Bharata Muni and Western Dramatic Theory

This Paper highlights a few generalizations about the Western dramatic theory represented by Aristotle and Indian dramatic theory represented by Bharata Muni. The purpose of this paper is not to suggest that Indian theory of drama is superior to the western but is to point out their differences. Obviously there is a fundamental difference between the Western and the Indian modes of thinking. Aristotle’s Western dramatic theory is based on tragedy. On the other hand Bharata Muni’s dramatic theory is based on the Indian theory of Karma. In Bharata’s theory “Rasa” is the sole object of dramatic representation. But there is one interesting point. Whereas western dramatic theory cannot be applied to Sanskrit drama, Bharata’s theory of rasa, as S.C. Sen Gupta. has shown, can be employed with profit in appreciating the western drama. The Paper concluded by suggesting that both the Indian and the Western theories of drama as represented by Bharata and Aristotle respectively have broken down and splintered. In fact, the very idea of tradition, which had sustained these theories, has disappeared from the modern world. Its place is now occupied by individualization and experimentation.

Bharata’s bibhatsa-rasa, Shudraka’s Mrcchakatika and Christian missionaries’ disgust

The ancient Indian aesthetic theory identifies bībhatsa, “disgust / aversion”, as one of the nine sensory states that determine the mood of dramatic and poetic works and by means of visual / verbal techniques affect a spectator/a reader. This term from Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra was adopted by Christian missions in India and used as an argument against the cultural traditions of the conquered subcontinent. The translation into Marathi (1864) of The Little Clay Cart, a Sanskrit drama by Shudraka, became the object of violent public controversy initiated by Rev. Henry Ballantine who found the image of the protagonist Vasantasena, a hereditary courtesan, “disgusting” and the play “shameful”. The final subjugation ofIndia after the defeat of the Sepoy Mutiny (1857–1858), and its transition under the British crown rule intensified the process of emotional indoctrination of subjects by resort to the notion of “disgusting” understood as anything not compatible with the Christian morality norms.

Sanskrit Literary Theory

Traditional Sanskrit literary theory has always tried to distinguish kāvya,a term often translated as poetry, but actually subsuming all creative literature including prose romance, biography, and drama, from other linguistic expressions like treatises of knowledge systems (śāstra) and narratives (ākhyāna). Though the treatises related to the topic were written in Sanskrit, they addressed Prakrit poetry also, and Sanskrit drama was always multilingual. Literary theorists of India have speculated on a variety of topics related to the nature, aims, genre, and constituent elements of literature, the equipments necessary for a poet, various levels of meaning, and the nature of aesthetic response. In their attempt to distinguish kāvya from other linguistic expressions, they have also formulated various concepts like poetic figures, stylistic features, suggestiveness, aesthetic emotion, propriety, and the like that they deem to be exclusive to poetry. Indian theorists took into account both the creative and receptive aspects of literature and the notion of the ideal reader is inherent in the discussions of poetry. Literary theory also armed itself with the insights it received from philosophical systems in dealing with the problems related to verbal cognition and aesthetic experience. The Kāvyālaṅkāra of Bhāmaha (6th century), the Kāvyādarśa of Daṇḍin (7th century), the Kāvyālaṅkārasārasamgraha of Udbhaṭa (8th century), the Kāvyālaṅkāasūtravṛtti ofVāmana (8th century),the Kāvyālaṅkāra of Rudraṭa (9th century), the Dhvanyāloka of Ānandavardhana (9th century), the Kāvyamīmāmsā of Rājaśekhara (10th century), Vakroktijīvita of Kuntaka (10th century), the Locana commentary on Dhvanyāloka and theAbhinavabhāratī commentary on Nāṭyaśāstra of Abhinavagupta (11th century), the Vyaktiviveka of Mahimabhaṭṭa (11th century), the Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammaṭa (11th century), the Sāhityadarpaṇa of Viśvanātha (14th century), the Sarasvatīkaṇṭābharaṇa and Śṛṅgāraprakāśa of Bhoja (11th century),the Citramīmāmsā of Appayya Dīkṣita (16th–17th century), and the Rasagaṅgādhara Jagannātha Paṇḍita (17th century) are some of the seminal works in Indian literary theory.

A kāvya Casting for Pradyumna

The Pradyumnābhyudaya—a thirteenth-century Sanskrit play by King Ravivarman—is the focus of Chapter 7. This work, based directly on the Prabhāvatī episode of the late Harivaṃśa, appears to be the first Brahminical kāvya or courtly belles-lettristic work to make Pradyumna its protagonist. Of central importance is Ravivarman’s molding of the story into conformity with common standards and expectations for poetic expression in courtly writing. In particular it is argued that two conventions of the Sanskrit drama, the garbhāṅka or nested play, and the śleṣa or double-meaning verse form, become the means for an underscoring and sharpening the signature double love-and-war geste of Kṛṣṇa’s son. As such, the chapter argues that the recasting of the Prabhāvatī romance into belles-lettristic form, far from hijacking the figure of Pradyumna for new purposes, in fact powerfully restates the persisting appeal of the masculine sex-and-violence triumphalism fundamental to his mythic persona.

Knowing and Being

This essay, a highly original study of Kūṭiyāṭṭam as an historical phenomenon and developing art form, offers an ontology of performance in relation to a highly specific epistemology embedded in the Kūṭiyāṭṭam tradition. The author distinguishes Kūṭiyāṭṭam in general and Mantrāṅkam in particular from other performative traditions in South India on the basis of the distinctive truth-value that emerges on stage (in relation to other philosophical streams such as the Advaita). He also reviews the historical evidence on dating and proposes a new hypothesis about the historical moment when Kūṭiyāṭṭam as we know it took shape. He talks about the two manuals that were known from the early period, the Dhananjayadhvani and the Saṃvaraṇadhvani and outlines their impact on the performance of Sanskrit drama in Kerala.

Sounds on Stage: Musical and Vocal Languages and Experiences

The twenty-four papers delivered at the graduate conference entitled “Sounds on Stage: Musical and Vocal Languages and Experiences” (L’Aquila, 14-16 November 2018) investigated the relationship between music and theatrical performances from a comparative perspective. The presentations dealt with the role of music in several theatrical genres from different cultures and times: ancient Greek drama, musical theater (especially opera), modern and contemporary theater and ancient ritual Sanskrit drama.

Religious Syncretism and Literary Innovation

Stefania Cavaliere shows that the Vijñānagītā of Keshavdas is much more than a translation of an allegorical Sanskrit drama, the Prabodhacandrodaya of Krishnamishra. The allegorical battle between aspects of the mind in Krishnamishra’s text becomes in Keshavdas’s hands a platform for a much broader discussion of metaphysics, theology and religious aesthetics, incorporating such diverse influences as the Yogavāsiṣṭha, the Purāṇas, the Dharmaśāstras, and the Bhagavad Gītā. In this way the Vijñānagītā reads more like a scientific treatise (śāstra) than a work of allegorical poetry, and reflects Keshavdas’s erudition and innovation in weaving together strands of bhakti, Advaita Vedānta and rasa aesthetic theory.