Page:Brinkley - Japan - Volume 3.djvu/55

 of the chorus in the Japanese Nô, and both alike being performed in the open courts of palaces or temples, artificial scenery was of necessity absent, and unity of place became, therefore, an impossibility, nor was it considered strange that a character should make journeys on the stage under the eyes of the audience. Further, from both dramas exhibitions of what may be called the vulgar acts of life were banished: actors did not die in public, or eat, or sleep, or make love. Displays of that kind were relegated to the region of the theatre proper in Japan, and were not sanctioned at all on the Indian stage. It may, perhaps, be a little forced to draw an analogy between the dramatic languages of the two countries, yet note may at least be taken of the fact that the classical phraseology invariably adopted by the Indian dramatists was as far beyond the understanding of the majority of a Hindu audience as the language of the Nô was beyond the comprehension of ordinary Japanese spectators. Of course there were many differences, especially in the matter of construction. For whereas the Indian drama opened with a kind of prologue and closed with a prayer or benediction, and was of necessity divided into a minimum number of acts, the Japanese Nô had neither prologue nor apologue, and its division, in the rare cases when division was resorted to, obeyed no rule but the convenience of the action. Within the space of even a one-act Nô, the unity of time was often