Theories of the Drama: Aristotle vs. the Indian Theorists

Theories of the Drama:

Aristotle vs. the Indian Theorists

EMILY GILCHRIEST HATCH, M.A.

The theories of the ancient drama of the Hindus are all but unknown to the Western World. This is due primarily to the fact that few of the treatises on dramaturgy have been translated from the original and difficult Sanskrit. The theories advanced by Aristotle in the Poetics and the Rhetoric are well known and have been studied extensively. The similarities and contrasts found in these two schools–the Greek and the Hindu–afford a very interesting study.

Sometime during the 2nd century B.C.,¹ Bharata wrote the Bharatanatyasastra, a treatise on dramaturgy, which is the foundation for the wealth of Sanskrit drama written during the first eight or ten centuries of the Christian era. The treatise has come down to us imperfectly, due in part to the fact that no commentaries on it were written until the latter part of the 10th century A.D. The book in its thirty-eight chapters deals with the origin and rise of the drama, gives elaborate and minute details for its composition and presentation, and analyzes the purpose of dramatic performances. Only parts of it have been translated.

The next treatise of note, written in the 10th century A.D., is the Dasarupa. It is virtually an abridged edition of the Bharatanatyasastra, dealing with the construction of the drama, types of characters and plays, and with the production of sentiment or the purpose of the drama. In 1912, George C. O. Haas made an excellent English translation of this treatise, which is one of the Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series.

The third book is the Sahitya Darpana, the Mirror of Composition. It is dated in all probability in 1383 A.D. It is really a book of poetic criticism, discussing the divisions of poetry and its various elements. The chapter on the drama is based on the Dasarupa and much of it is copied verbatim. The discussion of the production of the sentiments, or the purpose of dramatic performances, is very detailed. The English translation of this treatise was finished in 1875 by Pramada-dasa Mitra.

The following study is based on these three Hindu treatises and the two books by Aristotle, Rhetoric and Poetics.²

TRAGEDY AND COMEDY

The first difference, which is immediately noticeable, concerns the division of the drama into tragedy and comedy. The Hindus knew no tragedy. To the Greeks tragedy was the highest form of dramatic and poetic art. It received the attention of the people and the magistrates before comedy; its development and origins were known. The development of comedy, we read, escaped their knowledge because it was not at first an object of attention. As tragedy is the most beautiful form of art and must picture the change from prosperity to adversity; it must end in misfortune.

To the Hindus the happy ending was traditional. The principal form of drama is the Nataka which is declared in the Sahitya Darpana to "be abounding with the sentiments of pleasure and pain, as also with a variety of flavours."³ The extent of the pleasure and pain, however, was limited by two rules: "One should not visibly represent a long journey, murder, fighting, revolt of a kingdom or province or the like, a siege, eating, bathing, intercourse, anointing the body, putting on clothing or the like"; "One should not present the death of the principal character anywhere in the play, but what is inevitable is not to be avoided."⁴ These rules were interpreted by the Sanskrit dramatists to mean that the death of the hero or heroine might be repotted provided the dead person be restored to life before the close of the play. An incident similar to the death and restoration of Hermione in "The Winter's Tale" would be quite acceptable in a Sanskrit drama provided Hermione's death took place off stage and was only reported.

The story of a Sanskrit drama was to be about some notable or royal person and it was essential that it end happily and profitably for the hero. The drama might contain as much pleasure as the poet desired. The pain endured, however, could be but momentary and was occasioned by such obstacles in the path of the hero as would cause only temporary delay in the realization of his desires. If any of the prohibited actions were essential to the plot, they might be used provided they were necessary to the ultimate triumph of the hero and were directed toward the minor or lowly characters of the play.

In Greek tragedy suffering was an essential element. The Greeks were sensitive to reversals in fortune, to the injustice of the world. The Hindus were just the opposite. The sorrows and sufferings of mankind aroused in them, seemingly, no emotion and no question. This attitude was prompted by their religion and the happy ending was, no doubt, the outcome of Vedic philosophy. Life never ended but traveled on in its cycle, proceeding either in the upward or downward cycle, from the highest to the lowest, from the lowest to the highest. Each man accepted his lot without murmur as a just fate: whatever he was in the present was due to his actions in a former life. He believed that his life had already been arranged, that nothing could make it different; that no one could help him, that he could offer no assistance to another; and that the lives of his fellow-men were governed by the same principle. The acceptance of such a philosophy precluded any probing into the meaning or ways of life, and the dramatist had no reason and no desire to write tragedies. They wrote pleasing dramas, the outcome of which was always advantageous to the hero. The ending was always happy.

Measured by Aristotle's standards, even Kalidasa, the greatest Indian poet, falls far below the norm of the Greek poets. Measured by standards as enunciated by the Indian theorists, he soars far above all.

PURPOSE OF THE DRAMAS

The Greek dramas are classified under the divisions of tragedy, comedy and satire. The Sanskrit dramas might be classified as comedies. The classification is divided into ten major and eighteen minor forms which differ somewhat in details, but the entire twenty- seven forms are held to resemble the one called Nataka and to the lay reader they seem very much alike.

The purpose of Greek drama was to arouse the emotions of pity and fear in the minds of the spectators, and cause pleasure thereby. The purpose of the Hindu drama was to give pleasure by arousing in the spectators rasa, the flavours or sentiments. The sentiments constitute one of the most interesting discussions in Hindu dramaturgy. Sentiment is defined by the Dasarupa to be the giving of pleasure by a permanent state which is produced from a poem through various elements. The spectator does not see sentiment; it is not emotion. He sees something which arouses in him the remembrance of an experience akin in emotion to that which is being enacted; the response to this gives him a pleasant feeling which feeling is the sentiment. The theory of sentiment is accordingly based on the theory of suggestion and association of ideas; and sentiment is open only to those who have experienced emotion. That is, the spectator can know sentiment only in so far as he has had experiences which will enable him to understand the permanent state upon which the sentiment is founded. These permanent states are eight in number: love, the basis for the erotic sentiment; energy for the heroic; disgust for the odious; anger for the furious; mirth for the comic; astonishment for the marvellous; fear for the terrible; sorrow for the pathetic.

The permanent states are analogous to the passions enumerated in Book II of the Rhetoric. Aristotle devotes lengthy discussion to the passions which the speaker should arouse in the hearer. He analyzes twelve: anger, placability, love and friendship, hatred, fear, shame, impudence, gratitude, pity, indignation, envy, emulation. The analysis of these passions includes a definition, how and why the passion is effected, in whom it is aroused, toward whom it is directed, who is capable of feeling the passion and under what circumstances. The Dasarupa merely lists the permanent states, giving no definitions or explanations. Sahitya Darpana gives one short paragraph of definition.

The sentiments are closed to all those who have not experienced similar feelings. The passions are open to all. The attempt of the theorists to explain this sentiment is an admirable one to put into words, "that which cannot be described in separate and intelligible terms.⁵ Translated into modern terms, the discussion of the sentiments in the ancient Hindu dramaturgies is analogous to present-day discussions concerning the aesthetic attitude, a state of disinterested contemplation. Sentiment might be described as the empathetic response experienced by the spectator when viewing the drama.

ACTION Vs. CONDITIONS

Both dramas are, of course, concerned with imitations. Aristotle emphasizes the point that tragedy is the imitation of actions, that the end of tragedy is the imitating of actions, that tragedy cannot exist without actions. The Hindu drama is the imitating of situations (states or conditions).⁶ As the Sanskrit dramas were based on the sentiments, the situations were limited by those which were considered essential to the arousing of the sentiments. Lengthy lyrical passages often proved more effective for this purpose than did logical situations, and action tended to be neglected.

SUBJECT-MATTER

To a certain extent, the Indian theorists recognized the necessity of a conflict, even though the hero's struggle with the obstacle was but momentary. The conflict in the tragedy is essential. The change from prosperity into adversity comes about through some great error of character. The subjects were taken from such persons as had suffered or had done dreadful things. The subject-matter of the Hindu drama might be taken from legends of the past, be devised by the poet, or be a combination of these two. The legends were taken from the religious books and were usually about the exploits of the gods. The subjects imagined by the poet dealt mostly with royalty or noted persons; the common man was ignored. Aristotle claims that persons neither far above nor far below the average are the proper subjects for drama. The Hindus seemed not to wish their drama to be a picture of life, in spite of the fact that the Bharatanatyasastra relates that Brahma "made drama full of different kinds of feeling or essences consisting of the different states of life, an imitation of the world, where there are described the actions of the high, the middle and the lower classes of men."⁷

DRAMATIC CONSTRUCTION

The analyses of the construction of the dramas show much similarity, the main difference being the approach. In simple form the analyses would be as follows:

INDIAN DRAMATURGIES

Elements of plot (are paralleled Stages of action (these added Junctures

to the) give the)

Germ Beginning Opening

Expansion Effort Progression

Episode Prospect of success Development

Episodical Incident Certainty of success Pause

Denouement Attainment of success Conclusion

ARISTOTLE

Parts in every Tragedy (are divided Dramatic Whole (which is presented Parts arranged

into one) in the form of) according to

quantity

Fable or plot Beginning Prologue

Manners or characters Middle Episode

Thought or sentiment Complication ……

Diction Development Exode

Melody End Parados

Spectacle ……. Stasimon

The Indian theorists have made an effort to classify the various parts of a drama into causes and effect. The first and the last items follow through simply enough: the germ (the nucleus of the story) is the beginning of the action which is the opening of the drama; the denouement is the attainment of the hoped-for success which is the conclusion of the drama. The three middle items are not so simply related. There might be effort shown in the pause, or prospect of success revealed in the progression. The three middle items, however the relationship may be, form the body or the middle of the drama.

Aristotle analyzes the drama from quite a different point of view. In every tragedy there are six different elements. The plot is the most important. Since the story depends upon the manners, there must be characters which are second in importance. The thought, the diction, the rhythm and the spectacle follow in order. These six elements are so arranged as to form the beginning, the middle and the end of a story, or one complete whole action. In the body of the tragedy, there are complication and development which may be expressed through peripity or discovery or both. The dramatic whole is represented to the spectators by means of the quantitive parts of the drama.

UNITY

It is Aristotle's opinion that the dramatic unity of a play necessitates that the fable should be an imitation of one whole action, so arranged that, should any one part be transposed or taken away, the whole would become different or changed. The unity of time decrees that the tragedy be limited by one period of the sun, or admit but a small variation within that period. The Hindus do not recognize any unity of place; many of the dramas picture intercourse between heaven and earth, journeys through air, and similar feats. They do, however, recognize a unity of time. The Sahitya Darpana decrees that the business extending beyond a year should be comprised within a year.⁸ It is interesting to know that the

Sanskrit dramatists made no particular effort to follow this ruling, but allowed themselves infinite freedom.⁹

HERO AND HEROINE

Another marked contrast is found in the qualifications for a hero. In the Dasarupa we find: "The hero should be well-bred, charming, liberal, clever, affable, popular, upright, eloquent, of exalted lineage, resolute and young; endowed with intelligence, energy, memory, wisdom, skill in the arts, and pride; heroic, mighty, vigorous, familiar with the codes, and a just observer of laws." ¹⁰ The hero described by Aristotle is "one who neither excels in virtue and justice, nor is changed through vice and depravity into misfortune, from a state of great renown and prosperity, but has experienced this change through some human error . . . "¹¹ He goes on to give the four necessary requisites for character; that they be good, appropriate, like reality and consistent. The elaborate sub-divisions of the Indian theorists, 48 types of heroes, 384 types of heroines, various messengers and assistants, are not only needless but seem absurd.

The hero and heroine in the last subdivision are classified under high, middling, and low characters. There is similarity in Aristotle's objects of imitation; those who are better than we are (ideal), those who are worse (inferior), or those like ourselves (real or average). Both Aristotle and the theorists of India made a distinction between male and female characters. The Indian treatises enumerate the many graces which each may assume. Aristotle merely states that manners must be appropriate; for instance, that it is not fitting for a woman to be manly and terrible.

UNIVERSALITY IN CONTRASTING GENIUSES

The study of these works is interesting in two ways. The similarity speaks for the universality of the drama and the contrasts show the essential differences in the cultures and the geniuses of the two peoples. The Poetics was written in a direct simple manner. Aristotle analyzes the drama as a whole, and even in the discussions of the various details, the relationship of the details, the whole is kept well in view. The Indian theorists divide and subdivide. Analyses take them on and on into needlessly minute classes. The drama as a whole is almost never seen and the sub-divided details do not appear in a relative position. Yet, in spite of this difference, the similarity is marked.

The contrasts are more in the point of view which the writers take. The reader gets a distinct feeling that the Poetics was written by a man of action, while the Hindu treatises were written by men who sat in meditation. This inherent difference is brought out most clearly in the subjects of imitation. Action on the one hand; a state or condition on the other. In actual practice the dramas of the two people served different functions: the Greek drama was played for all classes and masses; the Hindu Sanskrit drama was written and presented for the aristocracy. The Greek drama lived and grew, forming a foundation for European drama; the Hindu drama declined and has left only the barest traces, aside from its plays.

DID THE HINDUS BORROW?

The second point of interest lies in the arguments advanced by a goodly number of scholars that the Hindus borrowed the dramatic form from the Greeks. The various attempts to date the Bharatanatyasastra, the first Hindu dramaturgy, would indicate that in all probability it was written in the 2nd century B.C., which is some years after Alexander's invasion. There is a possibility that the drama was borrowed. There is an equally strong possibility that the drama is wholly their own. Regarding this controversy, Dr. Keith makes the following statement which seems a fair and sound conclusion:

" . . . . we are, in fact, faced with the usual difficulty that, if there were borrowing, the Indian genius has known how to recast so cleverly and to adapt what it borrowed so effectively that the traces which would definitely establish indebtedness cannot be found. In all the instances enumerated there is no doubt similarity, but there is also essential difference such as renders independent development of the Indian doctrine at least as probable as borrowing." ¹²

A study of the Indian peoples, their manners and customs, as a ground for the study of the drama, would tend to lead one to believe that the drama of the Indian theorists is a distinctly Indian product. The comparison of these two theories, the Greek and the Hindu, studied in the light of the geniuses of the two peoples, forms an interesting and illuminating chapter to the history of the drama.

1 Some scholars would date the Sastra as late as the 2nd century A.D. The date is conjecture.

2 "Poetics." Translated by Theodore Buckley, 4th Ed.

3 Sahitya Darpana, 277.

4 Dasarupa III, 39-40.

5 Sahityu Darpana, 54, 54 a.

6 Dusarupu, I, 7.

7 Dhruva, H. H. Bharatanatyasastra As. Quart, Rev. Vol. 2, 1896, p. 359.

8 306.

9 See Jackson, A. V. Williams, "Time Analysis of Sanskrit Plays." Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 20, pp. 341-359, and Vol. 21, pp. 88-108.

10 Dasarupa, II. 1.

11 Poetics, Chapter XIII.

12 Keith, Arthur B. The Sanskrit Drama.