Chapter 4
The Formative Elements of Drama
In the discussion so far, we have seen that the proximity between the two
ancient civilizations, Greece and India, provided an atmosphere conducive to the
exchange of thoughts and ideas. In the two texts under review, the similarities in the
concept of imitation draw us to probe further into the possibilities of finding such
parallels among other concepts enunciated by these two theorists regarding the
production of drama. We shall now look for the comparisons and contrasts in the
essential formative elements of drama as propounded in the Poetics and the
Natyashastra.
Among the formative elements of a Tragedy, the one element on which
Aristotle lays maximum emphasis is, the plot. " The first essential," he says," The life
and soul, so to speak, of tragedy is the plot: character comes second." He also calls
plot as "the end and purpose of tragedy". (Bywater, 37)
In chapter 6 of the Poetics, Aristotle defines plot as " the arrangement of
incidents (Bywater, 37)." It is not just the story, but the structure or arrangement of
incidents which make up the story. The story can be written in a single line but to
effectively present that story on stage, the dramatist has to create a sequence of events
that follow one another as per the laws of probability and necessity. This sequential
arrangement constitutes a plot. Aristotle's use of the term 'soul' to emphasize the
importance of plot basically refers to the proper layout and design of the tragedy and
is in coherence with Bharata's concept according to which, "plot is the body of the
play—
Itivrittam tu natyasya shariram parikirtitam (Shastri, Vol III, 48)."
Bharata's concept seems to be more exact and appropriate as plot is certainly
the body, that is, the outline structure of drama. Aristotle uses the word "soul" in the
sense that drama is inconceivable without plot.
Both Aristotle and Bharata share the view that plot should be an organic
whole and no digressions should be incorporated into it. For Aristotle, the 'organic
75
whole' implies the entire movement of drama from beginning to the end. He says "
Now a beginning is that which is not necessarily after anything else, and which has
naturally something after it; an end is that which is naturally after something itself,
either as its necessary or usual consequence, and with nothing else after it. A well
constructed plot, therefore cannot begin or end at any point one likes; beginning and
end in it must be of the forms just described (Bywater 40)." Beginning in Aristotelian
sense, is quite a baffling term as it is impossible to find an incident that has no
preceding incident attached to it. If we analyze the beginnings of Greek plays, we can
conclude that by the term 'Beginning', Aristotle meant a defining moment in the life
of the protagonist. Sophocles' Oedipus, the King begins with the deliberation between
Sophocles and the priest about the dismal situation of the state. This is probably the
first major challenge that Oedipus has faced as a king. This is a testing time in his
life. He has overthrown the reigning king and assumed power and is now responsible
for the welfare of the state. This is in effect the beginning of the test of his
administrative powers. Aeschylus' Agamemnon begins with the description of the fall
of Ilium and subsequent return of Agamemnon along with Cassandra. The life history
of Agamemnon is not of importance here. It is this particular moment, which marks
the return of the triumphant Agamemnon with his prize catch Cassandra that marks
the beginning of Agamemnon's fatal fate at the hands of his vengeful wife,
Clytemnestra. Euripides' The Bachhantes begins with the arrival of Dionysus to the
land of Thebes. He heralds his arrival with the description of his adventures across
Asia but it is his arrival in the Hellenic domain that marks the beginning of the events
to follow. Aristotle's idea of having a beginning with nothing preceding it is pointed
at a particular moment that is essentially the stimulus or the nodal point for the events
to follow.
The 'middle' refers to the whole sequence of incidents that follow one another
as per the requirements of necessity and probability. It has a beginning before it and
the incidents that lead to logical end.
76
Bharata has divided the movement of the dramatic action into five parts:
•
Beginning (Prarambha)
•
Effort (Prayatna)
•
Possibility of Attainment (Praptisambhava)
•
Certainty of Attainment (Niyataprapti)
•
Attainment of Object (Phala Prapti)
The Prarambha and Phala-prapti are in parallel with the 'beginning and the 'end' as
propounded by Aristotle. The middle portion is sub divided into three parts but these
parts are what Aristotle calls the arrangement of events in a sequential order as per
the laws of probability and necessity. "That part of the play, in its early stage (i.e
seed, bija), which creates a kind of curiosity towards the final goal is called the
beginning (Rangacharya, 157)." It is the intensity of desire on the part of the
protagonist spurred by the importance of the moment, which marks the beginning. In
Abhijnanshakuntalam, when Dushyanta is informed about the absence of Kanva from
the Ashram and Shakuntala being in charge, he immediately resolves: "Then I shall
see her" (Chaturvedi, Abhijnanashakuntalam, 9). The curiosity on the part of the king
marks the beginning of the events in the play. In Ratnavali Natika, it is the curiosity
on the part of Udayana's minister, Yougandhrayana that prompts Udayana on the path
of action.
After Prarambha, comes Prayatana i.e.effort. Curiosity is almost always
followed by an effort to attain one's aim. This effort takes the action forward.
Oedipus' curiosity to know the reason for drought and plague in his state leads to his
effort, which brings Tiresias to him and this episode marks the second stage of
development of the plot. According to Dhananjay: "curiosity is the beginning and
extreme curiosity is the effort (Pandey 35)." In Abhijnanshakuntalam, Dushyanta's
consultation with his friends Madhavya reflects the effort on the part of the king to
meet Shakuntala. In Vikramurvashiyam, the effort is bipolar, although it is more
pronounced on the part of the heroine. Vikrama's effort in the second act is primarily
focused upon the revelation of his emotional state in verse whereas Urvashi, making
77
use of her heavenly powers descends on Vikrama's Palace and writes a letter to him
expressing her love for him. Similarly, in Oedipus at Colonus, Oedipus, following
Apollo's prophecy reaches the outskirts of Athens and despite warning by a stranger
not to enter the holy ground, insists upon a meeting with the king Theseus, in an
effort to reach his destination. The effort logically leads to a psychological impression
that success in attainable. This situation is called Praptyasha or prospects of success.
This part of action, according to Bharata, is only in the protagonist's mind. He says:
"When some feeling suggests to the hero that the final goal may be achieved, it is
possibility i.e. Praptyasha (Rangacharya 157)." The psychological insight of Bharata
is remarkable. The attainment of the goal at this stage is not a certainty but the hero is
beginning to feel that the purpose can be achieved. The hero knows the obstacles but
his mind is full of ideas to overcome them. Positive energy begins to flow through his
veins and he resolves to make a determined effort to strike at his aim. Dushyanta's
second meeting with Shakuntala in the third act makes him hopeful of his happy
married life. Durvasa's curse in the Fourth act represents the obstacle but his
consequent amendment of the curse raises the hope in Shakuntala's as well as the
spectators' minds that the lovers will be reunited. In Euripides' Orestes, Electra's
clinging to the hope of the arrival of Menalaus fleet from Troy to the harbour of
Nauplia reflects her state of Praptyasha.
After Praptayasha, comes Niyatpati or certainty of success. This is the stage in
the play where the hero feels sure about his success although he can still see the
obstacles that he has to overcome. Bharata describes it in following words: "When the
hero can visualize a sure attainment of the objective, it is called certainty of
attainment ( Nityata Phala Prapti)." For instance, in Ratnavali natika when
Vasavadatta imprisons Sagarika, then King Udayana says that the only way to free
Sagarika is by placating Vasavadatta and then in the fourth act when Udayana
manages to please Vasavadatta, he can actually see that his mission of getting
Sagarika will be fulfilled. This psychological state is called Niyatpati or Niyati Phala
Prapti.
Thus Aristotle's idea of 'middle' can be compared to Bharata's division of the
movement of action into three distinct parts. Aristotle repeatedly emphasizes that the
78
events must be in accordance with the laws of probability and necessity. Bharata has
given us clear-cut demarcation about the reason behind this sort of development of
plot. The reason is psychological. Drama is about men in action and men act with
some purpose in mind. As the action progresses, the purpose that was once just a
distant vision, starts getting clearer and the protagonist starts feeling sure of his
achievement. This is the 'middle' of each and every drama. In Oedipus at Colonus, the
purpose of Oedipus is to attain Salvation and bring to an end his miserable life. This
purpose brings him to Athens. The following events involving Theseus, Creon and
Electra merely serve towards the realization of Oedipus' aim and finally his soul is
released from his body and this is the end, or the Phalaprapti towards which his
actions were oriented.
Aristotle has further divided the plot on the basis of Quantitative Parts. This
deals with the actual action that takes place on the stage. He has enumerated four
parts in which the total performance is divided. These structural parts are Prologue,
Episode, Exode and Chorus. The choral portion is further sub divided into Parode and
Stasimon.
The dramatic prologue is that part of the tragedy that precedes the first choral section.
The purpose is to clarify to the audience, the situation, as it exists at the beginning of
the dramatic action. It is a sort of preparation of the beginning—an attempt to draw
the audience's attention towards the main subject matter that is to follow.
The prologue is similar to Prastavna of Sanskrit plays. It is also referred to as
Aamukha. "Aamukha (also called Prastavna by some) is that part in the beginning
where the nati (female associate of the sutradhara) and Vidushaka (Jester) or
Paripaarshvaka (Actor friend) carry on a dialogue with sutradhara regarding some
relevant topic, using interesting words or any type of witty style or in some other
manner (Shastri, Vol III, 102)."
The purpose of Prastavna is the same as that of the Prologue—to arouse the
spectators' curiosity and also to help in comprehension. The choral portion in Greek
drama was the nucleus from which tragedy evolved. It has varied uses depending
upon the method of playwright and on the needs of the play being performed. In
79
Oedipus, the king, it clarifies the experiences and feelings of the characters in
everyday terms and expresses the conventional attitude towards the development of
the plot. On the other hand, in Aeschylus, Suppliantes, the chorus is itself a central
figure in the tragedy rather than a group of bystanders. But in majority of the cases,
the tragedians used the chorus to create a psychological and emotional background to
the action. It elucidated the events as they occurred, established facts and affirmed the
outlook of the society. It was also used to cover the passage of time between events
and to separate episodes.
A dramatic performance in Greece in the 5th century B.C. would begin with the
entrance of the chorus on to the orchestra. It often danced barefoot and heralded the
beginning of the play by chanting the Parodus. The chorus would remain in the
formation till the end of the play performing all the functions enunciated. Structurally
speaking, from the performance point of view, Sanskrit drama offers no parallel to the
chorus. But Bharata has mentioned certain dramatic devices that essentially perform
the same function that the chorus did in Greek drama. The Sanskrit drama was
divided into distinct acts unlike the Greek drama that was divided into the episodes
clubbed in between two choral songs. The number of acts in the ancient Indian drama
could vary from one to ten. Between two acts there could be a lapse of time. The
events taking place during this time gap had to be reported to the audience in order to
ensure their participation and comprehension. Moreover, there were a number of
things and incidents, which were deemed as improper for enactment on the stage.
Bharata has specifically proscribed the representation of a battle, loss of a kingdom,
death, and the siege of the city on stage. He has forbidden the killing of hero, his
flight or capture, or treaty with the enemy. Even anger or its pacification, grief,
pronouncement of a curse, terrified flight, marriage ceremony, commencement of a
miracle and its actual occurrence could not be visually presented. But to report all
these to the audience Bharata asks the playwright to use the following explanatory
devices called Arthopakshepakas:
80
The Supporting Scene (Vishkambaka):
It acts as an interlude that is used to describe some occurrence that has either
taken place or is just about to take place. It is essentially concerned with the
beginning segment of the Nataka. Explaining Vishkambaka, Bharata says: "A
Vishkambaka or a introductory scene is of two kinds—pure and mixed. In the pure,
only characters of a middle status appear, and in the mixed, middle and low status
characters come together. The purpose of Vishkambaka is to deal with the opening
sandhi of the play. Usually a priest or a minister or a Kanchukin are the characters in
this scene (Rangacharya, 164)." The fourth act of Abhjnanashakumtalam begins with
a Vishkambaka where a student of the sage Kanva talks about the lesson to be learnt
from the dawn, that misery and happiness go side by side. This observation is a
precursor to the forthcoming events in the play where Shakuntala's happiness is
turned to misery when Dushayanta refuses to recognize her.
Intimating speech (Chulika):
"Chulika is a device with which, from behind the curtain, a character of high
low or middle status gives information concerning the development of the plot
(Shastri, Vol III, 87)." This device has been extensively used by Kalidasa in the
fourth act of Vikramurvashiyam to describe the emotional state of King Vikram.
Introductory Scene (Praveshaka):
Of all the supporting devices the Praveshaka seems closest to the Greek
Chorus as far as its function is concerned Bharata states: " A Praveshaka or an
interlude is a scene between two acts of a nataka or a prakarana and gives
information regarding the happenings from the end of the preceding act to the
beginning of the following act
(Shastri Vol III 88)." The conversation between the
fisherman and the Royal guards in the beginning of Act VI of Abhijnanashakuntalam
is a typical example of Praveshaka.
81
Apart from the above-mentioned devices there are two more such devices of
lesser importance enunciated by Bharata. These are called Ankavatara and
Ankamukha. The former is sort of transitional scene that "falls between two acts or
within an act and is related to the purpose of the seed (Shastri, Vol III 88)." The
Ankamukha is an anticipatory scene:" When the detached beginning of an act is
summarized beforehand by a male or a female character (Shastri, Vol III, 88)."
The problem of continuity is a perpetual problem dogging the playwrights
since ancient times. Both Greek and Indian playwrights invented means to overcome
this problem. The Greeks had the chorus and it served the purpose well since the size
of the audience was large. To clearly narrate the events to thousands of spectators, a
group of actors singing and narrating in unison was required. Indian theatre, on the
other hand, was more of an intimate theater, therefore, there was no requirement of a
group of actors acting as the sutradharas. This function was effectively performed by
one or two actors using any of the structural devices mentioned above. In certain
Indian folk theatre in the modern times, we can find a group of actors akin to Greek
chorus singing and narrating the missing part of the action to the audience. One such
example is the Tamasha form of theatre prevalent in the Maharashtra. So, we can
conclude that although the representational part is entirely different, the purpose and
role of chorus in the Greek drama and of the supporting structural devices explained
by Bharata like Vishkambaka etc. are essentially the same.
The third quantitative element of tragedy, according to Aristotle, is the
Episode. "An episode is all that comes in between two choral songs (Bywater 48)."
The episode would start with the entry of the actor in addition to the chorus (that was
already there). The end of each episode was generally marked by the exit of all the
characters from the stage and the chorus would then take over until the beginning of
the next episode. The concept of dividing the play into episodes is similar to Bharata's
division of play into Acts or Ankas. Bharata says: "An act should cover the events of
a single day. It should be definitely related to the seed (Bija). And only necessary
episodes, not in conflict with each other should be used……All the characters on the
stage after performing various things in accordance with the seed and leading to
proper Rasa must exit (Rangacharya 149)." Bharata professes the use of a minimum
82
of five and a maximum of ten Acts in a drama. The Anka or the Act carries forward
the main action to the next point from where the next Act begins. As far as the last
quantitative element the Exode is concerned it has its parallel in Bharata' concept of
Phalayoga or Bharatvakyam.
After discussing the structural devices or the quantitative elements of the plot,
let us now focus our attention on the qualitative parts of the drama. Bharata has, in the
typical Indian tradition, provided us with the details of the plot construction in the
micro-classificatory system. Aristotle too, has dealt with minute nuances that make
the plot interesting and help in realizing the purpose of the tragedy. In this context let
us analyze what both the theorists say about the types of plots.
Plot, according to Aristotle is of two kinds—simple and complex. Explaining
this distinction, he says: "Plots are either simple or complex, since the action they
represent are naturally of this twofold description. The action proceeding in the way
defined, as a continuous whole, I call simple, when the change in the hero's fortunes
takes place without Peripety or Discovery; and complex when it involves one or the
other or both (Bywater 46)."
Peripety means reversal of fortune. It happens as the result of discovery—
discovery of certain facts hitherto unknown. Sophocles' Oedipus, the King is a classic
example of peripety. The messenger who comes from Corinth to convey the news of
the death of Polybus and the happy news that Oedipus has been selected to succeed
him to the throne ends up revealing that Oedipus is not the son of Polybus. This
discovery leads to the revelation of the fact that Oedipus has killed his father Laius
and married his mother Jocasta. This discovery leads to peripety that is, reversal of
fortune and ends in the tragedy of Oedipus and Jocasta.
Peripety and Discovery are, what in the modern terminology is known as the
twists in the tale. Without these two elements the narrative will follow a straight,
mundane path. There will be no elements or surprise and shock in the play. This kind
of a play will never be able to sustain the interest of the audience. Without interest the
audience's identification with the subject would be missing and subsequently the
purpose of drama would not be achieved. One must remember that Greek drama
83
depended upon the dramatic competitions for financial support. The success in the
competition invariably depended upon the reaction of the audience. Their sighs, their
gasps, their tears, their laughter, their shock—all contributed to the success of the
playwright and the director; generally the playwright was also the director.
Peripety and discovery are the most important weapons in the armoury of the
playwright to extract such reactions from the audience. That is why Aristotle prefers
complex plots and puts special emphasis on these two elements. He has listed six
different kinds of discoveries. The first type, that Aristotle considers least Artistic is
the discovery by signs or marks. These signs appear at a crucial stage and lead to the
reversal of fortune. For instance, In Sophocles' Electra, Orestes reveals his identity to
Electra through his father's signet rings.
The second kind of discovery is the one invented by the poet's mind defying
the laws of probability and necessity e.g. Orestes' discovery of himself in Iphigenia in
Tauris. This is also considered inartistic by Aristotle. The third kind is discovery
through memory. The fourth type involves the use of logic. The character must reason
his way to the recognition and the reasoning process must be expressed in the
dialogue. Yet another form is through inverse or false reasoning. But the kind of
discovery that Aristotle considers most suitable is the one that "arises from the
incidents themselves where the startling discovery is made by natural means
(Bywater 60)." Oedipus' discovery about his real parents is a typical example of this
type of discovery.
The examples of such discoveries and subsequent change in the hero's fortune
are found in abundance in Sanskrit drama. The discovery of the ring by the King
Dushayanta in Abhijnanashakuntalam brings back his memory and hopes of
Shakuntala's redemption are raised. In Karnavadha, Kunti reveals to Karna that he is
her eldest son. By doing so, she is able to receive a boon from Karna that he will not
kill any other Pandava except Arjuna so that she will always remain the mother of
five sons. In Vikramurvashiyam, the king discovers the reason of Urvashi's absence
when she tells him that she had wandered into an area prohibited for women and had
been turned into a vine. In all the above-mentioned instances, the discovery leads to
84
reversal of fortune. While in the case of Dushyanta and Vikrama, it marks the reversal
from misery to happiness, in the case of Karna it is the other way round. But the
purpose of the playwright remains the same—to add the spice or twist in the
otherwise straightforward tale. This aspect of drama has been discussed by Bharata in
chapter XX of the Natyashastra, where, while elaborating on the rules of plot
construction, he has listed the purpose and types of Sandhyantras and Angas.
Before understanding the Sandhyantras and the related Angas, we need to understand
the sandhis or joints in the plot. We already know that there are five stages of
development of the plot. They include Beginning (Prarambha), Effort (Prayatna),
Possibility of achievement (Praptisambhava), Certainty of achievement (Niyatpati)
and Achievement (Phala-prapti). These five stages are dependent on the five
Arthaprakritis or external conditions. These Arthaprakritis are:
•
Bija (Seed)
•
Bindu (Drop)
•
Pataka (Incident)
•
Prakari (Episode)
•
Karya (Action)
The Seed (Bija) is supposed to be the genesis of the plot. It is "that which
planted in a small measure, expands in various ways and ends in fruit (Rangacharya
158)." It is the seed that leads the drama to its desired end. It pervades the entire
action of the drama. Bharata has particularly pointed out that "in an Act there should
be no final disposal of the seed (Shastri, Vol III, 8)." In Bhasa's Pratimanatkam, the
coronation ceremony of Rama is the seed. All the episodes that follow are related to
this ceremony, be it Bharata's melancholy, Lakshmana's anger or Ravana's deceit. The
defeat of Ravana and Kaikeyi's disclosure that she meant fourteen days of exile and
not fourteen years result in coronation of Rama and bring the play to the desired end.
The Drop (Bindu) or the prominent point is that part of the plot "which, when
the purposes are missing, still keeps the continuity of the play."(Shastri, Vol III, 8).
Bharata calls it Vastuvyapi i.e. that, which permeates the whole plot. It helps in
85
restoring the continuity whenever there is an obstruction in the way of the hero's
realization of his objective. According to Dhananjay: "Bindu is like the branch of the
plant that has sprouted from the seed (bija); it puts life in the narrative and exhilarates
the spectators (Pandey, 31)."
The Pataka(Episode) is "that principal happening which helps the principal
plot and is itself treated as a principal incident (Rangacharya 158)." The Pataka
should not stand isolated; it should be linked with the main plot by one or more
junctures. In Abhijnanashakuntalam, Indra invites Dushyanta through Matali to come
and assist him in his fight against the demons. Matali, while entering Dushyanta's
palace manhandles Madhavya and thus enrages Dushyanta. But the rage helps in
rousing Dushyanta from his state of sloth and despondency. He goes to assist Indra.
This episode ends here. But its effect is seen in the next scene, when, while coming
back from the war, Dushayanta stops at Rishi Mareecha's Ashram and finds
Shakuntala. This is a typical example of Pataka.
The Prakari or the episodical incident is "something, the result of which only
serves the purpose of the principal plot and which has no continuity of its own
(Rangacharya, 158)." It basically deals with the characters other than the hero but it
also helps in realization of the main object. For instance, the professional rivalry
between Ganadas and Haridatta in Malvikagnimitram helps in the development of the
plot to its desired end.
The Action (Karya) "is that which finally achieves the goal of the principal
plot (Rangacharya 158)." The word Karya or Action, points out to the efforts made
by various characters for the furtherance of the principal object. Keith interprets it as
Denouement (298). But Denouement in the Aristotelian sense is the end whereas the
Arthaprakritis discussed above are merely means to the end.
These five component parts of the plot are joined to each other by five
Sandhis (joints). Dhananjaya says in this context: "The incident that joins the purpose
of the preceding part of the plot with the purpose of the succeeding part of the plot is
called a Sandhi (joint) (Pandey, 13)."
86
The first Sandhi is the Mukha Sandhi or the Opening. It is "that part of the
play to which the seed, the various sources of Rasas and Bhavas, is closely related
(Rangacharya 159)." This refers to the first section of the play where the action
begins to germinate and the plot is stirred into movement.
The second Sandhi is the Pratimukha Sandhi which refers to the progress of
the plot. Pratimukha Sandhi is the opening of the seed whether it is perceptible or not.
The seed that has begun to germinate shows promise of fruition but only for a short
while. The moment we realize that the fulfillment is round the corner, it disappears
leaving the audience with the question---What next?
Pratimukha Sandhi is followed by the Garbha Sandhi that implies the
sprouting of the seed whether it leads to fruition or not. It is the middle part of the
drama where the hero has been able to overcome some hurdles, but the realization of
the objective is still a distant dream.
Then comes the Vimarsha Sandhi or the deliberation stage. Here, the hero
thinks about his situation and shortcomings. He also feels uncertain and in some cases
like Vikramurvashiyam, dejected and disheartened. Bharata defines this Sandhi as:
"The seed that has sprouted will not be observed if it is developing because of any
sentiment like sorrow, anger etc (Rangacharya, 159)."
And finally we have the conclusion or the Nirvahana Sandhi. Dhananjaya
says: "The Nirvahana Sandhi is that in which the matters that occurred in the opening
and in the other junctures and those contained in the seed (Bija) and were distributed
in the due order, are brought together at one end (Pandey, 98)."
The Avasthas, the Arthaprakritis and the Sandhis—all are aimed at the
development of the plot. In such a way that it becomes interesting for the spectators,
or for that matter even the reader of then play.
Peripety and Discovery are also aimed at bringing about the interesting twists
in the tale for the spectators or the casual reader so that they can feel the tragic
pleasure. The Avasthas, the Arthaprakritis and the Sandhis are basically structural
aspects that are constructed around various components pertaining to various aspects
87
of human character. These are called Sandhyantras and Angas. The Sandhyantaras
and Angas have all the elements listed under them to produce the same effect that
Peripety and Discovery do. The Sandhyantras are twenty-one in number and they
include the aspects like conciliation, dissension, gifting, punishment, killing, presence
of mind, slip in addressing, rashness, terror, bashfulness, deceit, anger, energy,
concealment, confusion, ascertainment, messenger, letter, dream, portrait and
intoxication. These aspects of the human nature are further connected to the Angas
and both of them have a six-fold purpose:
1. To mention the intended object.
2. To see that the interest of the plot does not suffer.
3. To make the production more attractive.
4. To conceal a secret.
5. To create surprise.
6. To reveal the obvious.
Peripety and Discovery are also aimed at achieving these very purposes. So, in the
construction of the plot, both the theorists emphasize the importance of twists in the
tale to provide the audience with the true pleasure of watching a dramatic
performance.
The Arthaprakritis and Sandhis also correspond to yet another aspect of plot
construction as elucidated by Aristotle—the complication and denouement. The
Mukha Sandhi (opening), the Pratimukha Sandhi (progression), and the Garbha
Sandhi (development) correspond to the complication aspect of the plot whereas
denouement is covered by the Vimarsha Sandhi (deliberation) and Nirvahana Sandhi
(conclusion).
As far as the sources of the plots are concerned, both the theorists have shown
their consciousness about the universal appeal of the play. Aristotle mentions three
sources—history, tradition and the poet's own creativity—from which plots could be
drawn. He doesn't care from where the stories come as long as the play is able to
delight the audience. Citing the example of Agathon's Antheus, he says: "both
88
incidents and names (in Antheus) are of poet's invention: and it is no less delightful
on that account. So that one must not aim at the rigid adherence to the traditional
stories on which tragedies are based. It would be absurd, in fact, to do so as even the
known stories are known only to a few though they are a delight nonetheless to all
(Bywater 44)." Even if the plot is taken from a known story, Aristotle gives the poet
the license to view the tale from his own perspective, add imaginary characters and
present his own vision of the historical tale. "Nevertheless, in a tragedy there are
some plays with but one or two known names in them, the rest being invention
(Bywater 44)."
Bharata, too, has elaborated upon various sources from which the plots can be
drawn to write different types of plays. In chapter XX of the Natyashastra, he has
listed ten kinds of plays and the plots for the different kinds are to be taken from
different sources. These ten types are:
1. Nataka
2. Prakarna
3. Samvakara
4. Ihamriga
5. Dima
6. Vyayoga
7. Anka
8. Prahasana
9. Bhana
10. Vithi
The plot for a Nataka is taken from a well-known story. Its hero is of exalted
nature and story revolves around him and his family. There are elements of glory,
grandeur and success and it is also marked by a super human elements.
89
In Prakarna, the plot and the hero spring out of poet's imagination. The hero
can be a common trader, an officer, a priest or even a minister. The plot is devoid of
any royal love story and there is no divine intervention.
In Samvakara, the story revolves around with the actions and deeds of the
gods and demons. It is in three acts with three kinds of deceit, three calamities and
three kinds of Shringara Rasa.
The Ihamriga's plot deals with the war on account of a divine woman. The
playwright should aim at developing the anger of the woman. Commotion,
excitement, and violent conflicts should be knitted in the plot in a very convincing
way.
The Dima should also have a well-known story revolving around sixteen
dignified heroes. The plot should include natural calamities like earthquakes, floods,
falling of meteors, solar and lunar eclipses etc. There should be plenty of deceit and
jugglery, dissensions among violent persons and gods that should lead to battles and
fights with dreadful weapons.
The Vyayoga is a one act play concerned with the events of a single day and
the hero must be a Royal Sage. It should involve battles, fights and conflicts. The plot
of the Anka is just like Vyayoga except that instead of battles, there are scenes of
lamentation after the conclusion of the battle.
The Prahasana is a comical play. It contains low characters, who, in their
everyday language satirize the actions of the so called gurus, Brahmins, Buddhist
monks, ascetics etc. may This may also have scenes in which courtesans, eunuchs,
menial servants and rogues appear in immodest dress and make vulgar gestures.
The Bhana is a monoact. A single actor portrays the emotions and actions of
more than one character. Alternatively the actor may also indulge in a dialogue with
some invisible character. The Bhana is in one act and the character is a rogue or a
gallant.
Vithi is also in one act and can contain characters of high, middle or low
status. It can have all the Rasas.
90
The idea propounded in Poetics by Aristotle that the playwright is essentially
a "Maker of Plots" corresponds to the delineation of various types of plots that
Bharata has professed. Like Aristotle, Bharata also says that the poet must add
various incidents pertaining to various Rasas so as to provide the audience with a
wholesome dramatic experience.
Finally, we come to the most widely debated aspect of the Aristotle's concept
of Plot construction—the three unities. These unities refer to the unity of action, unity
of time and unity of place. Regarding unity of action, Aristotle says: "…in story as an
imitation of action, must represent one action, a complete whole, with its several
incidents so closely connected that the transposal or withdrawal of any one of them
will disjoin or dislocate the whole (Bywater 42)." Aristotle has not ruled out the
inclusion of sub plots with the main plot. His only concern is that the sub plots should
be subservient to the main plot and should be inextricably joined to it. In Euripides'
Electra, Electra's marriage to a peasant is a sub plot that serves the main plot and
helps her reunification with her brother Orestes, which ultimately leads to the killing
of their father's murderers—Aegisthus and Clytemnestra. It would be wrong to
assume that by unity of action, Aristotle meant a linear movement of plot. The web
knitted by the playwright must have a well-defined center and there should not be any
loose ends. In the beginning of chapter VIII, Aristotle clearly states: "The unity of
plot does not consist, as some suppose, in its having one man as its subject (Bywater,
41)."
In the beginning of chapter XXI of the Natyashastra, Bharata has divided the
plot into two parts—Adhikarika, that is, the main plot and Prasangika or the sub
plot(s). The main plot is concerned with the hero and the sub plots deal with the
incidents that help the hero in the attainment of his goal. " That which leads to the
final result is the principal, the other subsidiary. What the writer, by his efforts, and
the actors, through their coordinated actions achieve is the principal and any other
thing helping this is subsidiary (Shastri Vol III 49-50)."
The doctrine of 'unity of time' is ascribed to Aristotle on account of two
passages in the Poetics. The first of these is where he is narrating the differences
91
between epic and tragedy: "…Tragedy endeavors to keep as far as possible within a
single circuit of the sun, or something near that (Bywater 34)." The second passage
occurs in chapter VII where he says: "As a rough general formula, a length which
allows the hero passing through a series of probable or necessary stages from
misfortune to happiness or from happiness to misfortune may suffice as a limit for the
magnitude of the story (Bywater, 41).
From these two observations, one conclusion can be safely drawn that
Aristotle is not laying down a dictum as far as the length of the action is concerned.
He is merely handing out a 'rough general formula' based upon the prevalent practice
of the contemporary Greek theatre. Abercombie substantiates this view when he says:
" It is a good instance of the way Aristotle's illustration of his theory was limited by
the literature of his time; it is also a good instance of the way he refused to dogmatize
on purely accidental qualities. But in the history of criticism, this remark is of
immense importance: an importance given to it by the power of sheer
misunderstanding (Abercombie, 93)."
Bharata has emphasized upon unity of time while discussing ten kinds of play.
A Nataka may stretch along any number of years but "…an act should cover events of
a single day (Shastri, Vol III, 11)."The same rule is applicable to Prakarana also.
Bharata presents specific time length or duration for the third type of play i.e.
Samvakara and lays down the rule that the action should be completed in eighteen
Nadikas. Babulal Shukla Shastri puts one Nadika equal to 24 minutes. This makes the
length of play seven hours and twenty minutes. Surely it is not a professionally
competent regulation. Even Bharata confesses that one Act of the Samvakara in
loosely connected to the second Act of it and likewise with a third Act. No wonder, it
is difficult to find an example of Samvakara in Sanskrit Literature. Babulal Shukla
Shastri considers Samudramanthan by Vatsaraj, an example of it (Shastri Vol III 24).
Keith considers Bhasa's Panchratra , an example of Samvakara.(267). Definitely,
Samvakara would not have been a popular dramatic form and laying down this rule
would have devoid it from the intensity required to hold the play together. The sixth
type of drama i.e Vyayoga comes closest to the Greek concept of unity of time. It is a
92
one-act play about a royal person, dealing with battles, fight, and conflicts and
presents the events of a single day.
As far as unity of place is concerned, both Aristotle and Bharata are
unanimous in ascribing no importance to it. It is, as Fyfe says : "A deduction of the
Italian critics….of this Aristotle says nothing (Fyfe, xxi)." They probably inferred this
theory from the practice in Greek drama where the place of action seldom changed.
Bharata's only concern is, that the action should be set in India. No foreign locales
should be represented even while describing the actions involving gods. The reason
he cites for this is that the entire land of Bhartavarsha is charming sweet smelling and
of golden colour. (Shastri Vol III 32-33) Accordingly, there are many instances,
where the playwrights have resorted to the change of place during the course of action
of the drama. Kalidasa moves his action through a number of places in all his plays.
Bhasa's Pratimanatkam moves from the King's palace to the forest and then to the
statue museum and finally ends in the king's palace. Thus there is no such restriction
on the Sanskrit dramatists to remain within the confines of a single location to present
their plays.
Bharata and Aristotle agree on most of the aspects of plot construction and
both of them have given suggestions to the playwrights keeping in mind the interest,
involvement and the identification of the audience.
The second formative element of Tragedy, which Aristotle has also classified
as the second medium of tragic imitation, is—the Character.
In the second chapter of the Poetics, Aristotle makes a very primal distinction
between characters classifying them as 'either good or bad' claiming that the variety
exhibited in human characteristics is derived from this primary difference. "….the
line between virtue and vice is the one dividing the whole of mankind. It follows,
therefore, that the agents represented must be either above our own level of goodness,
or beneath it, or just such as we are (Bywater 26)." The imitation of men worse that
average is the subject matter of comedy. Comedy is constructed around characters
that are lower than the noble personages in the social hierarchy. Their actions are not
dignified and hence fall in the category of the Ridiculous, which Aristotle defines as
93
"a mistake or deformity not productive of pain or harm to others (Bywater 33)." Since
the principal characters of comedy are common folk, it implies that their language too
shall not be of exalted nature. It would be a language of everyday use.
Bharata has classified comedy under the title Prahasana, while describing the
ten types of plays in chapter XX of the Natyashastra. The characters in this kind of
play are "low characters". These characters include courtesans, menial servants,
eunuchs and rogues, who, by their "comic dialogue in everyday language" ridicule
some person or mock at the so-called learned men and thereby provoke laughter.
Laughter may also be produced, when these low characters appear on stage "in
immodest dress and make obscene gestures (Shastri Vol III 36)." So, both the
theorists seem to agree that the action and words provocative of laughter should be
delivered through the characters belonging to the lower rung of the society.
For Tragedy, Aristotle professes the portrayal of the Character who is neither
extremely good or bad but an "intermediate kind of a personage, a man not pre
eminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not by
vice or depravity but by some error of judgment (Bywater, 50)."
Laying down further requirements of the character, Aristotle mentions four of
them in chapter XV of the Poetics.
1. They should be good
2. They should be appropriate
3. They should be like the reality
4. They should be consistent.
The first and foremost aspect in Aristotle's mind is that it should be 'good'.
The goodness in the character is revealed through the moral purpose which in turn, is
revealed through the character's actions and words. Hardison defines goodness as
"..the quality that provides moral elevation in tragic characters. The specific quality
will change from play to play and from character to character, but all tragic
protagonists have it in some degree, and more the better (202)." So it is necessary for
94
the hero to be good, or his fall will not be evocative of sympathy, which is basis of all
tragic pleasure.
But this goodness should not be confused with perfection on the part of the
hero. A Perfectly good person is not a fit choice for the tragedy because seeing him
passing from happiness to misery will not be "fear inspiring or piteous but simply
odious to us (Bywater 50)." Then who qualifies as a good character? According to
Aristotle, everyone does. He says: "Such goodness is possible in every type of
personage, even in a woman or a slave, though the one is perhaps an inferior, and the
other a wholly worthless being (Bywater 55). "Considering women inferior and slave
worthless is the reflection of the attitude of the contemporary Greek society. But
Aristotle once again exhibits his insight of human psychology that no one is entirely
good or bad but it is his actions in the given circumstances that label him so. So, the
hero here is a human being just like us. In Greek drama it is not possible to find a
character with a flawless virtue. The reason is simple—such characters will fail to
find identification with the audience and without such identification, the tragic
pleasure is impossible. Butcher's remarks in this context are worth mentioning. He
says: "Blameless goodness has seldom the quality needed to make it dramatically
interesting. It wants the motive power will leads to decisive acts of will, which impels
others to action and produces a collision of forces. Dramatic character implies some
self-assertive energy. It is not a rounded or perfect whole…….(perfect) Goodness on
the other hand, with its unselfish self effacing tendency, is apt to be immobile and
uncombative (Butcher 310)." In Bhasa's Pratimanatkam, Rama, who is the
embodiment of virtue fails to provide the conflict when he is exiled. Here, there is no
conflict either, internal or external. Neither he confronts, Kaikeyi, or Dasratha nor
does he show any internal resentment at the injustice being done to him. Rather, as an
obedient son he accepts his father's orders and even exonerates his stepmother
Kaikeyi from any sense of guilt. His actions make him a revered a figure but do not
move us to pity him. Neither do they put any sense of fear in us because this high
virtue is seldom found in ordinary people. No wonder, Aristotle wants the characters
to be like the reality or as Butcher puts it—true to life.
95
In Greek dramas, characters are generally taken from history, myths and
legends. The basic character in all cases is retained as the "original mythical
prototype" (Else, 460). Agamemnon is never represented as humble person. Medea is
always shown as a revengeful female and Helen is never ugly. But these characters
are given human qualities by the playwright. They should not be mere puppets but
there must be an element of life force in them, which should be responsible for their
actions. One aspect of this life force is the Hamartia, which is responsible for the fall
of the hero. The term Hamartia has variously been interpreted as a tragic flaw, error
of judgment or a common human weakness. The hero is a man of noble nature with
basic human feelings and emotions. He is identifiable with the common man on
account of his human traits, and his fall from the position of lofty eminence
constitutes a tragedy in the true sense. But "…the disaster that wrecks his life might
be traced not to deliberate wickedness, but to some great error or frailty (Butcher
317)." In this context, Hardison remarks: " The single flaw (in an otherwise noble and
idealized hero) is the crucial element in the dramatic illusion…..From the audience's
point of view, it explains why the protagonist fell and therefore changes an episodic
series of incidents into a series creating the illusion of casuality (183)." This
explanation makes the comprehension and identification easier and it helps in the
arousal of one of the two fundamental tragic emotions i.e. fear. Fear is aroused only
when we feel that the hero is one of us and by our apprehension that we too could be
in the same situation. The second tragic emotion i.e. pity is occasioned by undeserved
misfortune. It is in keeping with these two tragic emotions that Aristotle proscribes
the use of three types of characters in three types of situations. These are:
1. A good man must not be seen passing from happiness to misery.
2. A bad man from misery to happiness.
3. An extremely bad man be seen falling from happiness to misery.
The first situation does not infuse any sense of pity or fear in us. As discussed
in the case of Pratimanatkam, the characters like Rama fill us with wonder and
admiration but never with pity and fear.
96
The second situation is also lacking in the tragic quality and to Aristotle this
situation is the most untragic that can be; it has not one of the requisites of tragedy; it
does not appeal either to the human feeling in us, or to our pity, or to our fears. This
situation can only arouse anger and will be considered morally blasphemous. The
drama portraying such a character will in effect be showing the supremacy of sheer
fate or blind chance in human life. In the modern day world, we see such plays being
enacted and also find a few film plots revolving around such characters. Such plots
are often accepted by the audience too, but we must remember that the definition and
paradigms of morality have undergone a sea change since the days of Aristotle.
Moreover, the portrayal and acceptance of such plots is still an exception and
generally the modern day writers and audience are in congruence with the
Aristotelian concept.
The third situation will appeal to our sense of justice but it, too, will be devoid
of any tragic qualities. We will never pity the sufferer whose suffering is well
deserved on the moral, social or judicial grounds. Similarly the aspect of fear will be
missing since the sufferer is not one like us. Hardison observes: " Our reaction to a
plot in which the villain is appropriately punished and the hero rewarded is not
typically pity and fear but a rather smug—he got what he deserved (181)." We come
out of the theatre with a contented heart. Element of purgation is missing. We have
not suffered with the hero but we have enjoyed his suffering. This enjoyment of
suffering makes the realization of catharsis impossible. That is why Aristotle insists
that the hero should be an intermediate, true to life character capable of carrying the
audience along in his suffering. The third quality that Aristotle wants the characters to
have is that they should be appropriate i.e. they should be appropriate to the kinds of
persons they represent i.e. Medea should be revengeful, Agamemnon ambitious, and
Oedipus impetuous in all the tragedies concerning them and their words and actions
should be in coherence with their characters. John Jones says in this context: " The
stage woman should posses the womanly virtues and the stage slave the slavish
virtues; the former should not be brave like a man nor the latter generous, tempered
like a king, for this will produce an ultimate aesthetic anarchy (42)." This, however,
does not mean that Aristotle has denied any flexibility to the character. We should
97
take into consideration the contemporary Greek society where roles were fixed for
men, women and slaves but within those parameters we see a variety of characters
portraying a variety of emotions. Similarly, in drama the character is allowed to
develop within the proper limit of its class in a way that it does not seem unnatural
and unconvincing to spectators. If this were not so, then Aristotle's statement that
women should not be portrayed as clever would have rendered Antigone as
inappropriate. Medea's murder of children is an unwomanly act in Greek sense but we
must remember that Medea is not a Greek woman. She has been brought to Greece
from the land of the Barbarians and hence her actions are appropriate and in keeping
with her character. The appropriateness here implies that the playwright should, as far
as possible remain true to the preconceived notions that the spectators have about the
character. These notions are based upon the spectators' knowledge of history, legends,
myths, social hierarchy, conventions and general observations of the day-to-day life.
Remember, the purpose is to make the audience identify with the character and
inappropriateness would certainly inhibit the identification.
Finally, Aristotle wants the characters in a play to be consistent. By
consistency, he means that the characters should follow a set pattern in their
behaviour and action. The hero should not be shown valiant and coward in the same
play. If any inconsistency is to be shown then it should be established as an integral
part of the hero's character and he should be consistently inconsistent. The
development of the plot is to be in accordance with the hero's character. Any
inconsistency in the character is bound to make the plot chaotic. To prevent this
chaos, there should be consistence and coherence in the character's action and words.
In the absence of consistency, the requirements of necessity and probability in the
development of plot will not be fulfilled and this again will prove a hindrance in the
fulfillment of the purpose of drama. Only a consistent character can justify the ending
of a drama and it is the end, which is of foremost importance in the achievement of
catharsis. If the sequence of events does not justify the end, then realization of
catharsis cannot be achieved and to justify the end we need a character that is
consistent in his action and words throughout the play.
98
Bharata has classified the hero into four categories:
1. Dhirodhatta
2. Dhiralalita
3. Dhirodatta
4. Dhirprashant
But he has not given further explanation except a generalization that "the gods
belong to the first category and kings to the second. Heroes, chiefs of armies and
ministers belong to the third category and the Brahmins and Vaishyas represent the
fourth one (Shastri Vol IV 452)."
All the categories have one element in common i.e. the hero must be Dhira.
The word Dhira is translated as solemn, grave, steady, resolute, firm and enduring.
Adya Rangacharya prefers the word firm for Dhira. Babulal Shukla Shastri says that
"Dhira implies natural dignity or grace (Shastri, Vol IV introduction 57)." According
to Baijnath Pandey, a person with a steady frame of mind is called Dhira (134)." So
the hero must be a resolute person having natural dignity or grace. This corresponds
to the Aristotelian concept that the hero must be a person of exalted stature—a cut
above the ordinary. The dignity as professed by Bharata is not a state for absolute
virtue for such a state would not allow the movement of action. So Bharata has
suffixed certain qualities with this basic quality and it is these suffixed qualities that
make the hero susceptible to the changes and challenges around him and his reaction
would depend upon his character that is delineated on account of these characteristics.
The first of these characteristics is Udhatta, which makes the first category
Dhirodhatta. This is a character of exalted stature that is also vehement, haughty,
arrogant and self-assertive. Dhananjay defines him as the one "dominated by pride
and jealousy, is eager to use necromancy and deceit, and is proud, fickle minded and
impetuous (Pandey, 142)."
Lalita implies beauty and fondness of arts. So, Dhiralalita hero is a person of
exalted stature who is fond of arts, fun and frolic. He is usually a king, who is
"carefree, indulging in various types of arts and possesses a sensitive temperament
99
(Pandey 134)." Baijnath Pandey considers him "a king who has relegated his
administrative compulsions to the ministers and focuses his attention on the finer
aspects of life (Pandey, 135)." His main concern is to overcome the obstacles that
cause hindrance in the achievement of his new found love. King Vikram in Kalidasa's
Vikramurvashiyam is a typical example of this type of hero.
The third type of hero is the one who possesses godly qualities. He is the
embodiment of virtue. Dhananjay defines him as the one with a "grand motive and is
grave, forgiving, not boastful, humble and extremely focused (Pandey 137)." The
characters of Rama as well as his ancestor Harishchandra, fit into this category.
Harishchandra is a character who never refrains from the path of truth—whatever
may be the magnitude of adversity. These are awe-inspiring characters drawn from
revered figures mentioned in the scriptures. Harishchandra is an extremely good man
who is seen going from happiness to misery. This situation is not identifiable with
common man. Such high virtue is not to be found in human beings. That is why
Bharata has reserved this category for gods for only they can have such a flawless
character.
Dhiraprashant is a character that has the ability to remain calm. The
characterization is quite similar to the one mentioned under Dhiralalita. The major
difference is that this type of character is not a king but a Brahmin or Vaishya. The
hero in this case has the internal strength to face the challenges calmly. This type of
hero is normally used in Prakarna e.g. Charudatta in Mrichhakatikam.
So we can infer that Bharata and Aristotle, both, agree that the hero should be
a person of exalted status but he should also be given some distinct personality trait
that would stimulate his actions and carry the plot forward. The common term Dhira
is equivalent to goodness referred by Aristotle. Both the theorists insist that the
consistency in character is an essential requirement of drama. Thus a Dhiralalita hero
would remain a Dhiralalita throughout the drama. An impetuous Oedipus is
impetuous throughout the play and the vain Pantheus in Euripides' the Bacchae is
vain man till the end.
100
Now, we come to the third aspect of character as enunciated by Aristotle i.e
their appropriateness. Bharata, while delineating characters, according to their
appropriateness has divided them into three parts:
1. Uttama (Superior)
2. Adhama (Inferior)
3. Madhyama (Middling)
Giving details of these types he says: " One who has control over his senses, is
wise, skilled in arts and crafts, well versed in scriptures, clever in dealings, honest,
gives consolation to the poor, serious, liberal, patient and sacrificing, belongs to the
superior class of characters (Shastri, Vol IV, 448)."
Regarding the middling ones he says: "A man who is worldly wise, proficient
in arts and crafts, well read, ambitious and courteous should be considered a middling
character," and ," men who are rude, ill mannered, with a criminal bent of mind,
violent, dangerous, prone to attacking friends, cruel deceitful ,ungrateful, lazy,
indiscrete, lecherous, quarrelsome, treacherous and thieves come under the category
of inferior characters (Shastri, Vol IV, 449-450)." The same kind of characterization
Bharata has used while describing the women characters as well as minor characters.
Bharata is very clear as far as choice of a character for a particular plot is concerned.
Of course, the plot is supreme, it is the main body of the play, but the characters are
required to provide flesh and blood to it. The characters must correspond to the plot
and for this their appropriateness is essential. That is why Bharata has delineated the
qualities of even the minor characters like the concubines, dancers, maids, errand
girls, jesters, generals, and ministers. The mannerisms and stylization have been
given due importance in line with those of hero and heroine. Bharata's concern is
expressly visible in the shloka 86 and 87 of chapter XXXV of the Natyashastra where
he says: "A woman should not be made a heroine in any theatrical show, when she
smiles on wrong occasions, is rough, has an uneven gait and movement, persistent
anger, miserable look and is always haughty and fickle."
101
Bharata has further divided the characters into two types i.e. the external and
the internal. The characters concerned with the personal life of king e.g. the queens
the daughters and wives of chiefs of army or ministers, the servants, the Vidushaka
etc. are the internal characters whereas those who act as a link between the king and
the public e.g. chief of army, ministers, priests, teachers of princes, counsellors etc
are categorized as external characters. Bharata has provided the complete details of
the psychological make-up of these characters. For instance, he describes the seniormost queen (Mahadevi) as one "of high birth and character, elderly, without anger on
envy, judicious, who understands the king's character, shares his joys and sorrows and
desirous of the welfare of her husband (Rangacharya 331)." Bharata describes the
warden of princes as someone who is "active, careful, untiring, affectionate, well
behaved, impartial, clever, politically aware, intellectual and endowed with
knowledge of all Shastras (Rangacharya, 335)."
In all types of divisions of various characters that he has made, Bharata's core
issue has been to provide the actor with the psychological input of the character. This
will make the characterization credible. The portrayal of the character will be true to
life and would strike an empathic cord with the audience. This is what Aristotle also
desires in his characters that they should be true to life so that the audience can easily
identify with them.
Thus we can see that the concept of characterization on various grounds as
enunciated by Aristotle and Bharata are essentially similar to one another. Both of
them want their characters to act as agents to take the audience towards the realization
of Catharsis and Rasa respectively.
After plot and character, the third medium of dramatic imitation is the
Thought. Thought refers to the thinking process in the mind of the character that
precedes the action. This thought is later transformed into words and is conveyed to
the audience in the form of dialogues and speeches. Aristotle initiates the discussion
on this psychological link between character and thought when he says: "The action
involves agents, who must necessarily have their distinctive qualities, both of
character and thought, since it is from these that we ascribe certain qualities to their
102
actions. There is a natural order of things. Character and thought determine the path
of action of the agents and consequently of their success and failure in their lives..
Thought is shown in all they say when proving a particular point, or it may be
enunciating a general truth (Bywater 35-36)." Thus thought is a precursor to action—
a kind of mental stimulus that spurs the flow of words from the mouth of the
protagonist. Since all the words or verses are penned by the poet, they become the
reflection of the poet's thinking process and that is what creative writing is all
about—penning down one's thoughts in attractive language. While discussing
character, it has already been established that in a drama, the character is constant
entity and certain traits are associated with various types of characters. Once the
playwright has decided upon the personality and characteristics of his agents, he starts
composing various speeches for him, which he will recite in various episodes. These
speeches are written in accordance with the character's personality. The
characteristics and thoughts are inextricably interwoven into one another. So
Aristotle's insistence upon the qualities of the characters i.e. They should be good,
consistent, true to life and appropriate has a direct bearing upon the next element in
his line of thinking i.e. the thought.
The thought process of the character will be in congruence with all the four
characteristics listed above. The thought of the character is reflected in the emotion
being displayed by it. Aristotle has devoted the first half of chapter XIX to the
discussion of thought. He begins the argument by saying: "The thought of the
personages is shown in everything to be effected by their language—in every effort to
prove or disapprove, to arouse emotion (pity, fear, anger and the like) or to maximize
or minimize things. It is clear, also, that their mental procedures must be on the same
lines in their actions likewise (Bywater 66)." This is plain psychological requirement.
The thought and action have to be in the same line. No one can think in one way and
act in a completely different way. This is the most natural aspect of human life and
since drama, represents men in action who are true to life; this principle is adopted
here also. A good man will think according to his nature and a character's actions can
only be considered appropriate if they are consistent with its characteristics. So,
thought is an important psychological link between the character and his actions.
103
Thought pervades the whole of drama and no action is possible without it. In this
context, Aristotle has referred to his other work, the Art of Rhetoric. He says: "it
(Thought) belongs more properly to that department of inquiry (Bywater, 66)." The
Book II of the Rhetoric begins with a long list of emotions that the speaker can
introduce into his speech for persuasive purposes. Chapter II to XI of Rhetoric discuss
anger, calm, friendship and enmity, fear and confidence, shame and shamelessness,
kindness and unkindness, pity, indignation, envy, and emulation. Each emotion is
defined and analyzed so that it could be put to use in speeches. Thus Aristotle, in his
typical deductive way, has linked the chain of character—emotion—thought—action.
Bharata has discussed this psychological aspect under the name of Vritti. A
variety of meanings have been ascribed to this aspect of drama that has been
discussed in chapter XXII, immediately after the discussion of plot. At the end of this
chapter, Bharata says that the "abhinaya (acting) of speech, gestures and emotions
culminates in Vritti." Babulal Shukla Shastri describes Vritti as the "action or
business of actors that carries the story forward in a play (Shastri Vol III 94)." Thus
Vritti acts as a psychological bond between actor and audience as their thoughts find
a parallel in one another and culminate in the realization of the Rasa. Dhananjay
describes Vritti as "the cause of the hero's action arising out of his characteristics and
personality traits (Pravritti) (Pandey, 219)." "The name Vritti is given because (the
wielding) depends upon various emotions and sentiments (Rangacharya, 169)."
Emotions and sentiments are the processes of the mind and are directly linked with
the thought process of the person concerned. Since Vritti deals with the emotional and
psychological realms, it also invariably deals with the thought process of the
protagonist. Since all action in subservient to the thought and emotion of the
characters, Bharata has rightly called Vritti as "the mother of all poetry."
Four types of Vrittis are used in a play. These are:
1. Bharati Vritti
2. Satvatti Vritti
3. Kaishiki Vritti
4. Arabhati Vritti
104
As is customary in Sanskrit literature, Bharata has ascribed their origin to a
mythological tale involving Vishnu and two demons, Madhu and Kaitabh.
In Bharati Vritti prominence is given to speeches made in Sanskrit; it is employed
only by male actors who announce their own names.
Describing Satvatti Vritti, Bharata says: "That which is endowed with the
quality of Sattva (Vigour), and where there is justice and good behaviour, where there
is exuberance of joy and absence of sorrow—is Satvatti Vritti (Rangacharya, 170)."
This Vritti is marked by episodes described in vigorous words and gestures. The
characters are bold and challenging each other. These challenges evoke a variety of
responses based upon the thought process of the person involved. When one is
challenged, one might accept it. This condition is called Utthapaka. Or, he might
avoid it owing to some other thing made necessary with reason. The challenge might
lead to irrelevant criticism (Samlapaka) or end up in breaking an alliance for reasons
of a friend's clever talk or of fate or of one's own shortcomings (Sanghataka).
The third type of Vritti i.e. Kaishiki Vritti involves mainly women. There is
plenty of dancing, music, ostentatious costumes and the storyline deals primarily with
love and enjoyment. This Vritti is also marked by emotions of jealousy, anger, selfrebuke and deception by others.
Regarding the fourth type i.e. the Arabhatti Vritti, Bharata says: "Here, one
finds daring of a wrong kind in the form of deceit, fraud falsehood, bragging,
garrulousness etc. In this there would be falling, jumping crossing and many kinds of
conjury." (Rangacharya 170)." There are occasions of fear and joy, excitements,
fights, fraud and betrayal in Kaishiki Vritti.
Babulal Shukla Shastri has given a universal viewpoint regarding the
discussion of Vrittis. He has aligned them according to characteristics of persons
belonging to different geographical areas. According to him: "Bharati Vritti pertains
to the Bharatas or the actors. Similarly Satvati refers to the Satvat caste, which too is
an historical caste in the Indian context. Kaishiki probably points to the people living
in the vicinity of the Caspian Sea and Arabhatti is the Vritti of the Arbhitus clan that
105
has been referred to, by the Greek writers as people inhabiting the Indus basin
(Shastri Vol III, 97)."
Thus Vrittis guide the character to undertake action that is suitable according
to their personality traits. This is what Aristotle wants to convey through his
discussion on thought. No action can be conceived or presented without the element
of thought or Vritti.
The discussion about the comparative analysis of the mediums of imitation i.e.
Plot, Character and Thought has revealed that Aristotle and Bharata agree on the
respective importance of all these formative elements of a play. The points of
difference are primarily on account of the differences of the methodology of writing
in Greece and India. Also, as has already been mentioned, Poetics is written in the
form of lecture notes whereas Natyashastra is an exhaustive treatise and therefore the
classification is more detailed one in the case of latter.
Diction and melody are the manners of imitation that the dramatist employs to
express the meaning and purpose of the play. Aristotle has devoted considerable
attention to the element of diction. As a matter of fact, after plot, diction has enjoyed
the maximum attention of this theorist. Aristotle starts his discussion in the latter part
of chapter XIX and continues it till chapter XXII. Bharata, on his part has devoted
chapter XV to chapter XIX on the discussion of various aspects of diction namely
verbal representation and prosody, metrical patterns, poetic concepts, and rules on the
use of language. As in the case of plot, character and thought, here too we find a
number of parallels in the concepts propounded by both the theorists.
In the definition of tragedy, Aristotle has stressed upon the need of a
"language with pleasurable accessories, each kind brought in separately in the parts of
the work." In the following discussion we shall analyze these 'pleasurable accessories'
and how they are used by the dramatists.
106
Aristotle has classified the words used by the poets into the following seven
types:
1.Ordinary words: These are the words commonly being used by the people
at a given time. These are the words of everyday usage. The poetic diction made up of
such words is clear but according to Aristotle it is "mean".
2. Strange words: Aristotle says that: " Diction becomes distinguished and
non-prosaic by the use of unfamiliar terms i.e. strange words, metaphors, lengthened
forms and everything that deviates from the ordinary modes of speech (Bywater 75)."
'Strange', here, refers to words taken from other dialects. Words not in common use to
a certain set of people are strange to them whereas the same ones might be ordinary to
the people using them in routine. In the modern context, slang comes under the
category of strange words. For instance the use of 'gonna' for 'going to' and 'wanna'
for 'want to' has become quite popular with modern writers.
3. Metaphors: Metaphor, according to Aristotle, "consists in giving the thing
a name that belongs to something else; the transference being either from genus to
species, or from species to genus or from species to species, or on grounds of analogy
(Bywater 72)." Aristotle, in his typical mathematical precision, goes on to analyze the
metaphor in its totality and cites examples such as referring to 'old age' as 'evening '
or 'the sunset of life'. In this context F.L.Lucas says: "It is seldom realized how much
the art of poetry consists in somewhat childish pleasure of glimpsing and implying
simply that one thing is like another, in revealing unseen similarities between the
unlikeliest things in the vast, tumbled, treasure-chest of the universe (Lucas 125)."
4. A Coined Word: These are words that are coined by the poet himself. A
word is adopted by the writer himself with a new meaning a novel context. The use of
the word 'ruminate' for thinking is one such example. The word comes from the
'Ruminata' family of animals, who are in the habit of chewing the food for a long time
and thereby presenting, to the onlooker, a countenance immersed in deep thought.
5. A Lengthened out word: This, according to Aristotle, is a case when a
word's own short vowel is exchanged for a longer one, or when an extra syllable is
inserted. This is done in order to make the word fit in a metrical pattern.
107
6. Curtailed Words
7. Altered Words
Apart from these seven specific types, Aristotle has given the writer, the
freedom to use anything that 'deviates from the ordinary form of speech'. The purpose
is to make the narrative stylized so as to capture the attention of the audience. The
most preferred style of diction, according to Aristotle is the one, where the writer is
able to strike a balance between various kinds of words described above. "The strange
word, the metaphor, the ornamental equivalents etc. will save the language from
seeming mean and prosaic, while the ordinary words in it will secure the requisite
clearness (Bywater 75- 76)"
Thus Aristotle has established two basic requirements of poetic diction—
clarity as well as embellishment. These two visibly contradictory qualities have to be
combined by the poet keeping a fine balance if he is to make an impact with his
diction. A similar observation is made by Aristotle in his Rhetoric too. "Style, to be
good must be clear, as is proved by the fact that speech which fails to convey a plain
meaning will fail to do just what speech has to do. It must also be appropriate,
avoiding both meanness and undue elevation (Roberts, 5)."
While aiming for clarity, the poet should make sure that he does not become
dull and boring and while aiming for grandeur and sublimity he should be aware of
the chances of sounding barbaric.
Although he is great admirer of metaphors, yet, Aristotle has sent a clear
warning to the writers that over-use of this figure of speech might end up in making
the diction a riddle, which the spectators will find difficult to comprehend.
Moderation, in the use of various kinds of words is the key to successful poetic
diction. He therefore suggests:
A certain admixture, accordingly, of unfamiliar terms is necessary.
These, the strange word, the metaphor, the ornamental equivalent, etc.
will save the language from seeming mean and prosaic, while the
ordinary words in it will secure the requisite clearness. What helps
108
most, however, to render the diction at once clear and non prosaic is
the use of lengthened, curtailed or altered forms of words. Their
deviation from the ordinary words will, by making the language unlike
general use, give it a non prosaic appearance; and their having much
in common with the words in general use will give it the quality of
clearness. (Bywater 75-76)
Further, discussing the relation of diction with different genres, Arstotle says
that compound words are best used for Dithyrambs. Defining compound words he
says that these are the words, which are "composed either of a significant and non
significant part or of significant parts (Bywater 71)." Strange and rare words are to be
preferred in heroic poetry. Metaphorical language is most suitable for the iambic
verse of drama as this verse is very close to human life and precisely for this reason
the poet should avoid the use of strange and rare words. The beauty of the metaphor
is that it can make the language distinguished by using common words and therefore
it is most suitable for tragic and comic dialogue. It also helps in maintaining the
golden mean advocated by Aristotle where he recommends that the dramatic
language must maintain clarity as well as distinction. The use of ornamental words is
also professed by Aristotle in order to "elevate the diction of tragedy without serious
violence to the innate capacities of the iambic meter (Hardison 260)."
Bharata has enunciated four figures of speech to provide ornamentation to the
poetic language. These figures of speech or Alamkaras enhance the beauty of the
poetry and lead to artistic expression. Interestingly Alamkara translates into
embellishment—the term used by Aristotle in the context of language in his definition
of tragedy. The four Alamkaras are:
1. Upama (Simili)
2. Rupaka (Metaphor)
3. Condensed expression (Dipaka)
4. Alliteration (Yamaka)
109
1. Upama (Simili): It refers to the comparison of two objects based upon similarity of
features or attributes. Bharata has subdivided Upama into five types and also given
appropriate examples of them. These are:
Prashansa (Praise): The king was pleased to see large eyed lady just as the
sages are pleased to achieve success through austerity.
Ninda (Censure): The woman clung to that rough-looking person devoid of
all qualities just as a creeper clings around a thorny tree that has been
scorched by forest fire.
Kalpita (Conceit): Elephants exuding ichors and moving slowly with grace
look like mobile mountains.
Sadrishi (Uniqueness): What you have done today to satisfy someone else's
desire, is worthy of you and is comparable only to your superhuman deeds.
Kinchitsadrishi (Partial Likeness): Here comes my friend, whose face is
like full moon, eyes are petals of a blue lotus and the gait like that of an
elephant in a rut. (Shastri Vol II 288-289)
2. Rupaka : Rupaka is a shortened comparison which unites the two objects in such a
manner that their distinction disappears. Bharata gives the following example of the
metaphor:
"Lake women with their lotus faces, kumud smiles, open and beautiful
Nilotpala eyes and swans cackling around, seem to be calling one
another." (Shastri Vol II 290)
3. Dipaka (Condensed Expression): In this case words having different context are
combined in a single sentence on the basis of a common motif e.g:
"That region is always marked by swans in the lakes, flowers in the
trees, intoxicated bees in the lotuses and by chatting men and women
in the gardens." (Shastri Vol II 290)
4. Yamaka (Alliteration): It is an embellishment born out of repetition of vowels and
consonants forming different words and meanings. He then goes on to define the ten
110
kinds of yamaka and gives illustration from poetry. A close examination would reveal
that in all these illustrations, the beauty of expression lies in the repetition, whether of
a syllable or of a word., sometimes at the beginning, sometimes at the middle and
sometimes at the end of a foot, or of all feet. One such illustration goes as follows:
Yamamyamam chandravitanam dravitanam
Vyaktavayakta sa rajninam rajninam
Phulle phulle sabhramare va bhramare va
Rama Rama vismayate ch samyate ch.
"The length of hours in the moonlit nights, passing swiftly in the company of
women is scarcely perceived. Flowers having blown whether with or without bees,
the lady looks at them admiringly and with a beautiful smile."
In addition to these figures of speech, Bharata has recommended the following
ten Gunas (merits) that should be observed by the playwright while writing a play.
These are:
1. Shlesha (Synthesis): The union of words connected through intended
meaning. type of writing involves the use of logic and reasoning.
2. Prasada (Perspicuity): This implies easy comprehension through the use
of simple words and expressions.
3. Samata (Clarity): There should be no confusion in grasping the meaning
of the written or spoken word.
4. Samadhi (Concentration): The learned men are capable of finding the
deep-rooted philosophy behind ordinary words and situations. The merit
of poet in presenting the condensed meaning is called Samadhi.
5. Madhuraya (Sweetness): When a sentence does not bore a listener even
after being repeated several times, it is sweetness.
6. Ojas (Grandeur): When a composition reflected an exalted sense through
its wealth of words and meanings, it is an instance of Grandeur.
111
7. Saukumarya (Softness): When a composition consists of words easy to
pronounce
euphonically combined and giving agreeable ,meaning, it is
an instance of softness.
8. Arth Vyakti (Clarity of Expression): When mere recital of words is
enough to comprehend their meaning, then it is an example of Arth Vyakti.
9. Udatta (Exaltedness): When a composition involves elevated character
presenting Shringhar (Erotic) and Adbhuta (Wonder) Rasas and reflects
multiple emotions, it is an example of Udatta.
10. Kanti (Loveliness): In this type of composition, the description of lovemaking of characters in well put together words gives delight to the ears as
well as to the mind.
Bharata has also listed ten faults (Doshas) which should be avoided by the
playwrights. These are:
1. Gud-artha (Difficult comprehension): When something is referred to by
means of a synonym that is less popular that the original word, it is called
Gud-artha.
2. Arthantra (Superfluous): Where something unnecessary of superfluous
is mentioned
3. Arthahina (Meaningless): This refers to the expression that is irrelevant
or remains incomplete.
4. Bhinnartha (Double entendre): Where the real meaning is camouflaged
by the unrefined or vulgar comprehension of the word.
5. Ekartha (Tautology): Using one word to convey multiple meaning is
called Ekartha.
6. Abhluptartha (Lack of Synthesis): When the meaning is comprehensible
within each foot of the verse, it is an instance of Abhiluptartha.
7. Nyayadpeta (Lack of Proof): When a topic is presented without logical
reasoning or valid proof, it is called Nyayadpeta.
112
8. Vishama (Metrical defect): It refers to the lapse in metrical pattern.
9. Visandhi (Hiatus): When words are kept disjointed, when they should be
joined, it is called Visandhi.
10. Shabda Achyuta (Defective sound): When a vowel or a syllable is left
out of a word, it is called Shabdachyuta Dosha.
After describing the figures of speech, merits and demerits of the language of
drama, Bharata describes their application to different Rasas. For instance, Upama
and Rupaka are used in verses evoking Vira, Raudra and Adbhtuta Rasas. The use of
long drawn out words is to be avoided in this case.
While describing different types of words, Aristotle has used the term
'barbaric' in the context of strange words. As already discussed, barbaric, in true
Aristotelian sense refers to anything that is not Greek in essence. This implies that he
is in favour of mixing strange words to the extent that the narrative does not sound
barbaric. One can infer that Aristotle is not absolutely opposed to the use of words
from other languages and dialects. Similarly Bharata has professed the use of Sanskrit
along with various dialects. In chapter XVIII, he has written in detail the four kinds of
languages and their sub-divisions. The reason cited by Bharata for allowing the use of
different dialects is that the playwright cannot allow all the characters in a play to
speak the same kind of language. The language of a character should reflect his social
as well as economic status. Hence Bharata has classified the language into four major
divisions:
1. Atibhasha
2. Aryabhasha
3. Jatibhasha
4. Yonyantaribhasha
Atibhasha is the language of the gods. Here, Vedic terminology is used
extensively. This is language which is used by Brahmins while performing different
Vedic rituals. Babulal Shukla Shastri says that Atibhasha is the same language that
113
Panini has described as Chhando-bhasha (Heroic meter, six feet) (Shastri, Vol II,
Introduction, 73).
Aryabhasha is the language used by kings and noble men in their day-to-day
affairs. The term Arya associated with suggests that this language was in vogue
throughout the Aryavrat i.e. the Indian sub-continent.
Jatibhasha, as the name suggests is the language of the common folk. This is
further subdivided into two types i.e. Sanskrit and Prakrit. Bharata has provided clear
demarcation for the use of any of them in a play e.g. Sanskrit is prescribed for all four
types of heroes but they can use Prakrit if the occasion so demands. Similarly when a
character has assumed the form of an ascetic using a disguise, then he is to use
Prakrit. One such example is found is Bhasa's Karnabharam. When Indra, disguised
as an ascetic, meets Karna. Similarly, in Mudrarakshas, Viradhgupta, disguised as a
snake charmer uses Prakrit. A superior person intoxicated with authority or wealth is
proscribed the use of Sanskrit. Apsaras, as a rule, should speak in Sanskrit when they
are in heaven, and Prakrit, when they descend on earth.
The Yonyantri Bhasha is the language of animals. Birds and animals of
different species are sometimes used as characters or symbols by a playwright. For
instance, Shakuntala's son is playing with a lion when Dushyanta discovers him. The
chirping of birds often accompanies a romantic setting in a garden. In Greek drama,
Aristophanes has used this device with a telling effect in "The Frogs".
Bharata's discussion of language doesn't stop with the core languages. He has
also mentioned seven dialects that can be used as pr the demands of the script.
The seven dialects enumerated by Bharata are—Magadhi, Avanti, Prachya,
Shaurseni, Ardhamagadhi, Bahlika and Dakshinatya. In addition to these he has also
listed minor dialects like Shakara, Abhiras, Chandala etc. He has given detailed
instruction as to when and where each dialect is to be employed. For instance, he says
that Magadhi should be used by guards of the Royal Harem, and the jesters should
use Prachya. When there is no particular guideline available for the use of dialect,
then the playwright should depend upon the popular usage. Regarding the use of
dialects, Dr. B. Bhatacharya says: " The dramatist should observe minutely, the forms
114
of speech used in different places and by different types of people and in introducing
a character in drama he must conform to the use of that particular form of speech that
is natural." (Bhatacharya, 166)
In addition to various types of dialects, Bharata, in chapter XVI of the
Natyashastra, talks about certain devices linguistic employed by the playwright.
These include:
1. Akashvachna i.e. monologue, where a character talks to a character that is
not present on stage. This helps the audience comprehend the happenings
of the immediate past.
2. Atmagata i.e. Soliloquy is employed by the playwright to reveal the inner
turmoil and feelings of the character.
3.
Apvaritaka i.e. speaking in confidence implies revealing one's thoughts to
a particular person in the presence of other persons. The other persons in
this case remain oblivious of the conversation.
4. Janantika i.e. hiding the thought, implies that the character hides his
thoughts from the person nearest to him and says something contrasting
with his actual feelings.
Thus, both, Bharata and Aristotle have given ample consideration to the use of
"embellished language" in the composition of a play. Bharata's insistence on the use
of different languages for different characters and different emotions closely
resembles the Aristotelian concept of dramatic language being neither too figurative
nor too rustic or strange. Aristotle wants the dramatic diction to be clear and easily
comprehensible. Bharata refers to Prasada (Perspicuity) and Arthvyakti (Clarity of
meaning) as two essential elements of the dramatic diction. Among the ten gunas,
Bharata has also listed Ojas (Grandeur) and Udatta (exaltedness), which strike a close
parallel with Aristotle's preference for distinguished and non-prosaic diction. The
comparison between the Metaphor and Alamkaras has already been discussed.
Both the theorists have also discussed certain technical aspects of the
language, which are not of immediate interests to this topic but are certainly of
115
interest to a linguist or a grammarian. Our purpose is served by the fact that both of
them required the poets to be versatile in their use of language and their concepts
reveal a striking similarity of thought.
After Diction—the other manner of imitation is Melody. And Aristotle has
recognized its importance duly, although he has not elaborated upon its various
aspects. Bharata—as with other aspects of drama—has discussed in detail the various
types of musical instruments and the role of music in the successful production of the
play.
First, let us have a look at what Aristotle has to say regarding the importance
of music in drama. While discussing the psychological reasons for man's natural
delight in the works of imitation, Aristotle adds: "Imitation, then being natural to us—
as also the sense of harmony and rhythm, it was through their (The poets) original
aptitude, and by a series of improvements for the most part of their first effort, that
they created poetry out of their improvisations (Bywater 29)." This explains why all
the primitive rituals were associated with music and dance. Aristotle also says that
Tragedy and Comedy have their roots in dithyrambic poetry. Ethel l. Urlin too,
emphasizes the same point when she writes: "the result of research into the history of
primitive civilization seems to prove that dancing is the first art, as it is the earliest
impulse that takes an outward embodiment. Just as the individual infant makes its
feelings known by cries and gestures, so prehistoric man, striving to find an outlet for
the various passions, which move him, resort also to this primitive mode of
expression (Urlin xi)."
When Aristotle talks about "language with pleasurable accessories", he is
referring to the addition of rhythm, harmony or song. Although he has not dealt with
the topic in any chapter, but his preference for this embellishment of tragedy is visible
quite clearly. In chapter VI, he, very categorically states that " Melody is the greatest
of all the pleasurable accessories of the tragedy (Bywater 39)." This takes us back to
the opening statement of Poetics where Aristotle proposes to "speak not only of the
art in general but also of its species and their respective capacities." Even in the last
chapter of Poetics he reiterates his stand and demands that the tragedy should have
116
considerable "addition in the shape of music", which is "a very real factor in the
pleasure of drama (Bywater 94)." It is evident from these references—though
scattered yet potent—that in Aristotelian concept of Tragedy, Music and Dance play
an important role and are inextricable from it.
A look at the evolution of Greek drama would further throw light on this
aspect. It has already been established that tragedy originated from dithyrambic
poetry. The dictionary defines dithyramb as "a wild choral hymn". Another root of
Greek drama can be traced back to the circular dance, partly religious and partly
festive, in honour of Dionysus. The music of ancient Greece was inseparable from
poetry. It was entirely monodic, there being no harmony as the term is commonly
understood. In the Homeric era a national musical culture existed that was looked
upon by the later generation as the Golden age. In the sixth century B.C., choral
music was used in the drama for which Pindar developed the classical ode. Early in
its history Greek music benefited from the discovery, usually attributed to
Pythagoras, of the numerical relation of tones to the division of the stretched string.
The choral music of Greek drama was an advanced stage of musical development.
The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature describes chorus as "a band of men
who performed songs and dances at religious festivals, and became essential part of
drama as it evolved." The plays of all the Greek playwrights demonstrate that the
element of music was an essential part of their structure. The public looked forward
to the musical commentary of the chorus and no playwright dared to sacrifice the
choral portion in favour of the dialogue portion.
Natyashastra treats drama as a composite art and considers music to be its
natural ingredient. Bharata, giving prominence to elements of dance and music, has
described the Tandava Nritya before moving on to the nuances of acting. In chapter
IV we find lord Shiva commanding Tandu to teach Nritta to Bharata so that he could
embellish his drama with it. As in other chapters of the Natyashastra, here also
Bharata delves into the micro-classificatory details of various types of dancing
positions. Depending upon the position of the limbs, Bharata has listed 108 Karnas.
Six, seven, eight or nine Karnas make one Angahara, which are thirty two in number.
A further classification is in the form of Rechakas, where a particular limb is moved
117
independently and not in combination with the other limbs. These are of four types—
foot, waist, hand, and neck. The detail and exactness employed by Bharata in
describing these subtle nuances of dance elevates this art to a sublime level.
Similarly, when it comes to the discussion of music, we find Bharata delving
deep into the subject and elaborating upon it in six chapters starting from XXVIII to
XXXIII. He has talked about vocal as well as instrumental music. The subject is
highly technical and the details, though highly competent do not bear a direct
relevance to the topic of this thesis. What is relevant to us is that like Aristotle,
Bharata too, considers Music and Dance as essential embellishments of Drama. In
chapter IV, after listening to theory of Dance, the sages raise a doubt: "Abhinaya was
thought by experts to convey a definite meaning. Now, why is Nritta postulated?
What are its essential characteristics? It is not related to the meaning of the song nor
does it convey the meaning of words. So, why is Nritta introduced in songs?" To this
Bharata replies: " True, Nritta conveys no meaning, but it creates beauty for the
performance. Generally, people like dance…..It is also a diversion (Rangacharya 3536)."
Thus, the drama owes to the dance for its ornamentation and popular appeal. It
is, therefore, an important embellishment of drama. This sentiment is repeated by
Bharata in chapter XXVII when he says that: "Song, dance, and acting, appealing to
so many people, should be used as a brilliant whole (Rangacharya, 218)."
Certain literary historians have noted striking similarities between Greek
Drama and Indian Dramatic Dance form, the Kathakalli. Some female roles in
Kathakalli are analogous to female roles in Greek tragedy. Catherine Freis
(www.didaskalia.net) notes that "dramas that feature Kali end with her murdering the
king Taraka. There are graphic displays of Kali disemboweling him, drinking his
blood, and ultimately adorning herself with his intestines and gore." In another
Kathakalli drama derived from the Mahabharata, Bhima disembowels Dushaasana
while Draupadi drenches her hair with his blood. These dance-dramas are similar to
Clytemnestra and blood bedewed dance at the death of Agamemnon. The mutilation
of his corpse seems to represent the same Archetype as Kali or Draupadi. All three
118
are women who are avengers. The exposed breasts of Kali roles also resonates with
Clytemenestra's exposing her breasts to her son Orestes in Cheophori. According to
Mary de Frost (www.didaskalia.net) this action of Clytemnestra not only represents
the maternal bond, but also the invasion of Maternal Bond. Clytemnestra tries to
mesmerize her son—as Kali does her foes in Kathakali, using her breasts as an evil
eye and would perhaps have succeeded except for the intervention of Pylades.
From the above discussion, we can infer, that it is not just at the theoretical
level that the Poetics and the Natyashastra profess the inclusion of dance and music in
the play, but the similarity can be observed in actual performance too. Froma Zeitlin
(Didaskalia.net) rightly observes that: "The heroines Sanskrit drama act in a
predictable manner much like the new comedy, a genre that has much in common
with Sanskrit drama—thanks to the influence of Alexander."
We have so far discussed five formative elements of the tragedy. In all these
aspects there is a striking similarity in the views of Aristotle and Bharata. We now
move to the last formative element of tragedy, the Spectacle.
Aristotle has not written anything about the Greek playhouses. His treatment
of the spectacle aspect of drama is at the most perfunctory. He does not seem to
attach much importance to this aspect of drama, for he says: "The tragic fear and pity
may be aroused by the Spectacle; but they may also be aroused by the very structure
and incidents of the play—which is the better way and shows a better poet (Bywater,
52)." Obviously, Aristotle attaches all importance to the structural aspect of the drama
and not so much to the presentational aspect. It does seem odd though that after
establishing spectacle as one of the formative elements of tragedy he goes on to
negate its importance. Probably his preoccupation with the concept of Plot is to be
blamed for it. The whole argument of the Poetics seems to be plot-centric. Aristotle
has repeatedly stressed on the importance of plot as he considers the poet primarily a
maker of plots. He seems to be more interested in the aspects of tragedy that deal with
its inherent spirit than in those that deal with its presentation and production. For
Aristotle, tragedy was not meant to be enjoyed only through presentation on stage; it
could be equally effective if read, recited or heard. In this context he says:
119
The plot in fact should be so framed that, even without seeing the
things take place, he who simply hears the account of them shall be
filled with horror and pity at the incidents; which is just the effect that
the mere recital of the story in Oedipus would have on one. To
produce this same effect by means of the spectacle is less artistic, and
requires extraneous aid. Those, however, who make use of the
spectacle to put before us that is merely monstrous and not productive
of fear, are wholly out of touch with tragedy." (Bywater, 52)
Aristotle's apparent neglect of this aspect of drama might be on account of the
fact that by the time he appeared on the Greek literary scene, the golden age of the
Greek drama was long past. What he witnessed as a spectator was the Hellenistic
drama or at the most some mediocre productions of the classical Greek drama. He
mentions his disdain for the contemporary drama in Rhetoric when he says: "In drama
the actors now count for more than the poets" (Rhetoric from www.greektexts.com
37). He definitely does not hold a very good view of the contemporary playwrights
and their production techniques for we do not come across a single reference to the
Hellenistic drama throughout the argument of the Poetics. Aristotle's neglect of the
spectacle aspect of drama however, cannot undermine the superb visual effects that
the Greek playwrights employed during the presentation of their tragedies. A close
analysis of any Greek text would reveal that the plays are full of awe-inspiring
spectacles. In Aeschylus' Trilogy of The House of Atreus, we see a number of scenes
that would have enthralled the audience with their magnificent visual effect.
The scene of the first play of the Trilogy, Agamemnon, is set in the palace. In
front of the palace stand the statues of gods and altars prepared for sacrifice. During
the opening speech of the watchman, we see "a beacon light reddening the distant sky
(Morshead, 6)." The chorus in this play is that of old men, each leaning on a staff.
During their song Clytmnestra appears in the background kindling the altars. The
overall impact is marvellous. On the Orchestra, we have a group of men presenting
the choral song with stylized acting. Right behind them, on the Proscenium, or the
Logeion, we see the queen, magnificently dressed, lighting the altars of the gods. The
queen, the statues of the gods the light of the lamps, the smoke of the incense rising to
120
the heavens and the chorus, all combined make this scene a powerful visual. And
when she, in her majestic form turns to chorus she proudly proclaims that: "Troy is
ours." The spectacle here is the perfect backdrop for such an epoch making
announcement.
The magnificence associated with the entry of Agamemnon would find few
parallels in the history of theatrical spectacles. He enters the stage on a chariot with
the beautiful Cassandra by his side. In accordance with the pride associated with his
character, he speaks without descending and addressing the chorus and the audience,
he commands: "First as is meet, a king's All-hail be said (Morshead, 34)." The Chorus
is still there, the King and Cassandra are still on the chariot and now Clytemnestra
enters followed by a train of maidens bearing purple robes. It is a riot of colour of
character on the stage—awesome, even in the absence of the dialogue. But not very
long after this scene, this vain and proud king is seen as a corpse lying beside the
dead body of Cassandra and Clytemnestra standing tall over these dead bodies and
against the backdrop of palace and gods' statues proclaims that she has executed her
revenge.
On the set of the second play of the trilogy, Cheophori or The Libation
Bearers, Aeschylus has added the tomb of Agamemnon to the palace of Atreus. Thus
providing still better visual presentation to the audience. The scenes too, are craftily
drafted so as to heighten the visual impact. The slow movement of the chorus bearing
vessels for libations provides the rhythm to the spectacle. Electra follows them. The
audience, in a single frame sees— the palace of which Agamemnon was once the
owner, Agamemnon's tomb—a symbol of adultery, treachery— a distraught Electra
and the members of the chorus carrying the vessels, and the statues of the gods
overlooking these happenings. Aeschylus' visual technique once again is highly
effective in presenting the motives and ironies in the play. Visually, the most
impressive scene of the play is when Orestes, Electra and Chorus gather around the
tomb of Agamemnon to invoke the blessings of God to help Orestes achieve his
purpose. The tomb of Agamemnon now becomes a symbol of revenge and justice.
The long invocation involves energetic speeches from the chorus, Orestes and
Electra. The atmosphere is charged with proclamations like:
121
Whosoe'er shall take the sword
Shall perish by the sword …
……………………………….
Lord tha call of death doth sound,
Calling guilt of olden time
A Fury, crowning crime with crime. (Morshead 84)
In the third tragedy, Euminides also called The Furies, we find Aeschylus
making full use of the theatrical devices to present a power-packed spectacle. About
this play there is a folklore that the horrific appearance of the chorus made young
boys faint and the women to have miscarriages. Kitto says that: "from the beginning
to the end, it is so spectacular that there is danger of supposing that Aeschylus was
only letting off theatrical fireworks, with occasional reference to past or present
Athenian history (Kitto 87)." The play opens in the temple of Apollo at Delphi. The
Pythian priestess, after making the opening speech, goes into the temple, and after a
short interval, comes back trembling with fear and "moving erect no more, but aiding
with (her) hands (her) failing feet, unnerved by fear (Morshead 116)." The next scene
presents the glorious spectacle of Apollo and Hermes appearing in all their
majesticity while the horrible furies lie slumbering on the orchestra. Apollo calls
them "greedy fiends" and adds that "evil were they born, for evil's doom (Morshead
118)." But Aeschylus is not done yet. He adds to the eeriness of the atmosphere, the
ghost of Clytemenstra, who is even more impressive dead than alive. She calls upon
the furies to arise—"Awake, ye powers of hell (Morshead 119)." At her continuous
exhortation, the Furies start moving and muttering, as if in a dream, then give a
confused cry, which turns more fierce with every line the ghost of Clytemenstra
speaks until the ghost finally sinks into the ground. Once the ghost has made its exit,
the furies, with all their horrific magnificence, arise and form the chorus. This is
followed by a glorious confrontation between two heavenly powers—Apollo and the
Furies. Aeschylus has, by no means relegated the Spectacle aspect of the tragedy to
lower spot as compared to the plot. He is, in fact making full use of the spectacle to
heighten the effect of his plot. Here, he seems to agree fully with Bharata's concept
that drama is a Drishya Kavya i.e. visual poetry. John Gassner, while discussing the
122
contribution of Aeschylus, writes: " He is believed to have introduced the traditional
rich costumes and high boots of the Greek tragic theater, and he is known to have
employed spectacular effects (Gassner, 9)."
Euripides used the dramatic devices especially the machines or deus ex
machina as they were called, repeatedly to create the spectacular scenes in his plays.
In his plays the gods and goddesses frequently descend upon the earth. In Hippolytus,
for instance, the goddesses Aphrodite and Artemis appear on stage, and also exit
using the mechanical devices. In the climax of Electra, we see the Dioscuri, Castor
and Polydeuces appearing miraculously above the house. They blame Apollo for
placing a fatal curse upon the house of Atreus. And then they fly through heaven's
expanse promising not to help the wicked but "whoso in his life loves piety and
justice". Another Euripides' play that is full of awe-inspiring scenes is Medea. The
opening scene prepares us for the revenge that Medea would seek upon being jilted
by Creon. The scene, set against the backdrop of Creon's palace, reveals a nurse,
whose lament characterizes the powerful theme that holds the drama—love turned to
bitter unbridled hatred. Jason has jilted Medea, forsaken his sons, and married Creon's
daughter. The nurse fears that Medea's explosive passion will lead her to some
unthinkable bloodbath. The spectacle throughout the play is built up around the
character of Medea. Her plotting, her vicious laughter, her curses, her coldbloodedness, all set the stage on fire and as the passion inherent in the play reaches its
crescendo, we see the never before seen spectacle on the Greek stage—Medea
suddenly appears over the house in a chariot drawn by dragons. She bears her
children's corpses with her, and she calls to Jason, taunting him that he cannot harm
her now.
The Greek tragedians never undermined the element of spectacle. The
performance area of the Greek tragedies was quite large as compared to the modern
stage. And the underemployment of any part of the performance area would certainly
not have amused the public in general and the judges in particular. In almost all the
extant plays we find a conscious attempt by the playwright to cover as much of the
performance area as possible. To further elaborate upon this point let us study the
various parts of the Greek theatre.
123
Architecturally speaking, the development of the Greek playhouse went hand
in hand with the development of the Greek drama. Since the Greek drama was choral
in its origin, the center of Greek theatres was a circular dancing space called
Orchestra. Right in the middle of the Orchestra, stood the Thymele, which during the
early years was meant to be the altar and later on, a place where the leader of the
Chorus (Koryphaios) was standing. With the addition of the actors, the need for a
dressing room arose where the actors might change their masks and costumes. Thus a
temporary structure called the Scene came up. The scene at first stood outside the
spectator's range of vision. With the advancement of dramatic techniques, the Scene
was made a permanent structure and was brought immediately behind the orchestral
circle. It was now also used as a background against which the dramatic action was
performed. The scene usually had one to three doors, which represented different
houses. The scene building often had two projecting side wings called Parascenia.
The front of the scene building and of the Parascenia was called the Proscenium. This
part was called Proscenium because it was situated in front of the Scene. The side of
the Scene facing the audience, served for background as it was decorated as a palace
or a temple. The top of the Proscenium was used by actors especially while
portraying the characters of divinities as it provided them an elevation from where
they could deliver their speech. This elevated space later came to be known as
Logium or speaking place, since it was exclusively reserved for the dialogue part of
the play. The chorus never came to the Logium. Behind the Logium was the second
story of the Scene building, known as the Episcenium. Its front wall had one or more
large doorways. Each Parascenium had a side entrance or Parados that led into the
orchestra. The Paradoi were used by the audience before and after the play, and by
the actors during the play to make exits and entrances. If someone was entering from
right Parados, it meant that he was coming from the city or the port. If he was coming
from left Parados, he was coming from fields or abroad. The actors could also use the
doors in the Scene for the same purpose. The remaining part of the orchestral circle
was surrounded by the auditorium. The Orchestra was the acting place, especially in
the early years, when the chorus and the actors stood on the same level in the
orchestra or in the space between it and the scene building. Later on, as Scenography
124
developed, themes such as forest, army camps pathways etc. started appearing at the
back of the Scene in the form of theatrical paintings.
Gradually the action moved from the Orchestra to the Scene—or to be more
specific—in front of the Scene i.e.the Logium. The Logium in fact metamorphosed
into the Stage. The Proscenium now stood upon the stage (at the rear). To present the
divinities at still higher level, they were presented at the top of the Proscenium also
known as Theologium or 'speaking place for divinities. The existence of stage in the
Greek theatre has been a subject of debate among the literary historians. Flickinger,
quotes various literary historians in this context. G.Hermann suggest that the Greek
orchestra was covered with a wooden platform to within a few feet of the stage level
and thus a more intimate connection between the chorus and the actors was
established. A.E Haigh maintained that a low stage was employed uninterruptedly
until the fourth century B.C. Dr. Bethe contends at first actors and chorus performed
in the orchestra but that about 427 B.C. a low stage was introduced. Flickinger
concludes the debate by saying: " It will be seen that all authorities are in substantial
agreement that the Greek Theatre had a stage….but they are hopelessly divided with
regard to the important detail as to when this stage was introduced—at the very first,
at the close of the fifth century, In the time of Lycurgus, in the Hellenistic period, or
in the reign of Nero (79)." But if take into consideration the enactment of the scenes
described in the beginning of this discussion, we would find that the contention that
the Greek theatre always had a stage seems plausible otherwise the spectacular effect
of these scenes could never be achieved.
The part of the theatre where the audience sat was known as Koilon. The
Koilon was the first given this name because of its shape. In the beginning the
spectators used to sit around the Orchestra where the Chorus chanted and danced and,
by voice and gesture they unfolded the tale of the drama. This Koilon or the
auditorium later developed into a tiered structure encircling about two thirds of the
Orchestra. The Koilon was divided into two Diazoma—the upper and the lower.
The front seats of the Koilon were known as Proedria and were reserved for
officials and priests. In the fifth century B.C. all parts of theatre with the exception of
125
the Orchestra were made mobile. By the end of this century the Greeks were building
permanent Scenes and Logiums.
Inside the permanent scene were kept machines used during the performance.
These included:
1. The Aeorema—It was a crane by which the gods were appearing on the
scene. This device is popularly known as Deux ex Machina.
2. The Periactoi—These were two prismatic pillars placed of the left and
right of the Scene. When turned on their axis, they changed the
background of the Scene.
3. The Ekeclema: This was a wheeled platform on which the bodies of dead
persons were presented since a murder or suicide never took place in front
of the spectators.
The Greeks built their theatres by cutting out the side of the hill. As far as the
preference of the Greeks for the location of the theater is concerned there is an
interesting episode narrated by Flickinger. He says:
The original place of holding theatrical performances in
Athens was an Orchestra in the old market place, the location of which
has not yet been determined. At that period, the audience sat upon
wooden bleachers which are said to have collapsed on the occasion of
a contest between Aeschylus, Pratinas, Choerilus in the seventieth
Olypiad (about 499 B.C.) In consequence, a new theatre was
constructed in the precinct of Dionysus, where the seats though still of
wood, could be supported in part by the south slope of the
Acropolis."(65)
Unlike Aristotle, Bharata has described in his Natyashashtra the various types
of theatres and given detailed instructions regarding the choice of the site, its
measurement, and the various ceremonies connected with its construction.
126
He has delineated three main types of playhouses:
1. Vikrishta (Rectangular)
2. Chaturasra (Square)
3. Tryasra (Triangular).
Accordingly these three are further sub-divided into three types each i.e. large,
medium and small as per their dimensions. The large playhouses are not for the
mortals. They are suitable for the gods. So the mortals should construct medium sized
playhouses and here, too among the nine types the most preferred type is the oblong
medium playhouse having a total dimension of 64 hastas by 32 hastas. The reason
given for this preference is born out of plain common sense—in a bigger playhouse,
the audience will not be able to listen to the dialogues properly and they will also not
be able to catch hold of the subtle face expressions that the actor would create to
express the bhava. This land is to be divided into two parts. The front part of 32
hastas by 32 hastas dimensions shall be Rang Mandapa i.e. the place for the
spectators. The remaining half is further sub divided as follows:
1. 8 hastas by 32 hastas nearest of the audience is called Rangapeetha. This
is the main acting area.
2. The part of the stage of the same dimensions right behind the Rangpeetha
is called Rangshirsha.
3. The remaining 16 hastas by 32 hastas at the furthermost end is called
Nepathya-griha, i.e. green room. This too is further sub divided into two
equal parts—the men's green room and the women's green room.
This is followed by an elaborate discussion of the manner in which the pillars
are to be placed. A number of gods are to be propitiated in order to make the drama
successful.
Superficially, there doesn't seem to be any similarity between the Greek
Theatre and the Indian Natyagriha. There is no mention of a circular Orchestra. The
size of the Greek theatre was enormous as compared to that of medium oblong
theatre prescribed by Bharata. But a closer analyses of the text brings forth certain
127
interesting aspects that seem to corroborate the basic premise of this thesis that the
Greeks and Indians did influence each other in the development of drama.
Initially, it seems that just like Poetics, the construction of the Natyagriha was
not in the original plan of the Natyashastra. Its requirement was necessitated when
the first drama being enacted was interrupted by the Vighanas (disruptions). The first
play produced by Bharata was full of scenes of bloodshed, confusion, and angry
rhetoric. This play depicted the victory of gods over demons. Understandably, the
demons got angry over the presentation, and led by Virupaksha, they created
disturbance. These demons are referred to as Vighanas by Bharata. To get rid of
these demons, Indra came forward and used his flagpole to nullify the power of the
Vighanas. This flagpole later came came to be known as Jarjara. Indra assured
Bharata that in future, whenever the Vighanas will try to interrupt a dramatic
performance, they would be destroyed by this Jarjara. Upon receiving this assurance,
Bharata started preparation for the second play. But the Jarjara didn't prove effective
during the second performance. During the second performance, the Vighnas became
so powerful that they even tried to kill Bharata. Bharata, then went to Brahma, who
directed Vishwakarma to construct a Natyagriha where the drama could be
performed without interruptions. Two questions arise here. If the Natyagriha was
constructed during the third performance, where were the first and the second play
performed? Why did the Jarjara prove to be ineffective after the assurance given by
the Indra himself? Explaining the importance given to Indra in the Natyashastra
Adya Rangacharya says:
That the festival of the minor god like Indra should be the occasion of
the performance is surprising. The great god that Indra was in the
Vedic days had, by time become a departmental god—the god of rains.
Why should he be propitiated? (The reason seems to be that) most of
the plays have been performed, as is being done even now in the rural
areas, in summer time. Kalidasa's sutradhara in Shakuntala (supports
this view) when he suggest to nati to sing in praise of summer.
Anyway, Indra was the god of honour, as we find, in the theatre and he
128
must have been propitiated so that he would not spoil the play by
bringing the rains down. (Rangacharya 15)
Indra is also the God of fertility in the primarily agrarian economy of India. In
the third chapter of the Natyashastra in verses 71-89, Bharat elaborates upon the
rituals to be adopted for the worship and installation of the Jarjara. Adya
Rangacharya describes the Jarjara as a bamboo 108 angulas in length, containing
four joints (374)." This is to be carried on to the stage by the actors and the priest.
There it is worshipped and the blessings are invoked to facilitate the success of the
drama. Compare this ritual with the Greek ritual in which the figure of Dionysus, the
Greek god of fertility was carried in procession by the actors and chorus and placed
in the middle of the Orchestra at a special altar constructed for the purpose known as
Thymele. Sacrifices were offered at this altar before the drama to seek protection
during the performance. Thymele more often than not proved effective as Athens is
one of the sunniest city in Europe with a semi arid climate and a low average rainfall.
But in a tropical country like India, the summer season is also the monsoon season.
So, the Jarjara was not able to protect an open air stage as auditorium as the
effectively as its counterpart in Greece was. Hence the need was felt for an indoor
theatre.
The Greek theatre, we know was carved out of a hill. Bharata too, professes
that the Natyamandap should be like the mountain cave. The stage, he says should be
at two levels (Dwi bhumi). According to Babulal Shukla Shastri, Dwi Bhumi means
two levels of stage made to facilitate the presentation of scenes involving gods and
goddesses. The Greek stage also had two different levels—the Logium and the
Episcenium. Bharata professes the construction of two equal sized Mattavarnis by
the side of the Rangapeetha. The Mattavarnis were at the same position with respect
to Indian stage as the Greek Parascenia were with respect to Logium. The Nepathya
is performing the same function as the Scene does in the Greek theatre. It is used as
make up room, for exits and entrances and to provide scenic background. The
auditorium in Indian drama is also like that of the Greek drama i.e. a tiered structure
going upwards from the stage. Bharata has clearly stated that the seats for the
129
spectators should be constructed from bricks or wood and they should be arranged in
form of stairs so that the stage is equally visible to everyone. (Shastri Vol I 57)
Let us analyze these aspects with respect to the construction of the theatre
excavated at Rani Gumpha near Bhuvaneshwara believed to have been built in the
3rd century B.C. This site is a richly carved two-storeyed structure, with evidence of
a considerable amount of woodwork, which decayed away long ago. In particular
there seems to have been a large wooden deck or platform extending in front of the
first floor. And the flat space in front of the structure can accommodate a large
audience. There is a marked parallel between this two-storeyed decorated structure
and the two storeyed decorated Scene. The major difference is that the performance
area is rectangular and not circular like the Greek orchestra. But then the Indian
drama did not evolve out of the circular dances associated with the Dionysian rituals.
Further, the elaborate carving in a series of friezes suggests some sort of a narrative.
There are images of dancers performing in front of a seated personage who could be
the king or the general audience. Most remarkable of all is the acoustics of the place.
It does not have the unusual acoustics associated with archaeological sites- no odd
echoes, no whispering spaces. But if you stand and speak anywhere in the
performance area, you can be heard all along the audience space. The sound quality
is clear and detailed with just enough reverberation to provide body to the sound.
Remarkably this effect disappears just a foot or two from the performance space.
Now the Greek theatres too had remarkable acoustics as they catered to very large
audiences.
Meanwhile, in Hellenic world, a new type of theatre building was being
evolved. It was an indoor theatre and it was called Odeion. Remains of a number of
such Odeia can be found in Turkey and Greece. Scholars have attributed this
development to the Roman influence on the Greek drama but a striking similarity in
the cross sections of Odeion at Agrippa and Bharata's Natyagriha does suggest that
this change probably due to the concept of indoor theatre imported from India.
The use of deus ex machina to create the effect of gods descending upon earth
was in use both in India as well as Greece. Euripides is credited with the introduction
130
of machines in Greek theatre. In India we have various examples of the use of such
machines. In the first act of Vikramurvishiyam, we find the Apsaras descending on
earth and king Vikram fighting for the gods.
In this chapter we have seen that once we go beyond the surface meaning of
the concepts enunciated in the Poetics and the Natyshastra, we find striking parallels
among these concepts. These parallels point to the possibility of literary exchange
between the Greek and Indian civilizations. Both the theorists have discussed the
formative elements of a drama and the similarities in their ideas exhort us to look
further and see whether there is a parallel between the function or purpose of drama,
as propounded by Aristotle and Bharata.
References:
<www.didaskalia.net/issues/vol4no1/freis/htm>
<www.didaskalia.net/issues/vol4no1/frost/htm>
<www.didaskalia.net/issues/vol4no1/zeitlin/htm>
<www.greektexts.com/library/Aristotle/Rhetoric/eng/1758.html>
Abercombie, Lascelles. Principles of Literary Criticism. Bombay: Vora and
Company, 1967.
Bhattacharya, B. Sanskrit Drama and Dramaturgy. Varanasi: Bharat Manisha
Research Series, 1974.
Butcher, S.H. Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art. New Delhi: Kalyani
Publishers, 1996.
Bywater, Ingram. Aristotle on the art of Poetry. London Oxford University Press.
1974.
Chaturvedi, Sitaram trans. Kalidasa Granthavali. Aligarh: Bharat Prakashan Mandir.
2019 vikrami.
Else, Gerald F. Aristotle's Poetics: The Argument. Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 1957.
Fyfe, Hamilton. Aristotle's Art of Poetry. London: Oxford University Press, 1967.
Gassner, John. Ed., A Treasury of Theatre, Vol. I. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1951.
Hardison Jr., O.B. and Leon Golden. Aristotle's Poetics, A Translation and
Commentary for Students of Literature. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc, 1968.
131
Howatson, M.C. The Oxford Companion to English Literature. London: Oxford
University Press, 1993.
Jones, John. On Aristotle and Greek tragedy. London: Chatto and Windus, 1962.
Keith, A.B. The Sanskrit Drama. London: Oxford University Press, 1954.
Kitto, H.D.F. Greek Tragedy. London: Metheun and Co. Ltd, 1970.
Lucas, F.L. Tragedy. New York: First Collier Books Edition, 1962.
Morshead E.D.A. trans. Agamemnon The Harvard Classics Vol 8 New York: P.F.
Collier and Son, New York, 1909.
Pandey, Baijnath trans.Dashrupakam. Varanasi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1999.
Rangacharya, Adya trans. The Natyashastra, English Translation with Critical Notes.
New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt Ltd, 1999.
Roberts, W.R. trans. Aristotle's Rhetoric. New York: The Modern Library, 1954.
Shastri, Babulal Shukla trans. Natyashastra Vol ,II,III. Varanasi: Chaukhambha
Sanskrit Sansthan, 1999.
Urlin, Ethel. L. Dancing, Ancient and Modern. London: Simpkin, 1914.
132