Dasarupaka (critical study)
by Anuru Ranjan Mishra | 2015 | 106,293 words
This page relates ‘Conclusion� of the English study of the Dasarupaka of Dhananjaya: an important work on Hindu dramaturgy (Natya-shastra) from the tenth century dealing with the ten divisions of Sanskrit drama (nata), describing their technical aspects and essential dramaturgical principals. These ten types of drama are categorised based on the plot (vastu), hero (neta) and sentiment (rasa)
Part 14 - Conclusion
Vararuci’s Ubhayābhisārikā is one of the best ṇa produced ever. However, he has not given much information about himself. The Ubhayābhisārikā does not mention anything about the author. The other sources say that he was a poet in the court of ܱܳٲ, the son of Candragupta II.
The plot of the Ubhayābhisārikā is very small, but is well set. It is an erotic story about two young lovers, who were separated from each other because of some misunderstanding. However, at the end, without bearing the separation, both unite with each other. The plot is ideal for ṇa type of drama. The title also is meaningful as Ubhayābhisārikā means both eager to love and both make to go to meet each other �ubhayor abhisaraṇam�.
However, Vararuci does not follow fully the rules prescribed by Bharata and ٳԲñᲹⲹ. Sometimes he chooses the rule stated by Bharataand sometimes the rule stated by ٳԲñᲹⲹ and sometimes the rules by both. For instance, he has chosen վṭa as the main character, which is stated by both Bharata and ٳԲñᲹⲹ. However, he has not chosen ٳūٲ, as the main lead as stated by Bharata. Again, Vararuci opts for both Bhāratīvṛtti and Kaiśikīvṛtti, preferred by ٳԲñᲹⲹ, neglecting Bharata’s restriction to apply only verbal style (īṛtپ) in ṇa. Bharata is silent about the sentiment; however, his insistence for the verbal style (īṛtپ) is confusing. However, ٳԲñᲹⲹ states that poet can choose either heroic sentiment or erotic sentiment as the main sentiment of ṇa. Vararuci opts for erotic sentiment as the main sentiment in his Ubhayābhisārikā, because the story is of two young lovers.
ṇa should ideally have only one character on stage. According to Bharata, he should be either վṭa or ٳūٲ, however, ٳԲñᲹⲹ states that վṭa is the only character. վṭa or ٳūٲ works like a hero, comedian or supporting character all in one.
However, the story of drama needs many characters; but in ṇa these characters remain behind the curtain. Vararuci presents վṭa on the stage, but more than twenty characters who have important roles in the plot, remain behind the curtain. In the plot, Nārāyaṇadattā is the heroine and Kuberadatta is the hero, but on the stage, վṭa Vaiśikācala is the only person who speaks with some imaginary persons. Vararuci’s վṭa is expert in various arts. He is sharp, polished, cultured and a perfect man of the world. Vararuci has used many harlots, because without them ṇa is incomplete. All the characters Vararuci has used are appropriate.
Primarily ṇa contains verbal style (īṛtپ), because it is mainly based on verbal representation. That is why Bharata is against the gay style (첹śīṛtپ); however, ٳԲñᲹⲹ states that ṇa can have gay style as well. ṇa uses harlots, because they support the erotic sentiment and the erotic sentiment originates from the gay style. Thus, ٳԲñᲹⲹ asserts that generally (ūⲹ) ṇa contains verbal style; however, it can also have other styles. Vararuci’s Ubhayābhisārikā is based on erotic (śṛṅ) sentimentand therefore, along with verbal style (īṛtپ), it has also used gay style.
There is a difference of opinion between Bharata and ٳԲñᲹⲹ regarding the sentiments in a ṇa. Bharata seems to be in favour of heroic (ī) as the only main sentiment, whereas ٳԲñᲹⲹ favours both heroic (ī) and erotic (śṛṅ) as the sentiments. However, the erotic is the only sentiment that Vararuci applied to the Ubhayābhisārikā primarily.
Both Bharata and ٳԲñᲹⲹ prescribe gentle (ⲹ) in the ṇa. However, we do not witness it anywhere in the present drama.
In the Ubhayābhisārikā, Vararuci has applied both opening (mukha) and concluding (Ծṇa) junctures. Vararuci has also applied the combination of elements like seed (īᲹ) and denouement (ⲹ); and actions like beginning () and attainment of success (岵).
Vararuci’s Ubhayābhisārikā does not make use of many technical aspects, because the play is conducted by a single person. Since there are no movements of other actors on the stage, it does not use the technical things like aside (svagata), aloud (ś), personal address (ᲹԳپ첹)and confidential (貹ٲ). ṇa is mainly based on imaginary conversationand therefore, Vararuci has applied the technical things such as the conversation with imaginary person (śṣiٲ), which requires intimation scene (nepatya or ū). (It needs, because վṭa talks frequently to people, who are behind the curtain.) Again, like in other dramas, it is necessary to use benedictory verse (Իī), prologue (屹 or ٳ貹) and epilogue (ٲⲹ) for the preliminaries and auspicious ending of the drama. However, Vararuci has followed and started the drama with the prologue, �ԻⲹԳٱ ٲٲ� śپ ūٰ�� without a benedictory verse.
Vararuci has not provided any information about himself. However, he has provided important information about the society of that period. If we accept that he was the poet in the court of ܱܳٲ, then it could be said that ܱܳٲ’s period was a golden age in the Indian literary history. He has given beautiful picture of the Kusumapura, known as ṭaٰܳ. It describes the market, palaces, houses, lanes and the common people. People were living peacefullyand enjoying their life helping each other.
From Vararuci’s Ubhayābhisārikā it is known that the women were free and that they were allowed to undertake the work they liked. They were studying ṅg, looking after domestic mattersand worshipping gods. These things indicate that society was highly cultured and liberal.
It should be noted here that Vararuci was the predecessor to ٳԲñᲹⲹ; and hence the Daśarūpaka was unknown to him. Therefore, it is not possible that Vararuci follows the rules prescribed by ٳԲñᲹⲹ. However, since Bharata’s ṭyśٰ was well known to Vararuci, he could have followed the rules prescribed by Bharata. Nevertheless, it must be observed that principles of ṇa have been prescribed differently by both Bharata and ٳԲñᲹⲹ. So, it can be observed that neither the principles of ṇa are uniform, nor they have been followed in the drama completely.
[Table of Comparison]