Chapter 6 Conclusion

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Chapter 6 Conclusion"

Anis Chandler
5 years ago
Views:

1 Chapter 6 Conclusion In our discussion so far we have discussed the socio-political scenario of India during its contact with Greece in the ancient times, and its impact on the contemporary dramatic literature. We have had a glimpse of the biographies of the two theorists in consideration in order to analyze the foreign influences that influenced their thought process. And we have discussed various conceptual aspects of the Poetics and the Natyashastra and found a considerable number of parallel concepts in them. In the light of this discussion, we shall now try to find the answer to the question that prompted this research whether the socio-political proximity of Indians and Greeks is reflected in the famous treatises on Drama the Poetics and the Natyashastra. Could Bharata and Aristotle, the two great theorists on the art of dramaturgy have directly on indirectly been influenced by one another? The socio-political scenario of India, especially that of the North West India between 5 th century B.C. to 2 nd century A.D., supports the assumption that the men of letters from both the civilizations might have interacted with each other at some level. Indians and Greeks frequently travelled across Asia, not only as military adversaries, but also as curious travellers, fascinated by the tales of magnificence that they had heard about each other. Both the civilizations had developed economically as well as socially. There were well-planned townships, economic stability and well organized power centers that ensured social stability to a large extent. The situation was thus conducive for the development of art and culture and philosophy. No wonder, both the civilizations saw the emergence of such great thinkers that are revered as the fathers of philosophic and scientific theories. Socrates, Plato, Herodotus, Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Gautam Buddha, Mahavira, Ved Vyasa, Panini, Aryabhatta the list can go on and on. In this galaxy, there are a number of stars that owe their shine to the art of dramaturgy and among these stars, Aristotle and Bharata are probably the brightest. 187

2 The art and literature was flourishing in both the civilizations. There were nodal points in both the civilizations where thinkers from both sides regularly met and deliberated upon the questions that troubled the mind of the mankind. Taxila in India, Alexandria in Egypt, and Athens in Greece were renowned for their vast resources of literary materials and these cities attracted scholars from both sides of the Aegean. Although Indians and Greeks came into contact with each other in the sixth century B.C. but it was Alexander's invasion of India in the fourth century B.C. that promoted closer intercultural exchange between the two civilizations. The Indo-Greek kings who held sway over Bactria and Indus regions had close and friendly relations with their Indian counterparts. Historians have found evidence of the presence of Greeks in Indian courts and of Indians on the streets of Athens. Similarly, a number of parallels in the Greek and theories of philosophy, medicine, arts etc. encourage the premise under consideration that dramatic art in the two countries might have been influenced by each other. The presence of a strong Greek community in the erstwhile Bactrian city of Nysa and the excavation of a Greek theatre at Ai Khanoum strongly support this assumption that Indians were exposed to Greek drama during the Hellenistic age. Thus the socio-polotical proximity between Greece and India resulted in the intercultural exchange of art and literature and drama could not have remained insulated from this development. The personal histories of Bharata and Aristotle also point to the possibility of their minds being exposed to foreign influences. Aristotle's mentor Plato was deeply influenced by the Pythagorean philosophy, which in turn had a number of concepts similar to the Indian philosophy. Thus there is a strong possibility that Aristotle would have been exposed to Indian philosophic thought. In his writings we come across the mention of India more than once. He was not dogmatic in his approach and welcomed any new ideas that came to him and diligently analyzed them for their worth. He has advocated the formation of a world state where he wants people to indulge in the noble pastime of the study of philosophy. 188

3 Although little is known about the personal history of Bharata, there are a number of references in the Natyashastra to prove that Bharata was aware of Greeks' presence in the North Western India. Not only that, he was also aware of their language and their culture. The mythological origin of the Natyashastra also points out to the corrupting effects of the foreign influences. Despite his best efforts to keep Yavanas and Shudras out of the performance aspects of drama, Bharata is unable to do so. Therefore, at the end of the Natyashastra, he allows the Yavanas and Shudras to enter the realms of dramatic production. These are clear-cut pointers to the influence of the Greeks in the evolution of Indian Drama. The striking parallels in the concepts of drama as propounded by Aristotle and Bharata strongly suggest that these two minds did communicate at some level. Both the theorists, for instance, consider Imitation to be the basis of drama. And they are also unanimous in their views that the word Imitation has wider ramifications and should not be taken as plane mimicry. Aristotle has responded to all the objections raised by Plato against the art of Poetry epistomological, theological, moral and psychological. Both Aristotle and Bharata consider imitative arts to be instructive as well as entertaining. The Natyashastra was written as an antidote to the negative traits of desires and passions, sadness and depression. The Natya shows the right way to people gone astray. Plato's theological objection against poetry is that is represents gods in an inappropriate way. Aristotle's reply to this objection is that we must take into consideration the time, place and the context in which a particular character is behaving. Similarly, Bharata also says that the audience should keep in mind the context against which good and bad actions are represented. Aristotle wants the Tragedy to have magnitude. It should not deal with mundane or ordinary subjects. Bharata also professes the use of Natyadharmi plays that deal with the high characters and have all the pleasurable accessories in the form of well-written dialogues, scenery, costumes etc. Thus as far as the concept of Imitation is concerned, Both Aristotle and Bharata are concurrent in their views that it the highest form of creative representation. 189

4 As far as the discussion of formative elements and quantitative parts of drama is concerned, both the writers express views that have striking similarities. Aristotle calls Plot the life and soul of a Tragedy. Bharata calls it the body of the Natya. For Aristotle, a Plot has essentially three parts, the beginning, the middle and the end. Bharat has divided the Plot into five parts and as explained in chapter IV, the ideas of the two theorists, as far as the division of Plot is concerned, are very similar to each other. The dramatic Prologue in the Greek Tragedy has its parallel with the Prastavna of the Sanskrit drama and similarly the Exode is comparable to the Bharatavakyam. Although there is no visible parallel in the Sanskrit drama to the Chorus of the Greek drama, yet Bharata has provided for certain structural devices called Arthopakshepas, which essentially performed the same function in Sanskrit drama as the Chorus did in the Greek Drama. An episode in the Greek drama is equivalent to an Anka in the Sanskrit Drama. Bharata has also professed the three unities of time, place and action to be observed during an Anka. The Sandhis and sandhyantaras propounded by Bharata perform the same function in a Natya that Peripety, Discovery, Complication and Denouement perform in the Greek Tragedy. All these elements are aimed at providing twists to the tale in order to keep the audience's interest alive. As far as the charcters are concerned, both Aristotle and Bharata agree that the characters of Comedy are 'low characters' or common folk. On the other hand, for Nataka and Tragedy, both profess the use of high characters. These characters should be good but the goodness should not be confused with perfection. Aristotle wants the hero to be good but with some inherent Hamartia that becomes the cause of his fall. Bharata has given the quality of Dhira to all the four tpes of hero but he has also deecibed certain elements of weakness in the hero. His categorization of heroes into Dhirudhatta, Dhiralalita, Dhirodatta and Dhirprashant, basically deals with Hamartia of the hero. The third medium of imitation is the Thought of the character that decides the course of action of the character. Bharata's elucidation of Vrittis point out to the same psychological aspect of characterization. Vrittis guide the characters to undertake action that is suitable according to their personality traits. Diction and language have attracted much attention from Aristotle and Bharata. Verse, as a medium of expression of drama, has been preferred by both. 190

5 Aristotle's admiration for metaphor finds its parallel in Bharata's description of Upama, Rupaka, Dipak and Yamaka. Bharata has mentioned synthesis, perspiquity, clarity and grandeur among the ten qualities of diction. Aristotle also emphasizes that diction should not be mean and prosaic. Both the theorists have advocated the mixing up of strange words from foreign languages and dialects as long as they don't hamper comprehension. The use of 'embellished language' is considered the hallmark of good poetic diction by both and they agree that the diction of the characters should reflect their social standing. Both, Aristotle and Bharata have recognized the importance of Melody in the success of a dramatic production. While defining Tragedy, Aristotle has used the phrase 'in language embellished with pleasurable accessories'. Expalining this phrase, Aristole says that it refers to the addition of rhythm, harmony and song to the narrative of the Trgaedy. He has very clearly stated that Melody is the greatest of all the pleasurable accessories of a Tragedy. All the Greek tragedies contain music as an essential part of their structure. Similarly, Natyashastra treats drama as a composite art and considers music to be its natural ingredient. Like his Greek counterpart, Bharata too, has given prominence to the element of music and dance in Natya. Several chapters in the Natyashastra exclusively deal with this aspect of drama. He says that even if the dance conveys no meaning, still it provides beauty to the performance. Without dance, says Bharata, the drama could not be conceived as a brilliant whole. Further, the comparison between the Indian dramatic dance form Kathakalli and the Greek drama as explained in the fourth chapter of this thesis, also add weight to the basic premise of this thesis that the Greek and Sanskrit drama did influence each other during the course of their evolution. Aristotle has not written anything about the Greek theaters. But the fact remains that the Greek playwrights and directors put great emphasis on this aspect of the drama. Watching Greek Tragedy was nothing short of a visual treat. The spectacular scenes, the use of ostentatious costumes, the masks, the magnificent Scene as the backdrop, and the use of deus ex machina all contributed towards making the Greek Tragedies a remarkable spectacle. There are a number of steps in the evolution of the Greek playhouses that correspond to the construction of 191

6 Natyagriha as proposed by Bharata. Firstly, the need for the construction of Natyagriha arose when an outdoor performance was interrupted by natural elements. The first performance was held by the side of a hill, just like a Greek theatre. The ritual of the installation of Jarjara before the performance resembles closely with the ritual of installing Thymele in the middle of the Orchestra. The development in the Greek stage that saw it evolve into two levels the Logium and Episcenium is equivalent to the idea of Dwi Bhumi (two levels) enunciated by Bharata. The Greek Parascenia have their parallel in the Mattavarnis of the Indian Natyagriha. The auditorium in the Natyagriha is also like that of the Greek theatre a tiered structure going upward from the stage. Both the theatres used deus ex machina abundantly to create the effect of gods descending upon earth. The structure of Odeia, the indoor Greek theatre, used mainly for musical performances, exhibits a striking similarity with the plan and layout of the Natyagriha. Finally, Aristotle's concept of Catharsis and Bharat's theory of Rasa, both deal with the aesthetic pleasure felt by the audience when they comprehend the underlying meaning of the play or of the scene that they are watching. It is the pleasure or joy that one feels upon learning something new. Aristotle has linked Catharsis with the emotions of pity and fear. Almost all the Greek plays show Man to be nothing more than a plaything for the gods. Fate plays a very important role in the sequence of events. The audience feels pity for the character who is the victim of destiny and the fear of God is instilled in their hearts. There is a certain level of psychological identification with the character also, and this identification carries the audience along with the narrative. But the final feeling is that of understanding. They come out of the theatre, humbled and wizened. This is the purpose of drama according to Aristotle and the same idea is put forth by Bharata when he says that Brahma devised Natya in order to provide instruction through entertainment to the people who were resorting to gramya dharma i.e. the vulgar waya of life. The audience realizes the Rasa through the Bhavas expressed by the audience and Bhavas, according to Bharata are primarily concerned with the comprehension of meaning. Therefore, the pleasure that the audience feels in this case too, arises out of the exhilaration felt at the learning of the meaning. Thus the function of drama, according two both the theorists, is to give 192

7 aesthetic pleasure to the audience through identification with the character and to maintain the social order through instructions delivered through the narrative. We have now come to the end of this thesis, and we can safely conclude that in the seven centuries of Indo-Greek contact in the ancient times, there was a continuous exchange of ideas between the two civilizations. The impact of this exchange is visible in the philosophy, art and sculpture of that age. The dramatic art form that showed remarkable advancement in that era could not have remained isolated from the socio-cultural scenario. This discussion has proved that there are striking similarities in the theories of drama as given by Aristotle and Bharata. Not only at the theoretical level but also at the perfornmance level, the Greek and Sanskrit drama seems to have influenced each other and the two writers in consideration might have been influenced by the evolution of drama and the exchange of ideas between the two civilizations. Select Bibliography: Abercombie, Lascelles. Principles of Literary Criticism. Bombay: Vora and Company, Bhattacharya, B. Sanskrit Drama and Dramaturgy. Varanasi: Bharat Manisha Research Series, Bloom, Harold ed. John Milton's Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, Samson Agonistes New York: First Collier Books Edition, Butcher, S.H. Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art. New Delhi: Kalyani Publishers, Bywater, Ingram. Aristotle on the art of Poetry. London Oxford University Press Chaitnya, Krishna. A New History of Sanskrit Literature.New Delhi: Manohar Book Service, Chakravorti, Madhavdas. A Short History of Sanskrit Literature New Delhi: Asian Publication Series, Chapekar, Nalini.M. Ancient India and Greece. New Delhi: Ajanta Publications, Chaturvedi, Sitaram trans. Kalidasa Granthavali. Aligarh: Bharat Prakashan Mandir vikrami 193

8 Cornford, F.M. Before and After Socrates. London: Cambridge University Press, De, S.K. History of Sanskrit Poetics. Calcutta: Firma K.L.Mukhopadhyaya, Durant, Will. The Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of Great Philosophers. New York: Simon and Schuster, Else, Gerald F. Aristotle's Poetics: The Argument. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, Fyfe, Hamilton. Aristotle's Art of Poetry. London: Oxford University Press, Gandell, Henry Wood trans. The Philosophy of History, London: Thomas North 62 Paternoster-Row, Garolla, Vachaspati: Sanskrit Sahitya ka Sankshipta Itihas. Banaras: Chaukhambha Vidyabhavan, Gassner, John. Ed., A Treasury of Theatre, Vol. I. New York: Simon and Schuster, Ghosh, Manmohan trans. The Natyashastra (English Translation) Vol I. Calcutta: Manish Granthalaya, Golden, Leon. "The Purgation Theory of Catharsis." Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Philadephia. Vol. 31, No. 3. Gupta, Rakesh. Psychological Studies in Rasa. Banaras: B.H.U. Press, Haas, George trans. The Dasharupaka. Varansi: Motilal Banarasi Das, Hamilton, Edith. The Greek Way to Western Civilization. New York: The New American Library of World Literature Hardison Jr., O.B. and Leon Golden. Aristotle's Poetics, A Translation and Commentary for Students of Literature. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc, Howatson, M.C. The Oxford Companion to English Literature. London: Oxford University Press, House, Humphry trans. Aristotle's Poetics. Ludhiana: Lyall Book Depot, Jones, John. On Aristotle and Greek tragedy. London: Chatto and Windus, 1962 Jowett, B. trans. The Dialogues of Plato, Vol II. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953 Jowett, B. trans. Aristotle's Politics and Poetics. New York: Compass Book Edition, Kane. P.V. History of Sanskrit Poetics. Banaras: Moti Lal Banarsi Das, Kantak, V.Y. "Bharata upon Aristotle: A Comparative View of the Indian Concept of Drama" Dramatic Theory and Practice Indian and Western Ed. M.S. Kushwaha. New Delhi: Creative Books, Keith, A.B. The Religion and Philosophy of Vedas and Upanishads, Vol.I London: Oxford University Press 194

9 Kitto, H.D.F. Greek Tragedy. London: Metheun and Co. Ltd, Kumar, Vachandeva. Sanskrit Sahitya ka Itihas. New Delhi: National Publishing House, Kushwaha, M.S. "Indian and Western Theories of Drama: An Introductory Note" Dramatic Theory and Practice Indian and Western Ed. M.S. Kushwaha. New Delhi: Creative Books, Lanmen, C. R and Ryder,A. W. The Little Clay Cart: A Hindu drama Attributed to King Shudraka. Minnesota: Kessinger publishing, Lucas, F.L. Tragedy. New York: First Collier Books Edition, McEvilley, Thomas. "Pyrrhonism and Maadhyamika" Philosophy East and West Vol 32, Number 1. Hawaii: The University press of Hawaii, M'Crindle, J.W. The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great as described by Arrian Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch and Justin, Vol. 25. New Delhi: Cosmo Publications, Mikalson, Jon.D. Honor Thy Gods, Popular Religion in Greek Tragedy. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina press/chapel Hill and London, Morley, John. Diderot, quoted by F.L. Lucas, in 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, Morshead E.D.A. trans. The Libation Bearers The Harvard Classics Vol 8 New York: P.F. Collier and Son, New York, 1909 Murray, Gilbert trans. Collected plays of Euripides. London: Allen and Unwin, Pandey, Baijnath trans. Dashrupakam. Varanasi: Motilal Banarsidas, Plumptre, E.H. trans. Antigone The Harvard Classics Vol 8 New York: P.F. Collier and Son, New York, Rackham, H. trans. Aristotle Nichomachean Ethics. London: Harvard University Press Radhakrishnan, S. Eastern Religion and Western Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, Rai, R.N. Theory of Drama A Comparative Study of Aristotle and Bharata. New Delhi: Classical Publishing Company, Rangacharya, Adya trans. The Natyashastra, English Translation with Critical Notes. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt Ltd, Rapson. Ancient India. London: Cambridge University Press, Rexroth, Kenneth. "Greeks and Buddhists in Afghanistan." San Francisco Examiner, 21 June,

10 Roberts, W.R. trans. Aristotle's Rhetoric. New York: The Modern Library, Rowlinson, H.G. "Early Contacts between India and Europe". Cultural History of India. Ed. K.M. Munshi: Bharati Vidya Bhawan, Scott-James, R.A. The Making of Literature. London: Secker and Warburg, Sharma, Shyam. Sanskrit ke Aitihasic Natak. Jaipur: Devnagar Prakashan, Sharma, Tarachand. An Introductory History of Ayurveda. New Delhi: Ram Dutt Sharma and Sons, Shastri, Babulal Shukla. Trans.Natyashastra: Varanasi Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan, Singhal, D.P. India and World Civilizations Vol I. Calcutta: Rupa and Company, Singhal, R.L. Aristotle and Bharata A Comparative study of their theories of Drama. Hoshiarpur: Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute, Stern, S.M. Aristotle on the World State. Oxford: Bruno Cassirer Publishers Ltd Tarn, W.W. Greeks in Bactria and India, Cambridge: Taylor, A.E. Aristotle. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., Thapar, Romila. A history of IndiaVol I. London: Penguin, Thapar, Romila. Cultural Pasts. New Delhi: Oxford, Tripathi, K.D. "Nayi Sahastrabdi mein Natyashastra." Natyam-49.Sagar: Natya Parishad Department of Sanskrit, Sagar University, M.P. India 2003 Tripathi, Ramashankar. Ancient India. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsi Dass, Urlin, Ethel. L. Dancing, Ancient and Modern. London: Simpkin, Urwick, E.J. : The Message of Plato, a Reinterpretation of the "Republic". London: Metheun and Co. Ltd, Vassilis, Vistaxis.G Plato and the Upanishads. London: Humanities Press, Vatsyayan, Kapila. Bharata The Natyashastra. New Delhi: Sahitya Academy, Verity, A.W Viswanathan, R. "Rasa, Wine, Ritual and Drama" Dramatic Theory and Practice Indian and Western Ed. M.S. Kushwaha. New Delhi: Creative Books, Wellek, Rene. A History of Modern Criticism ( ) Vol. I London: Jonathan Cape,

TRAGEDY: Aristotle s Poetics

TRAGEDY: Aristotle s Poetics Aristotle s Poetics : The theory stated in this work followed the practices for Greek tragedy writing that had been used for years. Aristotle summarized what had been worked