Table Of ContentBOOK REVIEW
is his Identiflcarion of the arcbitectura!
TheTheatres of Bharata elements cf members. such as
andSomeAspectsof sha/abhanjjkiJ.gaviiksha, the sjmharyiUas.
Prof. Panchal, naturally,re-interpretsthe
SanskritPlay-production
controversial terms, like the mattavaront
GQ\lerdhanPanchal and the shaddaruka, and lim lucidly the
technicalterminology used by Bharata.All
MunshiramManohartal,Delhi,1996
this should regenerate fresh interest in
xix+162pages,Rs450 Bharata's theatre. After all, theatricalspace
provides for the presentation ofdrama.
and if the Sanskrittheatre isbeing revived
ThisbookbyGoverdhanPaschalstandsoutas
by contemporary dramatists and theatre
a valuable contribution among scholarly
directors.then appropriatenessoftheatrical
publicationson the subject of ancient Indian space is a pre-requisite.
theatre and its dominating dramaturgical
document, the Niifyaiastra. The scope and Thesameobjectiveisreiteratedbytheauthor
thrust of the bookis made clear by the title inhispreface:
itself,wheretheword'theatres'isusedtodenote Myaim to recreate the theatre of Bharata
thetheatre-housesinancientIndiadescribedby is threefold.One,it couldbe reconstructed
BharataMum.Inadditiontothedescriptionof to stage the ancient Sanskrit plays which
theatre-houses, the authorhas undertaken to wouldbebased ontheNf1tyasiistratradition
analyze only some aspects of the style and and in their own environment. Two. to
Contentofancient performances. Butasthese provide amodel for anew theatre form for
theemergingSanskritdramatic styleaiming
aspectsarethosemostoftendiscussed,andare
atpresenting[Sanskritplays] beforemodem
often subjects of heated controversy, the
audiences.And. three, to provide a model
interpretationsofGoverdhanPanchalonmatters
for anindigenous stage for the third-level
liketheuseoftheyavanikiiorstagecurtain,use
dramatic formbased on the West-oriented
ofprops,costume,regionalstylesofacting,etc"
drama which is Indian in context.
addtotheongoinginvestigationofthemystery
thatancientIndiantheatrehasbeen.Thereisno Withthe purpose of theauthorthusstated;
claimbytheauthortohaveconsideredallfacets letusseehowthebookgoesaboutitsbusiness.
ofancienttheatricalproductionsortoprovidea The author'sintention thathisworkshouldbe
total picture of ancient India's theatrical art. of practical use to those who are trying 10
Nevertheless, the reader can beassured that recreateancienttheatreisindeedalaudableone.
within its limited scope. the book offers a asitgoesbeyondthemoreusualaimofscholars
and
thorough accurate surveyof research by tostudyancient texts and formsfor theirown
other scholars besides presenting Goverdhan sakeorforpurelyhistoricalanalysis.Thescholar
Panchal'sownperceptiveanalysis. andthedirectorarehereinvitedtocooperatefor
11Iebookcarriesaforewardbyawell-known alivingart.
authorityinthefieldofIndianperformingarts,
Dr Kapila Vatsyayan, who summarizes the
•
thrustofthebookthus:
Right from Chapter I,Goverdhan Panchal
. . . a heroic attempt to reconstruct the showsabiasforcorrelatingnotonlythetheatre
theatrical buildings from literary evidences
house of Bharata MUDibut also Bharau',
eanvdidetoncere.laetveenthiefsesc1a0ntthaendarrcahraee,osluocghicaasJ dramaturgy as a whole with the cave art and
ethos of the early Buddhist period. He also
open-airrheatres- the fa~ade ofLomas
andalsothecaveofBhaja...Mosawelcome mentionsprominentlythe referencestotheatre
S"ngUI Nold Nos. l35-l36.2000
BOOK REVIEW 71
inthelatahstoriesandJaintexts.Theremains 'green-room' to
atNagarjunakondaofwhathebelieves10bea describe parts ofthe
laterBuddhistperiodtheatrearealsomentioned. ancient theatre. The
Thiscorrelation,built up later in the bookby confusion that arises
showing similarities between Buddhist from such usage has
architecture and features of Bharata MUDi's beenrightlypoinledOUt
theatre,issomewhatincongruouswiththedating byhim.Inexplaining
of theNtl!yaftistra Goverdhan Panehal has the orderingof space
adopted.TheNiuyasastra, he says, "could be by the ancients, he
placedbeforetheMauryasandBhasa,bUIafter showsthatthesquare,
Panini- somewherebetween5thcenturyand therectangle. and the
4thcenturyB.C., andthe theatres described in circle have been
chapter11oftheNtityasastra would beasold prescribedinspecificways,andtheconstruction
if notolder" (p. 8). While I find myself in oftheatre-housesalso followedthesenoons.
agreementwiththisdatingoftheNiityasastra Thisisamuch-neededexpositiontosetatrest
(andhavestatedmanymorereasonsforitinmy all kinds ofdoubts that have beenplaguing
book Dramatic Concepts:Greekand Indian, scholars.Theauthorthenproceedstoenumerate
1994),1findthai thiscorrelationwithBuddhist thenineteenpartsofthetheatre-housedescribed
architecture gives the impression that the byBharata Muni.
Natyasiistra belongs to the much later age of The thirdchapter takesupthe subjectof
Buddhistcavessuchasthoseshownintheplates buildingrnaterial-bricks,stooeblocks.wooden
ofGoverdhanPanchal'sbook- theLomascave columnsandearthpaste- andtheng0C5intoa
(250B.C.).Bhaja(l50B.C.).theNasikchaitya detaileddescriptionofthenineteenpansofthe
(ISOB.C.).andthelateAjantaandElloraInfact, theatre. As the Nii!yas#o.stra itself does not
thehypotheticalmodelofthetheatreofBharata mentiontheuseofstoneblocksorcolumns,this
MunilhatGoverdhanPancha!hassketched(pp. funherindicatesthaitheearliestancienttheatres
64-68) in his book bas all the features of mayhavebelongedtothefirstcenturiesofthe
Buddhistarchitectural design.Ifitisadmitted millennium before Christ. In his detailed
byGoverdhan Panchal that the Na!YaSiistra description,GoverdhanPanchal explainsthe
belongstotheSthcenturyB.C.orpossiblyeven threekindsof theatre-houses- rectangular.
earlier,Ithink.itfollowsthatthefeaturesofthe squareandtriangular- andgivesusthesizes
Na.tyaliJstratheatresuchasshalabhanjika,the andspace-divisionforthevariouspartsofeach.
walls,thecanopy,shaddaruka, etc., could not Theconstructionand/orplacementofgorgons
have belongedexclusively to Buddhistdesign and vedika, windows, doors. walls. beam
b~t, rather, Came from designs prevalent in supportsandbeamsfortheroof.front-andback
differentpartsofthecountryatdifferenttimes. stageareexplained.Ornamentalfeaturessuchas
Also,itmustbeadmittedthatasthenQ!yagriha pigeon-stringsandwallpaintings.andfunctional
(theatre·house)wasapopularplace,itneednot onessuchasacousticsandventilationarealso
taken up. With the helpof referencesfrom
hav.ealwaysfollowedcloselythesophisticated
dCSIgmoftempleandcavearchitecture. ancientliterarytexts,anaccurateandconvincing
pictureoftheancienttheatre-houseemergesfrom
Thesecondchaptersetsthetoneofthebook.
Heretheauthorpointsoutthatscholarshiphas GoverdhanPanchal'sanalysis.
In thefourthchapter,theauthorgoesinto
neglectedthe fact thatBharataMum'stheatre
someaspectsofpartsoftheancienttheatrewhich
housesWeresupposedtofollowtheage-oldrules
havenotbeenquiteunambiguouslydescribed
ofvastuthastra. the science of architecture,
byBharataMUDi.Tbereisausefuldiscussion
WhichhasalonghistoryinIndia.Heisagainst
here astowhetherthefront-stagewas lower
theuseofposH-ealismtermssuchas'wings'or
7Z BHARATGUPT
or
than the back-stage or was at the same level. beusedforwhat purpose. makesnomention
ThemostcontroversialpartofBharata'stheatre the mattavaranis as acting areas. Nor is it
house. themalla\'arani.isdealtwithindetail. suggestedanywhereintheNiJtyasilsrrathatthe
Themattavaranihasbeenasubjectofwidely musicians sat in them. The place for the
divergentopinionamongscholarsformorethan musicianswasattherearoftheback-stage.Iam
a thousand years. IIisa crucialmatter, as the therefore tempted to believe thai the
shape.size.locationanduseofthemattavaranl manavaranls were used as seating space for
givestheancientIndianstageadistinctlookand exclusive membersoftheaudience.forcouples
marks it out from stages for performance of the royal household. or for the sponsor's
elsewhere in the world.Most of the modem family. 'Va-rand' or 'mattawirana' in
scholars of India have chosen to describe the architecturaltextsseemtostandforastructure,
mattavaranf insuchamannerthatitresembles embellishedorotherwise.used forthepurpose
the European proscenium stage. But the of sitting at leisure. Thus. perhaps, the most
interpretation given by Abhioavegupta. based leisurelyclasswasseated inthemattavdranaof
ontraditionalteachingifnotdirectobservation. .theclassicalIndiantheatre-house.Inthatcase,
suggeststhatitwasaspacethatdoesnotmatch theactingareawassurroundedbytheaudience
anyknownpatternofstagedesign.ToAbhinava, onthreesides.Andifthematravaranlsaretaken
themattavarani wasaspace,orratherspaces, tobeasdeepasthestageitself,thentheaudience
located on both sides of the front-stage wouldbeevenlydistributedonallthethreesides
(rangapilha).Thesespaceswereinadditionto andnOlconcentratedon one sideof the stage.
therectangularstagearea,andextendedbeyond Suchuseofmattavaraniswouldmaketheseating
the side-walls of the auditorium (as arrangementoftheancientIndiantheatresimilar
Abhinavagupta explicitly says, "maddapor to that of the Greek. theatre - (he audience
bahir"'). According to some specialists of his surrounding the performance space. While
time. remarks Abhinava, the area of one Goverdhan Panchal accepts. by and large,
mattavaranl waseight'hands'square,butothers Abhinavagupta's statement regarding the size
considered it tobeasdeep as the stage itself, andnumberofmattavaranis,hedoesnotplace
whichwouldmakeitarectangleof8x16hands. them adjacent('piirshvetu' as the Nii.tyafiistra
Somecommentatorsheldthatthemattariranis says) to the front-stage but onthe stageitself.
were a hand-and-a-half higher than the stage This would create two obstructive structures
(rangapitha),but Abhinava averred that they oneithersideofthefront-stage,blockingfrom
wereofthesameheightasthestage,ahandand theviewoftheaudiencetheactionontheback
ahalfhigh. AstheNii.tyasiistraexplicitly says stage. Admitting this obstruction, the author
that the mattavaranf was adorned with four argues thatthepillars ofthemattavaranlswere
pillars,itiscommonlyacceptedthatthesepillars usedasstagepropsandhadevenothertheatrical
supponedsome sonofceilingor canopy over functions:"Endlesswerethedramaticfunctions
the martavarani,Thus,according to Abhinava, they[thepillars]perfonnedandnumerous[the]
themattaviranIsaretwoside-spacesaugmenting formstheyassumed.....(p.59).Inrnyopinion.
the stage,decorated with pillars and ceilings. however,hadthisbeenso,ameticulouslydetailed
modifying the total shape ofthe auditorium. textliketheNii,>°asastrawouldhavementioned
(Oneistemptedtothinkofthanasresembling. itexplicitly.
theparaskenia of the Greek stage).However, In the next chapter, Goverdhan PaDebal
Abhinava.IikeBharataMum.nowherementions movesontosomeproblemsofproductionwhich
theusethemattavaraniswereputto.Werethey are not so dependent on the architectural
performance spaces?TheNdtyasiistra chapter dimensions of the ancient stage. A detailed
ondivisionofactingspaces(kakshylH'whil1la) inquiry into the various kinds of curtains
whilelayingdownwhichpartofthestageisto para, yavanika, chltrayavanika - is madein
BOOK REVIew 7J
thischapter.Theuseofthesecurtainsisexplained authenticaccountofthestagingofSanskritplays
givingexamples from ancient plays, and the fromthemid-nineteenthcenturyinIndiaand
modernemploymentof curtains in traditional abroad, and is illustrated with fifty-two
theatres like Kudiyattam. The problems of photographs. It should inspire scholars to
handlingromebigcurtains- someWereforty producefull-lengthhistoricalstudiesofSanskrit
eightfeetwide- arediscussedindepth.From productions.GoverdhanPanchalsaystherewert
theinternalevidence of the plays, the author three phases in which Sanskrit plays were
concludes that "there were three types of produced.Inthefirstphase(apartfromthe1880
curtainsonthisstage:pariorapationthestage Marathi Shakunralawhichmusthavebeenin
doors, yavanika between rangashirsha and thetraditionalsangeet-nasakmode),playswere
rangapicha,andcitra-yavaaika,aflexibleCUJ1ajn, producedtohighlighttheSanskrittext,asserting
tobeusedanywhereonthestage".Thiscertainly the classical tradition of India. These were
soJvesmanyseemingcontradictions. declamatory efforts, mostly produced by
The next three chapters of Goverdhan Sanskrit departments of universities or
Panchal's book seem to have emanated from institutionsupholdingthevalueofIndia'sancient
lecturesthathe gave on variousoccasionson heritage,andwereclearlypartofthenationalist
someoilierriddlesoftheancienttheatrerelating upsurgeinthecountry.Literatureoverrodethe
tocostume,stylesofproduction.andmake-up. demandsofgoodmeatteintheseendeavours.
As for the terms lokadharmf and (TheAll-IndiaKalidasaSamarohahasprovided
suuyadharmi, he seems to befollowing the spaceforsuch effortssince 1958.)Theplays.
standardinterpretations available - that they weredoneinthenaturalisticstyleofEuropean
arenaturalistic and stylised modes of acting. drama,theonlydifferencebeingthelanguage
Chapter7enlargestheauthor'sanalysisofthe and the subject-matter. The second phase,
problemof'mattavarani.Thisexhaustivesurvey accordingtoGoverdhanPanchal,beginsaround
illustrated with drawings also records the 1914.Anattemptwasmadethentochangeme
interpretationsofmanynotedscholarsoverthe stageoverfromtheWesternprosceniummodel
lastfiftyyears.Itwouldbeveryusefultoanew 10 thestagedescribedinBhaTata'stext,There
studentofthesubject,whocanquicklyassimilate wassimultaneouslyarejectionofnaturalismand
the information through the graphic aneffort toincorporate'thegestural,musical,
representationsofferedhere.Nowhereelsedoes andstylisedcommunicationcodesoftraditional
onefind such a detailed examination of(he performingartslikeKathakorKudiyanambya
numberofdirectors.Atthisjuncture, Indian
mattavarani. In the next chapter,Goverdhan
Panchalmovesontoatopicmuchdiscussedby theatre was strongly influenced by the
experimentaltheatreoftheWest. which was
scholarsof-earliertimes:didBhasacomebefore
violentlyrejectingitsownnaturalism,inspired
orafterBharata? The question has now been
settledforalongtime,theanswerbeingthatnot bythetheoriesofArtaud,andturning10fo~
ofAsiaandAfricaThetraditionalperforming
only Bhasa but all the known Sanskrit
artsoflnilianowacquiredsomethingmorethan
playwrightscamealungtimeafterBharataMuni
respectabilityintheeyesoftheW~I- a~w
wrote/compiledhiswork.
recognitionoftheirworth~ heritage(which
was accorded to literature anthe nineteenth
•
century). Appreciation from Western
anthropologists and theatreenthusiasts was
The final chapter of the book offers a
certainlyafactorinthisrevival.Thisledtothe
historical survey ofmodern productions of
thirdphase.whichbroughtto~{ofedjtc'etors.
Sanskritplays.Thoughthisisbeyondthescope
whopickedupa:specifictraditionalformsuc~
ofthe book, the material is oeverthelessvery
asKudiyanamorO1anisgarhNachorBhavar,
valuable.The chapter gives an excellent and
'4 BHARATGUPT
and produced Sanskrit plays with some attempts are in the right directionornot,
improvisationson thattraditional form. The only time will decide. howevermuchwe
phase was quite fruitful, Goverdhan Panchal may applaud them now. These are
thinks.However,afterreviewingproductions individual approaches tothe Sanskritdrama
with the stamp ofindividuality.
of Sanskrit plays in Europe and the North
American continent, and then assessing
Althoughheisawarethatherunstheriskof
contemporary effortsinIndia,heveryrightly
being called a revivalist, GoverdhanPanehal
points out that these
believesthat "It is certainlynot impossibleto
reconstruct the true natya style asenunciated
...experimentsaremostlyinthedirection
offindingcontemporaryidiomsofstaging by Bharata" (p. 148). His faith in sucha
Sanskrit plays for modern audiences, and possibilityhighlights the deepsignificanceof
are notconcerned with rediscovering the BharataMuni's sa.stra and bodeswellforthe
staging style or styles based on the future ofIndiantheatre.
Niityas'tistra. Whether their creative BHARATGUPT
