii. 16 f. Cf. Keith, Buddhist Philosophy, p. 217.

[116] TI. i. 345.

[117] Or Kuṣāṇa; CHI. i. 580 ff.

[118] Plutarch, Alex. 72; Fort. Alex. 128 D; Crassus, 33. Marshall (JRAS. 1909, pp. 1060 f.) suggests a reproduction of a motif of the Antigone in a vase at Peshawar, but dubiously.

[119] ii. 32.

[120] TI. ii. 60.

[121] Periplus, 48.

[122] Cf. Hultzsch, JRAS. 1904, pp. 399 ff. on the Kanarese words found in a fragment of a Greek comedy preserved in a papyrus of the second century A.D.

[123] This does not appear in the dramas of Menander so far as recovered, and is of uncertain date. Cf. Donatus on Terence, Andria, Prol.

[124] Konow, ID. p. 5, n. 5; Lévi, TI. i. 348; for the generic sense, cf. Amara, ii. 6. 3. 22; Halāyudha, ii. 154.

[125] Already in Bhāsa: cf. Lindenau, BS. p. 41, n. 2; Lévi, Quid de Graecis, &c. (1890), pp. 41 f.; on Greek influence, cf. Kennedy, JRAS. 1912, pp. 993 ff., 1012 ff.; 1913, pp. 121 ff.; W. E. Clark, Classical Philology, xiv. 311 ff.; xv. 10 f., 18 f.; Weber, SBAW. 1890, pp. 900 ff.

[126] Kauṭilīya Arthaçāstra, i. 21; Megasthenes, frag. 26; Strabo, xv. 1. 55.

[127] For this motif cf. Gawroński, Les Sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 39 ff. On recognition in the Greek tragic drama see Aristotle, Poetics, 1452 a 29 ff.; Verrall, Choephorae, pp. xxxiii–lxx. Its alleged essential character as an element of primitive tragedy, the recognition of the god, is disposed of by Ridgeway, Dramas, &c., pp. 40 f.

[128] Cf. Bhāsa’s Svapnavāsavadattā, vi. pp. 51 ff.

[129] Poetics, 1449 b 12 ff.

[130] TI. i. 358.

[131] ID. p. 15.

[132] Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903–4, pp. 123 ff., rashly followed by Lüders, ZDMG. lviii. 868. See Hillebrandt, AID. pp. 23 f.; GIL. iii. 175, n. 1.

[133] Der Mimus, i. 694 ff.; DLZ. 1915, pp. 589 ff.; E. Müller-Hess, Die Entstehung des indischen Dramas (1916), pp. 17 ff.; Lindenau, Festschrift Windisch, p. 41.

[134] Cf. Oldenberg, Die Literatur des alten Indien, pp. 241 ff.

[135] JA. sér. 9, xix. 95 ff.; IA. xxxiii. 163 ff. Cf. Bloch, Mélanges Lévi, pp. 15 f.; Franke, Pāli und Sanskrit, pp. 87 ff.; Keith, Sansk. Lit. ch. 1.

[136] ID. p. 49.

[137] ID. p. 50. Contrast CHI. i. 583.

[138] xvii. 75; cf. Sāhityadarpaṇa, 431; R. iii. 314.

[139] Cf. IS. xiii. 483 ff.; Kielhorn, IA. xiv. 326 f.

[140] Bruchstücke buddhistischer Dramen, pp. 11, 64. Contrast his views in SBAW. 1912, pp. 808 ff., when he accepts the much later date, advocated by Oldenberg, GN. 1911, pp. 427 ff.

[141] Jacobi, Ausgew. Erzählungen in Mâhârâshṭrî, pp. xiv ff., suggests the fifth century A.D. for Sātavāhana. V. Smith’s date (first cent. A.D.) is certainly wrong. The poetry may probably be as early as the third century; Weber’s ed., p. xxiii; Lévi, TI. i. 326; GIL. iii. 102 f.

[142] Lüders, Bruchstücke buddhistischer Dramen, pp. 40 f.; SBAW. 1913, pp. 1003 ff.

[143] See Keith in CHI. i. 123 f.

[144] TI. i. 331.

[145] IA. xxx. 556.

[146] A transitional stage of Prākrit may, perhaps, be seen in the Nāṭyaçāstra, but the text is very corrupt; cf. Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, pp. 84 ff.

[147] Cf. Aischylos in Athen., p. 347.

[148] 559. See Daṇḍin, Kāvyādarça, i. 14 ff., and cf. the analyses of Man̄kha’s Çrīkaṇṭhacarita (twelfth cent.) and Haricandra’s Dharmaçarmābhyudaya in Lévi, TI. i. 337 ff.; Keith, Sansk. Lit., pp. 38 ff.

[149] See Jacobi, Das Rāmāyaṇa, pp. 119 ff.; Walter, Indica, III.

[150] Such a drama as the Haragaurīvivāha of Jagajjyotirmalla of Nepal (A.D. 1617–33), which is really a sort of opera with the verses, written in dialect, as the only fixed element (Lévi, Le Népal, i. 242) is of no cogency for the early drama. The Maithilī beginnings of drama, based on the classical, give song in dialect, dialogue in Sanskrit and Prākrit (Lévi, TI. i. 393).

[151] Kielhorn, IA. xiv. 326 f.; Lüders, Bruchstücke buddhistischer Dramen, p. 63.

[152] Cf. Weber, IS. viii. 181 ff.; Jacobi, ZDMG. xxxviii. 615 f.

[153] ID. p. 50. For the fragments see Lüders, Bruchstücke buddhistischer Dramen (1911); SBAW. 1911, pp. 388 ff. For his philosophy, cf. Keith, Buddhist Philosophy, Part III, ch. iii. The Saundarananda is earlier than the Buddhacarita and it than the Sūtrālaṁkāra.

[154] N. xix. 102.

[155] Similarly in the Pārthaparākrama of Prahlādanadeva (twelfth cent.) Vāsava pronounces the benediction.

[156] Açvaghoṣa’s dramatic powers are also exhibited in the Māra legend of the Sūtrālaṁkāra, which is preserved in the Divyāvadāna (pp. 356 ff.; Windisch, Māra und Buddha, pp. 161 ff.); cf. Huber, BEFEO. iv. 414 f.

[157] In the Jain Moharājaparājaya (below, ch. xi, § 3) the real and the ideal characters converse.

[158] Cf. Lüders, SBAW. 1913, pp. 999 ff.

[159] That any date is given in the inscription is wholly uncertain; see discussions in IA. xlvii. 223 f.; xlviii. 124, 206 f.; xlix. 30, 43 ff.; JRAS. 1910, pp. 324 ff.

[160] Harṣacarita, intr. v. 16.

[161] Gaüḍavaha, 800.

[162] Cf. Chandradhar Guleri, IA. xlii. 52 ff.

[163] ID., p. 51, who also misses the point of Bhāsanāṭakacakra by taking it to refer to one play only.

[164] Cf. Lindenau, BS., p. 48, n. 1.

[165] Barnett, JRAS. 1919, pp. 233 ff.; 1921, pp. 587 ff. Contrast G. Morgenstierne, Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā, p. 16, n. 1; Keith, IA. lii. 59 f.; Thomas, JRAS. 1922, pp. 79 ff.; Winternitz, GIL. iii. 186, 645.

[166] KF. pp. 109 ff.

[167] ID. p. 25; cf. Pischel, GGA. 1891, p. 361; below, p. 126.

[168] All the dramas are ed. in TSS. 1912–15 by T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin; this play is trs. E. P. Janvier, Mysore, 1921; P. E. Pavolini, GSAI. xxix. 1 f. who points out that the Bakavadha of the Mahābhārata is used.

[169] One in the Mahābhārata, but Bhīma slays there 105 Sūtas also, the original Kīcaka being of that class.

[170] KF. pp. 301 f.

[171] Winternitz, ZDMG. lxxiv. 125 ff.; Lindenau, BS. pp. 22 ff.

[172] Trs. E. Beccarini-Crescenzi, GSAI. xxvii. 1 ff.

[173] Cf. KSS. cxii. and Kāmasūtravyākhyā in ed. of Pratimānāṭaka, Upodghāta, p. 29, n.; trs. GSAI. xxviii.

[174] The story is referred to in the Mālatīmādhava, ii. 92; for the Kathā, see Lacôte, La Bṛhatkathā, pp. 70 ff.; for the ‘Trojan horse’ motif, GIL. ii. 155; iii. 175, n. 3.

[175] The work is styled a Nāṭikā in the colophon in one manuscript.

[176] iv. 40 ff.

[177] v. 2. 28.

[178] p. 366.

[179] Trs. A. Baston, Paris, 1914 (corr. in GSAI. xxvii. 159 f.); A. G. Shirreff and Panna Lall, Allahabad, 1918. Cf. Lacôte, JA. sér. II, xiii. 493 ff.

[180] iv. 3. 25, citing iv. 7.

[181] Dhvanyālokalocana, p. 152 cites probably a lost verse; comm. on N. in TSS. ed. p. xxii. The play is cited also by Vandyaghaṭīya Sarvānanda (A.D. 1159).

[182] i. 2 in Vāmana, v. i. 3.

[183] i. 19.

[184] i. 15.

[185] i. 34.

[186] ii. 233.

[187] G. Morgenstierne, Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā (1921). Cf. Mehendale, Bhandarkar Comm. Vol. pp. 369 ff.

[188] Arthadyotanikā, 2.

[189] In the Pratimānāṭaka the poet invents the episode of Bharata’s learning of Sītā’s abduction, of Rāma’s taking over the reins of government from Bharata, and his coronation in the hermitage. In the Pañcarātra the gift by Duryodhana of half the realm is new.

[190] Recognized by Duryodhana, v. 35.

[191] v. 43.

[192] p. 69 and v. 21.

[193] iii. p. 53.

[194] Svapnavāsavadattā, iv. p. 43.

[195] v. p. 83.

[196] Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 57.

[197] pp. 59 ff.

[198] Madhyamavyāyoga, p. 22.

[199] Abhiṣekanāṭaka, i. p. 13.

[200] vi. p. 102.

[201] Subhāṣitāvali, 1994.

[202] i. 25.

[203] pp. 43 ff.

[204] pp. 99 ff.

[205] Cf. Duryodhana’s description of Kṛṣṇa’s manifestation in the Dūtavākya.

[206] Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi, where three Vidyādharas describe Rāma and Rāvaṇa’s fight; Pañcarātra, i, where three Brahmins describe Duryodhana’s sacrifice.

[207] In the Madhyamavyāyoga there are three sons of the Brahmin; Ūrubhan̄ga, where three servants describe the battle. Cf. the Trigata of the preliminaries to the drama.

[208] Prastāvanā is given in the Karṇabhāra.

[209] v. p. 56; cf. Avimāraka, iii. p. 41. Compare the use of an abrupt interruption in the Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, p. 30, where the query of the king as to a husband is answered by the mention of Vatsarāja’s capture.

[210] p. 22. Apparently a dance on the occasion of an eclipse may be meant; Lindenau, BS. p. 43. Cf. L. von Schroeder, Arische Religion, ii. 114 ff.

[211] The idea that prathamakalpa is a technical term of dramaturgy (DR. i. 60, comm.) appears to be due to the frequent use of the term, apparently as a remark of eulogy, in the manuscripts of Bhāsa’s works.

[212] The use of a transverse curtain would explain the scene, but there is no real evidence of this. Cf. chap. xiv. § 1.

[213] Karṇabhāra, 22.

[214] Abhiṣekanāṭaka, vi. 21.

[215] Pratimānāṭaka, i. 6.

[216] Bālacarita, i. 13.

[217] Abhiṣekanāṭaka, iii. 20.

[218] i. 20.

[219] v. 1619.

[220] Pratimānāṭaka, iii. 17.

[221] Ibid., i. 18.

[222] Ibid., iii. 24.

[223] Pañcarātra, ii. 28.

[224] Dūtaghaṭotkaca, 17.

[225] i. 18.

[226] Pratimānāṭaka, p. xi.

[227] iv. 9.

[228] i. 12.

[229] Avimāraka, i. 5.

[230] ii. 7.

[231] i. 18.

[232] iii. p. 25.

[233] Abhiṣekanāṭaka, v. p. 56.

[234] Ibid., i. p. 10.

[235] Ūrubhan̄ga, 29.

[236] See Pratimānāṭaka, App. i; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 118 ff.

[237] W. Printz, Bhāsa’s Prākrit (1921). The evidence of retention of older forms later in South Indian manuscripts (Barnett, JRAS. 1921, p. 589) is interesting but does not alter the importance of these forms.

[238] āni in Pāli, āṇi in the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Jain Canon; Lüders, SBAW. 1913, pp. 999 ff.

[239] Verses in which the last four syllables are not ⏑ - - ⏓; viz. (1) ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (2) - ⏑ ⏑ ⏓; (3) -, - - ⏓; (4) - ⏑ - ⏓.

[240] Cf. Jacobi, IS. xvii. 443 f.; V. S. Sukhtankar, JAOS. xli. 107 ff.

[241] - - - - -, - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later only in the Mṛcchakaṭikā of classical dramas.

[242] ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -.

[243] ⏑ - ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ -, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ - ⏑ - - ⏑ -.

[244] ⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - - ⏑ - -. Later first in the Caitanyacandrodaya.

[245] T. Gaṇapati Çāstrin, Pratimānāṭaka, pp. 1 ff.

[246] i. 17.

[247] p. 7.

[248] v. 3.

[249] i. 16.

[250] v. 11.

[251] iv. 8, 11, 13.

[252] p. 107.

[253] v.

[254] vi. 1, 2.

[255] vi. 11, 13.

[256] Kālidāsa, p. 103.

[257] cxxxiii. 40.

[258] v. 2227.

[259] Lévi, TI. i. 198; Vāmana, iii. 2. 4.

[260] Rudraṭa, pp. 16 f. But see Hari Chand, Kālidāsa, pp. 78 f.

[261] iii. 343.

[262] Wilson, Works, ix. 194.

[263] IS. xiv. 147; JBRAS. viii. 240.

[264] He is later the hero of a Parikathā, the Çūdrakavadha (Rāyamukuṭa, ZDMG. xxviii. 117), and of a drama, Vikrāntaçūdraka (Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa, p. 378).

[265] KF. pp. 107 ff. Cf. Bhandarkar, Anc. Hist. of India, pp. 64 f.; CHI. i. 311.

[266] Berichte der Sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wissenschaften, 1885, pp. 439 f.

[267] Jacobi (Bhavisattakaha, p. 83) believes in Çūdraka as a king, but thinks Kālidāsa older.

[268] See G. Morgenstierne, Über das Verhältnis zwischen Cārudatta und Mṛcchakaṭikā (1921).

[269] Jolly (Tagore Law Lectures, 1883, pp. 68 f.) compares the procedure of the Smṛtis.

[270] KSS. lviii. 2–54.

[271] Daçakumāracarita, ii.

[272] xii. 92; xviii. 121.

[273] Cf. Çlokasaṁgraha, x. 60–163.

[274] His errors in the field of mythology are appalling, e.g. Kuntī for Sītā, i. 21.

[275] Stenzler’s ed. pp. 325 ff.; Wilson, i. 177.

[276] i. 48.

[277] v. 42.

[278] i. 13; cf. Cārudatta, i. 5.

[279] i. 22; cf. Cārudatta i. 11, on which it improves.

[280] v. 49.

[281] v. 15.

[282] v. 16.

[283] v. 25.

[284] v. 26.

[285] v. 32.

[286] Ryder, The Little Clay Cart, p. xvi.

[287] Jayadeva, Prasannarāghava, i. 22.

[288] Mahāvīracarita, i. 4.

[289] Cf. Pischel, Prākrit-Grammatik, pp. 25 ff.

[290] JRAS. 1913, p. 882; 1918, p. 513. Cf. Kāvyamīmāṅsā, p. 51.

[291] Used in verse even, e.g. by the Vidūṣaka.

[292] — — — —, — — — —. In no other classical drama is it found.

[293] The apparent occurrence of Māhārāṣṭrī stanzas is in all probability not in accordance with the original text, which knew only the Prākrits given in § 4; see Hillebrandt, GN. 1905, pp. 436 ff.

[294] Hillebrandt, Kālidāsa (1921), pp. 7 ff.

[295] JRAS. 1901, pp. 578 ff.

[296] e.g. Konow, SBAW. 1916, pp. 812 ff.

[297] JRAS. xii. (1880), 268 f.

[298] India (1883), pp. 281 ff.

[299] JRAS. 1909, pp. 89 ff.

[300] JBRAS. xix. 39 ff.

[301] iv. 68.

[302] Meghadūta (ed. 2), pp. vii ff. In v. 67 he reads Van̄kṣū = Oxus, for Sindhu; see Haranchandra Chakladar, Vātsyāyana, p. 23.

[303] JRAS. 1903, pp. 183 f.; 1904, pp. 158 f.

[304] Huth, Die Zeit des Kâlidâsa, pp. 29 ff.

[305] Thomas’s suggestion (Hillebrandt, p. 12) of a reference to the Sārasvata school in the same passage only adds to the improbability of the reference.

[306] Keith, Indian Logic, p. 28.

[307] Pathak, IA. xl. 170 f.; Hoernle, 264; Haraprasād, JPASB. i. (1905), 253; JBORS. ii. 35 f.; 391 f.

[308] Jacobi, ZDMG. xxx. 303 ff.; Monatsber. d. kgl. Preuss. Akad. d. W., 1873, pp. 554 ff.; Huth, op. cit., pp. 32 ff., 49 ff.

[309] Keith, JRAS. 1909, pp. 433 ff.; Bloch, ZDMG. lxii. 671 ff.; Liebich, IF. xxxi. 198 ff.; Konow, ID., pp. 59 f.; Winternitz, GIL. iii. 43 f.

[310] Ed. F. Bollensen, Leipzig, 1879; trs. A. Weber, Berlin, 1856; V. Henry, Paris, 1889; C. H. Tawney, London, 1891. The existence of a variant recension is shown by the divergence of a citation from it in comm. on DR. iii. 18 from the manuscript tradition.

[311] That the Meghadūta is younger is suggested, not proved, by the lesser lyric power shown (Huth, p. 68). The Ṛtusaṁhāra, however, is doubtless earlier; its authenticity is demonstrated by me in JRAS. 1912, pp. 1066 ff.; 1913, pp. 410 ff. The relation of the Kumārasambhava and Raghuvaṅça to the two later dramas is uncertain.

[312] For the history, see CHI. i. 519 f.

[313] Ed. F. Bollensen, Leipzig, 1846; S. P. Paṇḍit, Bombay, 1901; M. R. Kale, Bombay, 1898; trs. E. B. Cowell, Hertford, 1851; L. Fritze, Leipzig, 1880; E. Lobedanz, Leipzig, 1861. The Bengālī recension is ed. Pischel, Monatsber. d. kgl. Preuss. Akad. d. W., 1875, pp. 609 ff.

[314] Cf. Huth, op. cit., pp. 63 ff.

[315] The prototype here is clearly Rāma’s search for Sītā; Rāmāyaṇa, iii. 60. The Sudhanāvadāna, cited by Gawroński (Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 19, 29) draws probably from the same source.

[316] Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, p. 58; Bloch, Vararuci und Hemacandra, pp. 15 f.

[317] Bengālī recension, R. Pischel, Kiel, 1877; M. Williams, Hertford, 1876, and M. R. Kale, Bombay, 1908, represent the Devanāgarī version, and so mainly S. Ray, Calcutta, 1908; C. Cappeller, Leipzig, 1909. There are South Indian edd., Madras, 1857, 1882. See also Burkhard, Die Kaçmîrer Çakuntalā-Handschrift, Vienna, 1884.

[318] Konow, ID., pp. 67 f.; Hari Chand, Kālidāsa, pp. 243 ff.; B. K. Thakore, The Text of the Śakuntalā (1922); Windisch, Sansk. Phil. pp. 344 f.

[319] De Kâlidâsae Çâkuntali recensionibus (1870); Die Recensionen der Çakuntalā (1875).

[320] TI. ii. 37. The erotic passages in Act III in the Bengālī recension must be judged by Indian taste; cf. Thakore, p. 13 for a condemnation.

[321] IS. xiv. 35 ff., 161 ff. Cf. Bühler, Kashmir Report, pp. lxxxv ff.

[322] Cf. above, p. 121, n. 1 as to the variation in correctness in different classes of MSS.

[323] For a warm eulogy, see V. Henry, Les littératures de l’Inde, pp. 305 ff.

[324] xxiv; Viṣṇu, iv. 6; Bhāgavata, ix. 14; Pischel and Geldner, Ved. Stud. i. 243 ff.; L. v. Schroeder, Mysterium und Mimus, pp. 242 ff. A. Gawroński (Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 19 ff.) suggests a popular legend, comparing the Sudhanāvadāna, No. 30 of the Divyāvadāna.

[325] i. 74. Winternitz’s denial (GIL., i. 319 f.) of priority is impossible; cf. Gawroński, Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 40, 91.

[326] The absurd silence as to Mālavikā’s origin in the Mālavikāgnimitra is rendered acceptable by belief in prophecy.

[327] See S. D. and A. B. Gajendragadkar, Abhijñānaçakuntalā, pp. xxxvi ff.; below, chap. xii.

[328] See Hari Chand, Kālidāsa et l’art poétique de l’Inde (1917), pp. 68 ff. On his suggestiveness, cf. Ekāvalī, p. 52.

[329] Çakuntalā, i. 15.

[330] Ibid., i. 20.

[331] Ibid., vi. 9.

[332] Ibid., vii. 19.

[333] Ibid., vi. 22.

[334] Ibid., vii. 32.

[335] Vikramorvaçī, iv. 55.

[336] Ibid., iv. 68.

[337] Ibid., iii. 11; for the text see Hari Chand, Kālidāsa, p. 231.

[338] Vikramorvaçī, iii. 19.

[339] Ibid., i. 9. The parallelism is, of course, complete in Sanskrit, but inexpressible directly in English.

[340] Mālavikāgnimitra, iii. 2.

[341] Ibid., iv. 14.

[342] Ibid., v. 19.

[343] Ibid., v. 12.

[344] Ibid., v. 11.

[345] Traces of Çaurasenī in verses appear in the Çakuntalā. Cf. Hillebrandt, Mudrārākṣasa, p. iii; GN. 1905, p. 440.

[346] Cf. Pravarasena’s Setubandha. On Hāla and Kālidāsa, cf. Weber’s ed., p. xxiv.

[347] ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ — | ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ — bis.

[348] 16 + 18 bis: normal type ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ — — | ⏑ ⏑ — — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ — —.

[349] ⏑ — ⏑ —, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ —.

[350] — ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ —.

[351] ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ —, ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — — ⏑ —.

[352] Huth, op. cit., Table.

[353] Hillebrandt (Kālidāsa, p. 157) points out the complexity of the position.

[354] H. A. Shah (Kauṭilya and Kālidāsa (1920), p. 5), argues that Raghuvaṅça, ix. 53, shows a more advanced view of hunting as a useful sport when regulated (Arthaçāstra, p. 329) than the Çakuntalā. But the dramatic propriety of the passage of the Çakuntalā renders the contention uncertain. Whether Kālidāsa knew precisely our Arthaçāstra is also uncertain.

[355] Lévi, BEFEO. iii. 38 f.; Liebich, Das Datum des Candragomin und Kalidasas; Konow, ID. pp. 72 f.; GIL. iii. 185, 399 f.

[356] v. 2275.

[357] v. 1629.

[358] p. 163; Subhāṣitāvali, 1916; Çārn̄gadhara, cxvii. 14; text uncertain.

[359] Subhāṣitāvali, 66.

[360] Subhāṣitāvali, 69.

[361] M. Ettinghausen, Harṣa Vardhana, Louvain, 1905; S. P. Paṇḍit, Gaüdavaho, pp. cvii ff.; K. M. Panikkar, Sri Harsha of Kanauj, Bombay, 1922. It is impossible to connect the dramas with any definite incident of his reign such as the Prayāga festival celebrated by Hiuan-Tsang.

[362] i. 2. Cf. Soḍhala (A.D. 993) in Kāvyamīmāṅsā (GOS. i), p. xii.

[363] Trs. Takakusu, pp. 163 f.

[364] vv. 856 ff.

[365] Ed. C. Cappeller, Böhtlingk, Sanskrit-Chrestomathie, 3rd ed., pp. 326 ff.; trs. Wilson, ii. 255 ff.; L. Fritze, Schloss Chemnitz, 1878. It was performed at a spring festival of Kāma.

[366] Ed. R. V. Krishnamachariar, Srirangam, 1906; trs. G. Strehly, Paris, 1888.

[367] Ed. Calcutta, 1886; TSS. 1917; trs. P. Boyd, London, 1872; A. Bergaigne, Paris, 1879; E. Teza, Milan, 1904.

[368] KSS. xxii. 16–257; xc. 3–201; BKM. iv. 50–108; ix. 2. 776–930.

[369] xv.

[370] Many traces of the Svapnavāsavadattā can be seen in the Ratnāvalī, especially in the characterization of the Vidūṣaka.

[371] Āraṇyikā suggests that assertion would be undignified, seeing her actual condition. In the Mālavikāgnimitra a prophecy is made to do service as a motif.

[372] Cf. Schuyler, JAOS. xx. 338 ff.

[373] Ratnāvalī, iv. 6.

[374] Ratnāvalī, iv. 1.

[375] Ibid., iv. 16.

[376] Ibid., iv. 6/7. Cf. Priyadarçikā, i. on Vindhyaketu’s death.

[377] iii. 15.

[378] iii. 17.

[379] v. 25.

[380] i. 1.

[381] Or bodhau, ‘on his enlightenment.’

[382] iii. 4.

[383] iii. 2.

[384] iv. 7.

[385] iii. 15.

[386] Māgadhī is found in the Nāgānanda spoken by the servant. On the variation of forms in the northern and southern editions see Barnett, JRAS. 1921, p. 589.

[387] The Mattavilāsa, ed. TSS. lv. 1917.

[388] EI. iv. 152; South Ind. Inscr. i. 29 f.; G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, The Pallavas, pp. 37 ff.

[389] A Sarvacarita is attributed to a Bāṇa in Rājarāma Çastrin’s Sūcīpatra, but it may really be Vāmana Bhaṭṭa Bāṇa’s as is the Pārvatīpariṇaya (against Ettinghausen, Harṣa Vardhana, pp. 122 f.). The Mukuṭatāḍitaka of Bāṇa is cited in Caṇḍapāla’s comm. on the Nalacampū, p. 227.

[390] This verse is attributed to Bhāsa by Somadeva in his Yaçastilaka; Peterson, Reports, ii. 46.

[391] pp. 7, 8, 9.

[392] So the Unmattaka in the Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa of Bhāsa.

[393] Antiquity is claimed by the editors of Caturbhāṇī (1922) for the Bhāṇas, Ubhayābhisārikā of Vararuci, Padmaprābhṛtaka of Çūdraka, Dhūrtaviṭasaṁvāda of Īçvaradatta, Pādatāḍitaka of Ārya Çyāmilaka, but no reliance can be placed on the first two ascriptions, and none of the plays need be older than 1000 A.D. Their technique is similar to that of the Mattavilāsa.

[394] Pādavākyapramāṇajña; see Belvalkar, HOS. XXI. xxxvi. ff. where the attempt to identify Padmapura with Padmāvatī as Pavāyā near Narvār and the shrine of Kālapriya with Kālp on the Jumna is disproved. On his Vedic studies, see Keith, JRAS. 1914, pp. 729 f. He knew the Kāmasūtra; JBRAS. xviii. 109 f.

[395] iv. 144. On the dates, see Stein’s Intr., § 85, and notes on iv. 126 and 134.

[396] v. 799.

[397] i. 2. 12 (anonymous). That Bhavabhūti knew Bhāsa may be assumed; his use of the rare Daṇḍaka metre may be borrowed, and similarities between Uttararāmacarita, Act II and Svapnavāsavadattā, Act I, &c., exist.

[398] Ed. R. G. Bhandarkar, Bombay, 1876 (2nd ed., 1905); trs. Wilson, ii. 1 ff.; G. Strehly, Paris, 1885; L. Fritze, Leipzig, 1884. Cf. Gawroński, Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 43 ff.; Cimmino, Osservazioni sul rasa nel Mālatīmādhava, Naples, 1915.

[399] Ed. F. H. Trithen, London, 1848; NS. 1901; trs. J. Pickford, London, 1892.

[400] Ed. and trs. S. K. Belvalkar, HOS. xxi–xxiii; trs. C. H. Tawney, Calcutta, 1874; P. d’Alheim, Bois-le-Roi, 1906.

[401] The deplorable effort in Act IV of the Uttararāmacarita at deliberate humour shows his weakness in this regard. A certain measure of irony of situation is all that he ever attains, e.g. in connexion with Rāma’s ignorance of the identity of his sons, cf. Uttararāmacarita, iv. 22/3; vi. 19/20.

[402] xiii.

[403] KSS. xviii.; xxv. (Açokadatta and the Rākṣasas): cxxi. (Kāpālika and Madanamañjarī); DKC. vii. (Mantragupta and Kanakalekhā).

[404] Kumārasvāmin, Pratāparudrīya, i. 38.

[405] Uttararāmacarita, vi. 12.

[406] Ibid., i. 12.

[407] Mahāvīracarita, v. 59. Cf. Uttararāmacarita, iv. 13, 14.

[408] Ibid., i. 39.

[409] Uttararāmacarita, iii. 18.

[410] Cf. ibid., i. 5.

[411] Ryder, The Little Clay Cart, p. xvi.

[412] G. Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 121 ff.

[413] i. 27.

[414] i. 38.

[415] v. 16.

[416] iii. 27.

[417] i. 29.

[418] i. 34.

[419] v. 10.

[420] Vāmana, i. 2. 12; SD. 627; Kāvyādarça, i. 40 ff.

[421] ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ —.

[422] VOJ. ii. 212 ff.; contra Dhruva, VOJ. v. 25; Charpentier, JRAS. 1923, pp. 585 f.

[423] ID. pp. 70 f. Cf. Antani, IA. li. 49 f.; Winternitz, GIL. iii. 210.

[424] Keith, JRAS. 1909, pp. 145 f.; Hertel, ZDMG. lxx. 133 ff. It is later than the Mṛcchakaṭikā, the Raghuvaṅça (vii. 43 as compared with v. 23), and the Çiçupālavadha (i. 47 as compared with the last verse).

[425] Ed. A. Hillebrandt, Breslau, 1912; trs. Wilson, ii. 125 ff.; L. Fritze, Leipzig, 1886; V. Henry, Paris, 1888.

[426] Or Parvataka. For an effort to extract history, see CHI. i. 470 ff. It must be regarded as very dubious.

[427] TI. i. 226 f.

[428] His ability in this regard can be seen in the jingle of Malayaketu’s lament in v. 16.

[429] v. 1728.

[430] Mudrārākṣasa, v. 5.

[431] iii. i.

[432] v. 7.

[433] ii. 14.

[434] ii. 19.

[435] vi. 21.

[436] p. 154.

[437] p. 189.

[438] p. 153.

[439] Ed. KM. pp. 80, 150.

[440] Konow, ID. p. 77.

[441] Ed. J. Grill, Leipzig, 1871; Bombay, 1905; trs. S. M. Tagore, Calcutta, 1880. Traces of different recensions exist.

[442] ii. 41.

[443] ii. 47.

[444] v. 120.

[445] v. 122.

[446] i. 15.

[447] i. 25.

[448] vi. 197.

[449] v. 157.

[450] E.g. vi, p. 87 (Sanskrit); v, p. 59 (Prākrit).

[451] i. 27.

[452] v. 146.

[453] v. 144.

[454] vi. 178.

[455] SD. 408. Lévi, however, is in error (TI. i. 35, 224) in suggesting that SD. 406 censures as inappropriate Duryodhana and Karṇa’s dialogue in Act III.

[456] pp. 139, 140.

[457] See Aufrecht, ZDMG. xxxvi. 521.

[458] v. 36; Lévi, TI. ii. 87. The citations are mainly from his Kapphiṇābhyudaya; Thomas, Kavīndravacanasamuccaya, p. 111.

[459] Pischel, ZDMG. xxxix. 315; Hultzsch, GN. 1886, pp. 224 ff.

[460] Bhattanatha Svamin, IA. xli. 139 f.; Bhandarkar, Report (1897), pp. xi, xviii; Peterson, Report, ii. 59. The name is variously given as Māyūrāja.

[461] Subhāṣitāvali, 1766.

[462] Ibid., 1366.

[463] Ibid., 1364.

[464] Ibid., 1634.

[465] i. 42; SD. 390; N. xix. 94; Lévi, TI. ii. 9.

[466] DR. ii. 54 comm.

[467] DR. iv. 26 comm.

[468] DR. i. 41 comm.

[469] DR. iii. 13 comm.

[470] DR. iii. 17 comm.

[471] DR. iii. 12 comm.

[472] DR. iii. 38 comm.; SD. 512.

[473] DR. iii. 56 f. comm.; SD. 516.

[474] vi. 30/31 is cited in i. 6/7.

[475] xxxviii. 68. For his date cf. Bühler, Kashmir Report, p. 42. See Bhattanatha Svamin, IA. xli. 141; Lévi, TI. i. 277.

[476] ID. p. 83. Dhanika (DR. ii. 1) cites, anonymously as usual, iii. 21.

[477] xxv. 74.

[478] ZDMG. lxxv. 63.

[479] ii. 34, as compared with vii. 83.

[480] Ed. KM. 1894; cf. Baumgartner, Das Râmâyaṇa, pp. 125 ff.

[481] v. 6.

[482] vii. 87.

[483] vii. 82.

[484] vii. 107.

[485] vii. 90.

[486] Ed. p. 1, note.

[487] Konow, Karpūramañjarī, pp. 177 ff.; Hultzsch, IA. xxxiv. 177 ff.; V. S. Apte, Rājaçekhara, Poona, 1886. Of special virtue is his Kāvyamīmāṅsā on rhetoric, which is better than his dramas.

[488] Winternitz, GIL. iii. 47; Lévi, TI. i. 183 f.

[489] Ed. Calcutta, 1884.

[490] Ed. C. Cappeller, Strassburg, 1885; Weber, IS. xviii. 481 ff.

[491] Ed. S. Konow, trs. C. R. Lanman, HOS. iv. 1901; J. Charpentier, Monde oriental, ii. 226 ff.

[492] Ed. Poona, 1886; trs. L. H. Gray, JAOS. xxvii. 1 ff.

[493] ii. 30. The translation of this and the next verse is taken from Lanman’s version.

[494] ii. 47.

[495] ii. 49.

[496] Konow, ID. p. 87; Peterson, Reports, ii. 63; Bhandarkar, Report (1897), p. xi.

[497] Peterson, Reports, iii. 340 f.

[498] Ed. Calcutta, 1884; trs. L. Fritze, Leipzig, 1883. On the same theme is Rāmacandra’s Satyahariçcandra (twelfth cent.); see Keith, JRAS. 1914, pp. 1104 f.

[499] Ed. Bombay, 1894; Poona, 1894; cf. Baumgartner, Das Râmâyaṇa, pp. 129 ff.

[500] Cf. Peterson, Subhāṣitāvali, pp. 38 f.; Keith, Indian Logic, pp. 33 f. The verses common to the play and the Mahānāṭaka are clearly not evidence of prior date, despite Lévi, TI. ii. 48; Konow, ID. p. 88. He is later than Murāri; Hall’s (DR. p. 36 n.) suggested reference to Jayadeva in comm. on DR. ii. 10 is incorrect. He is known to R. (c. A.D. 1330), iii. 171 f., and the Çārn̄gadharapaddhati.

[501] Ed. Madras, 1892; trs. by L. V. Ramachandra Aiyar, Madras, 1906.

[502] Ed. KM. 1896.

[503] Ed. TSS. 1910.

[504] Ed. KM. 1903.

[505] Ed. Murçidābād, 1880 f.

[506] Ed. KM. 1888.

[507] Ed. KM. 1894.

[508] Wilson, ii. 404.

[509] Ed. TSS. 1912 and 1911.

[510] Ed. GOS. 1917.

[511] Kielhorn, Bruchstücke indischer Schauspiele, Berlin, 1901.

[512] Ed. R. Schmidt, Leipzig, 1917; trs. K. Glaser, Trieste, 1886. Cf. GIL. iii. 248, n. 4.

[513] Lévi, Le Népal, ii. 242.

[514] Haraprasād, Nepal Catal., p. xxxvii.

[515] Ed. KM. 1900; trs. L. H. Gray, JAOS. xxv. 197 ff.

[516] Ed. Kielhorn, op. cit.

[517] Ed. Bombay, 1891.

[518] Ed. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. x, 1920. On the merits of Vastupāla see also Arisiṅha’s Sukṛtasaṁkīrtana and Someçvara’s Kīrtikaumudī.

[519] Usually Sin̄ghaṇa or Siṅhaṇa. Cf. Bhandarkar, Report (1907), pp. 15 ff., who equates Mīlacchrīkāra with Shamsu-d-din (1210–35).

[520] We hear of a Rājarājanāṭaka performed annually in a temple of Çiva by order of the Cola Rājarāja I of Tanjore in the eleventh century, but of its content we know nothing; H. Krishna Sastri in Ridgeway’s Dramas, &c., p. 204.

[521] India Office Catal., no. 4194.

[522] Ed. Madras, 1912.

[523] Kumbhakonam, 1892.

[524] Ed. Bombay, 1898; trs. J. Taylor, Bombay, 1893. Cf. J. W. Boissevain, Prabodhacandrodaya, Leiden, 1905.

[525] Ed. Kāñcī, 1914; trs. K. Narayanacharya and D. Raghunathaswamy Iyengar, vol. i. Srirangam, 1917.

[526] Ed. KM. 1906; analysed by Lévi, TI. i. 237 ff. Date, c. A.D. 1550.

[527] Ed. KM. 1893. Another imitation is the Amṛtodaya of Gokulanātha, Haraprasād, Report (1901), p. 17.

[528] Ed. KM. 1891. For the author of the Vidyāpariṇayana (Vedakavi, nominally Ānandarāya) see KM. xliv. Pref. p. 9.

[529] Ed. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. ix. 1918.

[530] This is probably the nuance intended, as in saumyatā.

[531] Ed. KM. 1888. Cf. Keith, Sansk. Lit., pp. 64 ff.

[532] Ed. E. Hultzsch, Leipzig, 1906; cf. GGA. 1908, pp. 98 ff.

[533] Ed. KM. 1895. The late Mṛgān̄kalekhā of Viçvanātha son of Trimaladeva, is summarized in Wilson, ii. 390 f.

[534] Hultzsch, Reports, no. 2142. He wrote a Nāṭaka, a Bhāṇa, a Prahasana, and the Ḍamaruka in ten Alaṁkāras; Madras Catal. xxi. 8403 ff.

[535] KM., Part 8, p. 51.

[536] Ed. Calcutta, 1878.

[537] Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 61 ff.

[538] Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.

[539] ZDMG. lxxv. 63. See above, chap. x. § 2.

[540] Ed. Bhāvnagar, 1917.

[541] Famous from the Nala onwards.

[542] Ed. Benares, Vīrasaṁvat, 2432.

[543] Ed. KM. 1889. R. iii. 271, &c., cites an Ānandakoça.

[544] Ed. in Lassen’s Anth. Sanscr., Bonn, 1838. Cf. Haraprasād, Nepal Catal., p. xxxvii.

[545] Ed. Calcutta, 1896. Cf. Wilson, ii. 408 f.

[546] Ed. Calcutta, 1828; Wilson, ii. 410 f.

[547] Wilson, ii. 407.

[548] Cappeller, Gurupūjākaumudī, pp. 62 f.

[549] Ed. KM. 1896. R. iii. 248 gives an unknown Çṛn̄gāramañjarī as a specimen. See p. 185, n. 3.

[550] Ed. KM. 1894.

[551] Ed. Madras, 1874.

[552] Wilson, ii. 384.

[553] Ed. KM. 1902.

[554] Ed. KM. 1893; JRAS. 1907, p. 729.

[555] Ibid., 1889.

[556] Ed. in Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. iv. 1917.

[557] Ed., with the other five plays, Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, no. viii. 1918.

[558] Ed. KM. 1902. Cf. SD. 514.

[559] Ed. KM. 1885; Wilson, ii. 374.

[560] Bendall, Brit. Mus. Catal., no. 273.

[561] Hultzsch, ZDMG. lxxv. 62 f.

[562] Konow, ID. p. 114.

[563] Schmidt, ZDMG. lxiii. 409 f., 623 f.

[564] Ed. KM. 1889.

[565] Konow, ID. p. 118.

[566] Ed. Murçidābād, 1881 f.

[567] Ed. KM. 1888.

[568] See above, ch. ii. § 4.

[569] Bikaner Catal., p. 251. It is trs., Gray, JAOS. xxxii. 59 ff. The play borrows from the Bālarāmāyaṇa (ix. 58 f. = verses 52 f.), and the Mahānāṭaka.

[570] SBAW. 1916, pp. 698 ff.

[571] Loc. cit.

[572] For the slightly different legend of Madhusūdana—current in Bengal—see SBAW. 1916, pp. 704 ff. The number of verses varies greatly in the manuscripts. The apparent citation by name in DR. comm. ii. 1 is only in some manuscripts.

[573] Lüders’s attempt to read, in Madhusūdana’s recension only, saubhyāḥ, shadow players, is clearly absurd; ZDMG. lxxiv. 142, n. 3.

[574] Lévi, TI. i. 244; G. Devèze, Çakuntalā, Paris, 1888.

[575] Lévi, TI. i. 235 ff.; Keith, Sansk. Lit., pp. 121 ff.

[576] Ed. W. Caland, Amsterdam, 1917. Cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 138 ff.; IA. xlix, 232 f.

[577] The Swāng, unlike the play, is metrical throughout; R. C. Temple, Legends of the Panjab, I. viii, 121.

[578] In Greece, despite the great advantages of a public representation, plays to be read only arose early; Aristotle, Rhetoric, iii. 12. 2. Most of the dramas of the last few years seem literary.

[579] Cf. perhaps the nineteenth-century Citrayajña, described by Wilson, ii. 412 ff.

[580] Devajīti as read by the editor and Winternitz is a quaint misreading.

[581] See Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, p. 58 n. Influence by the Yātrās is probable; Windisch, Sansk. Phil. p. 407.

[582] Contrast Aristotle’s doctrine of plot as the soul of tragedy (Poetics, 1450 a 38).

[583] See above, pp. 38, 96, 106.

[584] Contrast Aristotle’s doctrine of ἁμαρτία (Poetics, 1453 a 10 ff.), as in Euripides’s Hippolytos; G. Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 209 f., 213 f.

[585] Greek tragedy progressively reduced the lyric element in the drama, in harmony with the rhetorical trend of the Greek intellect, and approximated in language to ordinary speech; Aristotle, Poetics, 1450 b 9; Rhetoric, iii. 1 and 2; Haigh, The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, ch. vi, § 3.

[586] Contrast Greek tragedy; Butcher, Greek Genius, pp. 105 ff.; G. Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 97 f., 114 f., 128 f., 177, 318, 324; W. Nestle, Euripides (1901).

[587] For its extension and popularity outside Athens, see Haigh, The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, chap. vi, § 4.

[588] Gawroński, Les sources de quelques drames indiens, pp. 1 ff.

[589] See also Schmidt’s Beiträge zur indischen Erotik.

[590] pp. 57 ff.; Keith, Sansk. Lit. pp. 29 ff.

[591] Man̄kha, Çrīkaṇṭhacarita, xxv; Bhojaprabandha; Vikramān̄kadevacarita; Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 49 ff.

[592] The translation by Ryder.

[593] Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 49 ff.

[594] Ibid., p. 33.

[595] Ibid., p. 78.

[596] Ibid., p. 53.

[597] AID., pp. 3 ff.; above, p. 31.

[598] Ed. KM. 1894, i–xiv; by J. Grosset, Paris, 1898; xviii–xx, xxxiv in F. Hall’s Daçarūpa; xv–xvii (xiv–xvi), in Regnaud, Annales du Musée Guimet, i and ii; xxviii in Grosset’s Contribution à l’étude de la musique hindoue, Paris, 1888; vi and vii in Regnaud, Rhétorique sanskrite.

[599] Bhau Daji, JBRAS. vi. 218 ff. Lévi (TI. ii. 4) suggests that the Çāstra is largely made out of a versified comment on original Sūtras. For various guesses as to Mātṛgupta, cf. JRAS. 1903, p. 570; see Peterson, Subhāṣitāvali, p. 89. It is probable that the Çāstra is related to an original Sūtra in the same way as the Kāmandakīya Nītiçāstra to the Arthaçāstra. Cf. S. K. De, SP. i. 27 ff.

[600] Avimāraka, ii. A treatise on drama is also attributed to him; Arthadyotanikā, 2.

[601] That in the Çāstra itself there is contradiction in this regard between x. 83 f. and xviii. 19 f. is shown by Lindenau, BS., p. 34.

[602] Cf. Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, pp. 83 ff., who suggests the third century; the Prākrit seems anterior to Māhārāṣṭrī in development; Jacobi suggests Ujjayinī as a possible location in view of the affinity to Māhārāṣṭrī and Çaurasenī. Cf. GIL. iii. 8.

[603] Ed. F. Hall, Calcutta, 1865; trs. G. C. O. Haas, New York, 1912. Jacobi (GGA. 1913, p. 301) presses for the identity of the writers, but the difference of the name is fatal.

[604] Ed. K. P. Trivedī, Bombay, 1909.

[605] Ed. K. P. Trivedī, Bombay, 1903; cf. R. G. Bhandarkar, Report (1897) pp. lxviii f.

[606] Ed. BI. with trs., 1851–75; in part by P. V. Kane, Bombay, 1910.

[607] Ed. TSS. no. L, 1916. It freely uses the Daçarūpa. Cf. Seshagiri, Report for 1896–97, pp. 7 ff. Many verses by the author are cited.

[608] For the authorship of the Kāvyaprakāça see Hari Chand, Kālidāsa, pp. 103 ff.

[609] cc. 337–41. On Dhvani see Keith, Sansk. Lit. ch. x.

[610] Bharata cited in Rucipati’s comm. on Anargharāghava, 9. Cf. DR. i. 7; SD. 274.

[611] Cf. Hall, DR. pp. 6 f.

[612] N. xviii. 89; xix. 1; AP. cccxxxvii. 18, 27.

[613] DR. i. 15; iii. 20–22.

[614] N. xix. 2–6, 25 f.; DR. i. 11, 12, 16; SD. 296 f., 323.

[615] N. xix. 23; DR. i. 13; SD. 320–3; R. iii. 13 f.

[616] N. xix. 7–13; DR. i. 18–20; SD. 324–9; R. iii. 22–5.

[617] N. xix. 19–21; DR. i. 16 f.; SD. 317–19. The parallelism is faulty: neither episode nor incident is necessary nor corresponds to Prāptyāçā and Niyatāpti nor Garbha and Vimarça; Dhanika, DR. i. 33, admits this in effect; there is no episode in Ratnāvalī, III. Cf. R. iii. 22.

[618] N. xix. 16, 35 ff.; DR. i. 22 ff.; SD. 330 ff. Hali (DR., p. 11 n.) suggests nibarhaṇa as correct (N. xix. 36), wrongly. Cf. R. iii. 26–74. The precise parallelism of the Sandhis and Avasthās in the Bālarāmāyaṇa is given in R. iii. 23–5.

[619] Abhinavagupta (Dhvanyāloka, p. 140) frankly treats the Avasthās as the Sandhis as parts of the story, and distinguishes the Arthaprakṛtis. DR. is responsible for the doctrine that each Sandhi rests on an Avasthā and an Arthaprakṛti, accepted in Pratāparudrīya, iii. 3; GGA. 1913, pp. 306–8; R. iii. 26 f.

[620] SD. 321.

[621] N. xix. 28; DR. i. 33.

[622] N. xix. 103; SD. 406.

[623] N. xix. 50 f.; SD. 407.

[624] SD. 342, 407.

[625] N. xviii. 16 ff.; DR. i. 51; iii. 31 f.; SD. 278.

[626] The rule is dubious; see Dhanika on DR. iii. 32, where he allows the performance of essential religious rites.

[627] Jackson, AJP. xix. 247 ff.

[628] SD. 278, no doubt by misreading.

[629] N. xviii. 14 f., 22–4; DR. iii. 27, 32–4; SD. 278; R. iii. 205; JAOS. xx. 341 ff.

[630] N. xviii. 28, 34 f.; xix. 109–16; DR. i. 52–6; SD. 305–13; R. iii. 178 ff.

[631] Bhāsa has three in several cases; Lindenau, BS. p. 40 says Prākrit is never used alone, as stated by Lévi, TI. i. 59, and Konow, ID. p. 13, but see Vatsarāja’s Tripuradāha, II.

[632] R. iii. 185 f. calls Khaṇḍacūlikā an exchange of words between one on and one off the stage at the beginning only of an act; e.g. Bālarāmāyaṇa, VII.

[633] Mātṛgupta in Arthadyotanikā, 20.

[634] xix. 53–7, 105–9; R. iii. 95; 79–92.

[635] SD. 279.

[636] N. xix. 30–4; DR. i. 14; SD. 299–303; R. iii. 15–17, where N. is cited with variant readings.

[637] This is differently taken by R. iii. 16 as an allusion to Vāsavadattā’s anger to come.

[638] DR. i. 57–61; SD. 425; R. iii. 200 ff.

[639] DR. ii. 1; SD. 64; R. i. 61 ff.

[640] N. xxiv. (Hall, xxxiv.) 4–6; DR. ii. 3–5; SD. 67–9; R. i. 72–8.

[641] DR. ii. 4.

[642] ii. 10, 16; iv. 22.

[643] DR. ii. 6; SD. 71–5; R. i. 80–2. R. i. 79, 83–8 has a division into husbands, adulterers (upapati), and the connoisseur of hetaerae (vaiçika). For the courteous lover, see p. 205.

[644] DR. ii. 9–13; SD. 89–95; R. i. 215–19; 64, 69.

[645] DR. ii. 8; SD. 159.

[646] DR. ii. 7; SD. 76. Cf. Kāmasūtra, p. 60; R. i. 89, 90.

[647] DR. ii. 14 f.; SD. 96–100; R. i. 94–120, who takes the unusual view that Irāvatī in the Mālavikāgnimitra is a hetaera.

[648] N. xxii. 197–206; DR. ii. 22–5; SD. 113–21; R. i. 121–51.

[649] N. xxii. 4–29; DR. ii. 28–39; SD. 126–55; R. i. 190–214, with Bhoja’s views.

[650] N. xii. 121 f.; xxi. 126; xxiv. 106; DR. ii. 8; SD. 79; R. i. 92.

[651] N. xii. 97; xxiv. 104; DR. ii. 8; SD. 78; Kāmasūtra, p. 58; Schmidt, Beiträge zur indischen Erotik, pp. 200 ff.

[652] N. xii. 130; xxiv. 105; DR. ii. 42; SD. 81.

[653] SD. 86 f., 158.

[654] N. xxiv. 107; DR. ii. 41; SD. 82.

[655] N. xxiv. 60 ff.

[656] N. xxiv. 15 ff. The Kāmasūtra, of course, covers much the same ground.

[657] N. xxiv. 50 ff.

[658] SD. 426. R. iii. 323–38 gives very elaborate details.

[659] N. xvii. 73 ff.; DR. ii. 62–6; SD. 431 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 129, corrected JA. sér. 9, xix. 97 f.; R. iii. 306–22.

[660] A child may thus be addressed by persons of low rank, SD. 431; cf. Mṛcchakaṭikā, x. p. 160.

[661] For another style, cf. Hāsyacūḍāmaṇi, p. 124; Upādhyāya, R. iii. 309.

[662] P. Regnaud, Rhétorique Sanskrite, pp. 266 ff.; Jacobi, ZDMG. lvi. 394 f.; M. Lindenau, Beiträge zur altindischen Rasalehre, Leipzig, 1913. See N. vi. and vii.; DR. iv.; SD. iii.; R. i. 298–ii. 265.

[663] Mātṛgupta (Hall, DR., p. 33) subdivides sentiment as vācika, produced by words; nepathya, generated by appropriate garlands, ornaments, clothes, &c.; svābhāvika, produced by such natural excellencies as beauty, youth, grace, firmness, courage, &c.

[664] Ekāvalī, iii, pp. 86 ff.; Kāvyaprakāça (ed. 1889), pp. 86 ff. Cf. R., pp. 173–5.

[665] See also Abhinavagupta, Dhvanisaṁketa, pp. 67 f.; Alaṁkārasarvasva, p. 9.

[666] The term is vyutpatti; it is explained by Abhinavagupta, op. cit., p. 70; GGA. 1913, p. 305, n. 1.

[667] The reference to Brahman shows that we have here the same fusion of doctrine as in Sadānanda’s Vedāntasāra.

[668] In the same sense we have rasika and bhāvaka (e.g. R., p. 170).

[669] vi. 7 ff.; Huizinga, De Vidūṣaka in het indisch tooneel, pp. 67 ff.

[670] vibhāvair anubhāvaiç ca sāttvikair vyabhicāribhiḥ ānīyamānaḥ svādyatvaṁ sthāyī bhāvo rasaḥ smṛtaḥ. (iv. 1.) Cf. R. ii. 169.

[671] iv. 36 ff.

[672] iv. 41; R., p. 175, l. 1.

[673] vi. 39–41.

[674] Dhvanisaṁketa, pp. 68, 70.

[675] See § 6 below.

[676] iv. 33. Cf. R., p. 171.

[677] SD. 41. This possibility is denied by Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka.

[678] xxvi. 18 f. Cf. Aristotle, Poetics, xvii. 1455 a 30.

[679] SD. 50 ff. So such a great actress as Sarah Bernhardt might feel emotion in acquiring her part, but not in the daily performance.

[680] Ekāvalī, p. 88; DR. iv. 40.

[681] Vyaktiviveka (Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, no. v).

[682] iv. 47 ff. Cf. R. ii. 170 ff.

[683] Cf. Haas, DR., pp. 133, 150; R. ii. 178–201, where a list of twelve, with desire and eagerness prefixed, is rejected.

[684] Cf. R., pp. 189 f.

[685] Cf. Aristotle, Poetics, v. 1449 a 36.

[686] Save for a late reading in vi. 15.

[687] See Dhanika, DR. iv. 33; SD. 240; Ekāvalī, pp. 96 ff. Other sentiments are sometimes recognized, such as friendship, faith, and devotion; cf. Rasagan̄gādhara, p. 45. Bhoja admits love only. An example of calm is the Prabodhacandrodaya. Cf. Jacobi, ZDMG. lvi. 395; R., p. 171.

[688] N. xx. 25–62; DR. ii. 44–57; iii. 5; SD. 285, 410–21; R. i. 244–94, which expressly denies a fifth manner composed of the four.

[689] Ratnāvalī, ii. R. i. 275 gives pā pā pāhi hi hīti as an instance of comic fear exhibited in speech.

[690] Or narmasphañja.

[691] An alternative is love enjoyment interrupted, as in the Ratnāvalī, ii. 17; R. i. 278.

[692] A variant ascribed to Bharata is given in R. i. 279, where a hero dies and another fills his place, e.g. Rāvaṇa replaced by Vibhīṣaṇa.

[693] N. xviii. 106–16; DR. iii. 11–18; SD. 289, 293, 521–32; R. i. 164–74.

[694] The first kind is illustrated by Uttararāmacarita, i; the second by a citation from the Chalitarāma.

[695] As in the Vīrabhadravijṛmbhaṇa, R. i. 168.

[696] As in the Abhirāmarāghava.

[697] SD. 471–503.

[698] N. xvii. 6–39; SD. 435–70; 36 bhūṣaṇāni, R. iii. 97–127.

[699] The Saṁgītadāmodara merges them in one (Lévi, TI. i. 104). Cf. DR. iv. 78.

[700] xvii. 40 ff. The Alaṁkāra doctrine later develops enormously; cf. Jacobi, GN. 1908, pp. 1 ff.

[701] xvii. 99 ff.

[702] See Weber, IS. viii. 377 ff.

[703] i. 41 ff.

[704] iii. i and 2; cf. Regnaud, Rhétorique Sanskrite, ch. v.

[705] Kāvyaprakāça, pp. 542 ff.; Ekāvalī, pp. 147–9; Alaṁkārasarvasva, pp. 20 f. R. i. 229–43 has the ten Guṇas and komalā, kaṭhinā, and miçrā as the three names.

[706] Mammaṭa, Kāvyaprakāça, viii. 1 ff.; Ekāvalī, v.; Sāhityadarpaṇa, viii; Alaṁkārasarvasva, p. 7.

[707] iii. 1. 1–3.

[708] pp. 57, 60. Cf. Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, pp. 68.

[709] vi. 147. Cf. Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 48 ff.

[710] Jacobi, GN. 1911, pp. 962 f.; 1912, p. 841 f.

[711] Jacobi, Bhavisattakaha, pp. 74, 76. Cf. Haranchandra Chakladar, Vātsyāyana (1921).

[712] N. xvii. 31 ff.; DR. ii. 58–61; SD. 432; R. iii. 299–305.

[713] Including, of course, persons assuming such rôles, e.g. in the Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa and Mudrārākṣasa. For the use of Sanskrit by women, usually in verse, as by Vasantasenā in the Mṛcchakaṭikā, and by inferior characters, see Pischel, Prākrit Grammatik, pp. 31 f.

[714] R. iii. 300 assigns it as Prākṛta to low persons and Jains. He assigns Apabhraṅça to Caṇḍālas, Yavanas, &c., but admits that others give Māgadhī, &c.

[715] Grierson, JRAS. 1918, pp. 489 ff. Cf. R. i. 297 which has seven; Çabara, Dramiḷa, Andhraja, Çakāra, Abhīra, Caṇḍāla, foresters.

[716] Contrast the Aristotelian doctrine as to the use of the lyric choruses; Poetics, 1456 a 25 ff.; G. Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 75–80; Haigh, The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, ch. v, § 6.

[717] xviii. 117–29; DR. iii. 47 f.; SD. 504–9. On gesture see the Abhinayadarpaṇa of Nandikeçvara, trs. Cambridge, Mass., 1917. R. iii. 236–48 gives other details of the Lāsya from the Çṛn̄gāramañjarī; dialect is allowed in the Saindhava. He follows N. in having Trimūḍhaka as expressing male emotions in smooth words, and has Dvimūḍhaka.

[718] Lévi, TI. ii. 18 f. For N. xxviii see J. Grosset, Contribution à l’étude de la musique hindoue, Paris, 1888. The hints as to musical accompaniment in Vikramorvaçī iv. and the Gītagovinda are unfortunately largely unintelligible. Cf. also Çivarāma on Nāgānanda, i. 15.

[719] v. 1 ff.; Konow, ID., pp. 23 ff.

[720] These nine acts gratify the Apsarases, Gandharvas, Daityas, Dānavas, Rakṣases, Guhyakas, and Yakṣas. They are performed behind the curtain according to Konow, but cf. Lévi, TI. i. 376.

[721] N. v. 149 ff.; DR. iii. 2 ff.; SD. 283 ff. Cf. R. iii. 150 ff.

[722] An effort to discriminate Prastāvanā and Sthāpanā is made, R. iii. 158.

[723] These are more common than formerly thought; the Sthāpaka is found in various connexions in the Pārthaparākrama of Prahlādana, and Vatsarāja’s Kirātārjunīya, Rukmiṇīharaṇa, Samudramathana. But the Rasārṇavasudhākara ignores him. Çivarāma’s comm. on Nāgānanda, i. 1 shows that great doubt then existed both as to the preliminaries (p. 2), and the Sūtradhāra, Sūcaka, or Sthāpaka (pp. 6, 7). Cf. p. 273.

[724] GGA. 1883, p. 1234; 1891, p. 361. Bhāsa’s use of Sthāpanā for the prologue suggests accord with the Daçarūpa.

[725] E.g. Tapatīsaṁvaraṇa and Subhadrādhanaṁjaya, where Sthāpanā is used.

[726] A classification of poets on the basis of their confidence in themselves as expressed in this place is given in R. i. 246 f.; Kālidāsa is elevated (udātta) in the Mālavikāgnimitra; Bhavabhūti haughty (uddhata) in the Mālatīmādhava; self assertion (prauḍha) is seen in the Karuṇākandala; modesty (vinīta) in the Rāmānanda.

[727] Konow, ID. p. 25.

[728] Lévi, TI. i. 135, 379; ii. 26 f., 64, 66. Cf. Harivaṅça, ii. 93; Kuṭṭanīmata, 856 ff.

[729] Lévi, TI. i. 132 f.; ii. 24 f.; Hall, DR., pp. 25 f. The Veṇīsaṁhāra has six stanzas. R. iii. 137 f. takes Pada as word, giving the Mahāvīracarita, Abhirāmarāghava, and Anargharāghava as examples of 8, 10, and 12 Padas.

[730] For a general reference see Pañcarātra, i. 1. In a Jain drama like the Moharājaparājaya, the benediction is addressed to the three Tīrthakaras; in the Nāgānanda to the Buddha.

[731] N. xviii. 10 ff.; DR. iii. 1–34; SD. 278, 433, 510; R. iii. 130 ff.

[732] Ghanaçyāma’s Navagrahacarita has three acts; Madhusūdana’s Jānakīpariṇaya (A.D. 1705) has four.

[733] N. xviii. 41 ff.; DR. iii. 35–8; SD. 511 f.; R. iii. 214–18, who gives Kāmadatta as the name of a hetaera drama.

[734] N. xviii. 57–70; xix. 43 f.; DR. iii. 56–61; SD. 515 f.; R. iii. 249–64.

[735] N. xviii. 72–6; xix. 44 f.; DR. iii. 66–8; SD. 518; R. iii. 284–8 (type Māyākuran̄gikā).

[736] N. xviii. 78–82; xix. 43 f.; DR. iii. 51–3; SD. 517; R. iii. 280–4 (type Vīrabhadravijṛmbhaṇa).

[737] N. xviii. 83–5; xix. 44 f.; DR. iii. 54 f.; SD. 514; R. iii. 229–32 (type Dhanaṁjayajaya).

[738] N. xviii. 86–9; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 64 f.; SD. 519; R. iii. 224–8 (type Karuṇākandala) who differs.

[739] N. xviii. 93–8; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 49 f.; SD. 534–8; R. iii. 268–79 (type Ānandakoça).

[740] N. xviii. 99–101; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 44–6; SD. 513; R. iii. 232–5.

[741] N. xviii. 102 f.; xix. 45 f.; DR. iii. 62 f.; SD. 520. Konow (ID. p. 32) is in error as to N. R. iii. 265–70 has Mādhavī-Vīthikā.

[742] SD. 276.

[743] Hall, DR., p. 6.

[744] cccxxxvii. 2–4. R. iii. 218–23 denies the separate character of the Nāṭikā or Prakaraṇikā.

[745] DR. i. 8.

[746] xviii. 54–6; DR. iii. 39–43; SD. 539.

[747] SD. 554.

[748] SD. 542. Cf. the Bharhut bas-relief of a dance, Sāḍika; Hultzsch, ZDMG. xl. 66, no. 50.

[749] SD. 540.

[750] SD. 541. Cf. Hall, DR., p. 6.

[751] SD. 555.

[752] SD. 543.

[753] SD. 544.

[754] SD. 556; for the others see 546 ff. Names of plays are given, but they are lost, and were probably late.

[755] vii. 90 f.; xi. 36.

[756] ii. 18.

[757] iv. 3.

[758] Mālatīmādhava, p. 79.

[759] vi. 48, and see pp. 108 f.; Lévi, TI. ii. 38.

[760] Cf. the later view in Rome, which forbids death on the stage, Horace, Ars Poetica, 183 ff., with Aristotle, Poetics, 1452 b 10 ff., which approves the presentation of death and other acts on the stage.

[761] M. Lindenau, Festschrift Windisch, pp. 38 ff.

[762] Poetics, 1449 b sq. with Butcher’s trs. and Bywater’s notes.

[763] Poetics, 1449 b 13. For time analysis in Kālidāsa, see Jackson, JAOS. xx. 341–59; in Harṣa, xxi. 88–108.

[764] Bloch, Arch. Survey of India Report, 1903–4, pp. 123 ff.

[765] ii; cf. JPASB. v. 353 ff.; Çilparatna (ed. TSS.), pp. 201 ff. Cf. Kāvyamīmāṅsā, p. 54.

[766] For the Greek theatre, which presents certain points of similarity but many of difference, see Dorpfeld, Das griechische Theater; Haigh, Attic Theatre (3rd ed.); a brief summary is given in Norwood, Greek Tragedy, pp. 49 ff.

[767] The theory of a transverse curtain (Wilson, I. lxviii) is not supported by evidence of any clear kind. Cf. p. 113, n. 1.

[768] Weber, IS. xiv. 225. Cf. Lévi, TI. i. 374; ii. 62.

[769] The Greek number was three, later five. The Chinese stage, which resembles the Indian in its primitive character, but has no curtain, has two doors, one for entry, one for exit; Ridgeway, Dramas, &c., pp. 274 f.

[770] W. Crooke, The Tribes and Castes of the N. W. Provinces and Oudh, ii. 20 ff.

[771] Hillebrandt, AID., p. 12; cf. naṭagrāma, Epigr. Ind. i. 381.

[772] xxiv. 85 f.

[773] Cf. Karpūramañjarī, i. 12/13.

[774] xxvi.; cf. xii. 166 f.

[775] Weber, IS. xiii. 493.

[776] viii. 362; cf. Rāmāyaṇa, ii. 30. 8; Kuṭṭanīmata, 855.

[777] vi. 1. 13.

[778] xvi. 8.

[779] ii. 1. 2. 13.

[780] Kauṭilīya, p. 7.

[781] Manu, viii. 65; Yājñ. ii. 70.

[782] Manu, iv. 215; Yājñ. i. 161.

[783] iii. 57.

[784] N. xxi. 5 ff. Masks may have been used for animals, but not normally as in Greece; cf. ZDMG. lxxiv. 137, n. 2.

[785] N. xxi.

[786] N. xxi. 62 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 388; ii. 69. Cf. the Mahābhāṣya, iii. 1. 26; Yājñavalkya, iii. 162.

[787] Also read Pāhravas and Bāhlikas. Cf. Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 96 f.

[788] N. xxi.

[789] Cf. the Abhinayadarpaṇa of Nandikeçvara, trs. by A. Coomaraswamy and G. K. Duggirala, Cambridge, Mass., 1917.

[790] 856 ff. Cf. the accounts in the Harivaṅça, ii. 88–93.

[791] Saṁgītadāmodara, 39.

[792] Cf. Nīlakaṇṭha’s reason for the alleged abbreviation of the Mṛcchakaṭikā (Lévi, TI. i. 210).

[793] xxvii. 51 ff.; Lévi, TI. ii. 62 ff.

[794] Saṁgītaratnākara, 1327 ff.; Lévi, TI. i. 375 ff. Cf. Kāvyamīmāṅsā, pp. 54 f.

[795] Tagore, Eight Principal Rasas, p. 61. That women as such were excluded (Wilson, ii. 212) cannot have held good for the early stage.

[796] Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa, p. 15.

[797] A certain revival of displays occurred in the nineteenth century; e.g. the Citrayajña of Vaidyanātha Vācaspati Bhaṭṭācārya, written for the festival of Govinda by request of the Rājā of Nadiyā about A.D. 1820. The Cakkyars of Malabar still act Çaktibhadra’s Āçcaryamañjarī and Kulaçekharavarman’s plays, as well as Act III of the Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa, under the style of Mantrān̄kanāṭaka, and the Nāgānanda; JRAS. 1910, p. 637; Pratimānāṭaka (ed. TSS.), p. xl; A. K. and V. R. Pisharoti, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, III. i. 107 ff., who maintain the impossible view that Bhāsa’s plays are compilations or adaptations of the eighth century, or later, holding that the Cārudatta is an adaptation of the Mṛcchakaṭikā (contrast p. 131), the Pratimānāṭaka is later than Kālidāsa, and the Avimāraka than Daṇḍin. The genealogy of Rāma in the Pratimā (iv. 9 f.) is that of Kālidāsa, but is also Purāṇic, and Daṇḍin, of course, is not the inventor of the Kathā. Barnett (Bulletin, III. i. 35) accepts Pisharoti’s views, holding the Nyāyaçāstra of Medhātithi (Pratimā, v. 8/9) to be the Manubhāṣya (tenth century), but this is wholly against the context, and Barnett’s view is surely incompatible with the priority of the Cārudatta to the Mṛcchakaṭikā which he admits, and the absence of Māhārāṣṭrī. Cf. also p. 341.