Chapter 4. The Formative Elements of Drama

Transcription

1 Chapter 4 The Formative Elements of Drama In the discussion so far, we have seen that the proximity between the two ancient civilizations, Greece and India, provided an atmosphere conducive to the exchange of thoughts and ideas. In the two texts under review, the similarities in the concept of imitation draw us to probe further into the possibilities of finding such parallels among other concepts enunciated by these two theorists regarding the production of drama. We shall now look for the comparisons and contrasts in the essential formative elements of drama as propounded in the Poetics and the Natyashastra. Among the formative elements of a Tragedy, the one element on which Aristotle lays maximum emphasis is, the plot. " The first essential," he says," The life and soul, so to speak, of tragedy is the plot: character comes second." He also calls plot as "the end and purpose of tragedy". (Bywater, 37) In chapter 6 of the Poetics, Aristotle defines plot as " the arrangement of incidents (Bywater, 37)." It is not just the story, but the structure or arrangement of incidents which make up the story. The story can be written in a single line but to effectively present that story on stage, the dramatist has to create a sequence of events that follow one another as per the laws of probability and necessity. This sequential arrangement constitutes a plot. Aristotle's use of the term 'soul' to emphasize the importance of plot basically refers to the proper layout and design of the tragedy and is in coherence with Bharata's concept according to which, "plot is the body of the play Itivrittam tu natyasya shariram parikirtitam (Shastri, Vol III, 48)." Bharata's concept seems to be more exact and appropriate as plot is certainly the body, that is, the outline structure of drama. Aristotle uses the word "soul" in the sense that drama is inconceivable without plot. Both Aristotle and Bharata share the view that plot should be an organic whole and no digressions should be incorporated into it. For Aristotle, the 'organic 75

2 whole' implies the entire movement of drama from beginning to the end. He says " Now a beginning is that which is not necessarily after anything else, and which has naturally something after it; an end is that which is naturally after something itself, either as its necessary or usual consequence, and with nothing else after it. A well constructed plot, therefore cannot begin or end at any point one likes; beginning and end in it must be of the forms just described (Bywater 40)." Beginning in Aristotelian sense, is quite a baffling term as it is impossible to find an incident that has no preceding incident attached to it. If we analyze the beginnings of Greek plays, we can conclude that by the term 'Beginning', Aristotle meant a defining moment in the life of the protagonist. Sophocles' Oedipus, the King begins with the deliberation between Sophocles and the priest about the dismal situation of the state. This is probably the first major challenge that Oedipus has faced as a king. This is a testing time in his life. He has overthrown the reigning king and assumed power and is now responsible for the welfare of the state. This is in effect the beginning of the test of his administrative powers. Aeschylus' Agamemnon begins with the description of the fall of Ilium and subsequent return of Agamemnon along with Cassandra. The life history of Agamemnon is not of importance here. It is this particular moment, which marks the return of the triumphant Agamemnon with his prize catch Cassandra that marks the beginning of Agamemnon's fatal fate at the hands of his vengeful wife, Clytemnestra. Euripides' The Bachhantes begins with the arrival of Dionysus to the land of Thebes. He heralds his arrival with the description of his adventures across Asia but it is his arrival in the Hellenic domain that marks the beginning of the events to follow. Aristotle's idea of having a beginning with nothing preceding it is pointed at a particular moment that is essentially the stimulus or the nodal point for the events to follow. The 'middle' refers to the whole sequence of incidents that follow one another as per the requirements of necessity and probability. It has a beginning before it and the incidents that lead to logical end. 76

3 Bharata has divided the movement of the dramatic action into five parts: Beginning (Prarambha) Effort (Prayatna) Possibility of Attainment (Praptisambhava) Certainty of Attainment (Niyataprapti) Attainment of Object (Phala Prapti) The Prarambha and Phala-prapti are in parallel with the 'beginning and the 'end' as propounded by Aristotle. The middle portion is sub divided into three parts but these parts are what Aristotle calls the arrangement of events in a sequential order as per the laws of probability and necessity. "That part of the play, in its early stage (i.e seed, bija), which creates a kind of curiosity towards the final goal is called the beginning (Rangacharya, 157)." It is the intensity of desire on the part of the protagonist spurred by the importance of the moment, which marks the beginning. In Abhijnanshakuntalam, when Dushyanta is informed about the absence of Kanva from the Ashram and Shakuntala being in charge, he immediately resolves: "Then I shall see her" (Chaturvedi, Abhijnanashakuntalam, 9). The curiosity on the part of the king marks the beginning of the events in the play. In Ratnavali Natika, it is the curiosity on the part of Udayana's minister, Yougandhrayana that prompts Udayana on the path of action. After Prarambha, comes Prayatana i.e.effort. Curiosity is almost always followed by an effort to attain one's aim. This effort takes the action forward. Oedipus' curiosity to know the reason for drought and plague in his state leads to his effort, which brings Tiresias to him and this episode marks the second stage of development of the plot. According to Dhananjay: "curiosity is the beginning and extreme curiosity is the effort (Pandey 35)." In Abhijnanshakuntalam, Dushyanta's consultation with his friends Madhavya reflects the effort on the part of the king to meet Shakuntala. In Vikramurvashiyam, the effort is bipolar, although it is more pronounced on the part of the heroine. Vikrama's effort in the second act is primarily focused upon the revelation of his emotional state in verse whereas Urvashi, making 77

4 use of her heavenly powers descends on Vikrama's Palace and writes a letter to him expressing her love for him. Similarly, in Oedipus at Colonus, Oedipus, following Apollo's prophecy reaches the outskirts of Athens and despite warning by a stranger not to enter the holy ground, insists upon a meeting with the king Theseus, in an effort to reach his destination. The effort logically leads to a psychological impression that success in attainable. This situation is called Praptyasha or prospects of success. This part of action, according to Bharata, is only in the protagonist's mind. He says: "When some feeling suggests to the hero that the final goal may be achieved, it is possibility i.e. Praptyasha (Rangacharya 157)." The psychological insight of Bharata is remarkable. The attainment of the goal at this stage is not a certainty but the hero is beginning to feel that the purpose can be achieved. The hero knows the obstacles but his mind is full of ideas to overcome them. Positive energy begins to flow through his veins and he resolves to make a determined effort to strike at his aim. Dushyanta's second meeting with Shakuntala in the third act makes him hopeful of his happy married life. Durvasa's curse in the Fourth act represents the obstacle but his consequent amendment of the curse raises the hope in Shakuntala's as well as the spectators' minds that the lovers will be reunited. In Euripides' Orestes, Electra's clinging to the hope of the arrival of Menalaus fleet from Troy to the harbour of Nauplia reflects her state of Praptyasha. After Praptayasha, comes Niyatpati or certainty of success. This is the stage in the play where the hero feels sure about his success although he can still see the obstacles that he has to overcome. Bharata describes it in following words: "When the hero can visualize a sure attainment of the objective, it is called certainty of attainment ( Nityata Phala Prapti)." For instance, in Ratnavali natika when Vasavadatta imprisons Sagarika, then King Udayana says that the only way to free Sagarika is by placating Vasavadatta and then in the fourth act when Udayana manages to please Vasavadatta, he can actually see that his mission of getting Sagarika will be fulfilled. This psychological state is called Niyatpati or Niyati Phala Prapti. Thus Aristotle's idea of 'middle' can be compared to Bharata's division of the movement of action into three distinct parts. Aristotle repeatedly emphasizes that the 78

5 events must be in accordance with the laws of probability and necessity. Bharata has given us clear-cut demarcation about the reason behind this sort of development of plot. The reason is psychological. Drama is about men in action and men act with some purpose in mind. As the action progresses, the purpose that was once just a distant vision, starts getting clearer and the protagonist starts feeling sure of his achievement. This is the 'middle' of each and every drama. In Oedipus at Colonus, the purpose of Oedipus is to attain Salvation and bring to an end his miserable life. This purpose brings him to Athens. The following events involving Theseus, Creon and Electra merely serve towards the realization of Oedipus' aim and finally his soul is released from his body and this is the end, or the Phalaprapti towards which his actions were oriented. Aristotle has further divided the plot on the basis of Quantitative Parts. This deals with the actual action that takes place on the stage. He has enumerated four parts in which the total performance is divided. These structural parts are Prologue, Episode, Exode and Chorus. The choral portion is further sub divided into Parode and Stasimon. The dramatic prologue is that part of the tragedy that precedes the first choral section. The purpose is to clarify to the audience, the situation, as it exists at the beginning of the dramatic action. It is a sort of preparation of the beginning an attempt to draw the audience's attention towards the main subject matter that is to follow. The prologue is similar to Prastavna of Sanskrit plays. It is also referred to as Aamukha. "Aamukha (also called Prastavna by some) is that part in the beginning where the nati (female associate of the sutradhara) and Vidushaka (Jester) or Paripaarshvaka (Actor friend) carry on a dialogue with sutradhara regarding some relevant topic, using interesting words or any type of witty style or in some other manner (Shastri, Vol III, 102)." The purpose of Prastavna is the same as that of the Prologue to arouse the spectators' curiosity and also to help in comprehension. The choral portion in Greek drama was the nucleus from which tragedy evolved. It has varied uses depending upon the method of playwright and on the needs of the play being performed. In 79

6 Oedipus, the king, it clarifies the experiences and feelings of the characters in everyday terms and expresses the conventional attitude towards the development of the plot. On the other hand, in Aeschylus, Suppliantes, the chorus is itself a central figure in the tragedy rather than a group of bystanders. But in majority of the cases, the tragedians used the chorus to create a psychological and emotional background to the action. It elucidated the events as they occurred, established facts and affirmed the outlook of the society. It was also used to cover the passage of time between events and to separate episodes. A dramatic performance in Greece in the 5 th century B.C. would begin with the entrance of the chorus on to the orchestra. It often danced barefoot and heralded the beginning of the play by chanting the Parodus. The chorus would remain in the formation till the end of the play performing all the functions enunciated. Structurally speaking, from the performance point of view, Sanskrit drama offers no parallel to the chorus. But Bharata has mentioned certain dramatic devices that essentially perform the same function that the chorus did in Greek drama. The Sanskrit drama was divided into distinct acts unlike the Greek drama that was divided into the episodes clubbed in between two choral songs. The number of acts in the ancient Indian drama could vary from one to ten. Between two acts there could be a lapse of time. The events taking place during this time gap had to be reported to the audience in order to ensure their participation and comprehension. Moreover, there were a number of things and incidents, which were deemed as improper for enactment on the stage. Bharata has specifically proscribed the representation of a battle, loss of a kingdom, death, and the siege of the city on stage. He has forbidden the killing of hero, his flight or capture, or treaty with the enemy. Even anger or its pacification, grief, pronouncement of a curse, terrified flight, marriage ceremony, commencement of a miracle and its actual occurrence could not be visually presented. But to report all these to the audience Bharata asks the playwright to use the following explanatory devices called Arthopakshepakas: 80

7 The Supporting Scene (Vishkambaka): It acts as an interlude that is used to describe some occurrence that has either taken place or is just about to take place. It is essentially concerned with the beginning segment of the Nataka. Explaining Vishkambaka, Bharata says: "A Vishkambaka or a introductory scene is of two kinds pure and mixed. In the pure, only characters of a middle status appear, and in the mixed, middle and low status characters come together. The purpose of Vishkambaka is to deal with the opening sandhi of the play. Usually a priest or a minister or a Kanchukin are the characters in this scene (Rangacharya, 164)." The fourth act of Abhjnanashakumtalam begins with a Vishkambaka where a student of the sage Kanva talks about the lesson to be learnt from the dawn, that misery and happiness go side by side. This observation is a precursor to the forthcoming events in the play where Shakuntala's happiness is turned to misery when Dushayanta refuses to recognize her. Intimating speech (Chulika): "Chulika is a device with which, from behind the curtain, a character of high low or middle status gives information concerning the development of the plot (Shastri, Vol III, 87)." This device has been extensively used by Kalidasa in the fourth act of Vikramurvashiyam to describe the emotional state of King Vikram. Introductory Scene (Praveshaka): Of all the supporting devices the Praveshaka seems closest to the Greek Chorus as far as its function is concerned Bharata states: " A Praveshaka or an interlude is a scene between two acts of a nataka or a prakarana and gives information regarding the happenings from the end of the preceding act to the beginning of the following act (Shastri Vol III 88)." The conversation between the fisherman and the Royal guards in the beginning of Act VI of Abhijnanashakuntalam is a typical example of Praveshaka. 81

8 Apart from the above-mentioned devices there are two more such devices of lesser importance enunciated by Bharata. These are called Ankavatara and Ankamukha. The former is sort of transitional scene that "falls between two acts or within an act and is related to the purpose of the seed (Shastri, Vol III 88)." The Ankamukha is an anticipatory scene:" When the detached beginning of an act is summarized beforehand by a male or a female character (Shastri, Vol III, 88)." The problem of continuity is a perpetual problem dogging the playwrights since ancient times. Both Greek and Indian playwrights invented means to overcome this problem. The Greeks had the chorus and it served the purpose well since the size of the audience was large. To clearly narrate the events to thousands of spectators, a group of actors singing and narrating in unison was required. Indian theatre, on the other hand, was more of an intimate theater, therefore, there was no requirement of a group of actors acting as the sutradharas. This function was effectively performed by one or two actors using any of the structural devices mentioned above. In certain Indian folk theatre in the modern times, we can find a group of actors akin to Greek chorus singing and narrating the missing part of the action to the audience. One such example is the Tamasha form of theatre prevalent in the Maharashtra. So, we can conclude that although the representational part is entirely different, the purpose and role of chorus in the Greek drama and of the supporting structural devices explained by Bharata like Vishkambaka etc. are essentially the same. The third quantitative element of tragedy, according to Aristotle, is the Episode. "An episode is all that comes in between two choral songs (Bywater 48)." The episode would start with the entry of the actor in addition to the chorus (that was already there). The end of each episode was generally marked by the exit of all the characters from the stage and the chorus would then take over until the beginning of the next episode. The concept of dividing the play into episodes is similar to Bharata's division of play into Acts or Ankas. Bharata says: "An act should cover the events of a single day. It should be definitely related to the seed (Bija). And only necessary episodes, not in conflict with each other should be used All the characters on the stage after performing various things in accordance with the seed and leading to proper Rasa must exit (Rangacharya 149)." Bharata professes the use of a minimum 82

9 of five and a maximum of ten Acts in a drama. The Anka or the Act carries forward the main action to the next point from where the next Act begins. As far as the last quantitative element the Exode is concerned it has its parallel in Bharata' concept of Phalayoga or Bharatvakyam. After discussing the structural devices or the quantitative elements of the plot, let us now focus our attention on the qualitative parts of the drama. Bharata has, in the typical Indian tradition, provided us with the details of the plot construction in the micro-classificatory system. Aristotle too, has dealt with minute nuances that make the plot interesting and help in realizing the purpose of the tragedy. In this context let us analyze what both the theorists say about the types of plots. Plot, according to Aristotle is of two kinds simple and complex. Explaining this distinction, he says: "Plots are either simple or complex, since the action they represent are naturally of this twofold description. The action proceeding in the way defined, as a continuous whole, I call simple, when the change in the hero's fortunes takes place without Peripety or Discovery; and complex when it involves one or the other or both (Bywater 46)." Peripety means reversal of fortune. It happens as the result of discovery discovery of certain facts hitherto unknown. Sophocles' Oedipus, the King is a classic example of peripety. The messenger who comes from Corinth to convey the news of the death of Polybus and the happy news that Oedipus has been selected to succeed him to the throne ends up revealing that Oedipus is not the son of Polybus. This discovery leads to the revelation of the fact that Oedipus has killed his father Laius and married his mother Jocasta. This discovery leads to peripety that is, reversal of fortune and ends in the tragedy of Oedipus and Jocasta. Peripety and Discovery are, what in the modern terminology is known as the twists in the tale. Without these two elements the narrative will follow a straight, mundane path. There will be no elements or surprise and shock in the play. This kind of a play will never be able to sustain the interest of the audience. Without interest the audience's identification with the subject would be missing and subsequently the purpose of drama would not be achieved. One must remember that Greek drama 83

10 depended upon the dramatic competitions for financial support. The success in the competition invariably depended upon the reaction of the audience. Their sighs, their gasps, their tears, their laughter, their shock all contributed to the success of the playwright and the director; generally the playwright was also the director. Peripety and discovery are the most important weapons in the armoury of the playwright to extract such reactions from the audience. That is why Aristotle prefers complex plots and puts special emphasis on these two elements. He has listed six different kinds of discoveries. The first type, that Aristotle considers least Artistic is the discovery by signs or marks. These signs appear at a crucial stage and lead to the reversal of fortune. For instance, In Sophocles' Electra, Orestes reveals his identity to Electra through his father's signet rings. The second kind of discovery is the one invented by the poet's mind defying the laws of probability and necessity e.g. Orestes' discovery of himself in Iphigenia in Tauris. This is also considered inartistic by Aristotle. The third kind is discovery through memory. The fourth type involves the use of logic. The character must reason his way to the recognition and the reasoning process must be expressed in the dialogue. Yet another form is through inverse or false reasoning. But the kind of discovery that Aristotle considers most suitable is the one that "arises from the incidents themselves where the startling discovery is made by natural means (Bywater 60)." Oedipus' discovery about his real parents is a typical example of this type of discovery. The examples of such discoveries and subsequent change in the hero's fortune are found in abundance in Sanskrit drama. The discovery of the ring by the King Dushayanta in Abhijnanashakuntalam brings back his memory and hopes of Shakuntala's redemption are raised. In Karnavadha, Kunti reveals to Karna that he is her eldest son. By doing so, she is able to receive a boon from Karna that he will not kill any other Pandava except Arjuna so that she will always remain the mother of five sons. In Vikramurvashiyam, the king discovers the reason of Urvashi's absence when she tells him that she had wandered into an area prohibited for women and had been turned into a vine. In all the above-mentioned instances, the discovery leads to 84

11 reversal of fortune. While in the case of Dushyanta and Vikrama, it marks the reversal from misery to happiness, in the case of Karna it is the other way round. But the purpose of the playwright remains the same to add the spice or twist in the otherwise straightforward tale. This aspect of drama has been discussed by Bharata in chapter XX of the Natyashastra, where, while elaborating on the rules of plot construction, he has listed the purpose and types of Sandhyantras and Angas. Before understanding the Sandhyantras and the related Angas, we need to understand the sandhis or joints in the plot. We already know that there are five stages of development of the plot. They include Beginning (Prarambha), Effort (Prayatna), Possibility of achievement (Praptisambhava), Certainty of achievement (Niyatpati) and Achievement (Phala-prapti). These five stages are dependent on the five Arthaprakritis or external conditions. These Arthaprakritis are: Bija (Seed) Bindu (Drop) Pataka (Incident) Prakari (Episode) Karya (Action) The Seed (Bija) is supposed to be the genesis of the plot. It is "that which planted in a small measure, expands in various ways and ends in fruit (Rangacharya 158)." It is the seed that leads the drama to its desired end. It pervades the entire action of the drama. Bharata has particularly pointed out that "in an Act there should be no final disposal of the seed (Shastri, Vol III, 8)." In Bhasa's Pratimanatkam, the coronation ceremony of Rama is the seed. All the episodes that follow are related to this ceremony, be it Bharata's melancholy, Lakshmana's anger or Ravana's deceit. The defeat of Ravana and Kaikeyi's disclosure that she meant fourteen days of exile and not fourteen years result in coronation of Rama and bring the play to the desired end. The Drop (Bindu) or the prominent point is that part of the plot "which, when the purposes are missing, still keeps the continuity of the play."(shastri, Vol III, 8). Bharata calls it Vastuvyapi i.e. that, which permeates the whole plot. It helps in 85

12 restoring the continuity whenever there is an obstruction in the way of the hero's realization of his objective. According to Dhananjay: "Bindu is like the branch of the plant that has sprouted from the seed (bija); it puts life in the narrative and exhilarates the spectators (Pandey, 31)." The Pataka(Episode) is "that principal happening which helps the principal plot and is itself treated as a principal incident (Rangacharya 158)." The Pataka should not stand isolated; it should be linked with the main plot by one or more junctures. In Abhijnanashakuntalam, Indra invites Dushyanta through Matali to come and assist him in his fight against the demons. Matali, while entering Dushyanta's palace manhandles Madhavya and thus enrages Dushyanta. But the rage helps in rousing Dushyanta from his state of sloth and despondency. He goes to assist Indra. This episode ends here. But its effect is seen in the next scene, when, while coming back from the war, Dushayanta stops at Rishi Mareecha's Ashram and finds Shakuntala. This is a typical example of Pataka. The Prakari or the episodical incident is "something, the result of which only serves the purpose of the principal plot and which has no continuity of its own (Rangacharya, 158)." It basically deals with the characters other than the hero but it also helps in realization of the main object. For instance, the professional rivalry between Ganadas and Haridatta in Malvikagnimitram helps in the development of the plot to its desired end. The Action (Karya) "is that which finally achieves the goal of the principal plot (Rangacharya 158)." The word Karya or Action, points out to the efforts made by various characters for the furtherance of the principal object. Keith interprets it as Denouement (298). But Denouement in the Aristotelian sense is the end whereas the Arthaprakritis discussed above are merely means to the end. These five component parts of the plot are joined to each other by five Sandhis (joints). Dhananjaya says in this context: "The incident that joins the purpose of the preceding part of the plot with the purpose of the succeeding part of the plot is called a Sandhi (joint) (Pandey, 13)." 86

13 The first Sandhi is the Mukha Sandhi or the Opening. It is "that part of the play to which the seed, the various sources of Rasas and Bhavas, is closely related (Rangacharya 159)." This refers to the first section of the play where the action begins to germinate and the plot is stirred into movement. The second Sandhi is the Pratimukha Sandhi which refers to the progress of the plot. Pratimukha Sandhi is the opening of the seed whether it is perceptible or not. The seed that has begun to germinate shows promise of fruition but only for a short while. The moment we realize that the fulfillment is round the corner, it disappears leaving the audience with the question---what next? Pratimukha Sandhi is followed by the Garbha Sandhi that implies the sprouting of the seed whether it leads to fruition or not. It is the middle part of the drama where the hero has been able to overcome some hurdles, but the realization of the objective is still a distant dream. Then comes the Vimarsha Sandhi or the deliberation stage. Here, the hero thinks about his situation and shortcomings. He also feels uncertain and in some cases like Vikramurvashiyam, dejected and disheartened. Bharata defines this Sandhi as: "The seed that has sprouted will not be observed if it is developing because of any sentiment like sorrow, anger etc (Rangacharya, 159)." And finally we have the conclusion or the Nirvahana Sandhi. Dhananjaya says: "The Nirvahana Sandhi is that in which the matters that occurred in the opening and in the other junctures and those contained in the seed (Bija) and were distributed in the due order, are brought together at one end (Pandey, 98)." The Avasthas, the Arthaprakritis and the Sandhis all are aimed at the development of the plot. In such a way that it becomes interesting for the spectators, or for that matter even the reader of then play. Peripety and Discovery are also aimed at bringing about the interesting twists in the tale for the spectators or the casual reader so that they can feel the tragic pleasure. The Avasthas, the Arthaprakritis and the Sandhis are basically structural aspects that are constructed around various components pertaining to various aspects 87

14 of human character. These are called Sandhyantras and Angas. The Sandhyantaras and Angas have all the elements listed under them to produce the same effect that Peripety and Discovery do. The Sandhyantras are twenty-one in number and they include the aspects like conciliation, dissension, gifting, punishment, killing, presence of mind, slip in addressing, rashness, terror, bashfulness, deceit, anger, energy, concealment, confusion, ascertainment, messenger, letter, dream, portrait and intoxication. These aspects of the human nature are further connected to the Angas and both of them have a six-fold purpose: 1. To mention the intended object. 2. To see that the interest of the plot does not suffer. 3. To make the production more attractive. 4. To conceal a secret. 5. To create surprise. 6. To reveal the obvious. Peripety and Discovery are also aimed at achieving these very purposes. So, in the construction of the plot, both the theorists emphasize the importance of twists in the tale to provide the audience with the true pleasure of watching a dramatic performance. The Arthaprakritis and Sandhis also correspond to yet another aspect of plot construction as elucidated by Aristotle the complication and denouement. The Mukha Sandhi (opening), the Pratimukha Sandhi (progression), and the Garbha Sandhi (development) correspond to the complication aspect of the plot whereas denouement is covered by the Vimarsha Sandhi (deliberation) and Nirvahana Sandhi (conclusion). As far as the sources of the plots are concerned, both the theorists have shown their consciousness about the universal appeal of the play. Aristotle mentions three sources history, tradition and the poet's own creativity from which plots could be drawn. He doesn't care from where the stories come as long as the play is able to delight the audience. Citing the example of Agathon's Antheus, he says: "both 88

15 incidents and names (in Antheus) are of poet's invention: and it is no less delightful on that account. So that one must not aim at the rigid adherence to the traditional stories on which tragedies are based. It would be absurd, in fact, to do so as even the known stories are known only to a few though they are a delight nonetheless to all (Bywater 44)." Even if the plot is taken from a known story, Aristotle gives the poet the license to view the tale from his own perspective, add imaginary characters and present his own vision of the historical tale. "Nevertheless, in a tragedy there are some plays with but one or two known names in them, the rest being invention (Bywater 44)." Bharata, too, has elaborated upon various sources from which the plots can be drawn to write different types of plays. In chapter XX of the Natyashastra, he has listed ten kinds of plays and the plots for the different kinds are to be taken from different sources. These ten types are: 1. Nataka 2. Prakarna 3. Samvakara 4. Ihamriga 5. Dima 6. Vyayoga 7. Anka 8. Prahasana 9. Bhana 10. Vithi The plot for a Nataka is taken from a well-known story. Its hero is of exalted nature and story revolves around him and his family. There are elements of glory, grandeur and success and it is also marked by a super human elements. 89

16 In Prakarna, the plot and the hero spring out of poet's imagination. The hero can be a common trader, an officer, a priest or even a minister. The plot is devoid of any royal love story and there is no divine intervention. In Samvakara, the story revolves around with the actions and deeds of the gods and demons. It is in three acts with three kinds of deceit, three calamities and three kinds of Shringara Rasa. The Ihamriga's plot deals with the war on account of a divine woman. The playwright should aim at developing the anger of the woman. Commotion, excitement, and violent conflicts should be knitted in the plot in a very convincing way. The Dima should also have a well-known story revolving around sixteen dignified heroes. The plot should include natural calamities like earthquakes, floods, falling of meteors, solar and lunar eclipses etc. There should be plenty of deceit and jugglery, dissensions among violent persons and gods that should lead to battles and fights with dreadful weapons. The Vyayoga is a one act play concerned with the events of a single day and the hero must be a Royal Sage. It should involve battles, fights and conflicts. The plot of the Anka is just like Vyayoga except that instead of battles, there are scenes of lamentation after the conclusion of the battle. The Prahasana is a comical play. It contains low characters, who, in their everyday language satirize the actions of the so called gurus, Brahmins, Buddhist monks, ascetics etc. may This may also have scenes in which courtesans, eunuchs, menial servants and rogues appear in immodest dress and make vulgar gestures. The Bhana is a monoact. A single actor portrays the emotions and actions of more than one character. Alternatively the actor may also indulge in a dialogue with some invisible character. The Bhana is in one act and the character is a rogue or a gallant. Vithi is also in one act and can contain characters of high, middle or low status. It can have all the Rasas. 90

17 The idea propounded in Poetics by Aristotle that the playwright is essentially a "Maker of Plots" corresponds to the delineation of various types of plots that Bharata has professed. Like Aristotle, Bharata also says that the poet must add various incidents pertaining to various Rasas so as to provide the audience with a wholesome dramatic experience. Finally, we come to the most widely debated aspect of the Aristotle's concept of Plot construction the three unities. These unities refer to the unity of action, unity of time and unity of place. Regarding unity of action, Aristotle says: " in story as an imitation of action, must represent one action, a complete whole, with its several incidents so closely connected that the transposal or withdrawal of any one of them will disjoin or dislocate the whole (Bywater 42)." Aristotle has not ruled out the inclusion of sub plots with the main plot. His only concern is that the sub plots should be subservient to the main plot and should be inextricably joined to it. In Euripides' Electra, Electra's marriage to a peasant is a sub plot that serves the main plot and helps her reunification with her brother Orestes, which ultimately leads to the killing of their father's murderers Aegisthus and Clytemnestra. It would be wrong to assume that by unity of action, Aristotle meant a linear movement of plot. The web knitted by the playwright must have a well-defined center and there should not be any loose ends. In the beginning of chapter VIII, Aristotle clearly states: "The unity of plot does not consist, as some suppose, in its having one man as its subject (Bywater, 41)." In the beginning of chapter XXI of the Natyashastra, Bharata has divided the plot into two parts Adhikarika, that is, the main plot and Prasangika or the sub plot(s). The main plot is concerned with the hero and the sub plots deal with the incidents that help the hero in the attainment of his goal. " That which leads to the final result is the principal, the other subsidiary. What the writer, by his efforts, and the actors, through their coordinated actions achieve is the principal and any other thing helping this is subsidiary (Shastri Vol III 49-50)." The doctrine of 'unity of time' is ascribed to Aristotle on account of two passages in the Poetics. The first of these is where he is narrating the differences 91

18 between epic and tragedy: " Tragedy endeavors to keep as far as possible within a single circuit of the sun, or something near that (Bywater 34)." The second passage occurs in chapter VII where he says: "As a rough general formula, a length which allows the hero passing through a series of probable or necessary stages from misfortune to happiness or from happiness to misfortune may suffice as a limit for the magnitude of the story (Bywater, 41). From these two observations, one conclusion can be safely drawn that Aristotle is not laying down a dictum as far as the length of the action is concerned. He is merely handing out a 'rough general formula' based upon the prevalent practice of the contemporary Greek theatre. Abercombie substantiates this view when he says: " It is a good instance of the way Aristotle's illustration of his theory was limited by the literature of his time; it is also a good instance of the way he refused to dogmatize on purely accidental qualities. But in the history of criticism, this remark is of immense importance: an importance given to it by the power of sheer misunderstanding (Abercombie, 93)." Bharata has emphasized upon unity of time while discussing ten kinds of play. A Nataka may stretch along any number of years but " an act should cover events of a single day (Shastri, Vol III, 11)."The same rule is applicable to Prakarana also. Bharata presents specific time length or duration for the third type of play i.e. Samvakara and lays down the rule that the action should be completed in eighteen Nadikas. Babulal Shukla Shastri puts one Nadika equal to 24 minutes. This makes the length of play seven hours and twenty minutes. Surely it is not a professionally competent regulation. Even Bharata confesses that one Act of the Samvakara in loosely connected to the second Act of it and likewise with a third Act. No wonder, it is difficult to find an example of Samvakara in Sanskrit Literature. Babulal Shukla Shastri considers Samudramanthan by Vatsaraj, an example of it (Shastri Vol III 24). Keith considers Bhasa's Panchratra, an example of Samvakara.(267). Definitely, Samvakara would not have been a popular dramatic form and laying down this rule would have devoid it from the intensity required to hold the play together. The sixth type of drama i.e Vyayoga comes closest to the Greek concept of unity of time. It is a 92

19 one-act play about a royal person, dealing with battles, fight, and conflicts and presents the events of a single day. As far as unity of place is concerned, both Aristotle and Bharata are unanimous in ascribing no importance to it. It is, as Fyfe says : "A deduction of the Italian critics.of this Aristotle says nothing (Fyfe, xxi)." They probably inferred this theory from the practice in Greek drama where the place of action seldom changed. Bharata's only concern is, that the action should be set in India. No foreign locales should be represented even while describing the actions involving gods. The reason he cites for this is that the entire land of Bhartavarsha is charming sweet smelling and of golden colour. (Shastri Vol III 32-33) Accordingly, there are many instances, where the playwrights have resorted to the change of place during the course of action of the drama. Kalidasa moves his action through a number of places in all his plays. Bhasa's Pratimanatkam moves from the King's palace to the forest and then to the statue museum and finally ends in the king's palace. Thus there is no such restriction on the Sanskrit dramatists to remain within the confines of a single location to present their plays. Bharata and Aristotle agree on most of the aspects of plot construction and both of them have given suggestions to the playwrights keeping in mind the interest, involvement and the identification of the audience. The second formative element of Tragedy, which Aristotle has also classified as the second medium of tragic imitation, is the Character. In the second chapter of the Poetics, Aristotle makes a very primal distinction between characters classifying them as 'either good or bad' claiming that the variety exhibited in human characteristics is derived from this primary difference. ".the line between virtue and vice is the one dividing the whole of mankind. It follows, therefore, that the agents represented must be either above our own level of goodness, or beneath it, or just such as we are (Bywater 26)." The imitation of men worse that average is the subject matter of comedy. Comedy is constructed around characters that are lower than the noble personages in the social hierarchy. Their actions are not dignified and hence fall in the category of the Ridiculous, which Aristotle defines as 93

20 "a mistake or deformity not productive of pain or harm to others (Bywater 33)." Since the principal characters of comedy are common folk, it implies that their language too shall not be of exalted nature. It would be a language of everyday use. Bharata has classified comedy under the title Prahasana, while describing the ten types of plays in chapter XX of the Natyashastra. The characters in this kind of play are "low characters". These characters include courtesans, menial servants, eunuchs and rogues, who, by their "comic dialogue in everyday language" ridicule some person or mock at the so-called learned men and thereby provoke laughter. Laughter may also be produced, when these low characters appear on stage "in immodest dress and make obscene gestures (Shastri Vol III 36)." So, both the theorists seem to agree that the action and words provocative of laughter should be delivered through the characters belonging to the lower rung of the society. For Tragedy, Aristotle professes the portrayal of the Character who is neither extremely good or bad but an "intermediate kind of a personage, a man not pre eminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not by vice or depravity but by some error of judgment (Bywater, 50)." Laying down further requirements of the character, Aristotle mentions four of them in chapter XV of the Poetics. 1. They should be good 2. They should be appropriate 3. They should be like the reality 4. They should be consistent. The first and foremost aspect in Aristotle's mind is that it should be 'good'. The goodness in the character is revealed through the moral purpose which in turn, is revealed through the character's actions and words. Hardison defines goodness as "..the quality that provides moral elevation in tragic characters. The specific quality will change from play to play and from character to character, but all tragic protagonists have it in some degree, and more the better (202)." So it is necessary for 94

21 the hero to be good, or his fall will not be evocative of sympathy, which is basis of all tragic pleasure. But this goodness should not be confused with perfection on the part of the hero. A Perfectly good person is not a fit choice for the tragedy because seeing him passing from happiness to misery will not be "fear inspiring or piteous but simply odious to us (Bywater 50)." Then who qualifies as a good character? According to Aristotle, everyone does. He says: "Such goodness is possible in every type of personage, even in a woman or a slave, though the one is perhaps an inferior, and the other a wholly worthless being (Bywater 55). "Considering women inferior and slave worthless is the reflection of the attitude of the contemporary Greek society. But Aristotle once again exhibits his insight of human psychology that no one is entirely good or bad but it is his actions in the given circumstances that label him so. So, the hero here is a human being just like us. In Greek drama it is not possible to find a character with a flawless virtue. The reason is simple such characters will fail to find identification with the audience and without such identification, the tragic pleasure is impossible. Butcher's remarks in this context are worth mentioning. He says: "Blameless goodness has seldom the quality needed to make it dramatically interesting. It wants the motive power will leads to decisive acts of will, which impels others to action and produces a collision of forces. Dramatic character implies some self-assertive energy. It is not a rounded or perfect whole.(perfect) Goodness on the other hand, with its unselfish self effacing tendency, is apt to be immobile and uncombative (Butcher 310)." In Bhasa's Pratimanatkam, Rama, who is the embodiment of virtue fails to provide the conflict when he is exiled. Here, there is no conflict either, internal or external. Neither he confronts, Kaikeyi, or Dasratha nor does he show any internal resentment at the injustice being done to him. Rather, as an obedient son he accepts his father's orders and even exonerates his stepmother Kaikeyi from any sense of guilt. His actions make him a revered a figure but do not move us to pity him. Neither do they put any sense of fear in us because this high virtue is seldom found in ordinary people. No wonder, Aristotle wants the characters to be like the reality or as Butcher puts it true to life. 95

22 In Greek dramas, characters are generally taken from history, myths and legends. The basic character in all cases is retained as the "original mythical prototype" (Else, 460). Agamemnon is never represented as humble person. Medea is always shown as a revengeful female and Helen is never ugly. But these characters are given human qualities by the playwright. They should not be mere puppets but there must be an element of life force in them, which should be responsible for their actions. One aspect of this life force is the Hamartia, which is responsible for the fall of the hero. The term Hamartia has variously been interpreted as a tragic flaw, error of judgment or a common human weakness. The hero is a man of noble nature with basic human feelings and emotions. He is identifiable with the common man on account of his human traits, and his fall from the position of lofty eminence constitutes a tragedy in the true sense. But " the disaster that wrecks his life might be traced not to deliberate wickedness, but to some great error or frailty (Butcher 317)." In this context, Hardison remarks: " The single flaw (in an otherwise noble and idealized hero) is the crucial element in the dramatic illusion..from the audience's point of view, it explains why the protagonist fell and therefore changes an episodic series of incidents into a series creating the illusion of casuality (183)." This explanation makes the comprehension and identification easier and it helps in the arousal of one of the two fundamental tragic emotions i.e. fear. Fear is aroused only when we feel that the hero is one of us and by our apprehension that we too could be in the same situation. The second tragic emotion i.e. pity is occasioned by undeserved misfortune. It is in keeping with these two tragic emotions that Aristotle proscribes the use of three types of characters in three types of situations. These are: 1. A good man must not be seen passing from happiness to misery. 2. A bad man from misery to happiness. 3. An extremely bad man be seen falling from happiness to misery. The first situation does not infuse any sense of pity or fear in us. As discussed in the case of Pratimanatkam, the characters like Rama fill us with wonder and admiration but never with pity and fear. 96

23 The second situation is also lacking in the tragic quality and to Aristotle this situation is the most untragic that can be; it has not one of the requisites of tragedy; it does not appeal either to the human feeling in us, or to our pity, or to our fears. This situation can only arouse anger and will be considered morally blasphemous. The drama portraying such a character will in effect be showing the supremacy of sheer fate or blind chance in human life. In the modern day world, we see such plays being enacted and also find a few film plots revolving around such characters. Such plots are often accepted by the audience too, but we must remember that the definition and paradigms of morality have undergone a sea change since the days of Aristotle. Moreover, the portrayal and acceptance of such plots is still an exception and generally the modern day writers and audience are in congruence with the Aristotelian concept. The third situation will appeal to our sense of justice but it, too, will be devoid of any tragic qualities. We will never pity the sufferer whose suffering is well deserved on the moral, social or judicial grounds. Similarly the aspect of fear will be missing since the sufferer is not one like us. Hardison observes: " Our reaction to a plot in which the villain is appropriately punished and the hero rewarded is not typically pity and fear but a rather smug he got what he deserved (181)." We come out of the theatre with a contented heart. Element of purgation is missing. We have not suffered with the hero but we have enjoyed his suffering. This enjoyment of suffering makes the realization of catharsis impossible. That is why Aristotle insists that the hero should be an intermediate, true to life character capable of carrying the audience along in his suffering. The third quality that Aristotle wants the characters to have is that they should be appropriate i.e. they should be appropriate to the kinds of persons they represent i.e. Medea should be revengeful, Agamemnon ambitious, and Oedipus impetuous in all the tragedies concerning them and their words and actions should be in coherence with their characters. John Jones says in this context: " The stage woman should posses the womanly virtues and the stage slave the slavish virtues; the former should not be brave like a man nor the latter generous, tempered like a king, for this will produce an ultimate aesthetic anarchy (42)." This, however, does not mean that Aristotle has denied any flexibility to the character. We should 97