Indian and Greek Drama: Two Definitions

Indian and Greek Drama: Two Definitions Darius L. Swann Just over a century ago a Western reviewer, commenting on a new translation of Kalidasa’s Shakuntala, offered a not surprising first reaction to the play: “ His [Kalidasa’s] drama is no drama of intense reality, where a lifetime is condensed into an hour— where the spectator sits, as a temporary Providence, to watch the passing char­ acters as they move, each one with his inmost bosom opened and all the machinery of his passions laid bare. Rather it is a languid land, where we wander from dream to dream, and all is cast in an attitude of still life and repose, as if labor were not man’s portion, and life itself but a trance.” 1 This very different world has never ceased to amaze and stir Western observers; its strangeness intrigues while it mystifies. One thing, however, is clear: this is no drama framed on Aristotelian prin­ ciples. To acknowledge this may seem to beg the question: Is it drama at all? How shall it be understood? There would seem to be but one answer, and that is, certainly, that it is to be understood on its own terms, quite apart from any Greek or Aristotelian preconceptions to which long association may have disposed us. However, in the one and three quarter centuries since the first Sanskrit play was translated into English, the number of people interested in gaining an appreciation of both the Indian and Greek dramatic traditions has steadily increased. It seems useful and perhaps necessary, there­ fore, to attempt to understand one in relationship to the other. When the ancient Sanskrit plays first came to the knowledge of Western scholars, the natural inclination was to search for a connection between them and the great ancient theatre of the Greeks. Alexander and his successors had, after all, penetrated Hindustan^ and evidences of the impact of Greek culture on Indian civilization could be dis­ cerned.3 Was it not natural, then, to expect and look for in this sophisticated dramatic art some borrowing from the Greeks who had originated theatre in the West? So seminal has been the Greek con­ tribution to Western civilzation that there is a constant danger of claiming more for Greek influence than can be justified. Dr. Radhakrishnan was provoked to remark on this subject that “the dictum that, if we leave aside the blind forces of nature, nothing moves in this world which is not Greek in its origin, has become a commonplace with us. But it is not altogether true. Half the world moves on inde­ pendent foundations which Hinduism supplied.” 4 110 Darius L. Swann 111 Only a very slight case can be made for any Greek influence upon the Indian drama. Though such claims were made at one time, they proved abortive and have now been abandoned. But there survives a tendency to think of the Greek and Sanskrit theatre as at least comparable. Such comparisons can be misleading.5 Indeed a strong case against such a view may be built on the evidence of the drama­ turgical treatises which represent the two traditions. Fortunately we have in each case a treatise which lays down in some detail the dramatic principles underlying the theatre from which it springs. The Poetics and the Natya-Sastra stand in a roughly parallel relation to Greek and Sanskrit drama, respectively. The Poetics, of course, came after the golden period of the theatre in Greece while the NatyaSastra probably preceded most of the Sanskrit dramas now extant.6 In this article I shall consider a basic instrument for understanding Indian and Greek dramatic art: namely, the definition of what drama is in the two traditions. If we can put the definition from the NatyaSastra of Bharata7 alongside that from the Poetics of Aristotle, perhaps we may begin to perceive the two worlds clearly. Let us turn then to the definitions, the basis upon which they rest, and the illustration of their principles in the plays to which they apply. In comparing definitions we encounter an initial difficulty in the fact that Aristotle distinguishes between Tragedy and Comedy, a distinction which has no parallel in Sanskrit...