Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/417

397 INDIAN.] DRAMA 397 court cf King Vikramadltya of Avanti (died 56 B.C.), being accounted the brightest of its &quot; nine gems of genius. He is the author of Sdkuntald, the work Sir William Jones s translation of which first revealed to the Western world of letters the existence of an Indian drama. It is a dramatic love-idyll of surpassing beauty, and, in the opinion of the highest authorities, one of the master-pieces of the poetic literature of the world. Kalidasa s other drama, Vikrama and Urvasi (The Hero and the Nymph], though unequal as a whole to Sdkuntald, contains one act of incomparable loveliness; and its enduring effect upon Indian dramatic literature is shown by the imitations of it in later plays. To Kalidasa has likewise been attributed a third play the Mdlavikdgnimitra ; but it is doubtful whether this comedy, though held to be of ancient date, was not composed by a different poet of the same name. Another work of high merit, the pathetic Mrichchhakati ( The Toy-Cart), a domestic drama with a public underplot, may possibly belong to the close of the 2d century A.D., and seems certainly of an earlier date than the 10th. It i.s attributed (as is not uncommon with Indian plays) to a royal author named Sudraka. The palm of pre-eminence is disputed with Kalidasa by the great dramatic poet Babhaviiti (called Qrikautha, or he in whose throat is fortune), who flourished in the earlier part of the 8th century. While he is considered more artificial in language than his rival, and in general more bound by rules, he can hardly be deemed his inferior in dramatic genius. Of his three extant plays, Mahdvdra- Charitra and Uttara-Rdma-Charitra are heroic dramas concerned with the adventures of Rama (the seventh incarnation of Vishnu) ; the third, the powerful Mdlali and Mddhava, has love for its theme, and has been called (with more aptitude than such comparisons usually possess) the Romeo and Juliet of the Hindus. It is considered by their critical authorities the best example of the prakarana, or drama of domestic life. Among the remaining chief works of Indian dramatic literature, the Vetii-SamJiara is thought probably to date from about the 8th or 9th century. Its author s name seems doubtful; the play is described as one in which both pathos and horror are exaggerated, and which in the violence of its action recalls the manner of Shakespeare s predecessors. The next series of plays forms a transition between the first period of Indian dramatic literature and II. The period of decline, which may be reckoned from about the tTi to about the th century of our era, and of which the beginning roughly coincides with that of a con tinuous series of Mahometan invasions of India. Ilanuman- A ataka, or &quot;the great Nalaka&quot; (for this play, the work of several hands, surpasses all other Indian dramas in length, extending over not less than fourteen acts), dates from the 10th or llth century. Its story is taken from the Rama- cycle, and a prominent character in it is the mythical monkey-chief Hamircat, to whom, indeed, tradition ascribed the original authorship of the play. Kfishnamicra s &quot; theosophic mystery,&quot; as it lias been called, of Prabodha- CJiandrodaya (The Rise of the Moon of Insight, i.e., the victory of true doctrine over error), is ascribed by one authority to the middle of the llth century, by another to about the end of the 12th. The dates of the famous Ratnavall (The Necklace], a court-comedy of love and intrigue, with a half-Terentian plot, and of the Interesting Buddhist drama Ndgdnanda, which begins as an erotic play but passes into a most impressive exemplification of the supreme virtue of self-sacrifice, depend on the disputed question of their respective authorship. One of them belongs to the first quarter of the 12th century, the other to an earlier time. Finally, Vis akhadatta s interesting drama of political intrigue, Mudrd-Rakshasa (The Signet of 1he Minister], in which prince Chandragupta, presumably identifiable with Sandrocottus, makes his appearance, was probably composed later than the end of the 12th century. This is the only Indian play known to us with an essentially historical fable -a noteworthy circumstance, if (as is most likely) it was produced at a time when the Mahometan invasions had already begun. The remaining plays of which it has been possible to conjecture the dates range in the time of their composition from the end of the llth to the 14th century, and belong to the period of decline. Of this period, as compared with the first, the general characteristics seem to be an undue preponderance of narrative and description, and an affected and over-elaborated style. As a striking instance of this class is mentioned a play on the adventures of Rama, the Anargha-Rdghava, which in spite, or by reason, of the commonplace character of its sentiments, the extravagance of its diction, and the obscurity of its mythology, is stated to enjoy a higher reputation with the pandits of the present age than the master-pieces of Kalidasa and Babhavuti. To the close of this period, the 14th century, has likewise (but without any pretension to certainty) been ascribed the only Tamil drama of which we possess an English version. Arichandra (The Martyr of Truth) exemplifies with a strange likeness in the contrivance of its plot to the Book of Job and Faust in the trials of a heroically enduring king the maxim &quot; Better die than lie.&quot; III. Isolated plays remain from centuries later than the Third 14^/i/ but these, which chiefly turn on the legends of P erio&amp;lt;l Krishna (the last incarnation of Yishriu), may be regarded ^ e a ^ as a mere aftergrowth, and exhibit the Indian drama in its decay. Indeed, the latest of them, Chitra-Yajna, which was composed about the beginning of the present century, and still serves as a model for Bengali dramatic per formances, is imperfect in its dialogue, which (after the fashion of Italian improvised comedy) it is left to the actors to supplement. Besides these there are farces or farcical entertainments, more or less indelicate, of uncertain dates. The number of the plays which have descended to us Number ( from so vast an expanse of time is both relatively and pK vs - absolutely small. Wilson doubts whether all the plays to be found, and those mentioned by Hindu writers on the drama, amount to many more than GO ; and it has been seen that not more than three are ascribed to either of the two great masters. To these should be, however, added the plays in Tamil, stated to be about 100 in number, and to have been composed by poets who enjoyed the patronage of the Pandian kings of Madura. On the other hand, there is among the Hindus no dearth of dramatic theory. The Critical sage Bharata, the reputed inventor of dramatic entertain- literature, ments, was likewise revered as the father of dramatic criticism a combination of functions to which the latter days of the English theatre might perhaps furnish an occasional parallel. The commentators (possibly under the influence of inspiration rather than as a strict matter of memory) constantly cite his siitras, or aphorisms. (From swtra, thread, was named the sutra-dhdra, thread-holder, carpenter, a term applied to the architect and general manager of sacrificial solemnities, then to the director of theatrical performances). By the llth century, when the drama was already approaching its decline, dramatic criticism had reached an advanced point ; and the Dasa- Rupaka (of which the text belongs to that age) distinctly defines the ten several kinds of dramatic composition. Other critical works followed at later dates, exhibiting a rage for subdivision unsurpassed by the efforts of Western theorists, ancient or modern ; the misfortune is that there should not be examples remaining (if they ever existed) to illustrate all the branches of so elaborate a dramatic system.