"Arts, Faculty of"@en . "Asian Studies, Department of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Bellefleur, Timothy Earl"@en . "2012-12-19T16:21:34Z"@en . "2012"@en . "Master of Arts - MA"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "In this paper I discuss historical and contemporary approaches to the 10th century Sanskrit poet and playwright R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara (most of which centre upon literary criticism) and propose an alternative approach to his work in which his plays might be examined in terms of their performance and courtly contexts. I then apply this analysis to his play Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 (The Hollow Statue). By analyzing the performance context focusing on the categories of body, space, and object, I argue that the text puts forward strong evidence for its own performativity, offers a diverse set of indications of how the play is to be staged, and contains a number of noteworthy and unique material characteristics. I then examine the courtly and historical context surrounding the play\u00E2\u0080\u0099s creation to offer suggestions about how its content may have been intended and received, as well as the significance of certain historical characters or events which seem to be embedded in the text. The result is that\u00E2\u0080\u0094rather than being a poorly-constructed, incomprehensible play full of inappropriate moments, depicting a Sanskrit dramatic form in decline\u00E2\u0080\u0094Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 is in fact quite a novel and complex work of Sanskrit drama that shows a conscious sensitivity to performance concerns and an acute awareness of its place in society."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/43719?expand=metadata"@en . "RECONSIDERING R\u00C4\u0080JA\u00C5\u009AEKHARA: PERFORMANCE AND COURTLY CONTEXT IN VIDDHA\u00C5\u009A\u00C4\u0080LABHA\u00C3\u0091JIK\u00C4\u0080 by TIMOTHY EARL BELLEFLEUR BFA, The University of British Columbia, 2010 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Asian Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) December 2012 \u00C2\u00A9 Timothy Earl Bellefleur, 2012 ii Abstract In this paper I discuss historical and contemporary approaches to the 10th century Sanskrit poet and playwright R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara (most of which centre upon literary criticism) and propose an alternative approach to his work in which his plays might be examined in terms of their performance and courtly contexts. I then apply this analysis to his play Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 (The Hollow Statue). By analyzing the performance context focusing on the categories of body, space, and object, I argue that the text puts forward strong evidence for its own performativity, offers a diverse set of indications of how the play is to be staged, and contains a number of noteworthy and unique material characteristics. I then examine the courtly and historical context surrounding the play\u00E2\u0080\u0099s creation to offer suggestions about how its content may have been intended and received, as well as the significance of certain historical characters or events which seem to be embedded in the text. The result is that\u00E2\u0080\u0094 rather than being a poorly-constructed, incomprehensible play full of inappropriate moments, depicting a Sanskrit dramatic form in decline\u00E2\u0080\u0094Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 is in fact quite a novel and complex work of Sanskrit drama that shows a conscious sensitivity to performance concerns and an acute awareness of its place in society. iii Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables iv List of Figures v Acknowledgements vi 1 Introduction \u00E2\u0080\u0093 Approaching R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara and His Work 1 1.1 R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Life & Writings 2 1.2 Historical Approaches to R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara 4 1.3 An Alternative Approach to R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara 13 1.4 Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 16 1.4.1 Editions and Commentary 16 1.4.2 Synopsis 17 2 Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 \u00E2\u0080\u0093 Performance Context 22 2.1 Body & Action 22 2.1.1 Categorizing Stage Directions 23 2.1.2 Action and Space 31 2.2 The Theatrical Space 31 2.2.1 Theory and Space 32 2.2.2 The Space Defined 37 2.2.3 Unity of Space & Stage Geography 41 2.3 Object 48 2.3.1 Costuming & Personal Properties 48 2.3.2 The Three Verse-Objects 51 3 Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 \u00E2\u0080\u0093 Courtly Context 54 3.1 The Theoretical and the Real Audience 54 3.2 Authorial Agenda and Style 56 3.3 The Play in Context 57 4 Conclusions 61 Works Cited 63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv List of Tables Table 2.1: Tabulation of stage directions by category in Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 24. . . . . . . . . . . vList of Figures Figure 2.1: 2D floor-plan view of the theoretical Sanskrit stage 34 Figure 2.2: 3D rendering of the theoretical Sanskrit stage 34 Figure 2.3: Prospective stage diagram for Act 1 44 Figure 2.4: Prospective stage diagram for Act 2 45 Figure 2.5: Prospective stage diagram for Act 3 46 Figure 2.6: Prospective stage diagram for Act 4 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Acknowledgements I offer my sincerest thanks to Dr. Adheesh Sathaye for his invaluable intellectual support and feedback from the nascent stages of this project until the end. I also greatly appreciate the comments and participation of Dr. Ken Bryant and Dr. Thomas Hunter, members of my thesis committee. I wish to acknowledge Dr. Mandakranta Bose, Dr. Jordan Dawe, Ryan Elias, Dr. Marko Geslani, Genevieve McKay, Timothy Lorndale, Dr. Avinash Sathaye, and Julie Vig for offering me their ears, their advice, and their comments. I am ever grateful to my undergraduate teachers in the UBC Department of Theatre & Film\u00E2\u0080\u0094 particularly John Cooper, Bob Eberle, and Ron Fedoruk\u00E2\u0080\u0094and also to Christine Dewar of Douglas College for inspiring and encouraging my academic interests. Finally, I especially appreciate Renee & Richard Bellefleur, Rick Berglund, Navi Brouwer, Christopher Langmuir, and Graeme Wiggins for all of their moral support. 11 Introduction \u00E2\u0080\u0093 Approaching R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara and His Work R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara (ca. 9th\u00E2\u0080\u009310th century CE, primarily of Kannauj) is a problematic figure in the history of Sanskrit drama. Though by all accounts well-received during his career and in anthologies compiled long after his death, his works are nonetheless widely criticized in early Western Indological scholarship, and a rather venomous body of opinions about him formed and disseminated during the foundational period of Western Indology. Curiously, these early modern critics of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara are quite inconsistent in their assessment of precisely what makes him a poor poet and dramatist. He is simultaneously accused of being derivative and uninteresting in his plots and characters, while also being acknowledged as often quite original in his crafting of situations. He is acclaimed as a master of language (particularly Pr\u00C4\u0081krit) while also being questioned on his linguistic precision. His unconventional decisions are regarded as horrible by some, and as redeeming by others. In this period, there seems to be no broad consensus on his value to Sanskrit drama. He is, rather, taken to be a prolific, popular author who pales in comparison to the paragons of Sanskrit drama. The problems faced by Western scholars in assessing R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s plays might be a result of their approaches to his work. A focus on the literary aspects of his writings and a privileging of traditional orthodoxy have robbed much analysis from a proper consideration of the social and performance contexts surrounding the work. Combined in the early period with Orientalist and essentialist attitudes towards Sanskrit drama and its historical narrative of decline, what remains is generally derisive and often unelaborated criticism, with a few perfunctory acknowledgements of what small merits he may have possessed. In the post- colonial world, analysis of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara has focused more on his writing style, what his contemporaries and later commentators said about him, and the potential historicity of his 2plays. However, while these kinds of analysis dismantle the more specious attacks against him and give some consideration of his wider potential merits, the approaches are still generally confined to literary characteristics and historical opinions of his work. In this thesis I would like to accomplish several things: First, I will review the body of historical Western analysis and criticism (negative and positive) of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s plays. This will allow an understanding of the different approaches taken in looking at R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s works, their evolution and scope, and the problems that may arise from them. Second, I will propose an alternative performance-centric approach that may better serve analysis of his plays and resolve or reconcile outstanding criticisms. The aim of this is to directly to fill in contexts not so easily considered by the historical approaches reviewed, though some overlap is to be expected (and in fact should serve to further assess the quality of arguments about R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara already advanced). Third, I will apply this approach to a specific analysis of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s play Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 (The Hollow Statue), which I think exemplifies his qualities. I intend to demonstrate that by moving away from literary criticism and orthodoxy, and towards incorporating performance and courtly contexts that R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s contributions to the Sanskrit drama might be recognized for their extra-textual values to the form: those of performance-sensitivity, and social/historical consciousness. 1.1 R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Life & Writings R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara was born in the 9th century CE to a Mah\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADrian family. Though the location and details of his early career are sparse (but which he claims earned him the title B\u00C4\u0081lakavi), he came to particular prominence in Kannauj in the court of Mahendrap\u00C4\u0081la (ca. 885\u00E2\u0080\u0093910) (where he received the title Kavir\u00C4\u0081ja), and continued in the court of Mahendrap\u00C4\u0081la\u00E2\u0080\u0099s son and successor Mah\u00C4\u00ABp\u00C4\u0081la (ca. 912\u00E2\u0080\u0093940). At some point in his later career, he went to Tripur\u00C4\u00AB, where he may have stayed until his death (Mirashi 1955, clxxv). 3R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara is purported to have written at least six works, including one courtly epic (Haravil\u00C4\u0081sa) four plays (B\u00C4\u0081lar\u00C4\u0081m\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a, B\u00C4\u0081labh\u00C4\u0081rata or Praca\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00E1\u00B8\u008Dap\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00E1\u00B8\u008Dava, Karp\u00C5\u00ABrama\u00C3\u00B1jar\u00C4\u00AB, and Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081), and one unfinished text on rhetoric and poetics (K\u00C4\u0081vyam\u00C4\u00ABm\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0083s\u00C4\u0081). All but the Haravil\u00C4\u0081sa survive, with B\u00C4\u0081labh\u00C4\u0081rata in fragmentary form. There is some disagreement as to the chronological order of the works, owing to Mirashi\u00E2\u0080\u0099s argument that R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara stayed in Tripur\u00C4\u00AB after writing Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 (Mirashi 1934, 365); I have reproduced Mirashi\u00E2\u0080\u0099s proposed order here (Mirashi 1934, 360) though it is considered elsewhere that Karp\u00C5\u00ABrama\u00C3\u00B1jar\u00C4\u00AB is his first play, and B\u00C4\u0081labh\u00C4\u0081rata his last (Konow 1901, 184). R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara is also represented in the anthologies of \u00C5\u009A\u00C4\u0081r\u00E1\u00B9\u0085gadhara (14th century CE) and Vallabhadeva (15th century CE) with 24 verses from his surviving works and 7-10 verses untraced but attributed to him (Konow 1901, 189-191). Each of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s plays is quite distinct. The B\u00C4\u0081lar\u00C4\u0081m\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a is a ten-act retelling of the R\u00C4\u0081ma story depicted mainly from the point of view of secondary characters, effectively casting R\u00C4\u0081va\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a in the role of the dramatic hero for much of the play. The B\u00C4\u0081labh\u00C4\u0081rata (though only two acts survive, and it may not have been finished [Warder 1988, 521]) is an attempt to dramatize the story of the Mah\u00C4\u0081bh\u00C4\u0081rata, from the winning of Draupad\u00C4\u00AB by the P\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0087davas to the death of Duryodhana. The Karp\u00C5\u00ABrama\u00C3\u00B1jar\u00C4\u00AB is a Pr\u00C4\u0081krit sa\u00E1\u00B9\u00AD\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADaka and the Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 a Sanskrit n\u00C4\u0081tik\u00C4\u0081\u00E2\u0080\u0094both genres similarly involving an invented story with a king as the hero containing much dance and song and many female characters. It has been speculated that many characters and situations in the Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 are based upon historical figures existing in Tripur\u00C4\u00AB when it was written (Mirashi 1955, lxxvii-lxxxiv; Mirashi 1975). 41.2 Historical Approaches to R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara The colonial period contains the first great bulk of Western scholarly analysis, editing, and translation of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s works. Konow enumerates 27 books and papers concerning R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara published between 1827 and 1890 (this includes critical editions, essays, and general histories) (Konow 1901, 175-176). The beginning of the 20th century also sees the first two English translations of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0094the Karp\u00C5\u00ABrama\u00C3\u00B1jar\u00C4\u00AB in 1901 by Lanman and Konow, and Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 in 1906 by Louis Gray. It is clearly in this period (1890-1924) that R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s reputation in Western scholarship is established, and not until the post-colonial period that these impressions begin to be significantly challenged. V. S. Apte wrote a lengthy paper in 1886 that stands as one of the earliest widely cited (and still available) sources on the subject of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara, and clearly informs the subsequent and more widely published opinions of Konow and Keith. Apte\u00E2\u0080\u0099s estimation of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara is, unfortunately, quite blunt: \u00E2\u0080\u009CHe is undoubtedly a poet of great learning and much information. But he is not a dramatist. None of his works display any artistic skill \u00E2\u0080\u0093 any dramatic genius\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Apte 1886, 41-42). Apte has very little positive to say about any play except the B\u00C4\u0081lar\u00C4\u0081m\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a, a condition he attributes not particularly to the playwright but rather to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cthe sublime and exalted nature of the subject itself\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Apte 1886, 31). The Karp\u00C5\u00ABrama\u00C3\u00B1jar\u00C4\u00AB is called \u00E2\u0080\u009Ca worthless production,\u00E2\u0080\u009D though Apte acknowledges that it demonstrates R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s mastery of Pr\u00C4\u0081krit (Apte 1886, 24). The Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 is not only \u00E2\u0080\u009Cquite uninteresting,\u00E2\u0080\u009D but R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s decision to have the Queen unwittingly marry two females, that \u00E2\u0080\u009Che has completely marred the beauty of a n\u00C4\u0081tik\u00C4\u0081\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Apte 1886, 28). Somewhat mystifyingly, among the criticisms of uninteresting characters, undramatic plots, and inappropriate content, Apte contradictorily asserts \u00E2\u0080\u009CR\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara is nothing if not original. He thought he was not bound to slavishly follow the practice of his predecessors in 5the field, and has therefore invented not only ideas, but a peculiar method of arranging incidents so as to impart novelty to his works. In trying to improve upon his predecessors he has given us several ideas which are quite extravagant and affected\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Apte 1886, 30). Though the harsh criticisms resume immediately, this anomalous admission is one of the few statements that presciently echoes positive assessments of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s work some sixty or more years later. French Indologist Sylvain L\u00C3\u00A9vi writes at some length about R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s work in his 1890 Le Th\u00C3\u00A9\u00C3\u00A2tre Indien. As a set of case-studies of the various genres of Sanskrit drama, L\u00C3\u00A9vi focuses particularly on Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 as a characteristic example of a n\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADik\u00C4\u0081 (which he calls \u00E2\u0080\u009Clittle heroic comedy\u00E2\u0080\u009D),1 and Karp\u00C5\u00ABrama\u00C3\u00B1jar\u00C4\u00AB as an example of sa\u00E1\u00B9\u00AD\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADaka (a genre of Pr\u00C4\u0081krit drama very similar in style to n\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADik\u00C4\u0081), providing a synopsis of both plays. In Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081, L\u00C3\u00A9vi declares that all characters apart from the vid\u00C5\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3aka (the jester/fool) are uninteresting: \u00E2\u0080\u009CC\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a [the vid\u00C5\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3aka] is not the glutton, greedy, boastful coward of ordinary dramas. He is a simple spirit, naive, capable of being duped by the crudest jokes, but possessing common sense; he loves to talk in proverbs like the common people.\u00E2\u0080\u009D2 L\u00C3\u00A9vi continues that R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara seems to attach far more importance to the creation of his lavish description (moonrise, sunrise, harem amusements, etc.) than he does to his characters (Levi 1890, 248). Overall, L\u00C3\u00A9vi\u00E2\u0080\u0099s estimation of Raja\u00C5\u009Bekhara is quite poor: \u00E2\u0080\u009CR\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara crawls painfully in the footsteps of his predecessors and pushes their faults further.\u00E2\u0080\u009D3 1.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Cpetite com\u00C3\u00A9die h\u00C3\u00A9roique\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Levi 1890, 245). 2.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009CLe seul personnage int\u00C3\u00A9ressant est le bouffon; C\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a n'est pas le comp\u00C3\u00A8re glouton, goulu, poltron et vantard des drames ordinaires. c'est un esprit simple, na\u00C3\u00AFf, capable d'\u00C3\u00A8tre la dupe de farces les plus grossi\u00C3\u00A8res, mais pourvu du gros bon sens populaire; il aime \u00C3\u00A0 parler par proverbes comme les gens du commun\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Levi 1890, 248). 3.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009CR\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara qui se traine p\u00C3\u00A9niblement sur les traces de ses devanciers a pouss\u00C3\u00A9 ce d\u00C3\u00A9faut plus loin encore\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Levi 1890, 292-293). 6Sten Konow\u00E2\u0080\u0099s 1901 essay on R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s life and writings, written to accompany C.\u00C2\u00A0R. Lanman\u00E2\u0080\u0099s translation of Karp\u00C5\u00ABrama\u00C3\u00B1jar\u00C4\u00AB, generally avoids critiquing R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s plot and characters. He cites Apte\u00E2\u0080\u0099s synopses and observations of content, as well as Sylvain L\u00C3\u00A9vi and German Indologist Richard Pischel\u00E2\u0080\u0099s estimations of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s traits. Regarding Apte\u00E2\u0080\u0099s criticism Konow says \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe poet\u00E2\u0080\u0099s works ought, as I think, to be translated and interpreted by some Western scholar before a judgement is passed upon them which the Occident may fairly accept\u00E2\u0080\u00A6 Native judgement sometimes goes too far in condemnation; and it often goes too far in praise\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Konow 1901, 204-205). Instead of judging value, Konow focuses his attention on the quantitative literary characteristics of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara: the different metres employed by him, use of proverbs, repetition, and the characteristics of his Pr\u00C4\u0081krit. Regarding the characteristics of the Pr\u00C4\u0081krit language used in Karp\u00C5\u00ABrama\u00C3\u00B1jar\u00C4\u00AB, Konow speculates that R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara either mixed or confused the two \u00C5\u009Aaurasen\u00C4\u00AB and M\u00C4\u0081h\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADr\u00C4\u00AB dialects within the play (Konow 1901, 202). Louis Gray, in the introduction to his 1906 translation of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081, draws on the work of Apte, Konow, L\u00C3\u00A9vi, and Pischel. Gray is noteworthy however for responding to some of the harsher criticism of the play (particularly Apte and L\u00C3\u00A9vi), arguing that \u00E2\u0080\u009CAllowance should [be] made for the fact, not generally recognized, that a Sanskrit drama is to be compared with an opera rather than with a play, since the main stress is laid on beauty of diction and versification instead of action\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Gray 1906, 5). This statement, as with only a few that came before it, presages attempts to reconcile R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s reception within his own field with the emerging body of Western negative criticism against him. Regrettably, Gray\u00E2\u0080\u0099s focus on duplicating the ornateness and beauty of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s original language comes to the great detriment of accuracy in his translation. 7Moriz Winternitz, conversely to Gray, recapitulates the scholarly attitudes towards R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara without much apology in his 1909 Geschichte der indischen Litteratur. He quotes Pischel that \u00E2\u0080\u009CR\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara was a master of language and his dramas are extremely important for knowledge of Sanskrit and rather of Pr\u00C4\u0081krit,\u00E2\u0080\u009D but also that \u00E2\u0080\u009Cas a dramatist, [his] position is not very high\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Winternitz 1963, 270). Curiously, Winternitz also claims of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara that \u00E2\u0080\u009Cprobably he lacks in taste as well as in originality,\u00E2\u0080\u009D though he does not elaborate further. Whether this is an actual disagreement with Apte as to R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s characteristics, or rather an agreement with the general criticism of him being uninteresting, it is not clear. Nonetheless, Winternitz does not himself seem to contribute any new material to the critical literature on R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara, instead reinforcing the existing attitudes of scholarship before him. A. B. Keith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s 1924 book The Sanskrit Drama is noteworthy not only because it is one of the later colonial-era general overviews of Sanskrit drama, or even because it is among the most widely read and available of such histories, but because it returns to the harshest, most dismissive criticisms of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara advanced from the late 19th century. It begins (rather tellingly) \u00E2\u0080\u009CR\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C3\u00A7ekhara, with the usual prolixity of bad poets, is voluble on his personality\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Keith 1924, 231), and refers to R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s merits as \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnon-existent.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Keith\u00E2\u0080\u0099s criticisms bear a striking resemblance to those made by L\u00C3\u00A9vi some thirty years earlier (which were never translated into English). Evidently, he dislikes even the B\u00C4\u0081lar\u00C4\u0081m\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a, calling its length a \u00E2\u0080\u009Chorror\u00E2\u0080\u009D and the acts \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctedious,\u00E2\u0080\u009D though Keith does concede some novelty in the way R\u00C4\u0081va\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a is portrayed (Keith 1924, 232-233). The B\u00C4\u0081labh\u00C4\u0081rata is called \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmercifully unfinished\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Keith 1924, 233). Keith compares the Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 unfavourably with the Karp\u00C5\u00ABrama\u00C3\u00B1jar\u00C4\u00AB, defending only the merits of the character C\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a who he says \u00E2\u0080\u009Chas plenty of sound common sense,\u00E2\u0080\u009D and claims of its plot \u00E2\u0080\u009Cthe taste of giving two brides to the 8king at once is deplorable\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Keith 1924, 236), which brings to question whether he himself actually read the text of the play. Both plays, however, are seen as confusing, and their heroines poor. Overall, Keith argues that R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara is \u00E2\u0080\u009Cmerely concerned with exercises in style\u00E2\u0080\u00A6 if poetry consisted merely of harmonious sound, he must be ranked high as a poet,\u00E2\u0080\u009D and that \u00E2\u0080\u009C[He] is capable of producing elegant and attractive verses, which are largely spoiled in their context by being embedded in masses of tasteless matter\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Keith 1924, 236-237). In sum, Keith seems to believe that although nobody can rightfully dismiss R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s technical excellence, they may dismiss with prejudice nearly everything else about his work. By the end of the first quarter of the 20th century, Western scholarly opinions on R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara are fairly concrete. He is regarded for his skill in the technical use of Sanskrit and Pr\u00C4\u0081krit (notwithstanding a few criticisms of his mixing of dialects). His characters and plots are seen as derivative, dull, and sometimes vulgar. He is nowhere near the like of K\u00C4\u0081lid\u00C4\u0081sa or Bhavabh\u00C5\u00ABti, though he is of academic interest due to the amount of his writing that survives and the unique traits of some of the works (such as the Karp\u00C5\u00ABrama\u00C3\u00B1jar\u00C4\u00AB being the only extant sa\u00E1\u00B9\u00AD\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADaka, or the length of the B\u00C4\u0081lar\u00C4\u0081m\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a). There is uneven consideration of whether he is original, in the sense of being wilfully unconventional. Overall, he is regarded as quite poor despite his acknowledged popularity. The colonial-era judgements of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara are\u00E2\u0080\u0094with a few exceptions\u00E2\u0080\u0094impaired by their biases. An Orientalist sense pervades here in two ways: First, that there is an assumption of normativity in Sanskrit drama\u00E2\u0080\u0094being found in the orthodoxy of the \u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stras and in the writings of Bhavabh\u00C5\u00ABti and K\u00C4\u0081lid\u00C4\u0081sa\u00E2\u0080\u0094and that deviation from this normativity is to be disparaged. Second, (chiefly from Konow and Lanman) that there is a kind of judgement only the Occident is capable of making, for the benefit of the Occident, whereas \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnative\u00E2\u0080\u009D judgement is dismissible because of its own native biases (Konow 1901, 204-205). A degree 9of puritanism rears its head here as well; depictions of farcical marriages involving multiple brides or secretly female grooms are decried as \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdeplorable\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Keith 1924, 236) and said to \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccompletely marr\u00E2\u0080\u009D the potential beauty of the work (Apte 1886, 28). Moreover, it is ironic that much of the colonial-era Western scholarship on R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara is rooted in criticism by Apte, himself an Indian scholar, whose opinions were even considered strong enough to warrant moderation by subsequent scholars. However, particularly with regards to notions of social appropriateness, Apte\u00E2\u0080\u0099s criticisms might be seen as reflecting his anxieties, attempting to defend classical Indian culture in a world determined increasingly by Christian morals. Finally, there seems to be a conflict between two sets of criteria upon which scholars attempt to judge R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara: first by the essentialist notions outlined above (standards by which he fails quite spectacularly), and second by his originality and technical skill (where he is considered quite laudable). It is clear that in this period the former standards are considered of much greater importance than the latter. It is not until the post-colonial period that scholarly attitudes towards R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara begin to widely soften. Beginning in the 1950s, historical contexts for R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s works start to be considered in detail, some technical questions and criticisms about his use of language are resolved, and his work is analyzed with more of an eye for authorial intent and aesthetics, rather than for his adherence (or lack thereof) to tradition. V. V. Mirashi\u00E2\u0080\u0099s study of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara begins before Indian independence, so it would not be fair to suggest that his ideas are eminently a product of some post-colonial sea change in scholarship surrounding R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara. Nonetheless, it is in the 1950s that his elaboration on the potential historicity of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 occurs. Studying the inscriptions of the Kalachuris of Tripur\u00C4\u00AB, Mirashi notes that the play corroborates inscriptions of the Kalachuri King Yuvar\u00C4\u0081jadeva I (ca. 915\u00E2\u0080\u0093945) and argues, owing to this and additional 10 similarities in the plot of the play regarding war alliances and marriage, that the hero of the play is in fact a fictionalization of Yuvar\u00C4\u0081jadeva I himself (Mirashi 1955, lxxviii-lxxx). Mirashi continues on with several attempts to match characters and incidents mentioned in the play with analogous local events of the time. We might proceed with some caution in accepting these views, since they evolve quite a bit over time (Mirashi 1975), though this also represents a willingness to revise opinions given better arguments or information. However, the attempt to connect such a work to its historical contexts has the potential to inform a wealth of extra-textual information that may assist in pursuing alternative approaches to the work. In 1982, Richard Salomon offers a resolution to several questions about the technical correctness and categorization of the Pr\u00C4\u0081krit dialects R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara uses in the Karp\u00C5\u00ABrama\u00C3\u00B1jar\u00C4\u00AB (notably by Pischel and Konow, mentioned above). He argues that the play is written in both M\u00C4\u0081h\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADr\u00C4\u00AB and \u00C5\u009Aaurasen\u00C4\u00AB Pr\u00C4\u0081krits, and that manuscript and inscriptional evidence corroborates the accuracy of irregular words considered \u00E2\u0080\u0098corrupt\u00E2\u0080\u0099 by previous scholars (Salomon 1982, 137). He points out that Konow and Lanman \u00E2\u0080\u009Cproduced their edition without ever questioning that the standard formula for the dramatic uses of Prakrits in the Sanskrit drama\u00E2\u0080\u0094i.e. \u00C5\u009Aaurasen\u00C4\u00AB for prose and M\u00C4\u0081h\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADr\u00C4\u00AB for verse\u00E2\u0080\u0094applied to the KM as well\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Salomon 1982, 120). Salomon further points out that where Konow claims that he has \u00E2\u0080\u009Cin some places introduced the peculiar forms of the two dialects, even against the readings of all manuscripts\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Konow 1901, xxi-xxii), he has in fact done it quite often (beginning with the second word in the text) (Salomon 1982, 121), leading Salomon to admonish Konow for never thinking to question his doctrinaire approach to editing the text. The result is that the Konow edition, \u00E2\u0080\u009Can introductory text for generations of American Indologists\u00E2\u0080\u00A6 presents a 11 highly distorted view of the Prakrit dialects\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Salomon 1982, 120), and thus that criticism of the technical proficiency of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara based upon these analyses are faulty at best. A. K. Warder\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Indian K\u00C4\u0081vya Literature series again sees the full treatment of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s chronology of works in the format of L\u00C3\u00A9vi , Winternitz, and Keith. However, with a body of modern scholarship and a less orthodox, colonial era approach than those 50 or more years before him, Warder comes to much different conclusions about R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s value. Warder focuses on R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s critical work K\u00C4\u0081vyam\u00C4\u00ABm\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0083s\u00C4\u0081 as an indicator of his style and personality: \u00E2\u0080\u009CR\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s style in the K\u00C4\u0081vyam\u00C4\u00ABm\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0083s\u00C4\u0081 suggests his characters, at least his inward character\u00E2\u0080\u00A6 He is eminently readable, which means he is always interesting in what he says as well as fresh and unexpected in the expression of it. He seems free to coin new words\u00E2\u0080\u00A6 His liveliness and wit lead us on and his frank personality produces in the reader a sense of nearness to the author as he faces his task\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Warder 1988, 415). Warder continues that R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s plays evince a \u00E2\u0080\u009Dcharacter of easy reflection in their details of construction\u00E2\u0080\u009D and express a \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctaste for pleasure in their content,\u00E2\u0080\u009D noting that in the B\u00C4\u0081lar\u00C4\u0081m\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cthe serious and harsh aspects of the story are adjusted to his aesthetic purpose. With the universe safely in divine hands, demons need not be feared and life, even war, becomes a pleasure excursion\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Warder 1988, 416-417). In some ways, this glowing general assessment is the exact opposite of those advanced by Apte and Keith. Warder clearly sees R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s unconventionality as the stylistic expression of a strong personality, concerned more with aesthetic pleasure than with orthodoxy. He notes that R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara cleverly deploys several tropes from myth, history and \u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra to lend his work a certain credibility\u00E2\u0080\u0094for instance, that in the B\u00C4\u0081lar\u00C4\u0081m\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a he \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfancies that he is the same kavi as V\u00C4\u0081lm\u00C4\u00ABki, Me\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADha and Bhavabh\u00C5\u00ABti\u00E2\u0080\u00A6 the suggestion here is that these great poets and dramatist each presented the story of R\u00C4\u0081ma in a manner appropriate for their own 12 time\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Warder 1988, 414). Warder, in covering R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s individual works, does not directly assess or praise them in detail, but instead includes the impressions of pre-modern commentators and critics on what is most noteworthy, as well as the author\u00E2\u0080\u0099s own words in defence of his works (where those seem to be contained in the text). While it is clear that his personal impression of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara is favourable, Warder\u00E2\u0080\u0099s use of criticism from the literary/ cultural world in which the author and works existed saves him from speculating on the context surrounding the works, and having to himself judge their quality in that context. As for more close critical analyses, one example is Lawrence McCrea, who looks at the distinctness of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s use of perspective in the B\u00C4\u0081lar\u00C4\u0081m\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a. McCrea suggests, as did Warder, that the B\u00C4\u0081lar\u00C4\u0081m\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a attempts to situate itself among a canon of R\u00C4\u0081ma- stories, a kind of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cliterary reincarnation.\u00E2\u0080\u009D However, as far as a re-telling of the most popular myth story of the time, McCrea argues that the B\u00C4\u0081lar\u00C4\u0081m\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a is \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnot so much a play about R\u00C4\u0081ma and S\u00C4\u00ABt\u00C4\u0081 as it is about those who watch them\u00E2\u0080\u009D (McCrea 2003, 2-3). His analysis attempts to look at the play in terms of an exercise in alternate presentation rather than a substantial modification of the original tale, suggesting that the use of secondary characters to tell the story of the R\u00C4\u0081maya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a allows a sort of meta-analysis of or \u00E2\u0080\u009Clooking back\u00E2\u0080\u009D at the original tale and the canon of incarnations through which it was told \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwith a light heart and a playful eye\u00E2\u0080\u009D (McCrea 2003, 31). This analytical perspective emphasizes a much more broad- minded attempt to deconstruct R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s work in terms of how it interacts with its own history and the conventions of its form, and although largely confined to the narrative space, McCrea\u00E2\u0080\u0099s discussion of perspective does have some broader dramatic implications. The post-colonial scholarly landscape offers quite a few alternate perspectives on R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara. These perspectives often better justify his reputation in Sanskrit drama and suggest the merits of what he may have been trying to accomplish. However, the analyses 13 reviewed have been confined within a few important but limiting contexts. They have dealt with historicity, assessment by contemporaries, or the mechanics and style of language and narrative. Putting aside historicity, the other facets are dominantly textual, or at least have been considered in such terms by the scholars who present them. As for historicity, its consequences have largely not been considered. Below, I will propose several more kinds of analysis that attempt to separate from the world of historical speculation and literary criticism, and which may allow for a further understanding context and content in R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s works. 1.3 An Alternative Approach to R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara I would like to broadly propose a new approach to looking at R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s plays which takes into consideration three kinds of analysis not extensively done before. I do not put forward that these ideas are entirely novel, or completely absent in historical analysis of his work; nor do I contend that each of these perspectives is necessarily more valuable than those advanced before. Rather, they are trying to represent a different origin in perspective that has yet to be fully pursued, and which may allow for additional value and sense to be made out of these works that other approaches have thus far been unable to provide. These three perspectives can be described with the terms \u00E2\u0080\u009Cperformance context,\u00E2\u0080\u009D \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccourtly context,\u00E2\u0080\u009D and \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctheorizing the drama.\u00E2\u0080\u009D It is particularly easy to distance Sanskrit drama from considerations of performance. After all, the form is not only intensely concerned with language and categorized among the literary arts, but that literary focus predominates in the later period, and in the primary methods of modern Indology. However, the genesis of Sanskrit drama exists in a world filled with performance conventions: Dance and music are integral to the event; genre is conveyed not just by the narrative but largely by specific emotions which are themselves conveyed by 14 particular movements; the stage is ideally apportioned into the various spaces: garden, river, hermitage, forest, etc. (Raghavan 1981, 24). It seems reasonable that consideration of performance should in some way embody itself in a play\u00E2\u0080\u0099s text; just as an un-performable play should be recognizable as such, so should one written specifically with performance in mind evince some understanding of the need for presentation and staging. This kind of action-based analysis is not without flaws: for instance, the stage direction parikramya (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cwalking around/about\u00E2\u0080\u009D) may be an active instruction, or it may simply be a conventional marker for the listener or reader that the scene is changing. However, this is not all we have to go on. R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s B\u00C4\u0081lar\u00C4\u0081m\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a, for example, presents a response from the playwright to a hypothetical person complaining of the play\u00E2\u0080\u0099s unbearable length,4 which Warder translates to mean that the play has been accepted by actors, but is also suitable to be read (Warder 1988, 447). If this reading is correct, then it suggests that (unless all this is an exercise in convention) R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara has intended his play to be performable. Once we have satisfactorily established whether a play is performable\u00E2\u0080\u0094and I will argue below that we have compelling evidence for this in the case of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0094the question becomes not a matter of if, but rather how the play was likely to have been executed. This is again no simple matter, since we have very little surviving documentation of the particulars of a staged play. However, it does not prevent us from attempting to consider what extra-textual value can be added to our understanding of the play by placing it on a hypothetical stage and envisioning it as a performed piece, rather than simply a textual narrative. 4. \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbr\u00C5\u00ABte ya\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 ko\u00E2\u0080\u0099pi do\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 mahad iti sumatir b\u00C4\u0081lar\u00C4\u0081m\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087e \u00E2\u0080\u0099smin pra\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADavyo \u00E2\u0080\u0099sau pa\u00E1\u00B9\u00AD\u00C4\u00ABy\u00C4\u0081n iha bha\u00E1\u00B9\u0087itigu\u00E1\u00B9\u0087o vidyate v\u00C4\u0081 na veti | yady asti svasti tubhya\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 bhava pa\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADhanarucir viddhi na\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 \u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B9\u00AD prabandh\u00C4\u0081n naiva\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 ced d\u00C4\u00ABrgham \u00C4\u0081st\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 na\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADava\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADuvadane jarjar\u00C4\u0081 k\u00C4\u0081vyakany\u00C4\u0081\u00E2\u0080\u009D (BR 1.12ad) (Vidyasagara 1884, 10). 15 Related both to performance contexts and also to historicity is the idea of the courtly context immediately surrounding the drama. Daud Ali suggests that the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra, the principal defining text of the Sanskrit dramatic form, informs the world of the court. The basic theoretical framework of aesthetics as set out in the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra was likely to be understood by the members of the court, forming a sort of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cinterpretive community\u00E2\u0080\u009D of refined spectators for drama (Ali 2004, 188-189). This suggests an audience that is, in a sense, hypersensitive to a particular set of presentational conventions, and that identifying where those aspects are likely to surface in a play (its text or performance) is key to understanding its effect. This perspective is also particularly poignant when considering plays such as the Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081, which may well have been performed in a court full of people who were mirrored by characters and circumstances onstage. In this kind of environment, the priorities of the playwright in trying to entertain, comment on, and perhaps even tease his audience would understandably be different from one simply trying to present an aesthetically-pleasing fanciful story onstage. These considerations ought to inform our judgement of things like characters and plot which, although perhaps seeming terribly droll, may in fact have been perfectly tailored for their desired audience. Finally it may also be helpful to consider drama as a theorizable entity in its own time and place, and what this means in terms of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara theorizing it himself. I would like to draw a parallel to English director and playwright Peter Brook. Brook\u00E2\u0080\u0099s The Empty Space (Brook 1968) is an attempt to create an artificial and highly personal typography of drama as Brook sees it in his time and place (1960s Europe). This typography is filled with Brook\u00E2\u0080\u0099s own perspectives on good and bad theatre, his conception of personal and audience engagement, and his own paradigm of presentation. The K\u00C4\u0081vyam\u00C4\u00ABm\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0083s\u00C4\u0081 seems to be a similar sort of work for R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara, presenting a temperament and personal aesthetic that 16 echoes in R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s written style. Although it has already been proposed that this manifests in a certain lightness and taste for depicting pleasure, we might also explore the implications of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s own meta-myth and theory expounded in the K\u00C4\u0081vyam\u00C4\u00ABm\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0083s\u00C4\u0081. This may be perhaps the most literary-focused of my proposed perspectives, but it also has the greatest potential to see into the mind of the creator. 1.4 Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 In the context of applying the above analysis to R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s work in this thesis, I will focus exclusively on his play Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081. I have done so for a number of reasons. It is the best-known and perhaps best-received of all of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s plays, though just like all of his k\u00C4\u0081vyas it is widely criticized. The text is widely available and not particularly long. The action of the play, and the way that R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara describes it, are fertile ground for a performance-centric analysis of the text. Additionally, the specific historical circumstances and courtly context surrounding Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081\u00E2\u0080\u0099s creation offer several interesting avenues of exploration. Finally, after reading and analyzing the play, it is clear to me that it is not nearly as one-dimensional and poorly constructed as it is reputed to be by Western scholars, and I wish to do my part to redeem such an interesting work of art. 1.4.1 Editions and Commentary The only substantial editorial history I am able to find for Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 is provided by Gray: Four editions of the Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 are generally available: by V\u00C4\u0081man\u00C4\u0081c\u00C4\u0081rya in the old series of the Pa\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00E1\u00B8\u008Dit, vi. Nos. 65-72 (Benares, 1871-1872), pp. 117-124, 146-151, 173-175, 199-202, 225-228, 274-276, 299-302, giving merely a text and a ch\u00C4\u0081ya but no commentary; by Vidy\u00C4\u0081s\u00C4\u0081gara with the commentary of Satyavrata S\u00C4\u0081ma\u00C5\u009Brami (Benares, 1873) and again with his own gloss (Benares, 1883); and by Arte (Poona, 1886), with the commentary of N\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a D\u00C4\u00ABk\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3ita, which ends abruptly 17 in the middle of the Brahmanee\u00E2\u0080\u0099s speech in the prave\u00C5\u009Baka of the fourth act. Manuscripts of the play are not infrequent, sixteen being listed by Aufrescht, together with two commentaries by N\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a D\u00C4\u00ABk\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3ita and one by Ghana\u00C5\u009By\u00C4\u0081ma (Aufrecht, i. 573, ii. 135, iii. 121; comp. Schuyler, Bibliography of the Sanskrit Drama, s. v. R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara). (Gray 1906, 2-3) Gray cites examples from the commentary of N\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a to suggest that the text given by Arte is unreliable, and separates from Arte\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u009CB\u00E2\u0080\u009D manuscript into an appendix a significant portion of Act 4 containing no fewer than 5 verses (Gray 1906, 3, 69-71). These verses are, however, admitted in the 1975 edition by Shukla (which also includes a complete commentary of N\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a) from which all my translations and analysis have come. These verses have a significant impact on the resolution of one particular element of the plot (the verse-poem that is uncovered act-by-act over the course of the play) and figure prominently into Warder\u00E2\u0080\u0099s analysis (Warder 1988, 517-519) and my own in the following chapters. 1.4.2 Synopsis A brief synopsis of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 follows, written with assistance from R. N. Dutta and A. K. Warder\u00E2\u0080\u0099s more detailed synopses (Dutta 1912; Warder 1988, 491-521): Act 1\u00E2\u0080\u0099s prave\u00C5\u009Baka (prologue) begins with the entrance of the sutradh\u00C4\u0081ra (director) in the role of Harad\u00C4\u0081sa, pupil to Bh\u00C4\u0081guraya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a, prime-minister of king Vidy\u00C4\u0081dharamalla of Karp\u00C5\u00ABravar\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a. Harad\u00C4\u0081sa explains that the neighbouring king Candravarman of L\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADa, having no son, has disguised his daughter as a son. Bh\u00C4\u0081guraya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a has discovered this through his spies, and conspired with a mind towards politics to bring her to Karp\u00C5\u00ABravar\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a to secretly see the king. A bard announces the dawn and the king\u00E2\u0080\u0099s awakening, which Harad\u00C4\u0081sa surmises is early due to the effectiveness of the minister\u00E2\u0080\u0099s plan, wherein through a hollow column in the king\u00E2\u0080\u0099s bedchamber the minister can manipulate his dreams. Harad\u00C4\u0081sa then excuses himself to 18 visit the treasury and deliver payment to the workmen who built the chamber, as well as those who are to begin building an ornamented quadrangle. King Vidy\u00C4\u0081dharamalla enters along with his friend C\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a (the vid\u00C5\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3aka, or fool/ jester) filled with anxiety and longing over the dream he had about a beautiful woman. C\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a chides him about his easy affection for women, mentioning a certain girl called Kuvalayam\u00C4\u0081l\u00C4\u0081 whom the king saw bathing on the riverbank and was instantly infatuated with. The king describes how in his dream the woman gave him a necklace (which he is now wearing) but disappeared as he tried to grasp at her garments. The fool asks about the queen, and the king admits that she had angrily left him to sleep alone, jealous about his thoughts for another (presumably Kuvalayam\u00C4\u0081l\u00C4\u0081). The fool implores the king to go to the queen and reconcile, which the king sees as pointless. The two enter the royal gardens out the back door (avoiding the potential courtiers in the assembly-hall) and remark on the coming of spring and the scenery, making their way to the crystal pavilion on the pleasure mount. Along the way, the king hears a sound and\u00E2\u0080\u0094 looking towards it over a wall in the garden\u00E2\u0080\u0094sees women playing, among them the girl from his dream. As they approach, the sound ceases and it is clear the girl is gone, so they continue on to the pavilion. Inside the pavilion is a painting of the king, queen, and various other courtly characters. The king notices the girl from his dream is painted here, and the fool remarks to himself that she looks like M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kavarman, the son of the queen\u00E2\u0080\u0099s uncle, whom the queen has been known to dress up as a girl. Another painting of the queen and her retinue includes the same girl. The fool recognizes the girl once more in the form of a statue in the pavilion, and the king places the necklace from his dream on the statue. Below the statue, the fool sees written some words, which the king recognizes as a fragment belonging to the \u00C5\u009Bikhari\u00E1\u00B9\u0087i meter. As he is pondering this. the fool is frightened by a vision of the girl on the 19 other side of the crystal wall. The two exit the pavilion to see her, but she has fled, so they follow her footsteps towards the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quarters. Bards announce that it is midday, and so the king and the fool exit to the queen\u00E2\u0080\u0099s apartments to perform their midday prayers. Act 2 begins with two maidservants meeting onstage. One of the maidservants relates that Kuvalayam\u00C4\u0081l\u00C4\u0081 (the girl who the king had seen bathing in the river) is the daughter of king Ca\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00E1\u00B8\u008Damah\u00C4\u0081sena of Kuntala, who has lost his kingdom. The queen intends to arrange a marriage between her cousin M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kavarman and Kuvalayam\u00C4\u0081l\u00C4\u0081. The other explains that the queen is planning a mock marriage in order to fool C\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a. They both exit to fulfill the queen\u00E2\u0080\u0099s arrangements. King Vidy\u00C4\u0081dharamalla enters, again in a state of longing, and finds the fool in the garden. The fool is attempting to remain silent, preparing for the imminent wedding the queen has arranged for him. When the fool names his bride and her parents, the king suspects that this is a joke, but does not reveal it to the fool. A maidservant enters, finding the two men and bringing them to the bower where the wedding is to take place. The queen and her retinue enter, along with the bride, a male servant dressed as a woman. The wedding ceremony begins, but as vows are being exchanged the servant reveals himself and everyone laughs at the joke. C\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a is furious and stomps off. The king excuses himself to go calm his friend, and the queen and her retinue exit. In the garden, the king sees the girl from his dream playing in the quadrangle ahead. As they approach she again runs off, leaving some fallen jewellery, including a leaf-earring upon which is inscribed a second quarter- verse. As they sit to ponder this, the fool is surprised to overhear a voice offstage, thinking it something inhuman, while the king thinks it must be some enamoured girl discovered by her friend. The voice is speaking to a girl called M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB, a name which upon hearing the king instantly remarks must be the girl he has been pursuing. The voice confirms that M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB is enamoured with the king, and that the speaker is acting as her messenger. The 20 fool maintains that the voice must be due to demons haunting the quadrangle as night falls, and so he and the king go to the queen\u00E2\u0080\u0099s apartment to perform the evening sacrifice. Act 3 begins with two maidservants meeting onstage, apparently friends who have not seen each other in a long time. One of these maidservants, Vicak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u0081, is the hidden voice from the quadrangle in the previous act. She reveals to the other that she has been doing the bidding of the minister Bh\u00C4\u0081gur\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a and his pupil Harad\u00C4\u0081sa. M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kavarman is actually M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB, who the minister is determined to marry to the king. To make the king fall in love with her, she has been made to appear to the king in his bedchamber through the hollow pillar and give him the necklace, to appear on the swing, and to paint her likeness in the paintings of the pavilion. This has had the desired effect, and she is also now enamoured with him. The other servant, Sulak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u0081, reveals that she has secretly been enlisted to help C\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a play a joke on Mekhal\u00C4\u0081, the queen\u00E2\u0080\u0099s foster-sister, in revenge for the mock marriage. She climbed a bakula tree and impersonated a voice prophesying Mekhal\u00C4\u0081\u00E2\u0080\u0099s impending death, terrifying her. To avoid her fate, she was told she must find a Brahman expert in music and crawl between his legs. The queen has arranged such a ceremony this night. Both leave to fulfill their duties. The king and fool enter, waiting by the hedge near the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quarters. The king is characteristically anxious about M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB, while the fool prepares for the ceremony to save Mekhal\u00C4\u0081. When the queen and Mekhal\u00C4\u0081 arrive to perform the ceremony, voices from offstage claim to be the voices of death. C\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a dramatically exhorts them to leave, and when Mekhal\u00C4\u0081 crawls between his legs he laughs and declares his revenge for the mock- wedding. The queen is incensed and leaves with Mekhal\u00C4\u0081. The king and the fool venture into the garden in the moonlight and converse. They hear voices and hide among the plantains to eavesdrop, upon which Vicak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u0081 and M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB enter, conversing themselves. When the 21 fool laughs loudly, the women go to investigate the noise, and the men re-emerge. They find a palm-leaf envelope upon which is written a third quarter-verse. The fool sees footprints leading to the jasmine grove and they follow. The king and M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB meet for the first time, but are abruptly interrupted by the announcement to clear the gardens for the evening. All exit to their chambers. Act 4 begins in the morning, with the fool and his wife entering, the wife still asleep. She is nonetheless talking, revealing that the queen has heard of the king\u00E2\u0080\u0099s love for M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB, sister of M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kavarman and has encouraged him to marry her, since the astrologers say she is destined to marry an emperor. The queen, thinking that M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB is actually the boy M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kavarman, plans this to be another mock-marriage to revenge the deceit against Mekhal\u00C4\u0081 previously, while actually intending to make good on her original plan to marry M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kavarman and Kuvalayam\u00C4\u0081l\u00C4\u0081. The fool and king meet in the garden, where the king reveals that Vicak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u0081 came to him and described M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081vali\u00E2\u0080\u0099s state to him, and delivered the last line of the verse. Upon reciting it, he realizes that the poem is of her revealing her love for him. As they go towards the picture gallery, they are intercepted by servants who take them to the golden quadrangle for the wedding. There the wedding between Vidy\u00C4\u0081dharamalla and M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB is performed. A portress announces the arrival of Bh\u00C4\u0081gur\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a and a messenger from Candravarman, who reveal that the king has just had a son, and so declare that M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB was in fact his daughter all along, not his son M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kavarman. Everyone is shocked, particularly the queen. The fool paraphrases Manu\u00E2\u0080\u0099s dharma\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra, pointing out that since Kuvalayam\u00C4\u0081l\u00C4\u0081 was betrothed to M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kavarman, she now belongs to king Vidy\u00C4\u0081dharamalla. Finally, a messenger enters, bringing news of the military victory of the king and his allies over all of his foes, confirming the king\u00E2\u0080\u0099s paramount sovereignty in the region. 22 2 Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 \u00E2\u0080\u0093 Performance Context 2.1 Body & Action I will begin analysis of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 with an examination of the text\u00E2\u0080\u0099s stage directions for several reasons. First, certain directions in the text provide a set of initial evidence supporting the argument that the play was written to be performed. Second, they perform the role of embedding the dialogue in the physical circumstances of theatrical performance. Also, the stage directions form a \u00E2\u0080\u009Clanguage of production\u00E2\u0080\u009D that speaks to actors and producers differently or more directly than they would to a reader. Finally, stage directions underpin the practical conventions concerning the internal definition and use of the theatrical space. Due in large part to the characteristics of the stage action described in the text by the author, R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara, it quickly becomes apparent that Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 fails to work as either a text to be purely read or recited. Although the playwright describes much of the scene\u00E2\u0080\u0094and indeed, even action\u00E2\u0080\u0094as part of dialogue, he does not consistently describe action either in sufficient detail or a style that conveys necessary information to the reader. Without engaging a process of interpreting these suggestive actions into embodied behaviour, the action as described remains cryptic and incomplete. Once the performativity of the text is established, it then becomes possible to look at the stage directions in a different light. Instead of merely being a set of line-delivery notes, scenic description, and conventional use of dramatic language, the stage directions become a \u00E2\u0080\u009Clanguage of production,\u00E2\u0080\u009D speaking to the performers and producers directly about how to execute the dialogue and activity of the play in harmony with the playwright\u00E2\u0080\u0099s instructions. This communication is definitionally inconsistent, as R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara employs different strategies 23 of description throughout Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081, each with their own implications, but it need not be absolutely precise if it is to go through a process of translation from a text into a performance piece. These interpretive processes exist within the realm of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cpractice.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Set somewhat apart from the script and the theory surrounding it, practice can be thought of as the manifestation of both through the instrument of performer/producer. Unlike text and theory, which we have in a material form to analyze, practice remains more ephemeral. The idea of a \u00E2\u0080\u009Clanguage of production\u00E2\u0080\u009D\u00E2\u0080\u0094looking at stage direction/description and its contextual meaning\u00E2\u0080\u0094gives us a perspective from which to imagine this practice and its implications. In this section, I will restrict my theoretical references to two texts: the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra and R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s own K\u00C4\u0081vyam\u00C4\u00ABm\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0083s\u00C4\u0081. This is not meant to imply that these texts are the most important or only texts on the topic, but rather to give a set of useful and relevant examples that might expose the depth of the theoretical challenge some of these directions can present. 2.1.1 Categorizing Stage Directions Before discussing particular parts of the text, I will broadly attempt to categorize stage directions in Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081. The categories do not adhere directly to an existing theoretical framework, but rather group together stage directions based on their utility, conventionality, and how they engage the hypothetical reader, performer, or director. To this end, I have identified four categories of stage direction: Specific, Affective, Expressive, and Technical. Each of these categories fulfills a particular role in the description of action, ornamentation of delivery, or structural conventions of the dramatic style. Some of these categories are not initially helpful for gauging the performability of the text, but come to have 24 interesting implications in their own right once we have established performability by different means. Throughout the text, some directions are referred to in terms of the performance or following of something spoken in dialogue (e.g. \u00E2\u0080\u009CVid\u00C5\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3aka: \u00E2\u0080\u00A6let us go to the garden by the back way. [They do so.]\u00E2\u0080\u009D).5 These kind of \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccorrelative\u00E2\u0080\u009D directions I have considered not to be a distinct category on the sole merit of their similar formatting, but instead as belonging to one of the previously mentioned four categories, based upon the details of the behaviour and how it is referred to. I have tabulated the frequency of each type of stage direction as follows: Specific Directions The \u00E2\u0080\u009Cspecific\u00E2\u0080\u009D category of directions in Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 are, unsurprisingly, the most straightforward and the most numerous throughout the text. They describe actions in enough detail for those actions to be clearly understood by reader or performer. Though most directions of this kind are brief and simple (e.g. \u00E2\u0080\u009Che laughs\u00E2\u0080\u009D, \u00E2\u0080\u009Che looks at the ground\u00E2\u0080\u009D), they are also often employed in the text in longer form where a series of actions needs to occur Act 1 Act 2 Act 3 Act 4 Total Table 2.1: Tabulation of stage directions by category in Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081. Specific 22 26 35 33 116 Affective 10 5 9 7 31 Expressive 30 9 27 23 89 Technical 18 22 18 14 72 5.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Cvid\u00C5\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3aka \u00E2\u0080\u0093 \u00E2\u0080\u00A6 pak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3adv\u00C4\u0081re\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a pramadody\u00C4\u0081na\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 pravi\u00C5\u009Bya gacch\u00C4\u0081va\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 | (iti tath\u00C4\u0081 kuruta\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5)\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 1.23) (Shukla 1976, 23). 25 (e.g. \u00E2\u0080\u009Call having approached, they bring gifts/jewels, garments, the bracelet/ribbon, etc. [these being the wedding implements]. The King puts them on with a gesture.\u00E2\u0080\u009D).6 While these directions illustrate a particular behaviour, they can additionally suggest some aesthetic, emotional, or mental states. The Vid\u00C5\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3aka for example is described as \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctouching his sacred cord\u00E2\u0080\u009C\u00E2\u0080\u0094an action represented according to the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra by use of the sanda\u00E1\u00B9\u0083\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a hand gesture (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cthe forefinger and the thumb of the Ar\u00C4\u0081la hand crossed and the palm a little hollowed\u00E2\u0080\u009D [Ghosh 1950, 180]),7 and that \u00E2\u0080\u009C[two] such hands should be combined\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Ghosh 1950, 180).8 After doing this, he says to the King \u00E2\u0080\u009CMay your dream true by the word of me, a mighty Brahman whose necklace is a cord of dry grass!\u00E2\u0080\u009D9 The Vid\u00C5\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3aka\u00E2\u0080\u0099s action of indicating the Brahmanical cord coloured by the line that follows it connotes a certain sense of haughty confidence which neither the action nor dialogue in isolation communicates as well. By their nature being closest to the standard concept of description in literary texts, this category does not itself provide evidence for a necessary performance dimension of the play. Certainly, if the play was performed, these would seem the most immediately comprehensible of actions. However, theory is not silent on the performance potential of specific actions. The N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra describes in detail gestures used to represent theatrically many kinds of action that are otherwise specifically described in the text. 6.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Csarv\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 upas\u00E1\u00B9\u009Btya ratnav\u00C4\u0081sa\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5ka\u00E1\u00B9\u0085ka\u00E1\u00B9\u0087akusum\u00C4\u0081dikamupanayanti | r\u00C4\u0081j\u00C4\u0081 n\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADyena paridhatte |\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 4.15) (Shukla 1976, 147). 7.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Ctarjanya\u00E1\u00B9\u0085gu\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADhasanda\u00E1\u00B9\u0083\u00C5\u009Bastvar\u00C4\u0081lasya yad\u00C4\u0081 bhavet | \u00C4\u0081bhugnatalamadhyastha\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 sa sanda\u00E1\u00B9\u0083\u00C5\u009Ba iti sm\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bta\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 ||\u00E2\u0080\u009D (N\u00C5\u009A 9.110). 8.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Cyaj\u00C3\u00B1opav\u00C4\u00ABta dh\u00C4\u0081ra\u00E1\u00B9\u0087avedhana gu\u00E1\u00B9\u0087as\u00C5\u00ABk\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3mab\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0087alak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3ye\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3u | yoge dhy\u00C4\u0081ne stoke sa\u00E1\u00B9\u0083yutakara\u00E1\u00B9\u0087astu kartavya\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 ||\u00E2\u0080\u009D (N\u00C5\u009A 9.114). 9.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Cvid\u00C5\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3aka\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 \u00E2\u0080\u0093 (yaj\u00C3\u00B1opav\u00C4\u00ABta\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 pr\u00C4\u0081m\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bsya) \u00C5\u009Bu\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3kaku\u00C5\u009Barajjukarka\u00C5\u009Bad\u00C4\u0081rasya mah\u00C4\u0081br\u00C4\u0081hma\u00E1\u00B9\u0087asya vacanena satyasvapnatva\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 te bhavatu |\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 1.18) (Shukla 1976, 19). 26 Affective Directions The \u00E2\u0080\u009Caffective\u00E2\u0080\u009D directions provide the most compelling argument for a the existence of a necessary performance dimension of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s play. Rather than describing action in specific terms, Affective actions are described instead as gestures or performances of aesthetic, emotional, or environmental states. To determine precisely what these actions might be when embodied requires an interpretive process involving understanding of dramatic theory as well as experience with local or current convention. The theoretical approach yields many different possibilities for appropriate actions. The N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra contains no fewer than five chapters which go into detail suggesting different appropriate actions for such states, in general terms as well as specific movements of hands, body, and feet. As such, the nucleus of these actions resides idealistically in a series of specific movements of the body interpreted and executed by a trained actor. Without such a performer, the audience would need to imagine one, and interpret themselves which actions were to be performed, with what precision, and from that understand the aesthetic conveyance of the author. The primary kind of \u00E2\u0080\u009Caffective\u00E2\u0080\u009D direction describes the performance of an emotional or aesthetic state. In Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 the protagonist King Vidy\u00C4\u0081dharamalla is described described variously as \u00E2\u0080\u009Cacting being overcome by love,\u00E2\u0080\u009D10 \u00E2\u0080\u009Cacting remembrance,\u00E2\u0080\u009D11 \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgesticulating frustration/anguish,\u00E2\u0080\u009D12 and \u00E2\u0080\u009Cacting torment from love and sorrow,\u00E2\u0080\u009D13 among other such actions. From all of these states, a performer equipped with theoretical knowledge 10.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Cmadan\u00C4\u0081k\u00C5\u00ABtam abhin\u00C4\u00ABya\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 1.22, 2.13) (Shukla 1976, 22, 104). 11.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Csm\u00E1\u00B9\u009Btim abhin\u00C4\u00ABya\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 1.21) (Shukla 1976, 22). 12.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Csant\u00C4\u0081pam abhin\u00C4\u00ABya\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 2.2, 2.13, 3.19, 3.20) (Shukla 1976, 51, 67, 113, 114). 13.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Cmadanasant\u00C4\u0081payo\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 p\u00C4\u00AB\u00E1\u00B8\u008Dam anuvh\u00C5\u00ABya\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 4.2) (Shukla 1976, 129). 27 can determine what behaviour might appropriate from a fertile stock of specific actions associated with the state. To examine one such example in more detail, we shall take the affective direction of the King \u00E2\u0080\u009Cacting being overcome by love\u00E2\u0080\u009D and see what the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra suggests in terms of its performance. Chapter 8 (\u00E2\u0080\u009CGestures of Minor Limbs\u00E2\u0080\u009D) indicates that both pariv\u00C4\u0081hita (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cthe head is alternately turned to the two sides\u00E2\u0080\u009D [Ghosh 1950, 151]) and niha\u00C3\u00B1cita (\u00E2\u0080\u009Ctwo shoulders raised up with the neck bent on one side\u00E2\u0080\u009D [Ghosh 1950, 151-152]) may be appropriate movements of the head to convey such an action. Additionally regarding the eyes, k\u00C4\u0081nt\u00C4\u0081 (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cwhen with a feeling of love a person contracts his eyebrows and casts a sidelong look\u00E2\u0080\u009D [Ghosh 1950, 153]), snigdh\u00C4\u0081 (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cwhich is not much widened, is sweet, and in which eyeballs are still, and there are tears of joy\u00E2\u0080\u009D [Ghosh 1950, 154]), and lalit\u00C4\u0081 (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cwhich sweet, and contracted at the end [of the eye] and which is smiling and has movement of the eyebrows\u00E2\u0080\u009D [Ghosh 1950, 156]) are all potentially appropriate glances, depending on the producer and performer\u00E2\u0080\u0099s intention of conveying rasa (an aesthetic sentiment), sth\u00C4\u0081yibh\u00C4\u0081va (an emotional state which directly corresponds to a rasa), or vyabic\u00C4\u0081ribh\u00C4\u0081va (a transitory emotional state). The same chapters continue on with appropriate movements of the eyeballs (vivartana \u00E2\u0080\u0093 \u00E2\u0080\u009Cturning sideways of the eyeball\u00E2\u0080\u009D [Ghosh 1950, 160]), eyebrows (catura \u00E2\u0080\u0093 \u00E2\u0080\u009Cslightly moving and extending\u00E2\u0080\u009D [Ghosh 1950, 162]), and face (prasanna \u00E2\u0080\u0093 \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbright\u00E2\u0080\u009D [Ghosh 1950, 167]). The eyelids, nose, cheeks, lower lips, mouth, and neck are all either give no direction for amorousness or love, or else direct the limb to be in its natural state or to simply follow the movements of proximal limbs (such as the neck movements following head movements). The next chapter, \u00E2\u0080\u009CGestures of the Hands,\u00E2\u0080\u009D likewise indicates at least three potential gestures: catura (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cthe four fingers stretched and the thumb bent near the middle finger\u00E2\u0080\u009D [Ghosh 1950, 179]), ni\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3adha (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cthe left hand holding the [right] arm above the elbow 28 and the right hand similarly touching the left arm with a clenched fist\u00E2\u0080\u009D [Ghosh 1950, 183]), and dola (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cwhen the two shoulders are at ease in a Kara\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a and the two Pat\u00C4\u0081ka hands are hanging down\u00E2\u0080\u009D [Ghosh 1950, 183], where kara\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a refers to any of four classes of hand movements [Ghosh 1950, 189-190], and pat\u00C4\u0081ka refers to a particular hand gesture described as \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfingers extended and close against one another, and the thumb curved\u00E2\u0080\u009D [Ghosh 1950, 171]). Finally, Chapter 10 (\u00E2\u0080\u009CGestures of Other Limbs\u00E2\u0080\u009D) indicates that the sides may be pras\u00C4\u0081rita (\u00E2\u0080\u009Cstretched\u00E2\u0080\u009D [Ghosh 1950, 192]), but that the belly, waist, thighs, and feet are not mandated a particular way. Looking at the above examples from the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra, which themselves are inexhaustive, we have assembled a list of particular movements, some of which are minute and some of which are mutually exclusive to each other. Further to this list we may even include, as the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra periodically states, local gestural traditions and conventions. The interpretation and execution of such a set of actions to convey the text\u00E2\u0080\u0099s direction calls for an expert not only in the theoretical aspect of drama\u00E2\u0080\u0094to determine, as has been attempted above, what would be appropriate\u00E2\u0080\u0094but an expert in the practical embodiment of those disparate movements into some recognizable and communicable whole. A second type of affective directions describe action in terms of environmental states. The text describes \u00E2\u0080\u009Cacting the touch of the wind\u00E2\u0080\u009D14 and \u00E2\u0080\u009Cacting the touch of moonlight on the creepers.\u00E2\u0080\u009D15 These may seem somewhat more straightforward than their emotional associates discussed previously, however they are peculiar in their own way, ornamenting scenic and environmental description with bodily gesture. As such, they call for a theoretical review. The N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra devotes a chapter to citr\u00C4\u0081bhinaya\u00E2\u0080\u0094the theatrical representation of a miscellany 14.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Cpavanaspar\u00C5\u009Bamabhin\u00C4\u00ABya\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 1.27) (Shukla 1976, 26). 15.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Clat\u00C4\u0081ntare candrik\u00C4\u0081spar\u00C5\u009Bamabhin\u00C4\u00ABya\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 3.23) (Shukla 1976, 118). 29 of things, including environment, time, season, and the properties of objects. With respect to the two examples above, there is a specific suggestions of gesture for the second: \u00E2\u0080\u009Cto indicate moonlight\u00E2\u0080\u00A6 one is to use gestures for representing touch and horripilation\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Ghosh 1950, 492). As for the \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctouch of the wind,\u00E2\u0080\u009D some process of interpolating from the various defined gestures, especially in the hands of a trained actor, would undoubtedly yield some appropriate result. Although this affective category comprises the smallest number of stage directions in Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081, it challenges any conceptions that may exist claiming that the play was meant to be recited or read, rather than performed. After all, if performance were not the author\u00E2\u0080\u0099s intention, then why would R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara employ a descriptive style so entangled in performance concerns when clearly others suffice to describe most circumstances throughout the same text? To a performer, the affective directions are not peculiar, only somewhat more effortful to execute, since they require a degree more dramatic expertise on the part of the theatre practitioners than specific and (in most cases) expressive directions. As such, it seems that performance is the only answer to the problem of how to successfully convey this type of stage direction. Expressive Directions The \u00E2\u0080\u009Cexpressive\u00E2\u0080\u009D directions are a category that largely serves to ornament the delivery of speech, both in terms of emotional expression and pacing. They are somewhat more specific than the affective directions, by virtue of this common attachment to speech, but are also largely aesthetic in language. This category also encompasses some conventional directions clarifying to whom speech is directed. Directions in this category are notable for their prevalence, and find some presentational attachment in texts like the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra, but are not particularly extraordinary in their significance. Their usage by R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara, however, 30 may call to mind some of his own contributions to poetic theory with regards to k\u00C4\u0081ku (intonation) (see Parashar 2000, 95-100). The majority of expressive directions come in the form of adjectives and adverbs describing speech and pacing (e.g. \u00E2\u0080\u009Chaving reflected,\u00E2\u0080\u009D16 \u00E2\u0080\u009Canxiously\u00E2\u0080\u009D)17 and are rarely, if ever, more than two words long. These actions often reflect emotions and aspects that are rich with theoretical expressions, though they present mostly as markers of intonation, rather than obliging the described character with a gesture. The other variety of expressive directions are those that clarify certain conventional or practical matters of delivery. This includes directions indicating asides, replies, and the like. The chapter of the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra discussing miscellaneous action refers to various specific gestures indicating different types of asides and concealed speaking. These venture into certain types of dramatic convention, discriminating between, for example, asides that represent a character thinking out loud, or a character speaking confidentially to another, or when one nearby character is indicated as explicitly not hearing something said to others (Ghosh 1950, 504-505). Technical Directions The category of \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctechnical\u00E2\u0080\u009D directions encompasses all of the conventional and structural language of drama. They are a common, but particularly finite set of directions denoting things such as entrances, exits, voices from offstage, and the ends of act prologues. The one particularly interesting technical direction, among the most common of its type in Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081, is the conventional parikr\u00C4\u0081mya (walking around), which is generally used to indicate scenic transition onstage. Because they are so closely linked to the staging of 16.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Cvibh\u00C4\u0081vya\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 1.7, 1.40, 2.14, 3.3, 3.15) (Shukla 1976, 7, 38, 40, 68, 88, 106). 17.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Csotka\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADham\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 1.37, 1.38) (Shukla 1976, 37, 38). 31 the play, the theoretical and practical substance of these directions will be discussed in greater detail as I move on to discussions of the stage and the use of the performance space. 2.1.2 Action and Space It is only once we have established some likely performance dimension for the play, and have examined in some detail how the descriptive language may be embodied that we might be able to properly conceptualize the theatrical space. It should be apparent by now that practically all interactions with the space and objects inside it are mediated by stage directions, whether those that clearly describe some interaction with the space or those given by convention. 2.2 The Theatrical Space To the extent that I have argued that Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 requires a performance space to be properly conceived, an examination of that space is clearly necessary. Although a set of basic questions must be answered as to the probable size, shape, and configuration of the theatrical space, more interesting is the question of how Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 was intended to interface with the space in which it was performed, and what evidence can be gathered from the text and its context. The text itself illustrates a set of locations that are limited enough in number to exist independently on even a small stage and unified by the liminal spaces between those locations, which serve as secondary settings for the play's action. However, since movement through these settings is described in terms of a conventional dramatic vocabulary, which itself is entangled in a theoretical framework that admits multiple interpretations, the substance and persistence of scenic location cannot be immediately derived from the description alone. Instead, theoretical examination, the 32 technical language of the play, and the characters' interactions with scenes as inferred or described in the text all inform a hypothetical stage geography. 2.2.1 Theory and Space Any examination of theatrical space in the Sanskrit drama inevitably involves speculation, which is not without its share of challenges. In the case of the Sanskrit drama, the first challenge is determining the reality of the playhouse. Farley Richmond approaches this issue in his article \"Suggestions to Directors of Sanskrit Plays\" (Richmond 1981). In addition to outlining the theoretical disagreements and uncertainties of the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra\u00E2\u0080\u0099s description of the ideal theatrical space as well as the historical-archaeological record of performance spaces in Sanskrit drama (no ancient playhouses survive to this day), Richmond poses several questions that are critical to establishing an understanding of the basic configuration and facility of the theatre which are necessary to answer prior to examining the specifics of staging a particular text: \"What was the juxtaposition of the audience and the actors? What was the size of the playing area and where were the entrances and exits? How was the playing space designed to be used?\" (Richmond 1981, 76). While some of these questions have straightforward, probable answers, others are less clear. The three theatre configurations as laid out in the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra are universally oriented in an \"end stage\" configuration, with the stage separate from the audience space, facing it on one side and sharing side walls with it (Bhatt 1975, XLIII, LII). The stage in the oblong (vik\u00E1\u00B9\u009B\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADa) playhouse configuration\u00E2\u0080\u0094which the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra describes in detail as a standard model\u00E2\u0080\u0094 measures 32 hastas (approximately 48 feet) wide and deep; the backstage area (nepathya) takes up the rear half, and is divided by a wall with two doorways or arches from the forestage area (ra\u00E1\u00B9\u0085ga\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u00ABr\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a and ra\u00E1\u00B9\u0085gap\u00C4\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADha) (Bhatt 1975, XXXVII-XLI). There is some disagreement as to the difference between ra\u00E1\u00B9\u0085ga\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u00ABr\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a and ra\u00E1\u00B9\u0085gap\u00C4\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADha, with M. M. Ghosh and 33 Subba Rao contending that the terms are synonyms for the entire forestage (Ghosh 1933; Rao 1956) while D. R. Mankad and Raghavan maintain that they are separate areas (Mankad 1932; Raghavan 1933), the rear presumably reserved at least partially for musicians (at least some of whom the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra places at the centre of the ra\u00E1\u00B9\u0085ga\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u00ABr\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a between the two doors [Ghosh 1950, 288]) and the front-most for actors (Bhatt 1975, XXIX). Two side-stage areas (mattav\u00C4\u0081ra\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u00AB) eight hastas (hands) in length (approximately 12 feet) are described as either adjoining the forestage, or incorporated into the already-defined stage area (Bhatt 1975, XLII- XLIII); the purpose of these areas is not specifically explained, though they are described as each being bounded by four pillars. The entire stage surface (backstage and forestage) is raised 1\u00C2\u00BD hastas (approximately 27 inches) from the ground, with the ra\u00E1\u00B9\u0085ga\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u00ABr\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a slightly higher than the other divisions. This gives the acting space in the playhouse of the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra an area of between 60' x 24' (the full forestage including adjoining mattav\u00C4\u0081ra\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u00AB) and 24' x 12' (the front-most ra\u00E1\u00B9\u0085gap\u00C4\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADha only with the mattav\u00C4\u0081ra\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u00AB incorporated into this stage and excluded as non-acting space). Two smaller playhouse configurations are also described, a square (caturastra) and triangular (trayasa), with similar proportional divisions but approximately half the total space, and a uniformly-raised stage, rather than one with different levels (Bhatt 1975, LI). Below, I have provided two figures (2.1 and 2.2) illustrating the hypothetical Sanskrit stage by the most generally-accepted dimensions described previously, in order to give a visual idea of the size and shape of the performance space. 34 Figure 2.1: 2D floor-plan view of the theoretical Sanskrit stage Figure 2.2: 3D rendering of the theoretical Sanskrit stage (person to scale) 35 The description of the ideal theatrical space is very detailed, but also open to a number of interpretations. Since no historical Sanskrit playhouses are known in the archaeological record, it is not clear whether the ideal playhouse was ever a perfectly-realized entity, much less whether R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara's patrons constructed or maintained one. Nonetheless, the playhouse of the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra must be considered in examining the staging of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081, especially where the text can be seen to incorporate a vision of this theoretical stage (to at least the extent which it is embedded in the conventions of Sanskrit dramas in general) and is structured in such a way as to be compatible with it. It should be apparent from the figures above that the basic size and layout are not overly onerous or complicated, meaning that further-simplified or different-sized stages would not necessarily render difficult the \u00E2\u0080\u009Cideal\u00E2\u0080\u009D practice of theatre. The performers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 movement through and interactions with the space described in the Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 are also mediated by theory. The text describes such action predominantly by use of a minimalistic, conventional theatrical vocabulary, which I earlier categorized as \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctechnical\u00E2\u0080\u009D stage directions. While the meaning and usage of some of the vocabulary is clearly part of a general language of theatre\u00E2\u0080\u0094such as the directions pravi\u00C5\u009Bati (\u00E2\u0080\u009Che/she enters\u00E2\u0080\u009D) and ni\u00C5\u009Bkr\u00C4\u0081nta\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 (exit, lit. \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdeparted\u00E2\u0080\u009D)\u00E2\u0080\u0094some of the terms used refer back to more specific or arcane theoretical topics, and may not be as naturally comprehensible. The term nepathye, for instance, indicates that the words that follow are coming from some off- stage or backstage voice (literally \u00E2\u0080\u009Cin the backstage\u00E2\u0080\u009D), making direct use of the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra's own term for the backstage area. The most theoretical unravelling concerns the direction parikramya (walking about) and its variations. This direction appears to originate in the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra\u00E2\u0080\u0099s fourteenth chapter, which starts by describing kak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3y\u00C4\u0081vibh\u00C4\u0081ga (the division of the stage into \u00E2\u0080\u009Czones\u00E2\u0080\u009D) where the text says \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Zonal division is to be indicated by going 36 about on the stage. [When one is in a particular] Zone [of the stage, it] will change [lit. be another] with his walking out of it\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Ghosh 1950, 238).18 The subsequent verses in the N\u00C4\u0081tya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra elaborate on this convention, explaining that this process of delineating zones on the stage establishes for the audience the different settings (such as house, garden, etc., presumably in the manner that scenery changes would in the modern theatre), and also describe several additional rules, among them: performers entering a stage are assumed to be outside of the scene until they explicitly enter it; performers entering the stage intending to see characters already onstage indicate so by turning to the right; leaving a \u00E2\u0080\u009Czone\u00E2\u0080\u009D should be done by the same door from which it is entered, and if that place is re-entered later it should be done so by the same door (by \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdoor\u00E2\u0080\u009D it is probably meant the place within the zone that the door has been established to be, i.e. where the parikramya movement concluded with the performer stepping into the zone) (Ghosh 1950, 239). The way that this conventional establishment (and disestablishment) of setting in the theatrical space is described concedes that settings were not indicated primarily (or even necessarily at all) by set pieces, but rather by actors. The N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra does, however, imply that pieces of what would seem to be scenery may have been used, and offers suggestions on how they are to be constructed. At the end of Chapter 23 (on costumes and makeup) these objects are categorized as upakara\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a (accessories). Mentioned explicitly are armour, shields, banners, hills, palaces, gods, caves, horses, elephants, carts, weapons, and (presumably severed) limbs or heads, fruits, and flowers; the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra advises that these are to be n\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADyadharm\u00C4\u00AB (conventional), as opposed to lokadharm\u00C4\u00AB (realistic). Larger objects are to be built with a bamboo frame, covered in painted cloth or grass, while smaller objects are to be made from bamboo, cloth, and lac (Ghosh 1950, 437-438). 18. \u00E2\u0080\u009Ckak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3y\u00C4\u0081vibh\u00C4\u0081go nirde\u00C5\u009Byo ra\u00E1\u00B9\u0085gap\u00C4\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADhoparikram\u00C4\u0081t | parikrame\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a ra\u00E1\u00B9\u0085gasya kak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3y\u00C4\u0081 hy any\u00C4\u0081 vidh\u00C4\u00AByate\u00E2\u0080\u009D (N\u00C5\u009A 14.3). 37 2.2.2 The Space Defined The way the theories of conventional space, movement, and scenic accessories interact, and the degree to which each is followed, suggests a diverse set of performance scenarios. In order to determine which of these are more likely than others, and propose a geography of the stage, the specific needs and usages of the text must be examined. The entire action of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081\u00E2\u0080\u0094with the exception of the prave\u00C5\u009Baka that prologues each act\u00E2\u0080\u0094takes place within the boundaries of the royal gardens and its adjoining courtyards and colonnades. At the edge of this boundary are two places that serve as the play\u00E2\u0080\u0099s entrances and exits: the royal palace and the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s apartments. This trope of setting the action of the play within the garden is a common one among Sanskrit dramas and is a feature of all surviving plays in the n\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADik\u00C4\u0081 genre, shared by such plays as M\u00C4\u0081lavik\u00C4\u0081gnimitra, Svapnav\u00C4\u0081savadatta, Ratn\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB, and Priyadar\u00C5\u009Bika (Ali 2004, 230). In terms of actual places depicted in Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081, the action takes place in a relatively small number of primary locations, and a somewhat larger number of secondary liminal spaces in between them. Each act has no more than three such primary locations, limiting the number of distinct places the audience has to conceive, and similarly the number of locations onstage which may contain props or scenic accessories. The prave\u00C5\u009Bakas (prologues or connecting scenes which occur at the beginning of each act) in Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 all take exception to the otherwise consistent unity of setting within the acts themselves. Each takes place in a location that is never described, though it may sometimes be inferred. However, these locations are not a part of the continuum of setting or within boundaries of the rest of the play\u00E2\u0080\u0099s setting. In any case, even when it is possible to infer the location, that information is itself unimportant. Once the purpose of the prave\u00C5\u009Baka is fulfilled\u00E2\u0080\u0094the progress of the intrigue of the play is recapped, and potentially a 38 few new pieces of information that were not supplied in the previous act are now introduced\u00E2\u0080\u0094then the act in earnest begins and the scene is established as an actual place. In the case where a character in the prave\u00C5\u009Baka is also in the first scene, they literally step out of their weakly-defined space and into the bounded setting of the act (this will become clearer with the examples below). The setting at this \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfirst scene\u00E2\u0080\u009D point may continue to be somewhat unclear for a few exchanges (until the characters onstage either say where they are, or move to an adjoining scene), but the setting is nonetheless part of the coherent set of connected spaces the characters in the act move through from that moment until the end of the act. The first act takes place in the morning, with the plot introduced in the prave\u00C5\u009Baka by the minister Harad\u00C4\u0081sa from somewhere inside or adjoining the king\u00E2\u0080\u0099s bedchambers. This may be the same location as the first scene, but it is both unclear and unimportant, since Harad\u00C4\u0081sa is the only character in the scene, and exits at its conclusion. The act begins in earnest with the emergence of the king from his chambers in the palace to a colonnade adjoining the garden, where the fool joins him. From there, they move into the garden, where the characters pause to talk on their way to the crystal pavilion on the keli-kail\u00C4\u0081sa (play-mountain). After a long scene inside the pavilion, the king and fool head down the path towards the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quarters, following the sight of the girl M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kaval\u00C4\u00AB. At the close of the act, they exit into the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quarters to find the queen. The first act is therefore defined by three primary spaces: the colonnade, the pavilion, and the courtyard of the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quarters. Secondary are the liminal spaces connecting them: the path through the garden up the keli-kail\u00C4\u0081sa and the path down towards the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quarters. The second act takes place in the afternoon, with the prave\u00C5\u009Baka consisting of a conversation between two female servants. Again, the location is unmentioned. The act 39 commences with the exit of the servants and the entrance of the king and fool, who encounter each other in the garden and move towards a bower of kadali plants called Tu\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3\u00C4\u0081rapu\u00C3\u00B1ja. The queen enters with her retinue and performs a mock-marriage on the fool, after which he angrily leaves\u00E2\u0080\u0094not exiting the stage, but moving to another location, described to be down a path in the garden\u00E2\u0080\u0094and the king shortly follows him, at which time the queen exits (and the setting she is in is not returned to). However, for a short period of time, there are two active but separate \u00E2\u0080\u009Czones\u00E2\u0080\u009D onstage. After this, the pair \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwalk about, acting descending steps\u00E2\u0080\u009D19 while travelling to the next location, although there is some disagreement as to which location this is. Gray describes the setting as returning back towards the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quarters (Gray 1906, 35n3, 38n3), while Warder suggests that the king and fool are, in fact, moving towards the golden quadrangle (suvar\u00E1\u00B9\u0087acatu\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3kik\u00C4\u0081) following M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kaval\u00C4\u00AB, where they arrive in time to find her dropped ornaments and sit (Warder 1988, 505-506). This latter opinion would make more sense, since not only does the fool suggest (and the king resist his urging) that they return to the queen\u00E2\u0080\u0099s chambers, but later in the act, the fool says after hearing strange voices \u00E2\u0080\u009CI know that here some Brahman-demons are talking in the golden quadrangle, having entered to deceive us.\u00E2\u0080\u009D20 The two then descend21 again towards the queen\u00E2\u0080\u0099s chamber, where they exit to perform the evening sacrifices. Overall, the second act then contains only two primary locations\u00E2\u0080\u0094the kadal\u00C4\u00AB-bower, and the golden quadrangle\u00E2\u0080\u0094with the secondary spaces being the path joining those two places, and returning to the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quarters. As Warder also notes, some particular hints to the geography of the garden are provided by R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara when he describes the king and fool as descending steps as they enter the 19.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009C(parikramya sop\u00C4\u0081n\u00C4\u0081vatara\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 n\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADayata\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5)\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 2.12) (Shukla 1976, 66). 20. \u00E2\u0080\u009Caha\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 punar j\u00C4\u0081ne \u00E2\u0080\u0099nupravi\u00C5\u009By\u00C4\u0081sm\u00C4\u0081n chalitum | aho iha suvar\u00E1\u00B9\u0087acatu\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3kik\u00C4\u0081 sa\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kr\u00C4\u0081nt\u00C4\u0081 ko\u00E2\u0080\u0099pi brahmar\u00C4\u0081k\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3as\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 jalpanti |\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 2.22) (Shukla 1976, 75). 21. \u00E2\u0080\u009C(iti ubh\u00C4\u0081v avatara\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 n\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADayata\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5)\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 2.22) (Shukla 1976, 75). 40 quadrangle, and also as they leave to head towards the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quarters (\u00E2\u0080\u009C[Tu\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3\u00C4\u0081rapu\u00C3\u00B1ja] is evidently on high ground in the palace gardens, the quadrangle or colonnade lower down and the Queen\u00E2\u0080\u0099s palace\u00E2\u0080\u00A6 at the bottom of the slope\u00E2\u0080\u009D [Warder 1988, 509]) . The third act takes place in the evening, and like the second is introduced by two maid-servants who both exit after conversing. The king and fool enter the stage, evidently near the entrance to the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quarters. After the queen emerges with her retinue, the fool takes his revenge on the servant that tricked him earlier and the queen exits. The fool and the king travel into the garden. There, they hear the voice of M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kaval\u00C4\u00AB and hide among the plantains to eavesdrop on them. Mrg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kaval\u00C4\u00AB enters with her servant Vicak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u0081, and both pairs converse onstage, the women not noticing the men until the fool laughs loudly. As the women follow the noise, the king and fool emerge to find the women gone, but a palm-leaf message on the ground. They follow a series of footprints on the ground towards a creeper grove, where the two pairs meet at last. When an offstage voice announces the closing of the garden for the evening, the king and fool retire to the palace and the women to the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quarters. Though the act really has only three locations\u00E2\u0080\u0094the entrance to the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quarters, the kadali-thicket, and the creeper-grove\u00E2\u0080\u0094much of the act is scenically complicated because from the moment M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kaval\u00C4\u00AB and Vicak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u0081 enter, there are two groups of performers active onstage who do not directly interact until the final scene. Instead, the script relies upon the conventional zonal-division of kak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3y\u00C4\u0081vibh\u00C4\u0081ga to keep the characters separate as they move through the space. The final act takes place the next day, with the prave\u00C5\u009Baka occurring in the fool\u00E2\u0080\u0099s apartment with his wife. Although the fool is in both the prave\u00C5\u009Baka and the first scene of the act, he exits and re-enters with the king. The two are waiting outside the courtyard of the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s apartments. When they see the servants coming, they leave to go towards the picture 41 hall (a place not previously mentioned, though it might refer to the pavilion in the first act). The female servants enter, see the king and fool leaving, and intercept them, bringing them to the golden quadrangle. It is here the rest of the act resolves. Thus, the final act only contains two primary locations\u00E2\u0080\u0094the courtyard of the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s apartments and the golden quadrangle\u00E2\u0080\u0094with a single secondary location of the path heading towards the picture gallery. 2.2.3 Unity of Space & Stage Geography The unity of space within the play\u00E2\u0080\u0099s acts must inform how the stage is used. Though not a novel feature of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 in particular, there are no \u00E2\u0080\u009Cscene changes\u00E2\u0080\u009D as such in the play except at the act-breaks and the end of the prave\u00C5\u009Bakas. All action on the stage moves between one adjacent location and the next. When two active zones are defined by a character walking off (but not exiting), the play always resolves the multiple zones back into one before continuing on to another place. This might suggest that locations in the play are all entirely conventional areas defined and undefined by the actors, with no physical requirements, yet every act has one or more locations where physical objects are interacted with, seats are sat upon, and likewise. The geography of the stage in Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 seems, to me, fairly clear. The N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra\u00E2\u0080\u0099s ideal theatre has two exits, and the Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 text likewise has only two places from which characters enter or exit. The spectrum of locations lies between these two places, and the text hints at which locations are near to or far from one or the other. The script makes heavy use of voices, songs, and announcements from backstage, so there must have been such a place from where sound could be clearly be heard. Since the play is a n\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADik\u00C4\u0081 and thus \u00E2\u0080\u009Cit should be based on an incident relating to music or the harem\u00E2\u0080\u00A6 and it contains an abundance of female characters\u00E2\u0080\u00A6 many dances, songs, and recitations, and love\u00E2\u0080\u0099s enjoyment are its central features\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Ghosh 1950, 365), there is clearly intended to be music 42 and dancing. The text describes no fewer than fifteen maidservants (Gray 1906, 8), and the wedding scene at the conclusion of the play explicitly commands it,22 so the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra\u00E2\u0080\u0099s notion of musicians occupying the ra\u00E1\u00B9\u0085ga\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u00ABr\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a between the two doors may be accepted as likely. This leaves the full front half (ra\u00E1\u00B9\u0085gap\u00C4\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADha) of the forestage (likely between 32 and 48 feet long, and 12 feet deep), as well as the areas in front of the left and right doors (likely to approximate 16 feet wide by 12 feet deep). While there are quite a limited number of places in each act, there are too many to each occupy a permanent place on the stage for the duration of the entire performance, and naturally scenes with more actors or action in them will have to be large enough to contain them. Therefore, each individual act must have its own set of zones within the universal bounds of the two exits. The location of such zones on the stage was probably pre-determined, insofar as there may be objects or suggestions of scenery that would need to be there at the commencement of the act. However the boundaries of those locations would need to be somewhat elastic, and in the mind of the audience it is not until the area is indicated conventionally by the actor as being established that it is really considered there. The physical trajectory of each act\u00E2\u0080\u0099s primary locations, and the establishment of the two exits as the bounds of the palace and the women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s quarters, give us frames of reference to anchor the spots onstage, and convention allows for the establishment of the secondary liminal spaces in between. Between each act, where there is very likely to be music, dancing, or an interval of some sort, whatever arrangements of objects may be made for the next act. Between this and the explicit subversion of the standard unity of space in the prave\u00C5\u009Baka, the expectations of specific settings in the previous act can be wiped clean and re- established anew. 22. \u00E2\u0080\u009C(vid\u00C5\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3ake\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a saha sarv\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 n\u00E1\u00B9\u009Btyanti gayanti ca)\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 4.15) (Shukla 1976, 148); \u00E2\u0080\u009Cvid\u00C5\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3aka\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 \u00E2\u0080\u0093 (ce\u00E1\u00B9\u00AD\u00C4\u00AB\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 prati) bhavatyo nrtyata | ahamapi nirti\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3y\u00C4\u0081mi g\u00C4\u0081sy\u00C4\u0081mi ca, yato viv\u00C4\u0081he s\u00C4\u0081mprata\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 sa\u00E1\u00B9\u0083v\u00E1\u00B9\u009Btte | (sarve tath\u00C4\u0081 kurvanti)\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 4.21) (Shukla 1976, 157). 43 On the following pages I have provided a series of prospective stage diagrams (figures 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6). These illustrate the various \u00E2\u0080\u009Czones\u00E2\u0080\u009D and the movements through them that occur during each act of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081, and propose one (but by no means the only) coherent configuration of the scenes of the play. The movements are numbered sequentially, and the different arrows indicate different actors or groups of actors onstage. The solid arrow represents the King and whichever characters accompany him. The double- slashed arrow represents the Queen and her retinue. The thin arrow represents secondary characters moving independently of the King or Queen (Mekhal\u00C4\u0081, C\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a and Vicak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u0081 in Act 2; Vicak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u0081 and M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB in Act 3; the group of maid-servants in Act 4). Finally, the double-ended arrow in the figure for Act 4 represents the various ministers and messengers who enter and exit in the final scenes. 44 Musicians Backstage The Palace The Women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Quarters Audience Colonnade Crystal Pavillion Courtyard Garden Garden Statue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Figure 2.3: Prospective stage diagram for Act 1. 45 The Palace Quadrangle Earring 7 8 Musicians Backstage The Women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Quarters Audience Garden BowerGarden 1 3a 3b 2 4 5a 65b 9 Figure 2.4: Prospective stage diagram for Act 2. 46 The Palace Creeper-Grove Entrance 12 3 47 Musicians Backstage The Women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Quarters Audience Thicket Note 6 5 8 9 10a 10b Figure 2.5: Prospective stage diagram for Act 3. 47 The Palace The Women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Quarters Entrance 1 2a 2b 3 Musicians Backstage Audience Golden Quadrangle 4a 4b 5 etc. Figure 2.6: Prospective stage diagram for Act 4. 48 2.3 Object Objects in the Sanskrit drama\u00E2\u0080\u0094outside of costuming and personal properties\u00E2\u0080\u0094are almost as enigmatic as the space. The N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra devotes only a small section to upakara\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a, the category of items encompassing all non-costume objects (weapons, mountains, furniture, flowers, etc.). Scenery is characteristically sparse; the script infers the existence of the statue in the first act and a sitting-place in the second, but no other such objects are interacted with or made use of except by the sight of the performers. It is therefore understandable that of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cobjects\u00E2\u0080\u009D in Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081, costuming and personal properties make up the largest part of the objects onstage, and are used to unique effect on at least one occasion. Additionally, a series of peculiar objects (including the aforementioned statue) are made critical use of throughout the play. 2.3.1 Costuming & Personal Properties There are few references to costuming in the text of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081, confined to one major costume-related event, and several other moments where ornaments (necklaces, bangles, earrings) are put on, taken off, or dropped. Likewise, there are only a handful of moments where personal properties are mentioned. This leaves the majority of decisions regarding the performers\u00E2\u0080\u0099 dress and accessories up to theatrical convention and the producer\u00E2\u0080\u0099s preferences. The N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra prescribes in detail how the characters should dress and make-up themselves, according to rank, gender, region of origin, race/species, and circumstance. Particular ornaments, colours of clothing, hairstyles, and masks further differentiate among the types, clearly indicating to the audience at the first sight of a performer a detailed set of information about the role that performer is playing. This according to the text, is to assist the performers: \u00E2\u0080\u009CIndicated first by their Costumes and Make- up they accomplish the representation without much effort by means of gestures and the 49 like\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Ghosh 1950, 410).23 The moments where the text chooses to deliberately impose alternative direction with regard to these parts of presentation are therefore all the more significant for their contrast to the audience\u00E2\u0080\u0099s pre-set expectations and understanding. The most significant moment in Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 pertaining to costume is in the second act, when the queen plays a practical joke on the fool by arranging a mock marriage for him. The text states \u00E2\u0080\u009Cthen enters the Queen, a male servant dressed like a maiden, and her retinue according to rank.\u00E2\u0080\u009D24 As they start to perform the marriage ceremony, the servant \u00E2\u0080\u009Cimproperly\u00E2\u0080\u009D uses the masculine pronoun while reciting the wife\u00E2\u0080\u0099s vows. \u00E2\u0080\u009CShe\u00E2\u0080\u009D is corrected by the fool, who is obviously the only one onstage who does not realize what is happening until the servant reveals himself, saying \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnot even in other lands is it heard to happen that a man marries a man or a woman marries a woman\u00E2\u0080\u009D25 and everyone laughs at him being fooled. For the audience\u00E2\u0080\u0094as for the characters onstage except the king and the fool\u00E2\u0080\u0094the sham of the wedding is clear from before the scene starts. Once the prave\u00C5\u009Baka explains the plot, the entire process of the mock marriage from the clearly-fictional names of the bride and her parents to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cher\u00E2\u0080\u009D entrance, actions, and words leading up to the reveal are humorous precisely because for the entire time, the audience understands what is really happening. This necessitates the gender joke being evident immediately upon the character\u00E2\u0080\u0099s entrance; the only obvious way to do this given the text is visually. The alternative is that the audience is left in at least partial confusion until the reveal, rendering most of the preceding dialogue humorous only in 23.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Cn\u00C4\u0081n\u00C4\u0081vasth\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 prak\u00E1\u00B9\u009Btaya\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 p\u00C5\u00ABrvanepathyas\u00C5\u00ABcik\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 | a\u00E1\u00B9\u0085g\u00C4\u0081dibhirabhivyaktimupagacchanty- ayatnata\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5\u00E2\u0080\u009D (N\u00C5\u009A 23.4). 24.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009C(tata\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 pravi\u00C5\u009Bati dev\u00C4\u00AB k\u00E1\u00B9\u009Btavadh\u00C5\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00AD\u00C4\u00ABve\u00C5\u009Ba\u00C5\u009Bce\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADa\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 vibhavata\u00C5\u009Bca pariv\u00C4\u0081ra\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5)\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 2.4) (Shukla 1976, 55). 25.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Cce\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADa\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 \u00E2\u0080\u0093 \u00E2\u0080\u00A6na ca dv\u00C4\u00ABp\u00C4\u0081ntare\u00E2\u0080\u0099pi e\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3\u00C4\u0081 v\u00C4\u0081rt\u00C4\u0081 \u00C5\u009Br\u00C5\u00AByate yat puru\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 puru\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 pari\u00E1\u00B9\u0087ayati str\u00C4\u00AB v\u00C4\u0081 striyam\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 2.4) (Shukla 1976, 57). 50 retrospect. If the \u00E2\u0080\u009Csight gag\u00E2\u0080\u009D is used, however, it maintains the theoretical notion that costume and makeup are meant to demonstrate to the audience at first sight who the performer is. Despite the simplicity of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s description, there is no clear precedent for how to visually portray the mock bride. Gray notes in his translation that \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdisguises of this type are exceedingly rare on the Sanskrit stage\u00E2\u0080\u009D and while giving several possible comparisons, gives only one example from N\u00C4\u0081g\u00C4\u0081nanda, where the fool \u00E2\u0080\u009Cclothes himself like a woman to escape the bees, and thus misleads the vi\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADa [lover], who mistakes him for his love\u00E2\u0080\u00A6\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Gray 1906, 31n4). The N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra contains plenty of descriptions of how men or women dress\u00E2\u0080\u0094which could be executed by a man or woman\u00E2\u0080\u0094but does not indicate any preferred or canonical way of depicting a male character who is himself dressed as a female character, or a female character dressed as a male. Thus, the challenge to find a solution falls to the performers and producers of the play. It is not an impossible task to imagine, however, and could be compared to the device of the play-within-a-play which R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara makes use of in his play B\u00C4\u0081lar\u00C4\u0081m\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a; the secondary presentation that exists does so as an action within the primary execution of the play. In the case of a play-within-a-play, however, the nesting of very structured presentational forms may impose more rules on the action and more similarity between presentational modes than in the more simple case of a dramatic character being costumed to look like someone else. After all, the male servant (a dramatic character) is not himself being costumed for a play, as far as his context is concerned, at least not in the formal sense. Nonetheless, the audience still needs to understand what they are seeing. I would suggest that the performer is likely dressed and made-up as they would normally be expected to in order to portray their true character\u00E2\u0080\u0094in this case, a male servant\u00E2\u0080\u0094and over that, some additional costuming and ornamentation is added that suggests the disguise (a veil, female jewellery, etc). It would be helpful to the audience for these 51 additional accessories to follow conventional theatrical costuming of a female maiden, though the degree to which this is possible is necessarily limited by pieces that cannot be combined or overlaid with the base costume. 2.3.2 The Three Verse-Objects Central to the plot of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 is a kind of literary mystery laid out in pieces by the playwright. At some point in each of the first three acts, the king and the fool discover an object on which is written a quarter of a verse in the \u00C5\u009Bikari\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u00AB meter. It is not clear initially whether there is a whole verse to be found, and if so what the meaning of the whole verse is. Finally in the fourth act, as the last quarter is revealed, the reciprocation of love by M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB towards the king is understood, and the play can conclude (this recalls Kalid\u00C4\u0081sa\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Abhij\u00C3\u00B1\u00C4\u0081nash\u00C4\u0081kuntalam, where all of the king\u00E2\u0080\u0099s lost memories of his love return to him when he at last sees her ring, allowing for the happy resolution of the plot). In the first act, the king sees a statue of M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB in the crystal pavilion, under which is written \u00E2\u0080\u009COn which limb here does not youth make its mark?\u00E2\u0080\u009D26 In the second act, after following the sight of M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bga\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB to the golden quadrangle, the king and fool discover that she has dropped some of her ornaments on the ground, among them a leaf-necklace, upon which the fool sees inscribed \u00E2\u0080\u009CBut even so, there is a quite clever maturity in this pair of eyes.\u00E2\u0080\u009D27 In the third act, as the king and fool emerge from their eavesdropping on M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kaval\u00C4\u00AB and Vicak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u0081 in the garden, the fool sees a sealed palm-leaf letter, which reads \u00E2\u0080\u009CSince they [the pair of eyes] understand the whole blend of emotions from the one who is seen.\u00E2\u0080\u009D28 In the final act, however, there is no such physical object that brings the revelation. Rather, the last 26.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Cvidhatte sollekha\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 katarad iha n\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085ga\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 taru\u00E1\u00B9\u0087im\u00C4\u0081\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 1.42) (Shukla 1976, 41). 27.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Ctath\u00C4\u0081pi pr\u00C4\u0081galbhya\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 kimapi catura\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 locanayuge |\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 2.14) (Shukla 1976, 68). 28.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Cyad \u00C4\u0081datte d\u00E1\u00B9\u009B\u00C5\u009By\u00C4\u0081d akhilam api bh\u00C4\u0081vavyatikara\u00E1\u00B9\u0083\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 3.22) (Shukla 1976, 117). 52 stanza is relayed to him by a messenger: \u00E2\u0080\u009CEven as [they] proclaim to the person who is seen the inner workings of the heart of the seer.\u00E2\u0080\u009D29 The question here from a material point of view is: what is the purpose of using these three objects to deliver the first three quarter-verses, and why is the final verse revealed through a different means? Clearly, since the three objects (statue, earring, and leaf) are the only interactive objects in the text that are not directly given by one character to another, but rather discovered onstage, and since they are each instrumental in revealing parts of the narrative mystery, some conscious decision was made by R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara to employ them as such. The answer, I propose, is related to the context of the verse, and the circumstances of the play to that point. As Warder points out about the whole verse: [The verse is] completely impersonal in expression and says nothing overtly of love. The lines would convey nothing to any other person who might see them and their reference can be understood only in the actual situation of the heroine secretly revealing her feelings to the hero she loves. (Warder 1988, 518-519) Until the third act, M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kaval\u00C4\u00AB does not exist onstage. She is referred to, is gazed at (and gazes) from a distance, and is pursued, but the active \u00E2\u0080\u009Czones\u00E2\u0080\u009D of the stage are always focused on the king and fool, who are always at least a few steps too late to encounter her. As a result, the three objects are the only physical, onstage substance she has to both the king and the audience for most of the play. They are stand-ins for M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kaval\u00C4\u00AB herself, existing to prove that the king is not simply imagining her. However, once the king and M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kaval\u00C4\u00AB finally meet in Act 3, and he places his necklace upon her (recalling the moment in Act 1 where he placed the necklace on the statue of her, which itself recalls his \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdream\u00E2\u0080\u009D where she placed it on him), she is now unquestionably real; there is no need anymore for simulacra or 29.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Cmanov\u00E1\u00B9\u009Btti\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 dra\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADu\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 prathayati ca d\u00E1\u00B9\u009B\u00C5\u009Bya\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 pratijanam ||\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 4.12d, with previous 3 stanzas) (Shukla 1976, 140). 53 substitutions to convey her feelings to the king. R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara plays with this somewhat by forcing them to quickly part company once they finally meet, preventing the final verse from being revealed directly from the mouth of M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kaval\u00C4\u00AB, though it is then done by the most personal means available\u00E2\u0080\u0094her maid Vicak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u0081. 54 3 Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 \u00E2\u0080\u0093 Courtly Context The final aspect of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 that must be examined is the courtly context surrounding the play and its performance. In order to understand who the play was meant for, and how that audience was likely to have received it, it is critical to develop some vision of the immediate world in which the author and audience existed with their own mainstream sensibilities and artistic agendas, and how they intellectually and socially interacted with the drama. Such an understanding does more than bring its own novel insights into Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081. It also challenges analyses of the play that rely predominantly on textual comparisons with the works of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s contemporaries (or those works of much older Sanskrit paragons like Kalid\u00C4\u0081sa) or those that rely on an insensitive application of dramatic theory. This perspective rethinks a number of historical or surface readings of the play, and reveals that elements of the drama which have been called flaws or (at best) idiosyncrasies may in fact be seen as decisions made by the author for conscious effect in performance and reception. 3.1 The Theoretical and the Real Audience The N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra itself is concerned with the dramatic spectator. In Chapter 27 on \u00E2\u0080\u009CSuccess and the Drama,\u00E2\u0080\u009D the necessary qualifications, ideal qualities, and classes of spectator are discussed. Among the qualities of an ideal spectator are \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgood character, high birth, quiet behaviour and learning\u00E2\u0080\u00A6 alert, honest, unaffected by passions\u00E2\u0080\u009D as well as having an understanding of music, the constituent theoretical elements of drama (costumes, dialect, types of representation, etc.) and \u00E2\u0080\u009Cvarious other \u00C5\u009A\u00C4\u0081stras.\u00E2\u0080\u009D Other spectators, lacking in such sophistication, may nonetheless be suitable to appreciate sentiments befitting their natural state: \u00E2\u0080\u009CYoung people are pleased to see love, the learned a reference to some [religious or philisophical] doctrine\u00E2\u0080\u00A6 women, children, and uncultured men are always delighted with the 55 Comic sentiment.\u00E2\u0080\u009D The minimum standards for an acceptable spectator, however, are not overly harsh, since \u00E2\u0080\u009CHe who attains gladness on seeing a person glad, and sorrow on seeing him sorry and feels miserable on seeing him miserable is considered fit to be a spectator in a drama,\u00E2\u0080\u009D but as to the spectators\u00E2\u0080\u0099 overall quality \u00E2\u0080\u009Con such dispositions [the Success of] a drama rests\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Ghosh 1950, 519-520). Clearly, the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra expects that for a drama to be successful, the spectators must be of a certain knowledge and refinement to understand and appreciate the drama in more than a few superficial ways. This hypothetical ideal spectator of the drama becomes much more real when we consider that the world of the medieval Indian court was itself imbued with the aesthetic of Sanskrit dramatic theory. In his landmark 2004 book Courtly Culture and Political Life in Early Medieval India, Daud Ali dedicates a chapter to examining in detail how the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra in particular informs the disposition of the court, specifically its emotional understanding and expression (Ali 2004, 183-206); it will suffice to extract only a few observations. Ali suggests that the forty-nine bh\u00C4\u0081vas (emotional states) listed in the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra form a sort of taxonomy of emotions for the people in court (Ali 2004, 185-187). As well, he describes the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra\u00E2\u0080\u0099s notion of the spectator (which I discussed above), and gives examples from several dramatic prologues which \u00E2\u0080\u009Caddress the sophistication and expertise of their courtly audiences,\u00E2\u0080\u009D remarking that \u00E2\u0080\u009Caudiences are often implored by the same courtesies which formed the vehicles of mannered disposition at court\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Ali 2004, 190). Finally, Ali puts forward that this organized structure of aesthetic emotional states and dispositions \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfunction as a sort of \u00E2\u0080\u0098education of disposition\u00E2\u0080\u0099 at court\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Ali 2004, 191), and concludes that: [The] constant thematisation of emotions in literary works and on the the stage created a sort of mannered emotionalism at court. The great concerns of the aesthetic literature\u00E2\u0080\u0094when and where particular emotions should be experienced, how they 56 should be indicated (physiologically, gesturally, verbally), for whom were they appropriate and with what other dispositions could they be inflected\u00E2\u0080\u0094shaped the affective habits of people at court. (Ali 2004, 192) This association between theoretical and real aesthetic experience\u00E2\u0080\u0094and the textual communication between plays and audiences in explicitly courtly terms\u00E2\u0080\u0094suggest that the real-world members of the medieval court in many ways resembled the ideal spectators of the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra. Accordingly, the level of sophistication with which they can be expected to receive and understand a dramatic performance would be quite high. For the audience of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081, this would also manifest an ability to grasp contemporary in-jokes and poetic allegories to specific knowledge embedded by the playwright which we now have only limited ability to decode ourselves. This may, for example, help us understand the title of the play, which Warder suggests is mysterious but may have been understandable in terms of courtly anecdote as well as by the oblique reference to a single part of the play\u00E2\u0080\u0099s action (see also Pollock 2001). 3.2 Authorial Agenda and Style A brief consideration should be made of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s own literary agenda, perspective, and style. In his K\u00C4\u0081vyam\u00C4\u00ABm\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0083s\u00C4\u0081, R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara exhibits a diversity of concerns with respect to k\u00C4\u0081vya: structure, recitation/intonation, description (different seasons, regions, and time), moral matters (plagiarism, conduct of poets and kings) (see Parashar 2000). Additionally, his fictive origin story of k\u00C4\u0081vya represents an aesthetic imagining of the place of poetry in the universe. Kulkarni notes that he \u00E2\u0080\u009Cemphatically declares that nothing is untrue in k\u00C4\u0081vya\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Kulkarni 1993, 113). Warder says, regarding the characteristic \u00E2\u0080\u009Clightness\u00E2\u0080\u009D of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara that the poet \u00E2\u0080\u009Cis confident that art must be an excursion for pleasure and that life should imitate this ideal,\u00E2\u0080\u009D and points out his clear \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfondness for colloquial sayings\u00E2\u0080\u009D (Warder 1988, 417). All of this points towards an agenda that is not so much iconoclastic or 57 revolutionary as it is strongly-opinionated, keenly aware of convention, and wilfully playful. To this end, R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara seems perhaps less concerned with conformity to tradition\u00E2\u0080\u0094 although he does not disregard it\u00E2\u0080\u0094than he is to beauty and enjoyment. 3.3 The Play in Context Having established some parameters for both the real audience and the author\u00E2\u0080\u0099s own agenda, certain aspects of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081\u00E2\u0080\u0094particularly those parts attacked by previous scholars as theoretically improper or morally transgressive\u00E2\u0080\u0094deserve a closer examination. This will reveal that many of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s compositional choice seen to be unorthodox or subversive may, in fact, only suggest subversion and taboo while actually remaining firmly situated within the proper parameters of dramatic convention. This pre-supposes that the audience of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 are of the requisite sophistication to see the ruse. L\u00C3\u00A9vi (and Keith, who more-or-less directly duplicates his opinion on this matter) both single out the \u00E2\u0080\u009Ccommon sense\u00E2\u0080\u009D of C\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a, the fool of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081. L\u00C3\u00A9vi claims (as discussed earlier) that he is not gluttonous, boastful, or cowardly, and loves proverbs. In this sense, the fool appears to represent a kind of self-insertion of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara, at least insofar as he is a vehicle for proverbs and merriment. This might explain why he is not always typically \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfoolish.\u00E2\u0080\u009D However, the degree to which C\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a is a subversion of his conventional type is not nearly as great as L\u00C3\u00A9vi claims. In direct contradiction of L\u00C3\u00A9vi\u00E2\u0080\u0099s description, C\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a at several points in the play is notably cowardly, and uses boastfulness to disguise his fear. For example: in the first act, he is frightened of the apparition of M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB through the wall of the crystal pavilion, and declares \u00E2\u0080\u009C(acting trembling with fear) Oh, get away, get away! Surely this is some ghost in here! So I will strike it with my staff which is bent like the curved brows 58 of rageful Dev\u00C4\u00AB! So behold my manliness!\u00E2\u0080\u009D30 In Act 2, he is alarmed by the voices of Vicak\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u0081 and M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB offstage, exclaiming \u00E2\u0080\u009C(expressing surprise) Oh bind [up] my hair! I hear an inhuman sound,\u00E2\u0080\u009D31 and despite the king\u00E2\u0080\u0099s reassurances maintains \u00E2\u0080\u009CI know that here some Brahman-demons are talking in the golden quadrangle, having entered to deceive us.\u00E2\u0080\u009D32 On a broader scale, while King Vidy\u00C4\u0081dharamalla\u00E2\u0080\u0099s melodrama and agitation render him the brunt of jokes and thus \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfoolish\u00E2\u0080\u009D for much of the play\u00E2\u0080\u0099s action, he is ultimately following a truth that is vindicated at the end; C\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a conversely is assisting the king in pursuing what he thinks is a farce\u00E2\u0080\u0094M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB, who he believes from first seeing on the wall of the pavilion is really M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085kavarman. Another social issue taken up by critics (particularly Apte and Keith) is that of the supposedly transgressive marriages in the play, whether the mock-marriage between C\u00C4\u0081r\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a and the male servant disguised as a woman or the resolution in the final act of the king marrying one woman but then receiving two wives. These are, again, perhaps shocking in their face-value content (at least as far as the mock-marriages are concerned), but ultimately harmless in their content. The ruse is either revealed before the ceremony is complete or the ceremony is in fact in accordance with law; R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara, through the vehicle of the fool quotes law to the effect of explaining the legitimacy of Kuvalayam\u00C4\u0081l\u00C4\u0081 becoming 30.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009C\u00E2\u0080\u00A6bh\u00C4\u00ABty\u00C4\u0081 \u00C4\u0081spho\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADa\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 n\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADayitv\u00C4\u0081) bho apasar\u00C4\u0081pasara , bh\u00C5\u00ABt\u00C4\u0081ntara\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 khalu kimapy etat | tad anena parikupitadev\u00C4\u00ABbhr\u00C5\u00ABlat\u00C4\u0081bha\u00E1\u00B9\u0085gaku\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADilena da\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00E1\u00B8\u008Dak\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADhena ta\u00E1\u00B8\u008Diti t\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B8\u008Dayi\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3y\u00C4\u0081mi | tat prek\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a me puru\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3ak\u00C4\u0081ram |\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 1.43) (Shukla 1976, 43). 31.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009C(camatk\u00E1\u00B9\u009Btya) bho \u00C5\u009Bikh\u00C4\u0081bandha\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 me kuru | am\u00C4\u0081nu\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3\u00C4\u00AB v\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00C4\u00AB \u00C5\u009Br\u00C5\u00AByate |\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 2.15) (Shukla 1976, 70). 32.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Caha\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 punarj\u00C4\u0081ne\u00E2\u0080\u0099nupravi\u00C5\u009By\u00C4\u0081sm\u00C4\u0081n chalitum | aho iha suvar\u00E1\u00B9\u0087acatu\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3kik\u00C4\u0081sa\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081nt\u00C4\u0081 kopi brahmar\u00C4\u0081k\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3as\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 jalpanti |\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 2.22) (Shukla 1976, 75). 59 the king\u00E2\u0080\u0099s wife.33 It seems in this case that the criticism comes from either a shallow reading or a puritanical one, whereas a perspective in context would note the near-indignity, but also the satisfactory turnabout by which it does not come to pass. The historical geography of the play also has an impact on the content and context in which it is received. Mirashi maintains that the play was written and performed in Tripur\u00C4\u00AB for the king Yuvar\u00C4\u0081jadeva I, though there is some desultory challenge to this perspective (Sathaye 2009). If Mirashi\u00E2\u0080\u0099s arguments are accepted (and I have not yet found any arguments forceful enough to reject them), they easily outline a dramatis personae filled with analogues of contemporary figures in\u00E2\u0080\u0094or at least familiar to\u00E2\u0080\u0094the courtly audience of the play. The protagonist, King Vidy\u00C4\u0081dharamalla, is in all probability meant to represent Yuvar\u00C4\u0081jadeva, with a number of the character\u00E2\u0080\u0099s epithets echoing the the real king\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (\u00E2\u0080\u009CKarp\u00C5\u00ABravar\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E2\u0080\u009D for Vidy\u00C4\u0081dharamalla and \u00E2\u0080\u009CKey\u00C5\u00ABvar\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E2\u0080\u009D for Yuvar\u00C4\u0081jadeva, likewise with \u00E2\u0080\u009CTrili\u00E1\u00B9\u0085g\u00C4\u0081dhipati\u00E2\u0080\u009D and Trikali\u00E1\u00B9\u0085g\u00C4\u0081dhipati), and the fictional king is explicitly said to rule at Tripur\u00C4\u00AB34 (some editions render this \u00E2\u0080\u009CNripur\u00C4\u00AB\u00E2\u0080\u009D which is either a spelling mistake or fictional name that makes no secret of its meaning) (Mirashi 1955, lxxix). Mirashi speculates about the potential historicity of Candravarman and his daughter M\u00E1\u00B9\u009Bg\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0085k\u00C4\u0081val\u00C4\u00AB with little substantive result (Mirashi 1955, lxxx). However, the figure of V\u00C4\u00ABrap\u00C4\u0081la (also called Ca\u00E1\u00B9\u0087\u00E1\u00B8\u008Damah\u00C4\u0081sena, father of Kuvalayam\u00C4\u0081l\u00C4\u0081), the king dispossessed of his kingdom who takes refuge in Vidy\u00C4\u0081dharamalla\u00E2\u0080\u0099s court\u00E2\u0080\u0094 according to \u00E2\u0080\u009Cindisputable inscriptional evidence\u00E2\u0080\u009D\u00E2\u0080\u0094represents the historical R\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADrak\u00C5\u00AB\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADa king C\u00C4\u0081lukya-Bh\u00C4\u00ABma II (Mirashi 1975, 70). 33.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Cbh\u00C4\u0081ry\u00C4\u0081 d\u00C4\u0081sa\u00C5\u009Bca putra\u00C5\u009Bca nirdhan\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 sakal\u00C4\u0081 api te | ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 te samabhigacchanti yasya te tasya taddhanam ||\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 4.21ab) (Shukla 1976, 156) Gray suggests a comparison to Manu (Gray 1906, 66n2). 34.\u00C2\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009Csvasti \u00C5\u009Br\u00C4\u00ABmattripury\u00C4\u0081m tuhinakarasut\u00C4\u0081v\u00C4\u00ABciv\u00C4\u0081c\u00C4\u0081lit\u00C4\u0081y\u00C4\u0081m deva\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 key\u00C5\u00ABravar\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3a\u00E1\u00B9\u0083 vinayanata\u00C5\u009Bir\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 sarvasen\u00C4\u0081dhin\u00C4\u0081tha\u00E1\u00B8\u00A5 |\u00E2\u0080\u009D (VSB 4.21ab) (Shukla 1976, 158). 60 R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s contemporary framing of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 goes a long way to explain his general priorities and decisions in the play. Though scholars like Mirashi may complain of the playwright\u00E2\u0080\u0099s \u00E2\u0080\u009Cunreliability\u00E2\u0080\u009D or that he has \u00E2\u0080\u009Cunnecessarily complicated\u00E2\u0080\u009D the plot, especially with regards to the king\u00E2\u0080\u0099s marriages in the final act (Mirashi 1975, 50), what seems to be happening is really just a certain conscious, fanciful distancing of the play\u00E2\u0080\u0099s plot from reality. Clearly, this is meant as popular entertainment, suggestive of real people who are known to or who are themselves a part of the audience. This means that certain limits on representation can be expected, especially insofar as the station of the person represented. As an example Vidy\u00C4\u0081dharamalla, despite his melodramatic demeanour, is never made more than a passing joke of, and even then only by the fool. Likewise, he is spoken to in anger, but only by the queen. R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara indulges the king and court\u00E2\u0080\u0099s aspirations for glory and pride, as well as their vanity. Vidy\u00C4\u0081dharamalla\u00E2\u0080\u0099s fortune comes to somewhat absurdly extreme climax at the end of the play: he receives two princesses as brides, miraculously wins all of his wars, and is crowned emperor of the entire region. All this evinces a social and political climate that would see the text as an acceptable or even desirable artistic representation of the contemporary time and place\u00E2\u0080\u0094either a fiction ornamented with realities, or a reality heavily ornamented with fictions (see also Knutson 2010). 61 4 Conclusions Historical Western literary-critical approaches to R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara and his Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 have typically not been kind. Only in recent decades have these attitudes started to change. While some of this criticism may simply come from poor readings of complicated texts, much of it suggests a set of essentialist attitudes towards Sanskrit drama which even a slightly-iconoclastic playwright such as R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara may have been seen to flaunt. As a result, he is an easy target to accuse of exhibiting the late decline of the Sanskrit dramatic form. However, I have proposed several alternative approaches to analyzing R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s works, and demonstrated at least insofar as the example of Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 that they in fact contain a great deal of content that is understandably invisible to the context provided by these historical Western literary-critical approaches. Examining the play with an eye to its performance context, it becomes clear that the text speaks a \u00E2\u0080\u009Clanguage of production.\u00E2\u0080\u009D This language is firmly rooted in the foundational dramatic theory of the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra, but moreover describes action in ways that require and engage the interpretive expertise of the producers and performers; that is, it doesn\u00E2\u0080\u0099t actually make sense unless it is performed. As well, the construction of the play with respect to space (and how it uses that space in its action) illustrates remarkably practical suggestions of staging. Finally, the text\u00E2\u0080\u0099s use of physical objects, while characteristically sparse, nonetheless merges the practical side of the play with its more symbolic, aesthetic goals. Moving on to the courtly context of the play, Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 seems to be keenly aware of the theoretical, social, and historical environment in which it exists. It relies on the sophistication of its audience to understand how certain subversive or transgressive parts of the play are, in fact, merely suggestions of subversion and, in truth, conventionally acceptable. It incorporates contemporary historical events and clearly implies that certain 62 characters represent certain real figures, while simultaneously ornamenting those recognizable events and personages in fictions, and maintaining a certain degree of socially- expected restraint in such depictions. When I initially proposed my alternative approaches to R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara, I mentioned one topic which has not yet been resolved: the idea of \u00E2\u0080\u009Ctheorizing the drama.\u00E2\u0080\u009D The reason is that where k\u00C4\u0081vya ends and drama begins, R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara goes silent. Despite the fact that five of his six \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgreat works\u00E2\u0080\u009D (as he describes them) are plays, R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s theoretical concern\u00E2\u0080\u0094at least insofar as he explicitly states it\u00E2\u0080\u0094remains in the realm of k\u00C4\u0081vya and not in the realm of performance practice. This may be due to the existing body of dramatic theory; it could be said that the N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra lays out almost everything that needs be said about drama, though it is so broad that nearly anything can be made to fit within it. Perhaps more likely this is a function of the forms themselves, and R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s inclinations. Defining the drama, in the sense that R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara operates when defining k\u00C4\u0081vya, might simply be incompatible with such a multi-party, interpretive process as dramatic practice. For now, at least, the question of what implied insights into R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s conception of drama can be found inside his works is I hope evident in some of the work above, while still remaining an avenue for further study. In closing, I could not hope to accurately describe R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara in more concise terms than these, which present what I hope reflects his recovering reputation in modern scholarship: There is something marvellously idiosyncratic about R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s mind and mode of discourse, [But] there is nothing in the least idiosyncratic about R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s conception of literature. His narrative style may be his own but what he expresses is, in every particular, a theoretical presupposition of Sanskrit culture as a whole. (Pollock 2006, 204) 63 Works Cited Ali, Daud. 2004. Courtly culture and political life in early medieval India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Apte, V. S. 1886. R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara: his life and writings. Poona: Arya-Bhushana Press. Baumer, Rachel Van M., and James R. Brandon, eds. 1981. Sanskrit drama in performance. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii. Bhatt, G. K. 1975. Bharata-n\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya-ma\u00C3\u00B1jar\u00C4\u00AB. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Brook, Peter. 1968. The empty space. New York: Simon & Schuster. Dutta, R. N. 1912. Tales From the Hindu Dramatists. Edited by J.S. Zemin. Calcutta: B. Banerjee & Co. Ghosh, Manmohan. 1933. The Hindu theatre. Indian Historical Quarterly 9: 591-594. \u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u0094. 1950. The N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra. Calcutta: The Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. Gray, Louis H. 1906. The Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081 of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara: Now first translated from the Sanskrit and Pr\u00C4\u0081krit. Journal of the American Oriental Society 27: 1-71. Keith, A. Berriedale. 1924. The Sanskrit drama: In its origin, development, theory & practice. London: Oxford University Press. Knutson, Jesse Ross. 2010. The political poetic of the Sena Court. The Journal of Asian Studies 69, no. 2: 371-401. Konow, Sten. 1901. R\u00C4\u0081ja-\u00C3\u00A7ekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s life and writings. In R\u00C4\u0081ja-\u00C3\u00A7ekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Karp\u00C5\u00ABra-ma\u00C3\u00B1jar\u00C4\u00AB, ed. Sten Konow and C. R. Lanman, 173-209. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. 64 Kulkarni, V. M. 1993. R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara: the critic. In More Studies in Sanskrit S\u00C4\u0081hitya-\u00C5\u009A\u00C4\u0081stra, 111-123. Ahmedabad: Saraswati Pustak Bhandar. L\u00C3\u00A9vi, Sylvain. 1890. Le th\u00C3\u00A9atre Indien. Paris: \u00C3\u0089mile Bouillon. Mankad, D. R. 1932. Hindu theatre. Indian Historical Quarterly 8: 480-499. McCrea, Lawrence. 2003. The poetics of perspective in R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Young R\u00C4\u0081m\u00C4\u0081ya\u00E1\u00B9\u0087a. Paper presented at the meetings of the \u00E2\u0080\u009CToward a History of Sanskrit Poetry\u00E2\u0080\u009D Research Group, Institute for Advanced Studies, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Mirashi, V. V. 1934. The chronological order of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s works. In K.B. Pathak Commemoration Volume, 359-366. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. \u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u0094, ed. 1955. Inscriptions of the Kalachuri-Chedi era. Vol. 4, bk.1 of Corpus inscriptionum indicarum. Ootacamund: Government Epigraphist for India. \u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u0094. 1975. Identification of V\u00C4\u00ABrap\u00C4\u0081la in the Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081. In Literary & historical studies in indology, 61-70. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Parashar, Sadhana, trans. 2000. K\u00C4\u0081vyam\u00C4\u00ABm\u00C4\u0081ms\u00C4\u0081 of R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld. Pollock, Sheldon. 2001. The social aesthetic and Sanskrit literary theory. Journal of Indian Philosophy 29: 197-229. \u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u0094. 2006. The language of the gods in the world of men: Sanskrit, culture, and power in premodern India. Berkeley: University of California Press. Raghavan, V. 1933. Hindu theatre. Indian Historical Quarterly 9. \u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u0094. 1981. Sanskrit drama in performance. In Baumer and Brandon 1981, 9-44. 65 Rao, D. Subba. 1956. A critical survey of the ancient Indian theatre in accordance with the second chapter of the Bharata N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra. In N\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u00ADya\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081stra, ed. K.S. Ramaswami Sastri, Baroda: Oriental Institute. Richmond, Farley. 1981. Suggestions for directors of Sanskrit plays. In Baumer and Brandon 1981, 74-109. Salomon, Richard. 1982. The original language of the Karp\u00C5\u00ABra-ma\u00C3\u00B1jar\u00C4\u00AB. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenl\u00C3\u00A4ndischen Gesellschaft 132: 119-141. Sathaye, Adheesh. 2009. R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara\u00E2\u0080\u0099s K\u00C4\u0081vyam\u00C4\u00ABm\u00C4\u0081\u00E1\u00B9\u0083s\u00C4\u0081 and the construction of literary place. Paper presented at the 15th World Sanskrit Conference. \u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u0094. 2010. The production of unpleasurable rasas in the Sanskrit dramas of \u00C4\u0080rya K\u00E1\u00B9\u00A3em\u00C4\u00AB\u00C5\u009Bvara. Journal of the American Oriental Society 130, no. 3: 361-384. Shukla, B\u00C4\u0081b\u00C5\u00ABl\u00C4\u0081l, ed. 1976. Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081-n\u00C4\u0081tik\u00C4\u0081 of Mahakavi R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhar. Varanasi: Chaukhambha Orientalia. Vidyasagara, J, ed. 1884. Balaramayana. Calcutta: New Valmiki Press. Warder, A. K. 1988. The bold style: \u00C5\u009Aaktibhadra to Dhanap\u00C4\u0081la. Vol. 5 of Indian K\u00C4\u0081vya literature. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Winternitz, Moriz. 1963. History of Indian literature. Translated by Subhadra Jh\u00C4\u0081. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass."@en . "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "2013-05"@en . "10.14288/1.0073445"@en . "eng"@en . "Asian Studies"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported"@en . "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/"@en . "Graduate"@en . "Reconsidering R\u00C4\u0081ja\u00C5\u009Bekhara : performance and courtly context in Viddha\u00C5\u009B\u00C4\u0081labha\u00C3\u00B1jik\u00C4\u0081"@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/43719"@en .