·No text on this page.

·THE
VIDŪ SAKA
by
G. K. Bhat,
MA., Ph.D.
Lecturer in Sanskrit,
Bombay Educational Service
THE NEW ORDER BOOK CO.
Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad 6.
1959

·Published by:
SHRI D. V. TRIVEDI,
The New Order Book Co., Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabadi ().
All Rights Reserved by the Author.
Price: Rs. 35.00
1959
W
Printed by Ramanlal ). Patel at the M S. University of Baroda Press
(Sadhana Press), Palace Road, Baroda ; July, 1959.

·Dedicated to
the Memory of
My Father

·No text on this page.

·Preface I was attracted towards the study of 'The Vidūşaka in Sanskrit dramas' when, in 1944, the University of Bombay offered the V. N. Mandalik Gold Medal and Prize for an essay on this subject. I was fortunate to win the medal and the prize. But I was not so fortunate in getting the essay published. The disappointment that followed in subsequent years could have chilled my interest in this subject. But in the summer of 1950 I visited Ernakulam; and through the kindness of His Highness the Maharaja of Cochin, who is a great scholar of Sanskrit, I was able to witness a performance of a Sanskrit play presented by the Chākyāras, the traditional actors of Kerala. I was able to see the technique of dramatic representation on the Kerala stage at first hand, and was impressed by the managerial role that the Vidūşaka assumed in the presentation. Then, during the past five or six years, I have done some intensive study of the Natyaśāstra. These circumstances opened up a new line of inquiry. And today, I am in a position to say that I have something very fresh to offer on the several aspects of study connected with the Viduşaka and the problem of humour in Sanskrit drama. The origin and evolution of the Vidūşaka are very controversial problems. Scholars have connected them with the question of the origin of Sanskrit drama itself. A study of the several views, and especially an elaborate examination of Keith's theory in the light of some new material made available in recent years and also my own investigation, have led me to believe that the two questions, the origin of Sanskrit drama and that of the Vidūşaka, could be, and should be kept apart. While it is beyond doubt that Sanskrit drama has had a religious origin, and that religious ritual and mythology have played a tremendous ·vi part in shaping the drama and theatre movement in India, indigenous tradition does not tolerate caricature of things that have always been held sacred in this land. It is not a solemn religious ritual that will be mocked at; but external elements of merriment may accompany the celebration of popular rituiti. It will not be a religion that will be parodied; but some formil practices may occasionally be ridiculed. Hence, it is not possible to admit that the Vidūşaka embodies a caricature of some ancient ritual. The evidence of the Nātyaśāstra and the traditions of the Vernacular drama in India clearly show that the earliest phase in the history of Indian theatre was the production of mythological plays. The first play, as Bharata tells us, depicted a conflict of the Devas and the Asuras. It is in the stageportrayal of the figure of an Asura that we must discover the beginnings of a Comic character. This has a neat analogy in the evolution of Western Comedy. When, further, the drama utilized mythological themes centering round the personal life of a God a figure like that of Nārada, who incidentally had an important share in giving shape to the nātya, can easily be conceived as a humorous companion, wise and respected, and yet loving to instigate quarrels for sheer fun and amusement. The Nātyaśāstra contains a story of a curse that fell on the Bharatas, the atonement they were advised to do, and the attempt made by a king Nahuşa to take the dramatic art down to earth. This account together with the fact that Bharata clearly recognises the Vidūşaka as an essential member of a dramatic troupe-apart from his being a dramatic characterare exceedingly suggestive. They indicate, for instance, that the Vidüşaka was born as a psychological necessity, and came to stay as a social fact. And when Sanskrit drama was launched on a prosperous career, thanks to the encouragement given by royal patronage, ·vii the circumstance not only moulded the pattern of Sanskrit drama but fixed also the figure of the Vidüşaka. The other questions connected with the Viduşaka, his appearance, name, his caste and his use of the Prakrit, are also difficult questions; and I have not come across a satisfactory answer to them so far. However, a careful study of Sanskrit theory and dramatic practice could furnish answers to these questions, which, I hope, will bridge the unfilled gap in the study of the Vidūşaka. As I see it, the name 'Vidūşaka' does not indicate 'one given to abuse', as Keith says; nor does it imply a caricature of a learned Brahmin; it means, ' a spoiler for fun,' as the Vidūşaka's role in Pūrvaranga and his dramatic character demonstrate. Bharata positively recognises four types of Vidūşakas which include an ascetic, a twice-born, a royal dependent and a pupil. If, therefore, the Vidūşaka happens to be a Brahmin in the extant Sanskrit plays, the fact has got to be explained in the light of the norm and pattern that Sanskrit drama acquired under royal patronage, and by considerations of social, cultural and literary propriety, to which also must be traced the Vidūşaka's use of the Prakrit. In understanding the function and role of the Vidūşaka, as in studying the problem of humour, I have entered into the field of Western criticism and literature, and I have correlated the material to Sanskrit theory and practice. This has enabled me to present, I believe, a very comprehensive and searching study of the function and humour of the Vidūşaka. A student of Sanskrit drama is convinced of the wooden and stereotyped character of the Vidūşaka. I have gone into the causes of this decadence; and I have attempted to estimate the contribution of the Vidūşaka to Sanskrit Comedy. The second part of this work presents pictures of the Vidūşakas as far as the 17th century A.D. I have tried to utilize as many literary works as could be available; and I have used two Prakrit Sattakas as well as some Prahasanas in ·viii order to study the later development of the Vidüşaka. These are not merely literary sketches ; they have an interpretative tone which, I hope, will enable the reader to appreciate the characters in a proper perspective. I have adopted an analytical method in tackling the several problems of my study. As these were often inter-related, cross-references were natural; and some repetition of ideas was, therefore, unavoidable. But I have allowed it to remain as it was so that a complete treatment of a particular problem could be available in one place. Similarly I have included the character-studies within the same covers with a view to presenting a complete and a comprehensive study of the Vidüşaka in a single volume. Whatever new I have said in this book in connection with this interesting figure of Sanskrit drama is, to the best of my knowledge, said for the first time. In fact, until I had finished the writing of this book I had myself no idea that so much could be said on a subject like the Vidūşaka, which has not received a major treatment so far. I hope that my conclusions will meet with an approval of the scholarly world. If they do, I shall have the satisfaction of having offered a solution to some very puzzling probleins of Sanskrit drama, But even if this work were only to stimulato serious thinking and start further investigation into problems to which my answers may not be convincing, I shall fcel that my efforts have been adequately rewarded.

·ix I take this opportunity of expressing my sincere thanksto His Highness the Maharaja of Cochin, for giving me the picture of the Vidūşaka on the Kerala Stage '; to the Curator, Mathura Museum, for the photographed picture of the 'Triśikhaṇpaka Vidūşaka '; to Principal Armando Menezes, for the benefit of discussion, and to my other colleagues and friends for helping me in checking up theoretical points from Western literature; to Dr. A. N. Upadhye, for supplying me references useful for my study; to Shri M. D. Raut, our College Librarian, for getting me all the material I wanted for this book and tracing for me doubtful or obscure bibliographical references. Finally, I must acknowledge my indebtedness to the University of Bombay for the grant-in-aid of Rs. 250/- received by me from the University towards the cost of publication of this work. Jaduban', Shahupuri, Kolhapur a. G. K. BHAT

·No text on this page.

·THE VIDŪSAKA

·No text on this page.

·CONTENTS Preface Abbreviations xix PART I THE FOOL IN THE MAKING 3-26 as ORIGINS (1) Difficulties in determining the origin of the Vidūşaka. (2) Various Hypotheses : Windisch-Greek drama; Reich and Müller-Hess-Roman Mime; Pischel- Puppet-play; Lévi-Prakrit Drama; Konow and Schuyler-Popular Vernacular Drama. (3) Vrsäkapi as the Prototype. (4) Keith's Theory: Religious Origin; Mahāvrata Ritual. (5) A New Approach: Evidence of Nāțyaśāstra ; Vidūşaka as an actor and a dramatic character. (6) Asura Comic Character. Analogy from Western Drama. I EVOLUTION : SHAPING INFLUENCES 27-47 (I) Some Parallels : Greek Comedy, (2) 'Feast of Fools'-Mediaeval period. (3) Farcical Comedy: Sotties. (4) Comedy in India : Impossibility of caricaturing the Sacred'. (5) Influence of Ritual, Religion and Mythology as sources of Dramatic Themes; Popular Festivals -- the occasions of production; Spirit of thanksgiving-nature of the Preliminaries; First Phase : Mythological Drama ; evidence of Bharata and Kalidasa; External Comic element supplied by the actor.

·xiv (6) Second Phase: A God accompanied by a Humorous Companion ; Närada as a Cornic type. (7) Third Phase: Story of Curse; element of caricature: Secularization of drama. (8) Fourth Phase : Royal patronage ; Court drama; Professional Fools; Evidence of Kumusutra. (9) Factors of Social and Artistic Propriety determining the Comic traits. (10) Summing up. III PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND ACCESSORIES 48-62 (1) Appearance of the Vidūsaka : Bald head; Kakapada ; Ugliness; Make-up. (2) Head-dress : Trisikha; Cap. (3) Use of Mask. (4) Dress : Garments. (5) Yajñopavita. (6) Cosmetics and Ornaments. (7) Dandakāştha. IV CASTE 63-06 (I) Why is the Vidūşaka a Brahmin? Role in Purvaranga. (2) Social status determined by the status of the Hero. (3) King's Companion ; Access to harem. (4) Privilege of Fun-making. (5) Intelligence and Culture behind Humour. (6) Parody of Privileged Class. V FOOD AND DRINK 67-73 (I) Fondness for Food: Partiality for modakas and Sweets. (2) Prohibited Food. (3) Drink : Reference to Wine. VI LANGUAGE (I) Threefold distinction of Dramatic Characters: Vidūşaka, a 'low' character; Use of Prakrit.

·ху (2) Prakrit as a factor of caricature and amusement ? Use of Highest Dialect by Comic Characters: Närada; Javanese Drama; Prakrit as a Spoken Language of the masses ; Element of Realism. (3) Drama as Popular Entertainment, (4) Illustration from Kerala Theatre. (5) Element of Incongruity. VII NAME 81-89 (I) Proper Names : Prescription of later Theorists. (2) Connection with Spring or Flower. (3) Indication of Brahmin caste. (4) Suggestion of physical deformity and of mental defect. (5) Symbol of Conventional Character. (6) Etymology of the name Vidüşaka': ‘Abuse' and Caricature not correct interpretations; 'Spoiler for Fun'. VIII TYPES 90-95 (I) Four Types of Heroes. (2) Four Types of Vidūşakas. (3) Divergence between Bharata and later Theorists. (4) Illustrations of the types. IX QUALITIES 96-108 (I) Sāradātanaya's list of Qualities: The Vidüşāka of the Gods. (2) The Vidūşaka of the King. (3) The Vidūşaka of the Minister. (4) The Vidūşaka of the Merchant. (5) Other Theorists on Vidüşaka's Qualities. (6) A Survey: Context and Specific Types; General qualities; Explanation of divergence between Theory and Practice. X FUNCTION AND ROLE-I 109-128 In Theory: (1) Technical Function: Actor in Pürvaranga.

·Xvi (2) Dramatic Function: Companion ni tir Irra: (i) Companion in love-intrigurs : (ii) Companion in Separation. (3) Popular Function: Humour. XI FUNCTION AND ROLE II 1243-141 In Practice : (1) Choric Function. (2) Mechanical Function. (3) Function of a Court Jester. (4) Function in Plot-developinent. (5) Function of Critic. (6) Function of Comic Relief. XII THE COMIC SPIRIT 142-154 (1) Bharata's Theory of Hasyarasa : Laughter, a psycho-physical process; Laughter connected with Srrigara; Abhinava's explanation: Element of impropriety, absurdity, or incongruity; Absence of a formal theory of Comedy, (2) Western Theories : Meaning of Humour and Comedy: Origin and evolution of Humour from primitive laughter ; Aristotle's definition of Comedy; Butcher's explanation; Incongruity as a source of laughter, (3) Perception of Humour: Two orders of things in life; Intelligence as an essential element of bumour; Humour as an attitude; Elements in Humour.Suddenness : Detachment; Sympathy. (4) Purpose of Laughter : Meredith and Bergson ; Limitations in practice. XIII THE NATURE AND RANGE OF THE VIDUŞAKA'S HUMOUR I55-168 (1) Variety and Mode of Humorous presentation. (2) Presentation of the Vidüşaka : Physical, Psychological and Sociological legais, * ·xvii ence : (3) Verbal Humour. (4) Humour of Situation. (5) Humour of Character: Appearance; Brahmin caste; Ignorance and pride; Love of food; Cowardice; Wit. XIV THE DECLINE OF THE VIDUŞAKA 169-185 (1) Scope of Theory and Practice of Humour in Sanskrit Drama : Principles of Propriety. (2) Basic Types of Fools: Classification by Aristotle; by Gordon. (3) A New Classification of the Vidūşakas : The Fool; The Critic; The Rogue. (4) Development of Humour : Character-symbol the inevitable Brahmin; Associations limited to Palace-life. (5) Rājasekhara's Treatment: Evidence of decad- Abuse and practical jokes--a low form of humour; Vidūşaka--not a Patākā-nāyaka. (6) Examination of later plays : Mechanical treatment; Contradiction in characterization ; Use of Sanskrit, elaborate language in normal contexts; Cleavage between Comic Spirit and Professional role; Shift in the basis : Vidūşaka as Vita ; Vidūşaka not a genuine friend of the royal Hero but a professional servant. (7) Vidūşaka, a dead character. XV CAUSES OF DECADENCE: A DIAGNOSIS 186-193 (I) Causes of Decadence: Failure to understand the essence of Comic characterization; Ignoring the lead of Classical writers; Disregard of the variety of social Types ; Mechanical treatment ; Unimaginative character of Dramatic Theory: Tyranny of Literary Tradition, and of Public Taste. (2) Epilogue.

·xviii PART II • THE FEAST OF FOOLS' 17-199 10-205 T2-221 I VASANTAKA (in Pratijnu jerriganduri) II VASANTAKA (in Szapnarisatadutto) III SANTUSTA IV GAUTAMA V MĀŅAVAKA VI MADHAVYA VII MAITREYA VIII VASANTAKA (in Priyadarsika) IX VASANTAKA (in Ratrūruli) X ĀTREYA XI VAIKHĀNASA XII KAPIÑJALA XIII CĀRĀYANA XIV THE VIDOŞAKA (in Karnasundari) XV CAKORA XVI MAHODARA 25-232 233-240 241-245 2.16-250 251-257 255-260 دانه- أنه 2015-270 271-273 274-277 278-282 INDEX. BIBLIOGRAPHY 283-301 302-307 ·ABBREVIATIONS Adbhuta. Adbhutadarpana. Avi. Avimāraka. Bal. Bālacarita. BDCRI. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, Poona. BP. Bhāvaprakāśana. Canda. Candakausika. Candra. Candralekha. DR. Dasarūpaka. GOS. Gaekwad's Oriental Series, Baroda. HOS. Harvard Oriental Series. IHQ. Indian Historical Quarterly, JAOS. Journal of the American Oriental Society. JAU. Journal of the Annamalai University. JESL. Journal of the Ethnological Society of London, JUB. Journal of the University of Bombay. Kathā, Kathasaritsägara. Kā. Sū. Kama-sútra. Kāt. Sr. Sū. Kātyāyana Srauta Sutra. Kaumudi. Kaumudimahotsava. KM. Kāvyamālā Series, Bombay. Karna. Karnasundari. Karpūra. Karpūramañjari. KSS. Käshi Sanskrit Series, Mälati. Mälatīmādhava. Mālavikā. Mālavikāgnimitra. Mrc. Mịcchakatika. Nāgā. Nägānanda. ND. Nățyadarpaņa. NLRK. Nāțaka-laksana-ratna-kośa. NS. Nāțyaśāstra. Pratijñā. Pratijñāyaugandharayana.

·XX
Priya,
Ratnā.
RS.
RV.
Sāk.
SD.
Sk. Dr.
ST.
SV.
TSS.
URC.
Viddha.
Vik.
Priyadarsika.
Ratnávali.
Rasārnavasudhakara.
Rgveda-samhita.
Abhijñana-Sakuntala.
Sahityadarpana,
The Sanskrit Drama, Keith.
Sprigāratilaka.
Svapnavāsavadatta.
Trivandrum Sanskrit Series.
Uttara-rāma-carita.
Viddhasālabhanjikā.
Vikramorvasiya.
th

·PART I THE FOOL IN THE MAKING

·No text on this page.

·I ORIGINS The Vidūşaka has been a popular figure of the Sanskrit stage. But unlike the " fool" in Western Comedy, the origin and evolution of the Vidūşaka are unfortunately matters for conjecture only. In the case of the Western Fool there is ample material and accounts exist which indicate more or less definitely the circumstances under which the fool was born, and which made him grow into a comic character of the stage. The case of the Vidūşaka in the Sanskrit dramas is different, and that for two reasons: The theoretical books, beginning with the Natyaśāstra of Bharata, are silent on the question of the origin of the Vidūşaka. Although Bharata explains the origin of the drama, he simply assumes the Vidūşaka to be a necessary character in a dramatic representation; and without suggesting the probable origin and growth of this character, proceeds to explain his characteristics and function on the stage. If, on the other hand, a careful study of the dramatic literature could have furnished material to trace the origin and growth of the Vidūşaka, the prospect is ruined by the fact that the Vidüşaka already appears as a fixed character in Classical Sanskrit drama. This latter is true even of the most ancient specimens of Sanskrit drama made available by modern discoveries, namely, the fragments of Buddhistic drama and the Trivandram plays ascribed to Bhāsa. The plays of Bhāsa present the Vidūşaka both as a conventional character familiar from later plays and, at the same time, a remarkable type in the figure of Santuşta of the Avimāraka_which was both comic and lovable, and which Śūdraka developed into the noble figure of Maitreya. The fragments of the Buddhist drama stand in the same category. For, their discovery has helped only to take the date of the ·4 Sanskrit drama back to a much earlier period than what was assumed so far. The Sāriputra-prakaraṇa and the Hetacra Dramas of the Buddhist poet Aśvaghoşa present the Vidūşaka in a conventional colour. The Vidūşaka in the Sīriputra-prakarana is introduced as a friend of the hero Säriputra ; he speaks Prakrit; probably he served to introduce comic relief; and in the last act when the hero joins the Buddha's fraternity and “ has no need...for encumbrances like a jester," he disappears. The case of the Hetaera Drama is similar. " Thc drania shows close agreement with the classical model; the name of the Vidūşaka is evidence of this, for not only is it connected with a real Brahmin family, but it obeys the rulc that the name of the character should indicate a flower, the spring etc., for it incans literally 'the off-spring of the lotus-smelling'"1 keith is therefore constrained to remark, "The presence of this figure is a remarkable proof of the fixed character attained by the drama, for in itself there is nothing more absurd than that a youthful ascetic seeking after truth should be encumbered by one who is a meet attendant on a wealthy merchant, Brahmin or minister. It can therefore only be supposed that Asvaghosa was writing a type of drama in which the role was far too firmly embedded to permit its omission.”g This brings us back to where we started. An attempt has been made to link up the question of the origin of the Vidūşaka with the origin of Sanskrit drama itself, and explain the former in the light of the theory proposed for the latter. (I) Windisch who assumes Greek influence on Sanskrit drama lays most stress on his comparison of the Vita, Vidūşaka and Sakāra with the parasite, the servus currens and the miles gloriosus, of the Greek drama, implying the origin of the Vidüşaka from the figure of servus currens. 1 Sk. Dr. p. 85. Ibid. p. 82. 3 Ibid. p. 65.

·5 (2) Reich and E. Müller-Hess turn to the Roman mime as the form of art which exercised influence on India and point out that some of the standing types of the mime are parallelled in the Indian drama; the zēlotypos has some similarity to the Sakāra and the mõkos to the Vidūşaka. 4 No one could maintain today with any seriousness the theory of the Greek influence on the origin of Sanskrit drama. The evidence from Pāņini and Patañjali, the discovery of the Bhāsa plays and of the Buddhist drama, have positively proved that the Indian drama had an early and independent origin. And although the contact of Greece with India is an historical fact, it is interesting to remember that the only word that figures in Sanskrit drama, and which shows a connection with Greece, is Yavanikī or Javanikā. But the word cannot be confined in its meaning to what is Greek; as an adjective applied to the curtain it denotes only the material of the curtain, which, as Lévi suggests, was possibly Persian tapestry which the Greek merchantships brought to India. It is not known that there was any curtain in the Greek drama ; and the word by itself has no special application to the theatre-curtain." The similarities of plot in the Greek and Sanskrit dramas are at best interesting only. "The motifs in Sanskrit drama have an earlier history in the literature"...and "we do find in the epic indications that it was not necessary for Grcece to give to India the ideas presented in the drama." 8 In the same way, the analogies between dramatic characters are both idle and futile. The adaptation of the servus currens or the slave in Sanskrit drama and his transformation into a Brahmin is, as Keith remarks, “far too violent a change to be credible."? 4 Ibid. p. 67. See also footnote 2 on previous page for original references. 5 Sk. Dr. pp. 61, 68. 6 Ibid. p. 63. Ibid. p. 66. + ·6 And this applies to mākos also. It is perfectly natural to suppose that the characters of Sanskrit drama have an origin in the actual life of India. (3) According to Pischel the puppet-play, which probably originated in India only, is the source of Sanskrit drama; and it is also the origin of the Vidūşaka. 8 The puppets made of wood or paper are managed by the director; they perform when strings are appropriately pulled ; and it is presumed that a particular puppet given a comic shape and appearance and made to perform antics in order to amuse the audience was the source of the Vidūşaka. But the puppet-play which is primarily a form of make-belief assumes the pre-existence of the drama, as Hillcbrandt correctly says; º being imitative in character it must necessarily be based on some form of drama the real characters of which are presented as performing puppets. Hence Keith observes, " The growth of the drama doubtless brought with it the use of puppets to imitate it in brief, and from the drama came the Vidūşaka, and not vice versa. (4) Lévi regards the Prakrit drama as thc predecessor of Sanskrit drama, The Prakrit drama, according to him, depicted truthfully the type of Brahmin who serves as go-between in love affairs, masking his degraded trade under the cloak of religion.'11 This type is the source of the Vidüşaka. Apart from the difficulty of proving the prior existence of the Prakrit drama, Lévi's view creates two more difficulties : That the Vidûşaka is a go-between in love affairs is not a correct description of all the Vidüşakas in the Sanskrit dramas. And secondly, if the type were originally a degraded Brahmin, it is difficult to explain why the Brahmins consented to keep him in >> 10 9 8 Ibid. p. 52. Ibid. p. 52. See also footnote 5. 10 Sk. Dr. P. 53. 11 Ibid. p. 66.

·7 Sanskrit drama when, as it is alleged, they took over the Prakrit drama. 12 (5) Konow explains the Vidūşaka as a figure of the popular drama, and M. Schuyler holds the same opinion. Noticing the contradictions and differences between the rules given by the theorists for the creation of this character and the actual practice of the Sanskrit Dramatists, M. Schuyler believes that the hypothesis which would best explain these discrepancies is that "The Vidūşaka originated not in the court drama under the influence of the Brāhmaṇa caste, but in the earlier plays of the different tribes of India. These primitive efforts are presumed to have been for the most part farces, their characters were doubtless taken from the actual life of that time. It was in this way that the priest-ridden people had an opportunity to express their hatred of the Brāhmaṇas which, no doubt, they eagerly embraced. By making the Vidūşaka a degraded and contemptible wretch, who was nevertheless a Brāhmaṇa, they could give a farcical element to their rude and formless plays and at the same time take revenge on the privileged class. M. Schuyler further points out that when the village-plays passed into the hands of the Brāhmaṇas who made them courtpoetry, they could not dispose of the figure of the Vidūşaka that was so firmly established in the minds of the people, but at the same time they could not see their own caste thus travestied; so they modified the vicious features of this character and emphasised only the humorous side; "this is why we find the Vidūşaka in the extant plays a simple buffoon and fun-maker, '14 This explains also, according to him, the strange fact that the Vidūşaka speaks in various Prakrits; had he been a creation of the Brāhmaṇa authors, they would have made him speak the literary and cultivated language which would have been easily understood by their hearers of court." They had to retain the 12 Ibid. p. 66. 13 M. Schuyler, JAOS. No. XX, PP. 338 ff. 14 Ibid. "X18 ·8 anomaly because, they found a popular vernacular drama already flourishing which they merely adopted and improved for their own use.' M. Schuyler comes to the conclusion that, “the origin of the Vidūşaka, therefore, niust be sought in the early vernacular village-plays which preceded the classical Sanskrit Drama of India, for the character was not the invention of the Brāhmanical poets." 15 The view of M. Schuyler presents new difficulties. The hypothesis of the popular vernacular drama' on which it is based lacks evidence. Further, granting that the populace loved to make fun of the privileged class, it is difficult to see why the fun should have been restricted to the Bralınin class only. Keith observes that, “it is significant that there is no trace of a comic figure of the Ksatriya class, although the populace doubtless was as willing to make fun of the rulers as of priests. " 16 Finally, the use of Prakrits in the Sanskrit drama and by the Vidūşaka can be adequately explained on other grounds, especially the fact that the larger number of persons who took part in dramatic representation belonged to the humble classes and could speak their vernaculars only."? (6) That the Sanskrit drama has had a religious origin is a hypothesis endorsed by many Western scholars. The beginnings are traced to the Rgveda, and the dialoguc hymns arc interpreted as precursors of Sanskrit drama. Lindenau finds in the figure of Vrşākapi of Rgveda (X. 86), who is a maker of mischief and the god's companion, the prototype of the Vidüşaka. It is true that Vrşäkapi is shown as Indra's friend and companion, and the hymn describes the annoyance he caused to Indra's wife. But this in itself cannot justify Vrşākapi's connection with the Vidūşaka, which Keith rightly regards as far-fetched'. 18 < 16 Ibid. 16 Sk. Dr. p. 66. 17 Ibid. p. 73 18 Ibid. p. 51. See footnote I.

·9 The Vșşākapi hymn is certainly a very obscure hymn. 19 But the refrain of the hymn which stresses the greatness of Indra, and the general trend of conversation in the hymn seem to indicate the familiar theme of Indra befriending a poor but sincere devotee even in preference to a rich but intriguing and self-interested worshipper. It must be remembered that Vļşākapi is regarded as Indra's son but he is not the progeny of his wife, Indrāņi. If the words of Indra, 'Here I go observing, distinguishing between the Dāsa and the Aryan' (v. 19), were significant, it might be assumed that Vịşākapi was perhaps a Dāsa chief. This would explain, on the one hand, the real cause of Indrāņi's jealousy and anger towards Vņşākapi and it would suggest, on the other hand, that Indra was prepared to befriend a loyal devotee even if he were a Dāsa. The companionship of Indra and Vịşākapi has to be understood on this background only. If so, this basis would be inadequate to establish the relation which the Vidūşaka has with the hero of Sanskrit drama. The mischief of Vịşākapi consists in spoiling the delicate and valuable articles of household decoration belonging to Indrāni ('priya taştani', v. 5); and, for ought we know, Indråņi's complaint may have been prompted more by her anger and jealousy than by a real state of things. But a mischief of this kind, even if it were real, cannot be associated with the so-called antics of a comic figure. Further, Vrşākapi has a wife; he expresses a longing for Indrāni (v.7); he is leaving Indra on account of the complaints that Indrāni has made against him; Indra effects a reconciliation between his wife and Vrsäkapi, and persuades Vņşãkapi to stay on. These facts do not afford any suggestive parallels to the usual set-up in which the Vidūşaka is found in Sanskrit drama. 19 See Prof. H. D. Velankar's annotated translation of this hymn (RV. X. 86) in JUB, vol. XXII, Part 2, Sept. 1953; PP. II-I5. 2 ·IO It seems that the uncouth appearance of Virşikapi, especially his being a monkey ( kapi), and his obviously uncouth speech (vv. 7, 16), may have suggested a similarity between Vrsakapi and the Vidūşaka. But then, if some dramatists like Kalidasa have described the resemblance of Vidūşaka to a monkey, it is only a feature of ugliness calculated to provoke simple laughter. It is well-known that ugly appearance is alone what is required for a comic figure as a source of laughter on the stage; it is not necessary that a comic figure should be monkey-like. In fact, the Sanskrit dramatists have introduced varying details in order to present the funny aspect of the Vidüşaka's figure. There appears to be no special reason, therefore, to regardi Vīkapi as the prototype of the Vidūşaka. (7) Keith endeavours to prove religious origin for Sanskrit drama. But he is not prepared to trace it to the dialogue lymns of the Rgveda. These hymns are cnigmatic in claracter and cannot, therefore, warrant a definite conclusion, Keith seeks the origin of the Sanskrit drama in Vedic ritual, where he discovers the origin of the Vidūşaka too. In fact, according to Keith, the fact that the origin of the Vidüşaka can loc discovered in Vedic ritual strengthens in itself the conclusion that the Sanskrit drama has had a religious origin. Keith finds this origin in the ritual of Malavrata. This ritual is "plainly a rite intended to strengthen at the winter solistice the sun so that it may resume its vigour and make fruitful the earth... The same ceremony is marked by a curious episode; a Brahmin student and a hetaera are introduced as engaged in coarse abuse of each other, and in the older form of the ritual we actually find that sexual union as a fertility rite is permitted, though later taste dismissed the practice as undesirable.” 20 It is in this episode and especially in the figure of the Brahmacārin that Keith finds the prototype of the Vidūşaka. He writes: www. 20 Sk. Dr. PP. 24-25.

·<< “ The name ( Vidūşaka ) denotes him as given to abuse, and not rarely he and one of the attendants on the queen engage in contests of acrid repartee, in which he certainly does not fare the better. It would be absurd to ignore in this regard the dialogue between the Brahmin and the hetaera in the Mahāvrata, where the exchange of coarse abuse is intended as a fertility rite." 21 That the Vidūşaka happens to be a Brahmin is explained by Keith on this hypothesis, namely, that the original figure in the Mahāvrata is a Brahmin who conducts a hot conversation with the hetaera. The explanation for his use of Prakrit is as follows: .... the fact that he (Vidūşaka) is treated as a Brahmin is conclusive that the abusive side of his character is the more important. It is to this doubtless that his use of Prakrit is due; it cannot be conceived that a dialogue of abuse was carried on by the Brahmin in the sacred language, which the hetaera of the primitive social conditions of the Mahāvrata could not possibly be expected to appreciate." 22 Keith suggests another religious element in the character of the Vidūşaka, and it is derived from the ritual of Soma purchase for Soma sacrifice. According to some versions the seller of Soma, who is a Sūdra, is at the close of the ritual ceremony deprived of the price and beaten or pelted with clods. The ritual is certainly a mimic account of the winning of Soma from the custody of the Gandharvas. Keith thinks that we have in the Vidūşaka, the reminiscence of the figure of the Sūdra....possibly it is to this that the hideous appearance attributed to the Vidūşaka is due." 23 21 Ibid. p. 39 2 Ibid. pp. 39-40; also, p. 73. 28 Ibid. p. 39.

·I2 It was necessary to quote extensively from Keith because he has not only mentioned and criticised all possible views on the subject, but has also attempted, by virtue of such criticism as well as independent arguments, to establish his own theory. Having understood Keith's own view in his own words, we must see whether it has been successfully proved. It must be made clear at the outsct that the theory of religious origin (as against secular origin of the Indian drama is supported on very solid grounds. Modern researches have enabled us to antedate the origin of the Indian drama to quito a few centuries before the Christian era. And the vital connection of Siva with the dramatic art, coupled with the interpretation that Siva is a pre-Aryan deity, has further pushed the inte of the Indian drama to a pre-Aryan pcriod. But while it is perfectly logical to trace the Sanskrit Irama to religious beginnings, is it equally correct to trace the origin of a dramatic character like the Vidūşaka to the same source ? (i) In the first place, if Keith thinks that the connection between Vrşākapi of the Rgveda and the Vidūşaka is " farfetched", as it doubtless is, is his analogy froin the Malavrata episode quite convincing ? The texts of the Aitariya and the Śārkhāyana Aranyakas which give thc Malāvrata ritual du nut mention the dialogue between the Brahinacūrin and the licticra.25 The Kātyāyana Srauta Sūtra says, "The wanton girl and the Vedic student shout at each other. The prose coninentary adds, "The two mutually exchange disgusting speeches. "26 24 See Dr. M. Ghosh, Contributions to The History of Ilindu Drama : Its Origin and Diffusion. Pp. 3-7. 25 The Kathaka Samhitā, XXXIV. 5, las the following: ब्रह्मचारी च पुंश्चली चीयेते सर्वा हि भूते वाचो वदन्ति मिथुन चरन्ति संवत्सर वा एते प्रजायमाना सत्रमालते तेषां संवत्सरेणैव प्रजननमन्तीयते यन्मिथुन चरन्ति...! 26 Read, Kat. Śr. Sūtra, XIII. iii. 6-7: पुंश्चलीब्रह्मचारिणावन्योऽन्यमानोशतः । Comm. ' परस्परं उद्वेगकरं वाक्य भाषेते।' MI ·The actual exchange of words is to be found in Lāțyāyana Srauta Sūtra. 27 The description given here—the position which the Pumscali and the Brahmacārin are to take, the words they are to speak, and the repetition of the performance three times-clearly betrays a symbolical and ritual purpose. What is interesting to note is that the words, though abusive in character, are spoken only in ritual fulfilment; and the text gives the words in Sanskrit. One might at the most say that the abusive language sometimes found in dramatic dialogue has had a ritual sanction behind its use! This evidence, however, does not prove Keith's point. (ii) Further, it is not universally true that the Vidūşaka and a maid of the queen are shown in Sanskrit drama as engaged in contests of acrid repartce'. It is really in a late Prakrit drama, the Karpūramañjari of Rājasekhara ( tenth cent. A.D.), that we find something which is analogous to the description given by Keith. For here, in the first act, we have a hot exchange of words between the Vidūşaka and the queen's maid who, supported by her mistress, hits ironically at the Vidūşaka, and the Vidūşaka, angered yet discomfited, finally gives up the quarrel.28 The usual picture in classical drama is that of a maid blaming or cursing the Vidūşaka for his gluttonous habits and that of the Vidūşaka avoiding the queen's maid, conscious of his own stupidity and afraid of being duped by her. It is true that Aśvaghoşa has the character of a Gaņikā; and the Vidūşaka in Mrcchakatika hits uncouthly at Vasantasenā's mother and at the class of courtesans ; but these instances cannot really prove 27 Lītyāyana Srauta Sūtra, IV. iii. 9-12 : पूर्वेण आनीध्रीयं ब्रह्मचारी अन्तर्वेदि उदङ्मुखः तिष्ठेत् । बहिदि पुंश्चली दक्षिणामुखी ॥९॥ सा ब्रूयात् दुश्चरितिनत्रकीणिनिति ॥ १० ॥ धिक त्वा आल्मि पुंश्चली ग्रामस्य मार्जनि पुरुषस्य पुरुषस्य शिस्त्रप्रणेजनि इति ब्रह्मचारी।। ११॥ एवं आतृतीयं व्यत्यासम् ॥ १२ ॥ 28 Karpuramañjari, act I.

·14 anything. As a matter of fact, such characters as a stupid Brahmin, a courtesan and aggressive maids are to be found in the actual life of India. The dramatists coulicasily have picked up these characters from the social life they knew. For a scene between the Vidūşaka and the Ceți, it is not necessary to go back to an episode in the ritual ceremony of Malavrata. (iii) Thus, to trace the Vidūşaka to the ritual of the Mahāvrata on the basis of the alleged abuse exchanged between the Brahmin and the hetaera, and then to assert that since the Vidūşaka is treated as a Brahinin the abusive side of his character is more important, are arguments which confuse: the real issue. It is not possible to connect the Vilūşaka with the Brahamacarin of the Mahāvrata: Neither the texts of the Mahāvrata nor logical reasoning could support such a connection. Similarly, the abusive aspect in Vidūşaka's character is not wholly true and therefore any emphasis on this aspect will make the picture of the Vidūşaka, lop-sided, exaggerated and consequently untrue. But it is doubtful whether Keith is correct in explaining the etymological meaning of the word Viduşaka. The root das does not mean "abuse' but spoil' or blame': and the preposition vi only indicates a particular mode. The word applied to the character thus means, that the Vidüşaka is 'a spoiler for fun' and does it in his own characteristic humorous way. 29 If Keith has sought to connect the Vidozaka with the Mahāvrata on the basis of the meaning of the word, it is clear that his very foundation is weak. (iv) Keith rejects the views of the origin of Sanskrit drama from popular and Prakrit plays on one important ground, namely that the character of the Vidüşaka, who represents a degraded Brahmin, could not have been maintained by the Brahmins who moulded the Sanskrit drama. Had they taken this character from the popular or vernacular play, they would * See further tinder the heading, NAME ·15 e suppressed it in order to suppress the travestry of their class. Keith, therefore, seeks an explanation for the pulsory retention of this character in the religious motive. apparently suggests that the makers of Sanskrit drama d not avoid the Vidúşaka because he came from the ritual ne Mahāvrata and the episode of Soma purchase in the Soma ifice. This could have been a plausible explanation if the al origin of the Vidūşaka were indisputably proved. But it from this, it is not necessary to take the help of religion itual to explain why the Vidūşaka happens to be a Brahmin; e are other grounds on which such explanation can be sibly given and they will be discussed in the course of this y. 80 What is necessary to remember in this connection is fact that the type characterised in the figure of the Vidūşaka social type; and if Keith is prepared to deny borrowing 1 Greek drama and Roman mime of the character of Sakāra, y the reflexion that such a figure can be explained perfectly ly from the actual life of India in the period of Bhāsa and Mycchakatika", ", 31 there is no reason why an untutored vid Brahmin, along with palace-maids and the courtesan, ld not be found in the actual life of India'. (v) It follows that Keith's explanation of the use of krit by the Vidūşaka cannot be accepted, once it is seen that ritual origin of the Vidūşaka is absolutely uncertain. But e is a further error in the argument. In the first place, the is of the Mahāvrata do not mention anywhere that the zange of conversation between the Brahmacārin and the iton girl was carried in Prakrit, or that Prakrit was anywhere 1 in the course of a ritual ceremony. There is no authority such an assumption. And even if such an assumption were le it will be contradicted by the parallel of the Horse sacrithat Keith himself has furnished. He writes, BO See further under the heading, CASTE. Sk. Dr. p. 66.

·16 “The ritual purpose of this abuse is undeniable; it is airned at producing fertility, and has a precis parulle in the nintranslatable language employed in the lorse sacrifice during the period when the unlucky chief queen is compulled to lie beside the slaughtered horse, in order to secure', we may assume, the certainty of obtaining a son for the monarch whose conquests are thus celebrated." 39 If the words which are untranslatable" anii which are to be spoken by the queen, a woman at that, are given in pure Sanskrit in the text of the Asvamedha, what reason love we to believe that the exchange between the Brahmin and the hotacra in the Mahāvrata must be in the Prakrit langenge ? In fact, the words are given in Sanskrit, as already noticel. It is necessary to mention diverse facts in this connection. The Javanese drama which owcs its origin to India borrows the figure of the clown too. But unlike the Vidüşıtka of Sanskrit drama who uses Prakrit, the clown of the Wa yang Orang speaks in the highest dialect analogous to Sanskrit of India 124 It is presumable that the Indian drama, in its pre-historic period was composed entirely in Sanskrit and that the Vidlūşaka in this drama in all probability spoke Sanskrit, instead of Prakrit; it is this character that furnished the prototype of the Javanese clown.35 Here is an indirect evidence at least to show that the language used by the Vidüşaka may not have been Prakrit from the very beginning when the character originated. It is true that the theory prescribes the use of Prakrit for the Vidūşaka ; and the Classical Sanskrit plays exemplify this wwww ya Mb 22 Ibid. p. 25. 28 See also, Miss Godavari Ketkar, Bharatiya Nafyasastra (Marathi), D, 334. $4 Cf. A. K. Coomaraswamy, Notes om the Javanese Theatre, Rupam, 7; quoted by M. Ghosh, History of Hindu Drama, op. cit., p. 39. 85 Cf. M. Ghosh, op. cit., D. 39.

·17 rule. But we also find that the Sūtradhāra speaks in Sanskrit; the only exception being the Cārudatta of Bhāsa and the Mrcchakațika ; although Bharata has not mentioned that the Sutradhāra should be a Brahmin. Contrarily, Indra in Bhāsa's Karnabhära speaks in Prakrit although he appears in the disguise of a Brahmin ! These conflicting facts surely indicate that the language spoken by a particular character cannot be a clue to the origin of that character. The use of particular language by dramatic characters was governed by theoretical rules and the conventions accepted by writers. It is also probable that an additional factor furnished by the motive and purpose of dramatic representation may have affected the language to be spoken by a character. It is to these considerations, and not to religious elements, that we must turn in order to explain the use of Prakrit by the Vidüşaka. 36 It is necessary, therefore, to make a fresh approach to the solution of the problem. Keith admits that, “the popular origin of the Vidūşaka is obvious, but the point is whether this origin is religious or secular..." This is precisely the problem. Keith is unwilling to accept secular origin which he regards "manifestly unnecessary and illegitimatę, when the descent of this figure from the Vedic literature is clear'; and he says that the supporters of the theory of secular origin admit that "the Brahmin of the Mahāvrata, possibly with reminiscences of the Sūdra in the Soma sale" offers us the prototype of this figure. But we have seen that the connection with the assumed prototype is not convincing. 87 $6 See also under the heading, LANGUAGE. Sk. Dr. p. 50. J. T. Parikh appears to be attempting to lend support to Keith's theory that the Brahmacärin of the Mahāvrata is the figure out of which the Vidūşaka developed. Prof. Parikh assumes that the Vidūşaka is a young boy, a Brahmin student (Cf. The Viduşaka : Theory and Practice, pp. 3 87 ·18 1 It must be stated that the acceptance of the theory of religious origin of the Indian drama could not necessarily imply the acceptance of the view that the Vidüşaka originated in a similar manner. The two assumptions must be distinguished from each other; and if the Vidüşaka did have a religious origin, it must be independently demonstrated. iv-v; 15-19). His second assumption appears to be that the Brahmacãrin in the first act of SV. is the Viduşaka Vasantaka (Cf. Bulletin of the Chunilal Gandhi l'idgabharan, No. 2, Surat, August 1955, pp. 15-19). The first assumption is based on the use of the word hath which is often applied to the Vidūşaka. It is true that the word primarily denotes a young Brahmin stucient. But how can it be a ground for a sweeping generalisation that the Vidüşaka is young in age, almost a boy? It is impossible to forget the age of the heroes of Sanskrit dramas with whom the Vidüşaka is associated as their boon companion. The heroes are certainly not young boys, except in a few cases; and a boy Viclüşaka could hardly be imagined as a mirth-provoking and worldly wise' companion of a polygamous hero; and both addressing each other by the intimate term 'vayasya', as prescribed in theory. Secondly, Harşa, Rājasekhara and Mahadeva definitely show their Vidūşakas as married men. Rajasekhara shows the Vidūşaka as a man of family and actually introduces the Brāhmani on the stage in Viddha. The Vidūşaka in Adbkula. boasts that his wife produces a baby every year. It is absurd to dismiss these facts as 'comic'. Thirdly, if Kalidasa's Madhavya calls himself 'Yuvarāja' (Sak. II), it is no indication that he is a young boy: We must remember that Duşyanta, whose companion the Vidüşaka is, is twice-marricd and is not himself a young boy. Further, History amply demonstrates that an heir-apparent is not necessarily a young boy. As long as a monarch is alive and is ruling, his son (or, his brother) continues to be called 'Yuvarāja', whatever his age. The reference is, therefore, Kalidasa's subtle suggestion that ·19 C There is a tendency to disregard the evidence furnished by tradition; but this is unjustified. It is certainly necessary to sift such evidence very carefully; but when such evidence is nearly all that we possess as a starting point of an inquiry it cannot be treated lightly, much less ignored, as it has been done. The Nātyaśāstra of Bharata and the actual dramas must lead our way, I think, to the solution of the present problem. Duşyanta had no son who could be called by the title; hence, the Vidūşaka usurps the title 'Yuvarāja'. The term 'batu' must, therefore, be interpreted in the same sense in which chap' or' old boy' are interpreted in colloquial English. Finally, it is significant that no Sanskrit theorist, despite their flair for trivialities, ever attempted to fix the age of the Viduşaka'. It would have been ridiculous to do so; for a comic figure is truly age-less'. The age of the Vidūşaka in Sanskrit dramas will have to be determined, if one is so interested, separately for each Vidūşaka on the strength of the particular textual evidence, The second assumption is equally fatuous. Granting that the Vidūşaka is an accomplice in the minister's plot, it is clear from the text that his role is that of a real companion to the hero. This explains why the Vidūşaka endeavours to comfort the king in his misery, keeps up his belief in the supposed death of Vāsavadattā, and never betrays the secret till the time is ripe for revelations. The Vidūşaka plays this assigned part deliberately for the success of the plot. Did not Rumanvat do the same, weeping and sorrowing himself to death with Udayana, despite his knowledge that Vásavadattā was not burnt in the fire ? When therefore the Vidūşaka asserts that Vāsavadattā is dead, or when he dismisses Udayana's vision of Vasavadattā as a dream and an illusion, he is only fulfilling his part. The Vidüşaka's reference to Yakşiņi by name Avantisundari' has a simple explanation. Vāsavadattā was staying in the Magadhan palace as a companion and friend of Padmavati. No one had any knowledge of her true identity.

·20 ris Whe A striking fact that we learn from the Vatwuśīstra is the distinction which Bharata makes between the Viduşaka as an actor and Vidūşaka as a character in the clrum. It is a very important fact that Bharata sliould include the Vidūsaka along with the Sütradhāra and his Assistant as a necessary and inevitable member of the dramatic troupe. There is an obvious reason for this inclusion. Bharata has a realistic notion about the primary purpose of a dramatic representation. The drama may mean different things to different kinds of audiences; 3 but its central purpose is relaxation, amusement and pleasure. The Natya was created to meet the demand of a diversion by providing a social amusement, which was both audible and visible, and in which all without exception could take part.3. And Kali- Her personal charm, sweetness of teniper, her skill and the mystery surrounding her, could casily give rise to at lief among the inmates of the harem that she was a Yakşiyi, an extraordinary woman. It was not difficult for the vidūşı kit to have heard such opinion from some palace maid. The argument that the Brahmacārin mentions Rumanvat in his report but not the Vidūşaka, is an argument form silence; but the fact conforms to the rule, prādhänycna vyapadesa bhavanti. Similarly, the argument that the Byhatkathā describes the Vidūsaka as having accompanied the minister and Väsavadattá to Magadha, is no evidence that Bhāsa has done so. It is wrong to interpret facts in a work of art by a criterion derived from its source. But the basic error in the above assumption is this: If the Brahmacarin is really the Vidūşaka, how is it that Padınavati, Kāñcukiya and the maid, who all have already met him, never recognise him when he comes to stay in the palace as a companion of Udayana ? Is Bhasa such a poor artist as to create a basically absurd situation in his plot-construction ? (See my edition of SV for an interpretation of the roles of the Brahmacarin and the Vidūşaka in this play.) * $8 NS. GOS, I. 107-115; KM, I. 73-81; KSS, I. 103--113. ** NS. GOS, I. II-12; the same in KM and KSS.

·21 The dāsa puts his finger on the same point when he says, drama alone can satisfy in diverse ways the people who widely differ in tastes. 1940 If, thus, the drama were to be a source of pleasure, it was natural that Bharata should think of an actor who would keep the spectators amused from the very beginning. The Vidūşaka appears in the preliminaries of a dramatic representation, known as Pūrvaranga, and provides laughter by his appearance, talk and gestures. 41 This role that the Vidūşaka plays is irrespective of the drama proper, which may or may not have contained comic elements. Its purpose is pure fun; and it must have been all the more necessary, we may presume, if the drama were of a serious or exalted type. The role of the Vidūşaka in the preliminaries of the drama is determined solely by the psychological and social expectation of amusement by way of laughter. If, therefore, the other actors who participate in the Purvaranga, namely the Sūtradhāra, his wife and the assistant, are not to be traced to any religious and ritual source (as they cannot be ), it is inconceivable why the Vidūşaka, like them an actor and a member of the dramatic troupe, should at all be so traced. The origin of the actor Vidūşaka must, therefore, be seen in the fulfilment of the psychological and social need which a dramatic representation creates. Bharata correctly provides that this Vidûşaka should be a "twice-born", which does not mean a Brahmin, but a member of any of the first three castes. If the distinction of the Vidūşaka as an actor and as a character has any significance, it means that the Vidūşaka first appeared only as a member of the dramatic troupe ; and then, in a successive development of the drama, he stepped from the preliminaries into the actual drama, and thus became a dramatic character. The reason for this transformation or dual role is obvious. If the Vidūşaka provided mirth and amusement in 40 Malavikāgrimitra, I.4: नाट्य भिन्नरुचेर्जनस्य बहुधाऽप्येकं समाराधनम् । € NS. GOS, V. 134 ff.; KM, 125 ff.; KSS, 137 ff.

·22 the preliminaries, his presence in the drama proper wouki surely ensure its enjoyment by the general aurlience. Such a consicleration must have led to the creation of a comic charter. This motive, again, is psychological, determined by the necessary appeal of dramatic representation. Yet, one question still remains : Ilow was the first comic character, or the Vidūşaka if he was so callcl, like? The classical dramas do not furnish an answer to this question, because the Viduşaka in them is already a stock character. We must turn to the Natyaśāstra again. Bharata tells us that he approached Grand-lather Brahimi, making preparations for a stage performance, and at his instruction presented, at the Festival of Indra's Banner, first the Nändi with its eight limbs and following, he devised an imitation in which the Demons were shown to be conquered by the Gods and which involved angry exchange of words, Night, cutting by weapons and duels. 48 In another place, we learn that Bharata was instructed by Brahma to perform Amylamanthuna which was composed by the Lord himself as a Samarakäru. ** And further at His suggestion Bharata took the performing troupe to Siva and presented on the majestic background of the Himālaya the performance of Tripuradäha, a Dima. Patañjali refers, while elucidating a grammatical point in Papini, to the mimic performance of the killing of Kansa' and 'the binding of Bali.. whe It is presumable, therefore, that the very early performances consisted of the conflict between the gods and the demons. Bharata assures us that the performance delighted the gods. 43 NS. GOS, I. 54-58; KM, I. 20-24; KSS, I. 54-58M. Ghosh's translation, I. 55-58, p. 9. 48' NS. GOS, KM, KSS, IV. 1-3. 4 NS. GOS, KM, KSS, IV. 10. 45 Vyakarana Mahābhāşya, on III. 1.96: KRAT (v.l. शौमिका) बामैते प्रत्यक्षं कसं घातयन्ति प्रत्यक्ष बलिं कन्धयन्तीति ।

·23 But the demons were provoked, apparently because they were shown to be defeated; but perhaps also because, the actors who took on the roles of the demons represented them in ridiculous light and caused laughter among the assembled crowds in the heavenly regions. It is to be expected that a demon would be represented as a hideous character, and since the final outcome here is his discomfiture, it carries with it an element of ridicule, which can be neatly understood on the basis of mass psychology. It can further be turned to laughter by an actor while portraying the character's demonaic appearance, his fall or flight, and his shouting or howling. It is, therefore, quite possible that the earliest representation of a comic character was the figure of Asura, or symbol of evil. This possibility has a particular relevancy to the character of the Vidūşaka as affected in Sanskrit drama. Among the stock traits of this character, the most important are his hideous or ugly appearance, his Brahmin caste and his use of Prakrit speech. It is not at all difficult to explain why the Vidūşaka happens to be a Brahmin and speaks Prakrit on other perfectly plausible grounds; it is not necessary to insist on a religious motive for the purpose. Nor does the association of Brahmanic and demonaic characters present any self-contradiction; for according to the renowned traditions of the Vedic period and of the Brāhmaṇa literature, the gods and the demons both were the sons of Prajapati'; and their opposition pertained only to modes of thought and behaviour. The real question, therefore, is to account for the ugly appearance of the Vidūşaka. It is natural that a character deformed in body should be a source of laughter on the stage. But would it not be equally natural to have left this detail to the actor himself? What is the necessity of a theoretical prescription, when the actor could easily have devised appropriate make-up, and when the appearance was only one minor aspect of the character? That Bharata should find it necessary to prescribe on the appearance ·24 of the Vidūşaka is, to my mind, an inevitable legacy" from the Deva-Asura stage of the early beginnings of the drama. The hideous appearance of the Asura is a fact that has got to be accepted. The connection between the representation of the Asura and comic characters will appear to be supported loy the evidence of the dramatic practice known from later days. It is significant to recall that Sakāra in Myochakatika who is a villain is shown as a comic character, provoking no doubt anger, l»ut also ridicule and laughter. The Vidūşaka is shown as an associate of the demon King Rāvana in Adbhriadurpuna of Mahallera (first half of 17th Cent.). And in the Marathi dram of the curly phase ( 19th Cent. A.D.) when mythological and epic themes supplica the dramatic plot, the demon invariably appeared as a character hideous in appearance but provoking mirth. A typical instance is the Raksasa in Saubhadra who, as instructed by Krsna, carries away the sleeping Subhadra from her bed-chamber and leaves her in the region of the mount Raivataka, to be discovered by the disguised Arjuna. A clear analogy in this connection is the representation of evil or Satan as a comic character in the carly Western drama. “ The Old Miracles", says Prof, Gordon, "had always their bright patches of comedy, a handy sheep-stcalor, with the sheep hidden in the cradle, or some potent and homely figure like Noah's wife. Also, if Deity must be spared, then devilry must bounce for it, and be amusing ; so that Satan and his vices become comic characters in England. It was in the reign of Elizabeth that old Vice went out on the regular English stage and Mr. Clown, as we know him from Shakespeare, came in."46 It is said that the term “ Vice " is used in both the senses, clown and tempter. Prof. Thorndike tells us that Vice is, " not merely a mirth-provoker, he is also the chief mischief- 10 George Gordon, Shakespearian Comedy, p. 62.

·25 >> maker, and he belongs to the moral allegory as well as to the farcical interlude."47 There is, thus, no doubt that the Vice is a buffoon, the source of much laughter. At the same time we cannot afford to ignore the fact that the tendency to laugh and ridicule is instinctive in humanity. "A tendency to burlesque and caricature....is one of the earliest talents displayed by people in a rude state of society. An appreciation of and sensitiveness to ridicule, and a love of that which is humorous, are found even among savages. ... In fact art itself, in its earliest forms, is caricature ; for it is only by that exaggeration of features which belongs to caricature that unskilled draughtsmen could make themselves understood."48 Hence, J. Feibleman says that explicit instances of comedy are probably as old as humanity. From the scant remains that have come down to us it is not unsafe to infer that comedy was in existence in the most primitive times; the cavedrawings of the Paleolithic period which offer an evidence of caricature are a case in point. 49 Likewise, we must assume that the fool is ancient. The professional fool and the court-jester were known in ancient India; the tradition continues. We are told that king Amanullah of Afghanistan maintained, with no sense of incongruity, at once a private broadcasting station and a court-jester. "One must suppose", says Prof. Gordon, " that there have always been clowns. We appear to need them, and therefore they are born. There is a moment, when we have all had our say about the world, and sufficiently tired each other with our wisdom, when it is felt that the fool should be heard. Folly is free; it can say what it likes; and brings 47 A. H. Thorndike, English Comedy, Pp. 50-51. 48 Thomas Wright, quoted in Carolyn Wells' Outline of Humour, p. 25 J. Feibleman, In Praise of Comedy, p. 37 ff. 4 49 ·26 messages sometimes from strange territory: that halfexplored tract or no man's land, where sense and nonsense fraternize, "50 The points that I wish to make are the following: (I) The origin of the Vidūşaka is certainly obscure. It is true that Sanskrit drama has a religious origin. But it is not possible on that ground to trace the Vidāsaka to Vrşākapi of the Rgveda or to the Brahmin of the Mahāvrata, with a touch of the Sudra in the Soma sale. (2) The instinct towards caricature is natural tn humanity. We need amusement and laughter. It is out of this psychological nccessity that the fools are lxorn; and, therefore, they are ancient. (3) But if a formal origin is to be discovered for the Vidūşaka, it must be sought, according to the evilence of the Natyaśāstra, in the figure of the Asura, who must have been represented both as a hidcous and as a comic character. It is in this sense that the Vidüşaka may he said to have a popular and rcligious origin. 50 George Gordon, op. cit., p. 60.

·II EVOLUTION: SHAPING INFLUENCES It was seen that Bharata conceived the Vidūşaka as an actor and as a dramatic character. The question of origin and evolution, it is obvious, does not affect the actor. It pertains only to the Vidūşaka as a character in the drama. But how the first Asura type of comic character finally evolved into the stock figure of the Sanskrit drama, it is difficult to say. It is a blank-both as far as theory and practice are concerned. But the evolution of drama has followed, inore or less, similar lines of development in most of the countries. And since the Vidūşaka belongs to the type of drama known as Comedy, the analogy of the origin and development of the European drama may perhaps prove to be interesting. The term comedy is to be derived from the Greek word Komos which means a festal procession. Such festal processions were particularly characterised by phallic clement which was designed to secure the success of crops and drive away malign influences. Hence, "In comedy the empliasis still falls on the phallic element and the fertility marriage," and " has been marked all through history by an crotic tone, and in its lower manifestations relied openly on the stimulus of sex-attraction." The Komos, or Revel of Dionysius, even implied general union of the sexes. And the worship of Dionysius, with which was later associated the worship of Bacchus, was accomplished by much reckless and drunken licence; laughter, song and dance were part of the ritual worship accorded to these deitus. The spirit of ridicule also touched in an irreverent way upon sacred things; for, Jupiter and the Oracle at Delphi were actually 1 F. M. Cornford, The Origin of Attic Comedy, pp. 68-69 NOWLIIN Ah # Www ·28 caricatured. The followers of Dionysius Sila wrotesque representations and hysterical orgies in which the mummers disguised themselves as animals with horrible mash These representations and phallic processions were it first left in the hands of amateur actors. Cornford points out that the curly Ginek religious ritual dramas were taken over into comcely. The firtility drama of the year god, the marriage of the coll year, transformed into the New, interrupted by the cleath and the revival of the laro: this is the classic theme of Greek Comedy, "The Girl who e'stTy year is born, his mother and his Bride, thu Antigonist who kills him, the Medicine man who restorcs him to life: thuse inre the stock characters. "When tlic draina Iost its serious musical intent, probably the Antagonist and the Doctor were the first to lxcorne grotesque...these two figures gave rise to two professional types, the swaggering soldier and the Learned Doctor..." The parallel of the Feast of Fools' is perhaps more interesting and instructive. This Feast which was very common in the mediaeval period may be traced, as Chamlwers points out, to the Church of Constantinople ( 824-8G7 A.D.) and finally to the Pagan Kalends. It was called a Feast of Fools obviously because those who took part in it, namely the lower clergy, played the fool." The Feast took place in Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches on Innocent's Day or on other dates. It was a day of the Vicars, the sub-deacons, the lower clergy, who for the most part were of peasant or bourgeois extraction. This low birth of the participants coupled with the fact that the expenses of the Feast were met partly by the Chapter, partly by dues levied upon the bystanders, fix the nature of the Feast. "It was Ibid. Pp. 29-30. $ Ibid. p. 202. E. K. Chambers, Thu Modiacval Stage, Vol. I, p. 334.

·/ 29 6 largely an ebullition of the natural lout beneath the cossack." The ceremonies of the Feast included the choosing of the Bishop' or the Arch-bishop of Fools who wear mitres and pastoral staffs and have crosses borne before them, as if they were on visitation. "They take the office,.. and give Benedictions .. In exempt Churches...a' Pope' of Fools is naturally chosen.. The Clergy wear the garments of the laity or of Fools, and the laity put on priestly or monastic robes." As regards the customs of the Feast we find : Priests and Clerks may be seen wearing masks and monstrous visages at the hours of office. They dance in the Choir dressed as women, panders or minstrels. They sing wanton songs.. They eat black puddings at the horn of the altar while the celebrant is saying mass. They play at dice there. They cense with stinking smoke from the soles of old shoes. They run and leap through the church without a blush at their own shame. Finally they drive about the town and its theatres in shabby traps and carts and rouse the laughter of their fellows and bystanders in infamous performances with indecent gestures and verses scurrilous and unchaste." From a psychological view-point, all this was for the lower clergy "a reaction from the wonted restraints of choir discipline. Familiarity breeds contempt and it was almost an obvious sport to burlesque the sacred and tedious ceremonies with which they were only too painfully familiar." The Feast of the Fools in its complete lack of any restraint had created tremendous scandals and the religious and the royal authorities had often to intervene to suppress it. But it was not altogether suppressed. It had its origin in the popular celebration of Kalends and throughout it did not lack a popular element. It was popular "not only with the inferior clergy themselves, but with the spectacle-loving bourgeois of the 5 Ibid. p. 325. 8 Ibid. p. 295. Ibid. p. 294. Ibid. p. 325.

·30 cathedral towns. "The bourgeois crowilet into the Cathe dral to sce and share in the revel. The Pierol Bisliep in liis turn left the precincts and made his progress through the city streets, while his satellities played their pranks abroad for the entirtainment of the mob."10 Thus, "We finl a roul tradition of Feast of Fools in which the fous are no longer vicars but bourgeois and the dominus festi is a popular' king' or 'prince', rather than a clerical' bishop'." 11 The fifteenth Century was an age of guills in every department of social life in lüuropc. We, therefore, tin the roligious confrèrics or the literary puys giving rise to thuir frivolous counterparts in the compagnies des fous or Scirkes jerveuses, These gave performances of the contemporary comely known as farces, moralities, sottics and sermon jnurux. Of these, the Sottie and the Sermon joyeux have definitely to be regarded as the contribution of the Feast of Fools to the types of coincdy. Of the Sotties, Chambers informs us that they are," on the face of them farces in which the actors are sats or fous.... It is their humour and their mode of satire to represent the whole world from king to clown." 18 It is this spirit that runs through all successive creations of the Fools down to Shakespeare. Chambers writes: "...Whatever outward appearance Shakespeare intended his Fools to bear, there can be no doubt that in their dramatic use as vehicles of general social satire they closely recall the manner of the Sotties. Touchstone is the type. He uses his folly like a stalking horse, and under the presentation of that he shoots his wit." 14 This account reveals the following stages of development: (i) ritual origin--religious and clerical; (i) its adoption into 9 10 Ibid. p. 293. Ibid. p. 372. 1.1 Ibid. p. 373. 11 Ibid. p. 380. 18 Ibid. p. 381. 14 Ibid. p. 389.

·31 Comedy by popular, secular companies ; (iii) with the loss of the solemn purpose behind the ritual, the original characters evolving into professional types. The Western scholars are inclined to regard the development in India to have followed the same plan. Keith particularly is at pains to prove that the Indian drama had a ritual origin, and the Vidūşaka evolved from the Brahmacārin of the Mahāvrata ritual. But the reverence with which religion and ritual are held in India, down to the present day, negates the possibility of its caricature or mockery in any form. A Vedic poet draws an analogy between the ritual and academic functions of the priest, and the activities of the frogs at the beginning of monsoon. 16 But the comparison is solemn and intended to exalt the subject of the hymn, the frogs. It will be a mistake to regard it as a mockery of the priest. Further, a religious celebration in India is a serious affair; it primarily consists of song and dance; and if there is a dramatic show, it is intended to celebrate a particular event in mythology, usually the triumph of a god over the demonaic forces of evil. It will not, therefore, be quite correct to assume that religious ritual affected Indian drama in the same way as it did in the West. However, this is not to deny the possibility of ritual being one of the shaping influences in the growth of the drama. There is no doubt that ritual contained rudiments of drama. The struggle between the white-coloured Vaisya and the darkcoloured Sūdra in the Mahāvrata ceremony cannot be imagined without a mimic representation. And this is equally true of the dialogue between the Brahmacārin and the wanton girl in the same ritual; or the haggling and the quarrel with the Soma seller in the Soma sacrifice. But there is no evidence for suggesting, and it is not possible to imagine, that such ritual was ever burlesqued. The ancient ritual appears to have supplied only the inspiration, if at all, to model certain situations in the 16 Rgveda, VII. 103. (vv. I, 5, 7, 8, 4.)

·32 drama when the playwrights came to compost them. Thus, for example, the dialogue between the Brahima irin am the wanton girl would present, to the secular (***, an rowwintind «kument of incongruity; and it is this ruzisi11u111'sis of incruity rather than the ritual itself, that may have lullsvas.. to invent a situation between a Bralımin and it (aniki. Similarly, the beating of the Soma seller presents a comic juilvility; and it is this sense of the comic that may have inspired Kalidāsa to subject the Vidūşaka in Sakuntalu tu rollandling by the palace-maids and by the charioteer of Indta. Again, the drunkenness of Indra, or rather his exultation art the Soma drink, may have helped to affect the character of a dirunk on the stage. But religion is a tremendous forec in India. And if a mimicry of ritual adapted to dramatic form is uncertain, the influence of religion and religious mythology in shaping and solving the Indian drama is not a matter of doubt. The names of the earliest plays which Bharata has given, and those which Patanjali refers to, clearly indicate that the first phase of the development was the mythological drama. It is significant to remember that the vernacular drama of our times has invariably bcen, in its earliest phases, an adaptation of mythological themes. Bharata's account of the divine origin of the drama, therefore, must naturally be interpreted to mean that religion and mythology adapted to dramatic presentation brought the birth of drama and started its evolution. The original divine plays presumably were produced and directed by Bharata; the sons of Bharata' and the nymphs acted various parts; and the audience naturally was formed by the denizens of the heaven. It is not only the Nalya$astra from which we gather this information ; Kalidasa, too, refers to the performance of the Lakşmisvayamvara which was produced by Bharata and in which Urvast was playing the part of the heroine. This should naturally indicate to us the simple idea that the drama was religious and mythological in the beginning.

·33 The first occasion, according to Bharata, on which the drama of the divine origin was presented to the audience on the earth was the Indramaha festival. 16 The later prescription also indicates that though dramatic performances were held to celebrate certain secular events, 17 that most important occasion was invariably some religious festival. Indramaha itself is a festival celebrated at the close of the rainy season and the beginning of winter; and the Sanskrit dramas furnish direct evidence of dramatic productions at Autumn or Spring festival, and on the occasions of a festival in honour of a local deity. The influence of religion is, thus, evident in determining not only the plot of the drama but the occasion also of its presentation. But the themes of the earliest dramas, as we gather from the references of Patañjali and Bharata, were an eulogy of god for His exploits, a grateful reproduction of His victory over the forces of evil. The same spirit of thanksgiving, it must be remembered, is discernible in the choice of the occasion for dramatic production; for in this latter case, though the drama presented may not have an actual connection with the particular deity of the festival, the preliminaries must have been taken up in the worship of the same. A further fact that must be recalled is that the festive celebration in India is usually marked by religious worship and song and dance, as can be understood from the description of the Spring festival in the Ratnāvali of Harşa, Málatīmādhava of Bhavabhūti, and in other literary works. And if there were any excesses, they were due to the festive spirit of hilarity; it was purely secular and unconnected with any caricature of religion or of a religious idea. The comic element in the drama at this stage must have therefore been external, that is to say, supplied by the comic 16 NS. GOS, KSS, I. 54-55; KM, I. 20-21. NS. GOS, IV. 265 ; KSS, IV, 262; KM, IV. 247-248. See Ghosh, Engl. Tr. IV. 269; also, Introduction, PP. LV-LVI. 5 17 ·34 actor Vidūşaka in the preliminaries; if it was in the play itself it must have been in the representation of evil characters. 18 The next stage of development is probably marked by a type of drama in which a god continued to be the hero, but was associated with a humorous companion. Bharata specifies four types of Vidūşakas corresponding to the four types of heroes who were a god, a king, a minister and a Brahmin. I do not think that this classification is fanciful or without purpose. Though there is no specimen available of an early play where a god and his companion Viduşaka figure, Bharata could not have given this prescription unless such a play was known to have existed in ancient days. It is presumablc that this Vidūşaka was a humorous character but only in a general sense. The qualification which Bharata prescribes for this type of Vidūşaka, especially such qualities as wisdom, the ability to patch up quarrels by peaceful mediation, are to be found in a character like Närada. The Natyasästya itself tells us how the gods disapproved of a particular musical item in the preliminaries of the drama because it was especially delightful to the demons and were, on that account, inclined to wipe out the dramatic presentation; and how Närada intervened to pacify the gods and adjusted the item to the satisfaction of all concerned.19 The contribution of Nārada 20 and his well-known musical abilities must have easily given him an important place in organising dramatic production. Further, if Närada had the wisdom and skill to settle disputes, it is not difficult to understand how this ability could be employed in starting innocent quarrels for the sheer fun of it-a role which is consistently allotted to Nanda in the Puranic literature. And when we add to this the standing tuft of hair on the crown of the head with which Niks 24 For details, sce under the heading, QUALIFICATIONS, is NS. GOS, V. 37-40; KM, KSS, V. 36-41; Ghosh, NS KSS. XXXVI. 66 ·35 peculiarly endowed, we have a physical detail, too, to make Nārada a humorous figure. It is presumable that the drama at this stage was mythological in character and outlook. But the theme, instead of being a symbolical representation of godly exploits, could center round personal or domestic situations in the lives of gods, az where a humorous companion to the godly hero could legitimately be accommodated; such a role would be free from actual caricature or parody of typical personages; but it would provide enough laughter by interesting situations and detached comments, and a dramatic character like that of Narada would appear to be admirably suited to play such a role. The further development appears to have been characterized by what may be termed as the secularization of the drama; and by this term I mean not only the secular character of the people who presented the drama, but the secular themes also on which the dramas were composed. The Nātyaśāstra contains an account of the descent of the drama from the divine to the earthly level.22 In the thirty-sixth chapter of the Natyaśāstra, there is an account of the curse that fell on the sons of Bharata': Excessively proud of the knowledge of the Natyaveda that they possessed, the sons of Bharata' started giving performances based on laughter-provoking themes in which they held to ridicule all kinds of people ; thus, they presented in an assembly a composition in which the sages were parodied; and rustic actions based on bad conduct not approved in cultured society were presented. This naturally angered the sages and they cursed the actors, who were Brahmins, that they would be degraded to the position of Sūdras. The actors realised their folly; an attempt was made through Cf. in this connection the reference to the play, Lakşmnisvayaravara, Vikramoruasiya, II. 18, and III, interlude. * NS KSS, XXXVI 21 ·36 the gods to pacify the sages; and, as the gods were anxious that the dramatic art created by Brahmü should not perish, the actors were advised to atone for their foolish bchaviour. 33 Later we learn that a king Nahuşu who possessed the religious merit to reach the kingdom of gods, had the opportunity to witness a musical and dramatic performance in the home of the gods; he was anxious to establish the art on the carth; he approached and besought the Creator to grant him his wish; the Creator conceded the request and instructol the 'sons of Bharata' to go down to the earth to perform the drama; and, on a proper performance being given, promise to mitigate the curse and make the actors undespised in the wyos of Brahnins and the kings. 24 And it was thus, on account of the curse, and partly due to the desire of king Nahuşa, that the dramatic art came to earth. This account may be fanciful; and yet it conceals a social history the significance of which may not be missed. Bharata was a sage and his sons were naturally regarded as Brahmins; but they were degraded to the position of Sūdras on account of the curse, and were committed to give perforniances on the earth. This should mean for us that the art of drama was in the hands of secular actors, some of whoin at least must bave been drawn from the comparatively lower strata of society. The epic and the poetic literatures bear testimony to the low estimation in which the Sailaşas, meaning actors, were held as a social class; Bāņa tells us in his Harşacarita how he suffered social disapprobation on account of his association with professional actors and how he had to vindicate his position before the emperor Harsa. The history of the dramatic companies in all the provinces of India in modern times reveals the same social stigma being attached to the professional actors 23 NS. KSS, XXXVI. 29-47; KM, XXXVI. 29-45- 24 NS. KSS, XXXVI. 41-70. KM has only 45 verses to this chapter, and so, does not contain the legend of Nahape ·37 It is, of course, to be expected that a keen artistic urge and love of the art must have led to defy the social ban even in ancient days as in our own. Hence, the kings not only patronized the actors but also attended to the education of young princesses and palace-maids in the arts of singing, dance and histrionics. Some of the kings were themselves fine artists. And, judging by the evidence of Malavikāgnimitra, reputed Brahmins took up the profession of a Nāțyācārya. But if the dramatic art came into the hands of the secular actors who were low in the social scale, occasional lapses on their part, and descending to the level of rustic farce, could in their case be naturally understood. Perhaps a natural desire to produce laughter and amuse the spectators must have been there; and it could also account for the farcical representation by the actors. Any of these factors, or probably both, were responsible for bringing an element of caricature and laughter into dramatic representation, and this is what the action of the sons of Bharata 'described above signifies for us. • Thus, it is a popular element, drawn chiefly perhaps from the rustic level, that seems to have provided amusement in dramatic representation. And it is on this popular and secular level that caricature or mimic presentation intended for laughter can be understood. In other words, it is not a parody of religious ritual but the mimicry of ritual in its social context that must be regarded as a shaping influence, particularly in India. It was seen how in the 'Feast of fools', the 'bishop' was substituted in the second tradition by a popular 'king' or prince'. It is important to note that the inversion of status which is so characteristic of the 'Feast of Fools' is equally characteristic of Folk-festivals. 25 The mock king mentioned by Dr. Frazer in this connection is one of the meanest of the people, chosen out to represent the real king as the priest-victim of a divine service. Sir Walter Elliot has given an account of the 36 Chambers, The Mediaeval Stage, Vol. I, p. 326.

·38 < Indian Village Feast' of the Konds or Kuinga s, and he assures us that he found" this remarkable institution existing in every part of India," with varying details but the main features remaining the same.28 This village feast of the Konds "is a fertility ritual in which a buffalo is killed. It is shared by all and the piece of her flesh is sown in the field to make it fertile. Even Brahmins take part in it and scramble for the piece of flesh." The feast is in honour of the village goddess, grāmadevatā. "Here the officiating priests are the Parias who on this occasion alone are exempt from the degrading condition which excludes them from the village. With them are included the Mangs, Paria dancing girls, the musician in attendance on them called Rangia who acts also as a sort of jester or buffoon.''97 The mock-king, the jester and the popular festive element present in this ritual are all an indication, if at all, of the contribution of the popular ritual to the development of drama on the comic side. The drama was undoubtedly intended to represent the conduct and life of the entire world consisting of gods, demi-gods and humans. But it is understandable that the drama must have passed through a phase of development before the human hero was regarded as a fit subject for dramatic representation. However, the transition was natural and inevitable. And if the story of the curse is suggestive, the passing of the drama from the divine to the earthly level should suggest the tendency towards secular themes and a human hero. The part played by king Nahuşa in bringing the drama to enerth also appears to be suggestive. Though song, dance and dramatic representations were loved by all people and they have been always so loved the dramatic art must have received Sir Walter Elliot, On' the Characteristics of the Population of Central India; JESL, N. §. i. 94 (1869); quoted by Chambers, The Mediaeval Stage Vol. IL Appendixi pp. 366-67. 27 Ibid.

·39 a definite encouragement by the royal patronage, which is what the story of Nahuşa suggests. The patronage of kings in ancient India to this art not only enabled it to thrive and prosper, but it must also have influenced the shape that the drama gradually took. A preference for secular themes coupled with royal patronage gradually brought into existence the court drama with king as the inevitable hero of the composition. And when the court drama assumed the form of comedy, the court-jester, who in real life was a companion of the king, stepped naturally into the drama as the Vidūşaka attached to the royal hero. It is necessary to state that this is not merely an inference drawn from the story contained in the Natyaśāstra. The available specimens of Sanskrit drama sufficiently warrant the conclusion that the drama took on the form of court-life comedy and that the form came to stay. It is significant that the Vidūşaka appears only in such dramas as are set in social atmosphere, the hero being a king or a Brahmin youth. Even when the hero is drawn either from mythology or legend, the contemporary social setting appears to have been regarded as the most essential element for the particular pattern of court comedy. Hence, in the treatment of epic themes drawn from the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata, the Vidūşaka is omitted; the exceptions are Ratimanmatha and Adbhutadarpana, the plays which belong to the first quarter of the 17th Cent. A.D. The familiar and historical character of the epic story prevents a dramatist from treating it naturally in contemporary social setting; and hence, there is no scope for the Vidūşaka. Another pattern is the full-fledged social drama known as Prakarana. Sūdraka's Myochakatika is the type. And if Bhavabhūti has omitted the Vidūşaka in his Prakarana drama, he has substituted a Pithamarda as a companion of the hero. It has been already seen that Vidüşaka was a popular figure. It was customary for kings to maintain a court-jester. It is also possible to say that professional fools were fashionable in ·40 ancient India. The Kāmasātra 28 mentions the Vidūşaka as an attendant of the fashionable Gentleman. He enjoyed the confidence of both the gentlemen and their mistresses; and men of his type were employed as advisers in amorous liaison by gentlemen and prostitutes. The humorous companion of the royal hero and of the wealthy, cultured merchant prince, or minister, was thus a social, popular figure, which the dramatists could easily pick up for their compositions. As a matter of fact, when the draniatists came to compose their comedies the social material was already there for them to be lifted from actual life. If drama is a picture of life, the writers must naturally know it as thoroughly as possible; and Sanskrit theorists, in fact, prescribe close study of life in the world as one of the essential factors in the trairiing of poets.cº Life in the royal court and palace, in fashionable circles and in towns and villages, at public and village festivals,80 was there for the poets to observe, and afforded potentialities for dramatic construction. It was not really necessary for the poets to go to any special source to be able to compose situations involving the amorous adventures of kings, the love-intrigues, the palacemaids, the courtesans, the gay life at drinking parties and in gambling halls, or the hilarity and song and dance which characterise public festivals. For, the scenes from the royal 28 (i) Hatalanese...fazlaç Yareen 29TT: 1 Kä, Sü., KSS. (No. 29), I. iv. 21. (i) एकदेशविद्यस्तु क्रीडनको विश्वास्यश्च विदूषको वैहासिको वा । I. iv. 46. The Comm. has, 'वेशे गोष्ठयां च विश्वास्यतामुपगम्य परिहासशीलवृत्त्या वर्तत इत्यर्थः, स च वेश्यां नागरकं वा कचित् प्रमाधन्तं लब्धप्रणयत्वादपवदत इति विदूषकः, क्रीडनवाय वेशे मोक्ष्यां च विविधेन हासेन चरति इति वैहासिकः, इत्युभयनामा । (ii) एते वेश्यानां नागरकाणां च मन्त्रिणः सन्धिविग्रहनियुक्ताः । I. iv. 47. KĀ Sū. IV. English Tr.. Basu and Ghosh, pp. 40-41. 29 Cf. Mammaţa, Kavyaprakāśa, I. 3: YUKIT RIFF काव्याचवेक्षणांव । काव्यज्ञशिक्षयाऽभ्यास इति हेतुस्तदुद्भवे ।। The Vrtti on loka reads: लोकस्य स्थावरजावात्मकालोकरस्य । 30 Kā. Sā. Ch. IV. entitled. Nāgaraka '; op. cit.

·41 harem where the Vidūşaka and the palace-maids were thrown together, and even the situation between the courtesan and either the Vidūşaka or Vita, were factors of fashionable social life, as can be gathered from the evidence of the Kāmasūtra and the picture of contemporary life painted in a drama like the Mycchakațika. It is not possible to say whether the professional jester belonged to any particular caste. It was probably not necessary to insist on this distinction in actual life, so long as the person possessed the neoessary ability and qualities to fulfil his function in a social context. But when the dramatists developed this figure in their compositions, it was, I think, but natural that they should have observed certain rules of propriety, both of social behaviour and of artistic composition. We cannot afford to ignore in this connection two important factors: first, that drama is a form of public entertainment and the audience will consist, as always, of both the common folk as well as the elite in a society; and second, since the prevailing form of comedy was largely based on royal life and since the king was the chief patron of this art, literary and social propriety demanded that the humorous companion of the royal hero should conventionally belong to a caste worthy of the royal rank. I suppose that is what the dramatists did; and the prescription of Bharata that the Vidūşaka attached to the king should be a 'twice-born' can be construed naturally in this light. The story of the curse which Bharata has narrated tells us that when his 'sons' gave a rustic exhibition of jest and ridicule before the sages they succeeded only in angering them. This has, one must suppose, a psychological moral: Even if a jest were true and natural, it matters in public exhibition who makes that jest; the propriety which need not be observed in private social circle becomes a psychological necessity in public and open exhibition. This consideration should enlighten and strengthen the convention that came to be established about the caste of the Vidūsaka. It may be repeated that the elements in the composition of 6 ·42 the Vidūşaka were to be found in the social life that the dramatists could observe round about them. There were incongruous elements in the lives that the sages and ascetics, Brahmins and kings, led and which could be utilized for huinorous purposes. If the sons of Bharata' were moved to mock at the sages, the young pupil in Vālmīki's hermitage could not control his laughter over the great sage Vasiştha gobbling up a tawny calf immediately on his arrival; and Bhavabhūti does not hesitate to describe the reaction of the boy in comparing Vasiştha to a tiger or a wolf ! 31 Similarly, the ' uneducated' Brahmin who yet claimed the privileges of his caste, was a familiar social figure. Yaska condemns a Brāhmana who is ignorant of the meaning of the Vedic verses. a3 Manu severely criticises the Brahmins who neglect the duties of their caste and are, thus, a shame to their own class3, These strictures presuppose the existence of such a class. Hence, it was easy for a Bhäsa to paint the figure of Indra as a disguised Bhikşuka, greedy and demanding, and speaking the vernacular of the uneducated class; 34 or for a Sūdraka to show a Maitreya flaring up into anger when the servant asked him to wash the feet of the master.85 The Vidūşaka in the Sanskrit drama certainly holds to ridicule the incongruities in the life of the Brahmin class. But 81 URC., IV, interlude: gut sillor quait at fast at alle ...जण परावडिदेण जेव्व सा वराई कविला कल्लाणी मडमडाइदा ।' 32 Yaska, Nirukta, I. 18: स्थाणुरयं भारहारः किलाभू । अधीत्य वेदं न विजानाति योऽर्थम् ।।' 58 Manusmyti, II, 103, 110 and ff. Also, II. 157-158: यथा काष्ठमयो हस्ती यथा चर्ममयो मृगः । यश्च विप्रोऽनधीयानत्रयस्ते नाम विभ्रति ॥ यथा षण्टोऽफलस्त्रीधु यथा गोगवि चाफला । यथा चाफलं ज्ञानं तथा विप्रोऽनयोऽफल: ॥ # Bhāsa, Karabhara. * Aberc., HL 64 (7) meet and a great भविभ- पाणि मेहेदि। उप व पाद धोकादि।' 6 ·43 to say this is one thing, and to say that the Vidūşaka is a caricature of the Brahmin class, as some writers on this subject have done, is quite another. The first statement is correct; but the second will put the Vidûşaka in a narrow and lop-sided perspective and will, therefore, be decidedly wrong. A careful study of the Sanskrit dramas is apt to convince us that the Vidūşaka, as a privileged jester, moves on the stage poking fun at everything. Palace-maids, courtesans and their retinue are not the only objects thrown in the way of his humorous jibes. Kālidāsa's Vidūşakas continually cut jokes, openly or covertly, at the cost of the royal hero in love-situations. Duşyanta's General does not escape a satirical lashing at the hands of Madhavya,36 who is equally critical of the ascetics who grow long hair and beard, and who grease their heads with Ingudi oil.*7 Bhāsa's Santuşta makes fun of the apparel, or the absence of it, imposed by religion. And the range of Sūdraka's Maitreya is so vast that there is practically nothing that appears to escape his humorous purview. And if humour, like charity, must begin at home, it is but to be expected that the Vidūşaka should exhibit the humorous side of the caste to which he belongs. It is further a true mark of art that a person who laughs at others should possess the disarming ability to laugh at himself. It is in this sense that the Vidūşaka includes in himself the caricature of the Brāhmaṇa. If some dramatists, particularly the later ones, have turned the ridicule of the Vidūşaka only on himself, that is to say, on the Brahmin class, it shows only their lack of dramatic ability and poverty of imagination. But the reader 38 Sak., 'अवेहि रे उच्छाहहेतुअ l... तुमं दाव अडवीदो अडवीं आहिंडतो गरणासिआलोलुवस्स जिण्णरिच्छस्स कस्स वि मुहे पडिस्ससि ।' II. 5.1-3; 'गच्छ भो दासीएपुत्त । धंसिदो दे उच्छाहवुत्ततो।' II.7... 37 Sak., 'तेण हि लहु परिन्ताअदु णं भवं । मा कस्स वि तवस्सिणो इंगुदीतेल्ल- चिक्कणसीसस्स हत्थे पडिस्सदि ।' II. I0.1-9; 'जह अहं देक्खामि पूरिदव्वं गेण चित्त- Yo marami ATA FTH HAR I'VI. 17.1-2, as Avi., 'आम भोदि । जण्णोपवीदेण बह्मणो, चीवरेण रत्तपडो । जदि क्त्यं अवणेमि, EHUT STAI V. 5. 24-26.

·44 would be wrong to assume that this is all that the Vidüşaka represents; and that this was the only development that was possible in the case of this dramatic character. As a matter of fact, the Sanskrit dramas unmistakably show that the Vidūşaka as only a caricature of the Brahmin was a later phase of development, and after that the Vidūşaka as a dramatic character practically ceased to grow. That this Vidūşaka should speak in Prakrit is only natural. 39 It was the language of everyday speech. That is the reason why not only the common and uneducated people used it; but the cultured people also who knew Sanskrit very well continually made use of it, especially in social intercourse. The author of the Kāmasätra particularly advises the fashionablc gentleman against making too much use of the Sanskrit (as also of the vernacular) in social gatherings. 40 It must also be remembered that the Vidūşaka as a dramatic character was cracking his jokes for providing amusement to the larger audience, and not for eliciting an unwilling smile from the high-brow pundits only. And if there were something incongruous in the Brāhmapa speaking in Prakrit, the very incongruity was a device for provoking laughter. Some of the other traits in the characterization of the Vidūşaka can be quite naturally understood. As a typical Brahmin, he is both a glutton and a coward. The Brahmins are proverbially fond of food, 41 And Bhavabhūti, who was himself a high Brahmin of the Vedic order, tells us that the heroism of the Brahmins is confined only to the use of their tongue. The physical deformity of the Vidūşaka, on the 89 The question is further examined under the heading, LANGUAGE. 40. नात्यन्तं संस्कृतेनैव नात्यन्तं देशभाषया । कथा गोष्ठीषु कथयों के बहुमतो भवेत् ।। Kā. Sū. KSS., I. iv. 50; Ka. Sa. English Tr. op. cit. p. 42. Cप्राणो भोजनप्रिक।' URE, V. 34.*: Rafa PIIRI ·45 contrary, is artificial; it is a stage trick to provoke laughter; or better perhaps, it can be traced to the hideousness of the Asura type, or the unusual tuft of hair of Nārada. Many of these traits were convenient and handy for evoking fun. A repeated use of them must have settled the outline of this character and turned him into a conventional figure of the stage. To sum up: The development of the Vidūşaka, thus, seems to have occurred on the following lines: (I) The evidence of the Natyaśāstra and the Sanskrit literature shows that the earliest phase of the drama was marked by the Deva-Asura conflict, where the representation of Asura as a comic character provided the only possibility for humour. (2) The influence of religion on dramatic development must be acknowledged to be tremendous, especially in India. But it is inconceivable that it provided occasions for parody or caricature. On the contrary, it is in supplying the themes, in determining the occasions of dramatic performances, and in shaping the preliminaries of the drama (known as Pūrvaranga), which continued more or less even after the drama had outgrown the mythological stage, that the potent influence of religion and religious ritual must be discerned. When the drama, therefore, entered the second stage of development, and when the domestic life of a god, rather than his symbolic victories, provided the theme of a drama, the source of amusement was perhaps a Brahmin sage full of wisdom and ability, but possessing a spirit of mirth and loving fun for its own sake. This is the first type of Vidūşaka that Bharata associates with the god-hero. And it is possible to look upon Nárada as a pioneer character that launched the Vidūşaka on his dramatic career. (3) The next development probably came when the drama left the precincts of mythology and entered into the broad ·fields of social life. The actors were probably drawn from the common ranks, and were naturally prone to evoke mirth. The royal patronage, however, gave a great filip to this art. This influence proved to be another very potent factor in shaping the drama as a court comedy centering round the private and social life of a king. Here, there were several factors that could mould the typical dramatic characters. The court-jester and the professional fool were in existence. The social life bubbled with mirth and amusement and contained all the potentialities for constructing interesting situations. The social life at gatherings and festivals showed up not only the spirit of gaeity but also interesting character-types. The dramatist had only to pick the clements up to be woven into dramatic compositions. And the actors were ready to amuse and entertain the public. Thus, the popular ritual and festivals, the general social life and the contemporary social types shaped the comedy and the comic figures. The influence of royal courts, however, must have been a great single factor in moulding the type of the Vidūşaka which is generally familiar from the Sanskrit dramas, and which Bharata mentions as the second and the third type. (4) The first Vidūşaka was in all probability a Brahmin sage only, embodying the traditional knowledge and wisdom, which are some basic requirements for humour. That the Viduşaka in the prevailing type of court comedy came to be conventionally treated as a Brahmin, must have been due very largely to the demand of social and artistic propriety. In a drama which is a public entertainment the companion of the hero was expected to be worthy of his social rank; and if he were to poke fun at everybody, including himself, it were proper that he belonged to the highest class; so that he could provide fun without hurting anybody's feelings. (5) "And once the Vidásak& came to typify the Brahmin class, some of the familiar traits could be easily attached to the ·47 as popular devices for evoking laughter, as other traits, like ignorance of the Sāstras and ugliness of figure, could be tacked on, or taken off, according to convenience. When some of these traits were stratified by repeated use, the Vidūşaka become a conventional figure and a stock character of Sanskrit drama.

·III PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND ACCESSORIES Bharata's description of the appearance of the Vidūşaka shows him to be a Dvija who is dwarfish, having protruding teeth, a hunch-back, lame, with bald head and red cycs; his face is deformed; in short, the Vidūşaka is ugly and deformed in appearance. 4 * III Later theorists do not mention anything about the appearance of the Vidüşaka except Säradātanaya who repcats Bharata's adjectives, that the Vidūşaka is bald-heacicu, red-cycl, possessed of a funny sort of back-bone ( that is, 'hunch-back') and adds that his hair is tawny and he has a beard that is either yellow or green in colour. 2 There is an apparent contradiction between the 'baldheaded ’ness and tawny hair' mentioned by Sáradātanaya. But this contradiction appears in Bharata's description also: Having 1 Cf. वामनो दन्तुरः कुब्जो द्विजन्मा विकृताननः । खलतिः पिङ्गलाक्षश्च स विधेयो विदूषकः ।। NS. KM, XXIV. 106; KSS, XXXV. 57 (v. I. ' '). 9 Cf. coat: POFTEA TREEPTI पिङ्गकेशो इरिश्मश्रुनर्तकश्च विदूषकः ।। BP. GOS. No, 45 ; p. 289. Prof. J. T. Parikh is wrong in saying that "TTEYTEE stands for some laughable degradation probably on the face of the Viduşaka. The Vidaşaka : Theory and Practice, p. 23, footnote I. अनूक' means backbone'; cf. 'İRMR: spela: पृष्ठास्थिविशेषः ।' 'सई चानूकं च गृहपतेः । Ait. Br., where Sayapa remarks, she ha fata Far Eritreaca ha pl quoted in Apte's Sans. Dict. 'ETCHES thus means ' funny backbone', and ultimately signifies a 'hanchback'.

·MAX
17
VIDOSAKA ON THE KERALA STAGE"
(See Ch. III p. 49)
Courtesy-His Highness the Maharaja of Cochin.

·No text on this page.

·49 6 mentioned that the Vidūşaka is bald-headed, Bharata says in another place, while describing the head-dress, that the Vidūşaka should have a bald head and/or hair resembling a crow's fect.3 Kākapada' is like the sign (1); Abhinava" explains that the hair on the head are to be shaved so as to look like a crow's feet. This would mean that the hair would be completely shaved off on the top of the head and only two side-locks would be kept. If this is what is meant, the prescription for baldness and side-hair would not be exactly conflicting. The Vidūşaka is bald on the top of the head and has two sidc-locks which resemble a crow's feet, and which are possibly of a tawny colour. There is, however, an alternative reading, 5 which provides clearly an option between baldness and side-locks. Another detail in the make-up of the Vidüşaka seems to be provided by the phrase "cheda-vibhuşitavadano 'Cheda' literally means 'a cut'; here it refers to the stripes of colour put on the face.? There is an alternative reading to this s_Cf. विदूषकस्य कर्तव्यं खल्लिकाकपदं तथा ।। NS. KSS, XXIII. 148; identical with KM, XXI. 126; GOS. XXI. 155, with alternative reading. 4 Cf. NS. GOS. XXI. 155, Comm. p. 134 : काकपक्षवद् यत्र केशविच्छेदः । s_Cf. विदूषकस्य खलतिः स्यात् काकपदमेव वा । This is the reading in NS. GOS. XXI. 155 b. & NS. KM, XXXV. 25 b: zariaza fac Th F# fata: 11 KSS, XXXV. 71 (v. l. fauhaan). J. T. Parikh writes, "Cheda may mcan either an incision or a distinguishing mark on the face of the Vidüşaka", op. cit. p. 23. This is not correct, see the following note. Cf. Meghadüta, Pūrvamegha, v. 19 cd : भक्तिच्छेदरिव विरचितां भूतिमङ्गे गजस्य । In Kerala Natya I saw red and white alternate stripes of colour put on the face, running from the corners of the eyes near the nasal bridge, down or across the cheeks, in the makeup of the Vidīşaka. 7 7 ·50 6 phrase, which only means that the Vidlüşaka's speech is decorated'; that is, distinctly humorous. But in another context, while explaining the laughter arising out of the dress, Bharata says that the Vidūşaka is painted with black soot, ashes, brown soft stone etc. It appears, therefore, that the colours made out of these substances were fised in an appropriate manner on the face in the make-up of the liclüşaka. The Sanskrit dramatists tacitly assume the peculiar appearance of the Vidūşaka and do not bother to mention it in their texts. And when they do so, they refer not always to the attributes given by the thcorists, but to the general appearance of the Vidūşaka only. Thus, Kalidāsa mentions the top-lock of hair for Machavya.10 So does Rājaśckhara ; and the name of his Viduşaka, Kapiñjala, is apt to suggest tawny hair; this Vidūşaka has besides a long beard.11 On the other hand, Rajasekhara's Cărāyana is represented as bald-headed. 18 4 8 Bhäsa does not mention the Vidüşaka's ugliness; but one of his Vidūşakas, Santuşta feigns that he is not a man; that, in fact, he is a woman ; 13 and the suggestion probably is of a 8 NS. KSS, XXXV.71: Faument. Cf. 'चीरचनमपीभस्मगरिकायैस्तु मण्डितः ।' NS. GOS. XII. 141 b; KSS, XII. 140 a; not found in KM, 1894 ed. Ghosh translates, "...smeared with ink (or lamp-black), ashes, or yellow ochre..." op. cit. XIII. 141-142; p. 227. 10 Sāk., act V: Evo antaat....in the Armenti 11 Cf. Karpūra., I 20.:'. Sce Note ( 35 ) below. Ibid. IV. 1.4: ता किंण क्लु दे मूलुप्पादिअचूलिमासीस (v.1. चूडिमाविस सीस) करिस्से। 13 Cf. Viddha., IV. 3.1: 'अम्हारिसबलास्स फुलिगटप्पादनो धम्मो बहदि ।' 18 Avi., act V, 5.11.mld: $ symultanit dhe gate it out! इत्थिा तु अई।

·51 defective personality. Mahodara in Adbhutadarpana resents the implication that he has defective manhood. 14 Sūdraka's Maitreya has a head which resembles a camel's knee, or looks like a crow's feet, 16 Kālidāsa shows two of his Vidūşakas to be having a monkey-like appearance. 18 Harşa compares the voice of one Vidūşaka to that of a wicked monkey and suggests his ridiculous appearance.n Atreya is addressed as a — brown monkey' by the drunken Vita.18 Vaikhānasa is described as monkey-like in appearance; and has the voice of an ass. 19 Rājasekhara follows the rule in representing Cārāyaṇa as baldheaded; this Vidūşaka also resembles a monkey; but whereas Kālidāsa's Vidūsakas admit their monkey-like appearance openly and unashamedly, Cārāyaṇa flares up in anger at the King's suggestion of his appearance, and refuses to pay attention 14_Cf. Adbhuta., V. (p. 48) : कहं दे अहं ण पुरिसो । पडिसंवच्छर पसूदा मह बम्हरक्खसी कुण्डोदरी एव्व जाणाइ मे पुरिसत्तणं । 15_Mxc., act I, 56.6-7 : अहं पि इमिणा करहजाणुसरिसेण सीसेण दुवेवि तुम्हे पसादेमि। Sakāra addresses the Vidusaka. at I. 50.4-5 as, 'अले काकपद- शीशमश्तका दुट्टबडुआ.. 16 The Vidūşakas in Malavikā. and Vik, Cf. (i) साहु रे पिङ्गलवाणर । साहु परित्तादो तुए संकटादो सपक्खो। ( Malavika., IV. 17.28-24); (ii) एसो आलिहिदो वाणरो विअ किंपि तुहिभूदो अज्जमाणवओ चिट्ठदि | Vik. II. 15--18 ; किंति संकिस्सदि । णं अरसमवासपरिचिदो एव्व साहामिमो। Vik. V. II.5-6. 17 Ratnā., act II. 3.14—19, Read: सागरिका--सुसंगदे जाणीअदि पुणो वि सो दुट्ठवाणरो आगच्छदित्ति । सुसंगता-(विदूषकं दृष्ट्वा विहस्य) अइ काअरे, मा मेहि । मत्तुणो पासवत्ती | अज्जवसंतओ क्खु एसो। सागरिका-सहि सुसंगदे दंसणीओ क्खु अ जणो । Naga., act III. 3.17-18 : 'अरे कविलमकडअ... 10 Cf. Kaumudi., II, Nipunika's remark (p. 33): 'आकिदीए मकडो वाचाए गइभो ।' 18 ·52 to the king's talk. 24 Kapiñjala wears tawny hair, a long heard, and has basket-like ears. 21 In the case of Madlavya, Kalitása suggests the funny appearance of the litluşakil lige his short stature, the posture of physical breakdown in puralysis that he assumes, suggestive of a hunch-backed warf; anlly putting him in a situation where he is beaten an lis pituil is pulled by mischicvous maids; or where he is pounded and his body twistcu in three places by the charioteer of Indra. llanxa has a scenc in which the Vidūşaka's face is blackt'nıl ivy a mi,"3 Mahideva shows the Vidūşaku to be prot-bellie: Thx! name of the Vidüşaka, Mahodara, and the manner in which he makes his first appearance on the stage, holding his lelly with both the hands, 24 are an indication of his funny appearance. An ugly appearance calculatel to voke langhter ppcars, thus, to be a noted characteristic of the Vilaşakı. It is presumable that the details given above refer to the appearance of the Vidüşaka on the stage and are, therefore, il part of the makeup of this conventional character. Cf. Viddha., act I. 32.21-25,20 : विदूषकः-...एसो उण मन्दुरामकटो टप्परकरणो गाम । राजा-सखे त्वमेषोऽभिलिखितः । विदूषकः-(सक्रोधम् ) णाई लिहि, आणिदो। बम्हणी जाणादि गादिसो है। साम भणादि तुम पश्चावो देवो ति। ...को दुजणवणाणं करणं देदि । 11 See note (II) above. cf.'...cari...'. 22 Sak., acts V and VI. Thc Vidūşaka is referred to as htuan' (VI. 5.18); his remarks, 'Anima Raf ft I (II. 15) and at great fel (II 2.SR), suggest his appearance. The ref. to situations are: #777, TATA TIC trafretta rätt सिहाहो ताडीममाणस्स अच्छराए वीदरामस्स वित्र स्थि वाणि मे मोक्खो।'(V.I.-.)3B and 'एस में को वि पञ्चवणदसिरोहर इक्टुं विम विष्णभंग करेदि। (VI. 26.-). 28 Nāgā. act III. 44 Adbhuta., act V. The stage-direction reads : बाहुभ्यां बदरं परिगृह्य परिकामति । MI ONS 20 ·53 The appearance of the Vidūşaka could have been a legacy from the earliest Asura type, as previously suggested. But it is possible that Bharata provided several attributes, to which a little addition was made afterwards, mainly with the intention of guiding the actor in preparing his make-up. It cannot be imagined that each and every detail in the prescription was intended to be strictly followed. The underlying idea in the appearance of the Vidūşaka seems to be of a physical deformity only, which Bharata suggested by means of several attributes. It must have been naturally left to the actor (or the dramatist) to emphasise one or more of these attributes in the actual dramatic performance. After all, some incongruity in physical appearance would certainly be a source of laughter on the stage. Bharata cnjoins particular head-dresses ( pratiśira, pratiśīrşa ) for the dramatic characters. 25 Abhinava 28 thinks that the crown, head-dress etc. help the audience in fixing the identity of a character: The king, minister, merchant and priest, each will have a particular type of head-dress; and the audience will be able to know thereby what character exactly is performing on the stage. In this connection Bharata prescribes three locks of hair or a completely shaven head for the Ceța; and for the Vidüşaka, hallikūkapada '97. This, as already suggested, means a bald pate and two side-locks. Bharata does not provide any head-dress for the Vidūşaka; and Abhinava explicitly says that käkapada means the cutting of the hair in the manner of a crow's feet. 28 Cf. तथा प्रतिशिरश्चापि कर्वव्यं नाटकाश्रयम् । NS. GOS. XXI. 139; KM, XXI. II5; KSS, XXIII. 132. 26_Cf. मुकुटप्रतिशीर्षकादिना तावन्नटबुद्धिराच्छाद्यते । NS. GOS, Vol. I, Comm. p. 287 (first ed.); ( second ed. p. 285 ). n Cf. चेटानामपि कर्तव्यं त्रिशिखं मुण्डमेव वा । विदूषकस्य कर्तव्यं खलिकाकपदं तथा ।। NS. GOS, XXI. 155; KM, XXI. 126: KSS, XXIII. 148.

·54 The figure of the Vidüşaka appears on a terracotta plaque of the Gupta period, wearing a three-corner«cap known by the name of triśikhandaku." The word is identical in meaning with Bharata's triśikha. But since the interpretation of the phrase according to Iharata and Abhinave appears to refer to the arrangement of hair, the tise of a cp for the li lūşaka must be taken as a contribution of dramatic practice prevalent on the Sanskrit stage in this particular puericul. The Paumacariya of l'imml (cant. 1.0).) has it versc (1.19) which utilizes the simile of 'mulen uix of the Vidaşaka. It is, therefore, suggested that the Vilaska wore a kind of a mask with wooden cars. The l'admacurilu of Ravixona (676 A.D.) does not, however, contain the word for wooden' in its Sanskrit rendering. 30 It is, lunce, presumed that the 28 Cf. Terracotta plaquc, Mathura Museum, No. 2795. Dr. V. S. Agrawala's note to this Illustration is as follows: *This plaque represents a scene showing a wornan pulling a scarf drawn round the neck of a male figure who on the basis of his quaint cap may be identified as a jester (Vidlūşaka). It was one of the palace amusements (atmight of t) in which the inmates of the harem took part together with such male attendants as the jester, old chamberlain (referit) and the dwarfs etc. A reference to this pastime is found in Bapa's Kādambari in the description of the palace festivities at the time of the birth of prince Chandräpida. The panel has been fully described by me in a paper entitled. A palace amusement scene on a terracotta panel from Mathura', Journal of the India Society of Oriental Art, 1942, Vol. X, pp. (x2-73.) Gupla Art, List of Illustrations, Fig. To, Note, pp. 36-37. I am grateful to Dr. Agrawala for supplying mc the details. 29 Paumacariyam, I. 19: ते नाम होन्ति कणा से विणवरसासमम्मि सयुष्णा । भन्ने विदूसगस्त व दारुमया पेष निम्ममिया ।। 80 Padmacarita, I. 28 : सत्कालवणी यौ च श्रवणी तौमती मम । 'मन्चो विकास्वैव भवणकारवारिणी ।।

·.
TRIS'IKHANDAKA VIDUŞAKA"
(See Ch. III p. 54)
Fron-Terracotta Panel, Mathura Museum, No. 2795.

·No text on this page.

·55 practice fell out of use by this time. 31 There is a possibility that the word 'dārumaya' in the original Prakrit is used only metaphorically; and hence, the Sanskrit prototype of Ravişeņa brings out the idea of wooden' merely by, 'having the outward shape of ears'. The suggestion is that of the absence of Sruta or knowledge; and, thus, indicates the alleged lack of Vedic learning on the part of the Vidūşaka. The evidence from Karptramanjarī has been interpreted to indicate the use of masks by dramatic characters. 32 The Sütradhāra mentions an assistant actress fixing the masks for the characters. 33 The Vidūşaka describes some maidens as wearing masks of night-wandering ogresses and as enacting a cemetery dance. 34 The Vidūşaka seems to refer to his own characteristic mask as consisting of a long beard and aweful ears'. 86 The word in the above context is padisīsaa, Sanskrit, prati- Širsaka or pratiśira. Bharata sanctions their use. 36 But the exact sense in which he takes the word pratiśīrsaka or pratiśira appears to be doubtful. In some places it probably means only a'head-dress': According to one rule the highest characters among the celestials are to be provided with diadems (kiriţinah); the middling will appear with covered heads: ( maulina”); Dr. A. N. Upadhye, IHQ. Vol. VIII, No. 4,: Dec. 1932; 31 P. 783. 82 See, Karpūra., edited by Konow and Lanman, HOS, Vol. IV, 1901. 88 Karpūra., I. 4.0: अण्णा पडिसीसआई पडिसारेदि । 84 Ibid. IV. 15 (KM, 14): हत्थे महामंसबलीधराओ हुंकारफेकाररवा रउड़ा । णिसामरीण पडिसीसहि अण्णा मसाणाहिण कुणन्ति । 36 Ibid. I. 20.40: TT 9 GATE THE ZOO Treitas मह ठाणे करीभदु। The KM. edition has '99' and '704 vent' which are adjectives to दासी, and not to पडिसीसम. 36 NS. GOS. XXI. 139; KM, XXI. II5; KSS, XXIII. 132. See note ( 25 ) above. Read: तथा प्रतिशिरश्चापि कर्तव्यं नाटकाश्रयम् ।

·56 AAmat.pan. w-HNA- Ammmmmsand the lowest characters will be hare-licadled (Srs.7c7ulinah). 37 The pratiśiras of ministers etc. havea turtxın-like bunl furnished for the purpose of fastening. It is said in general that the sira should be appropriately made to suit varimis telitions, or thic nature and type of representation. 39 Yet Bharata further provides detailed instructions for the preparation of pratiśīrşukas ; ani the crowns an: supposed to be fixed on thein. In this place poutisirşulu anners to nican a mask. Abhinava understands the word to meanalul appropriate to the character to be representerl". It appears from this comment that masks were used when the character was to be shown as possessed of two heads, three howls etc., or where the actor's head had to be covered by another." 37 NS.GOS,XXI. 142: उत्तमा ये च दिव्यानां तेच कार्याः किरीटिनः । मध्यमा मौलिनश्चय कनिष्ठाः शीर्षमौलिनः॥ KM, XXI. 118 b-119 a (v. 1. कनिष्ठाः पार्थमीलिनः'); KSS, XXIII. 133 (a, 'पाश्चांगता मरतकिनस्तथा चैव किरीटिनः । 38 NS.GOS,XXI. 149: अमात्यानां कश्चुकिनां तथा अष्ठिपुरोधसाम् । वेष्टनाबद्धपद्यानि प्रतिशीर्षाणि कारयेत् ।। KM, XXI. 123 reads 'वेष्टितावमानि'; KSS, XXIII. 139 reads 'बेष्टनं बन्धपट्टादि'. NS.GOS,XXI. 156 b; KM, XXI. 127 b: शिरःप्रयोक्तृभिः कार्य नानावस्थान्तराश्रयम् ।। KSS,XXIII. 141 (v.1. 'प्रयोगस्य वशानुगम्'). to NS. GOS, XXI. 186-195%; KM, XXI. 152-16x; Kss, XXIII. 176-186. (The reading here is 'तथा शीर्ष विधानार्थ पटी कार्या' instead of 'अथ शीर्ष विभागार्थ घटी कार्या'). See GOS. XXI. 195a: 'तस्योपरिगताः कार्या मुकुटा बहुशिल्पजाः।' 41 Read, NS, GOS, vol. III, ch. XXI, p. 132, Comm. 'प्रकृतिरूमं शिरः प्रतिशिरः।' 48 Commenting on hirm, NS. GOS, vol. III, ch. XXI, •786, Abhinava. writes : शीर्षविभागा इति यत्र दिशिरास्त्रिशिरा इलादिश्यते, पत्र वा निजशिर एव आच्छाच शिरोऽन्तर प्रदश्यते । (pp.138-139). 89 .

·57 Konow and Lanman translate padisisa in Karpūramañjari by 'mask'. M. Ghosh similarly renders the word in the Natyaśāstra by 'mask'.43 But in the two references occurring in Karparamañjarī, the one by the Sūtradhāra to the actors' Fratiśīrşakas, and the other by the Vidūşaka to his own, it is possible to interpret the word to mean a “head-dress' only. It is only in the reference to the maidens wearing pratiśirsakas of night-ogresses that the word perhaps mcans a mask. However, Bharata prescribes the use of tawny hair and eyes, 44 and long hair 15 for the demons etc. This would suggest that the pratiśira was not a mask but a wig. And in the above reference we have probably to understand that the maidens put on wigs to dance the Ogresses' dance. There is a further point. There are no rules available anywhere for the use of masks; and it is doubtful whether masks were used in all plays and by all characters. 46 At least Bharata does not seem to have contemplated the use of mask by the Vidūşaka, since he prescribes a shaved head with two side-locks, and a face painted with stripes of colour for this character. 43 Karpura., HOS. Sce, Glossarial Index, p. 146. M. Ghosh, NS, Tr. pp. 429-430; 435-436. 4 NS. GOS, XXI. 144 b: रक्षोदानवदैत्यानां पिङ्गाकेशेक्षणानि हि । KM, XXI. 121 has craqº '; KSS, XXIII. 143 reads Tarituffar' which, no doubt, means a 'mask'. 46 NS. GOS, XXI. 150; KM, XXI. 124 : पिशाचोन्मत्तभूतानां साधकानां तपस्विनाम् । अनिस्तीर्णप्रतिज्ञानां लम्बकेशं भवेच्छिरः ।। KSS, XXIII. 144 ('*'). & M. Ghosh who translates the word pratiśırşaka invariably by mask', admits that, "It is not laid down anywhere whether masks are to be used in all types of plays and for all characters." NS. TI. p. 429, footnote to XXIII. 128. 8 ·58 * Even though, therefore, the use of masks wus authorised by Bharata, it appears to me that in normal representations particular head-dresses and wigs were used; and that masks were employed cither in symbolic dance representations; or for portraying abnormal characters like a two-headed monster, or the ten-necked Rāvana; or in pantomimic representation. The evidence may be interpreted, therefore, ils only indicating varying dramatic practice current on the Indian stage in different periods. If the Vidüşaka wore a three-cornered cap in the Gupta period, it is possible to understand that the 'wooden cars' mentioned by Vimala, and the aweful 'basket-like cars mentioned by Rajasekhara, were attached to the head-dress of the Vidūşaka; and that they were not a part of a face-mask. In the vernacular dramas enacted on the modern Marāthi stage the Vidūšaka, or a Brahmin character generally, wears a roundish, red skull-cap, fitting tightly on the pate and its eciges turned up on either ears. This may be a modern version of Bharata's prescription of triśikha. We cannot be certain, therefore, that the Vidüşaka wore a face-mask. If his mis-shapen head, or funny ears could be shown by the use of attached devices, it is probable that his monkey-like appearance, or ugliness, was indicated by an appropriate make-up only; and that this occasionally included a wig of hair and a false beard. There is no direct prescription available of the dress worn by the Vidūşaka. In the above context Bharata mentions' barks and skins, 47 in which the actor must have dressed himself in the character role. Rămacandra 48 mentions a loose garment', that is, the lower garment, or dhoti, which the Vidüşaka put on very loosely and which must have caused some laughter among See note (9): auto, Cf. नेपथ्यहास्यमत्यायताम्बरयोछोक्तिविलोकितगमनादिना। ND. GOS, No. 48, Comm. p. 199.

·59 52 the audience. Sägaranandin" says that the Vidūşaka is a character that moves in the harem; and this is quite true, since the Vidūşaka is a friend of the king and has a free access to the harem. Bharata has incidentally provided the dress for such characters as move in the harem : 50 It consists of 'tawny robes or garments, and bands'. A choice of bark, skin (that is, deer-skin probably), a brown robe, or a loose lower garment must have been put to use according to the type of the Vidū. şaka that was to be represented on the stage. 51 It may be that the dress of the Vidūşaka was 'ugly' as Säradātanaya says; or 'shapeless' as Singa Bhūpāla says; 58 and that, it was intended to evoke laughter. The dramatists take the Vidūşaka to be a Brahmin; and add, therefore, the inevitable yajñopavita or the sacred thread, which is the caste mark of a Dvija. And like some other details connected with the Vidūşaka, the sacred thread, too, is put to comical use. Santuşta, for instance, says that he is a Brahmin only in virtue of his sacred thread. 54 Cãrudatta pulls Maitreya by his sacred thread to make him sit down by his side, when the latter was chasing pigeons. 55 Gautama shows greater ingenuity in using his sacred thread to tie up his finger in a 49_Cf. वयस्यकः सहचरः स एव विदूषकः । अन्तःपुरचरो राज्ञां नर्मामात्यः प्रकीर्तितः ।। NLRK, 11. 2199-2200; P. 92. 50_Cf. काषायकल्लकपटाः कार्यास्तेऽपि यथाविधि । NS. GOS, XXI. 133 and 134 a; KM, XXI. 109-ITO ; KSS, XXIII. 126. 51 See further under the heading, TYPES. 52 Cf. 'faste facuta: ', BP. GOS, No. 45, p. 244; and fassaan, pp. 281-282. ss Cf. विकृताचचोवेषः हास्यकारी विदूषकः । RS. TSS, I. 92 a; P. 21. 54 Avi., V.5.84 : BTH H I suorivataus gut... 56 Męc., V. IL". Read: 97667:-(mantueta 3) Pret: उपविश। $ ·60 pretended snake-bite. 58 Vasantaka in Ratnīzali swears by his sacred thread to support his statement. 57 Atreya is pulled by the Ceta by his sacred thread wliich snaps in the ensuing scuffle.58 The dramatists mention a few details of dress, cosmetics and decoration, which the Vidüşakas acquire by way of presents. Thus, Māņavaka receives flowers and unguents.59 Atreya gets fragrant unguents and a wreath of flowers at the wedding of the hero.60 Harsa has mentioned a pair of silken garmentsel and a pair of red robes 62 which are presented to the Vidūşaka. There is also a present of some ornaments: an ear-ring,ss necklace, and a gold bracelet. The Vidūşaka is so pleased that he dons the bracelet and wants to show if off before his wife.64 56 Mälavikā., IV. 3.5. Read the following stage-direction : ततः प्रविशति यज्ञोपवीतबद्धाः संभ्रान्तो विदूषकः । 57 Ratna., II. 19.38-39 : भोदि सच सच | सवामि बम्हसुत्तेण जह ईदिसी कदा वि अम्हेहिं दिट्ठपुव्वा । BB Naga., III. 3.26. Read the stage-direction: चेट:-(विदूषकं यज्ञोपवीते गृहणाति । यज्ञोपवीतं त्रुट्यति ।). 50_Vik., V. 6-7: ता जाव तत्तभवदो अलंकरीअमाणस अणुलेवणमल्ले अम्ग- भागी होमि । Naga., act III. 2.2,16-29 : (ततः प्रविशति स्कन्धन्यस्तवमयुगलो विदूषकः ।) विदूषक:--...जं तं मलभवदीबन्धुजणेण जामादुअस्स पिअबअस्सो ति कडअ सबहुमाणं सुगन्धवण्णकेहिं विलित्तोम्हि संताणकुसुमसेहरों मम सीसे पिणावं... ! 6. Ratna., act IV, interlude, I. 13 : अण्णं च, एदं पदसुमधुमलं कपायाभरणं अदिण्णं । Naga., act III. 2.30-21: महवा पदेण एब्ब मलमवदीसमासादो लक्षण रत्तंसुभजुमलेण...। * Ratnā., act IV, interlude, 1. 13. See note (61). 4 Ratna., The reference to necklace or Ratnawala is at IV. :राबावयस्य स परिषस्वैताम् ।...विदूषकः-* भवं आणदि । (परिदधाति ।) That to Kataka occurs in the stage-direction just before 60 62 ·61 Cārāyaṇa of Rājasekhara is shown as appropriating to himself the garments and ornaments left over by the hero after he had dressed for his wedding. 66 Kapiñjala is shown as wearing an uttarīya, an upper garment, which he folds and offers as a seat to Karpūramañjarī when she makes her first appearance. 66 The Vidūşaka carried in his hand a stick called 'dandakāstha' or 'kutilaka'. Such a stick, according to Bharata, was to be made out of Kapittha or Bilva wood, or bamboo; it was to be crooked in three places; unaffected by worms, not rotten, and having as few knots, from which branches shoot, as possible, 67 Abhinava comments that the kuţilaka, or the crooked staff, is intended for the use of the Vidūşaka. 68 Originally it was the weapon of Brahmā, given by him, and was meant to instil fear into the Vighnas, or the 'Dangers', which had threatened the dramatic performance; the Vighnas were beaten off the stage with this staff, which came to be known as a Jarjara. 69 The Vidûşaka carried this jarjara as a symbol of protection in the Pūrvaranga. Later on, the stick became an accessory; and the Vidūşaka chased away with it bees and pigeons in a comic show of heroism. It should be obvious from the above discussion that a few additions have been made to the details prescribed by Bharata II. 9. Another reference is at III. 4.20-21 : fact :-(02es परिषाय आत्मानं निर्वण्य ) भो इमं ताव सुद्धसोवण्णकडअमण्डिअहत्थं अत्तणो बम्हणीए गदुअ दंसहस्सं । 88 Viddha., act IV. 66 Karpūra., act I. 87 NS. GOS, XXI. 183-185; KM, XXI. 148b, 149-15I; KSS, XXIII. 173-175. 68_Cf. 'कुटिलकमिति | वक्रदण्डो विदूषकोपयोगी...प्रयायुधात्मा दण्डोपकामत्वेन quicamarerHT: 1' NS. GOS. Comm. on I. 60; p. 27, 89 NS. GOS, I. 72-73; KM, I, 39; KSS. L. 74.

·62 in connection with the make-up, appearance and dress of the Vidūşaka, as some alterations have been effected in them. But these obviously relate to the contemporary habits of dress and to the conventions of dramatic practice prevalent on the stage at different periods. It is natural that the character of the Vidūşaka was made up according to current trends and modes. However, it is certain that whatever outward form the Vidüşaka wore and whatever dress he put on, the governing principle underlying his appearance must have always been that of comic laughter.

·IV CASTE uses & In defining the appearance of the Vidūşaka, Bharata 1 the word 'dvijanmā', which, really speaking, indicates a member of the first three castes only. An alternative reading describes the Vidüşaka to be dvijihva', double-tongued, serpent-like. This can have reference only to the inconsistent speech and bluffing which are characteristic of the Vidūşaka. But in another place Bharata uses the word 'vipra'," which leaves no doubt about the supposed caste of the Vidūşaka. This detail has to be understood in connection with the particular type of the Vidūşaka; for, Bharata recognises an'ascetic' type also. The earliest Vidūşaka, as previously suggested, should have been a Brahmin; and hence, his descendent on the stage also came to be looked upon as such. The later theorists are silent about this point; but it may 1 NS. KM, XXIV. 106; KSS, XXXV. 57 (v. 1. PEREI). See Note ( I ) to ch. III. : NS. GOS, XII. 142 b: FIERT Hea Fast (fast?) ETEN ayeusey #: 1 KSS, XII. 140. J. T. Parikh notes this as XII. 126 b in KM, first ed.; op. cit., Appendix, p. 41; it is not found in 1894 ed. Ghosh translates, "..a person..." etc., so the word vipra does not figure in the translation. (XIII. 141-142). a Cf. 'एतेषां पुनर्जेयाश्चत्वारस्तु विदूषकाः ।। लिङ्गी द्विजो राजजीवी शिष्यश्चेति यथाक्रमम् । देवक्षितिभूतामात्यब्राह्मणानां प्रयोजयेत् ।। NS. GOS, XXIV. 19 b, 20. KM, XXIV. 5 has only, 'caut...faceat: 11' KSS, XXXIV. 19 b, 20; the reading however is curious : लिझानि ते वरजवा शिष्टाश्चेति यथाक्रमम् । 6 ·64 be assumed that they tacitly accept this trait. The available classical dramas, however, unmistakably show the Vielūşaka to be a Brahmin; and this, as we shall see, is quite in keeping with the theory. What could have led Bharata to prescribe that the l'iclüşaki should be a Brahmin? There is no data available to answer this question, except to aver that it has been so; that it is a commonly accepted convention that the Vidlūsuka should be a Brahmin. But one may spcculate on the possibilities: (i) According to Bharata the Vidūşaka first appeared in the Pürvaranga," which has predominantly il religious character. In a religious ceremony the presence of a Brahmin is invariably necessary. While the Sütradhāra who conducted the l'artika ranga may or may not have been a Brahmin, the necessary presence of a Brahmin was perhaps sought to be secured by prescribing that the Vidūşaka, or the Assistant who sometimes played the role of the Vidūşaka, appeared as a Brahmin character. It is a significant fact that Bharata permits the Assistant to appear as a Vidūşaka in the Pürvarariga : What Bharata wanted was the Vidūşaka, that is to say, a Brahmin, in the Purvaranga; it was not always necessary that the particular stock character alone appeared therein; and hence, the substitution was possible. But then this clearly shows that the Brahmin caste associated with the Vidūşaka was neither an accident nor a convenient factor picked up for fun-making. It was necessitated by the several functions which Bharata • The item of the Parvaranga in which the Vidüşaka appeared is called Trigata. NS. GOS, V, 29, 139-140; KM, V. 124 b, 125; KSS, V. 136 b, 137, 138. See further under the heading, FUNCTION AND ROLE-I. 6 Commenting on NS. V. 29 (GOS), Abhinava writes : 'पारिपाश्चिकयोरन्यतरो विदूषकोषमायाचारो विदूषकः । ' Ramacandracomments: THE CUP per a : I'ND. GOS, No. 48: Viveka III, comm. on 105 (P. 153 ).

·65 expected the Vidüşaka to perform, in addition to his general function of producing laughter. For these other functions, as for the religious function in the Pūrvarariga, it was very helpful if the Vidūşaka were a Brahmin. (ii) Bharata has conceived specific types of heroes for Sanskrit drama: 6 god, king, minister and merchant. The last, in the available example of Mycchakalika, happens to be actually a Brahmin by caste. The Vidūşaka is invariably a companion of the hero. As such, it is necessary that he should have a social status consistent with his role and in keeping with the dignity of the character whose companion he is supposed to be. In the actual presentation of a drama on the stage, the companion of the hero, if he were to belong to a low caste, would have been rather an awakward figure; and when further it is remembered that the audience generally prefer and respect the prevailing conventions, it would have also been necessary to explain how the dignified hero came to have a low caste companion, if the latter were so. In other words, in a farcical representation the dignity of characters is a matter for ridicule and mixing up of the social status becomes, therefore, a dramatic device for caricature ; but in a dignified comedy, as most of the classical plays are, such a device would be in bad taste. (ii) The prevailing type of Sanskrit Romantic Comedy has invariably a king as the hero. The Vidūşaka in these plays is shown to be having a free access to the king's harem. Such a privilege could be accorded naturally and without any embarrassment to a Brahmin only who represented the highest social class. (iv) The Vidūşaka enjoys another privilege : His tongue is free. He can make fun of everybody, including the king and the queen. This part he could play better, without 6 Cf. Erk 1 : 4: falfaat: 1'NS. GOS, XXIV. 16-19 a ; ' R B 748T: Rifrat: 1' KM, XXIV. 2-5 a; KSS, XXXIV, 16-19 a (identical with GOS). 9' ·66 malice or offence, by being a member of the socially highest class. (v) A cultural factor may be noted: The l'ilūşaka, apart from his buffoonery, is, 110 doubt, intelligent and possesses a special aptitude for comic perception. These qualities clemand education and culture. In the ancient society it was the higher castes who had the privilege to receive cuucation and cultural refinement. It could not be surprising, therefore, if the humorous and witty companions of the aristextacy were to a Jarge extent drawn from the Brahmin class. (vi) The Vidūşaka is also a Initt « ridicule, an object of laughter. If so, the people could have loved nothing better any day than the socially highest class being exposed and held to ridicule. This is human psycholoky, which would appear to be true for all times. Thus, it is neither an unaccountable freak nor a literary accident that the Vidüşaka in Sanskrit dramas happens to be a Brahmin. Nor is a single factor, perhaps, responsible for it. The conventions of Sanskrit drama, combined with social, cultural and psychological factors must have cast this character in the particular mould. It is not true that the Vidūşaka as such ought invariably to be a Brahmin. Else, Bharata's description of the 'types of the Vidüşakas and the companionship of a Vidūsaka appropriate to the type of the hero, of which he speaks, will have no meaning. In the evolution of Sanskrit drama, a king came to be gradually accepted as the appropriate hero of a dramatic composition; and in propriety, as well as for other reasons mentioned above, the dramatists portrayed the Vidüşaka as a Brahmin.

·V FOOD AND DRINK There is no prescription available in theory about the food, drink etc., of the Vidūşaka. But the dramatists have shown the Vidūşaka, as a Brahmin, to be very fond of food. Vasantaka in Pratijñāyaugandharāyana displays sufficient intelligence to be able to trace the lost bowl of his modakas ; he is prepared to argue and fight with the madman with whom he discovers them; he weeps for them; and when finally he realises that they were not real modakas but balls of scented flour only, he regrets both his loss as well as his gullibility. Vasantaka in Svapnavāsavadatta is tremendously enjoying his stay in the Magadhan palace which, to him, is a veritable Paradise. His particular joy is the tender and delicate dishes of sweets, like those of modakas, that he is able to swallow in the palace; and he naturally prefers Padmavati to Vāsavadattā, because the former looks after his food with affectionate solicitude. Santuşta in Avimāraka has allowed himself to be duped by a naughty maid by the prospect of a meal; but the deception has not checked his eagerness for food; he does not like to miss the meal-time even for the sake of his love-lorn friend, the hero; to the weeping heroine he recommends bhojana and the whitewashed mansions appear to him like balls of white curds. Maitreya in Mycchakatika draws his analogies from the province of food; he rejects the Sūtradhāra's invitation for dinner only because he is already engaged; he recalls with touching sorrow the prosperous days in Cārudatta's house when he could feed himself like a bull in the city-square; the apartment that he likes most in Vasantasenā's palatial residence is the kitchen, and his bitter resentment is that Vasantasena did not offer him food or water; he is even prepared to be ·68 seized with fever if only he could grow as fat as Vasantasena's mother with over-eating. Gautama is, according to the maid, given to filling his belly with modakas presented in swastivācana. He is most helpful to the hero; but his top priority is food; the meal-time cannot be disturbed either by the musical concert or by the hero's lovelonging. For Māņavaka, food is the stuff of life; it invariably colours his conscious or unconscious state of inind. He attributes the distracted condition of the hero to upsetting of bilo and recommends food. The rising moon is to him like a broken modaka. He can transfer his loyalty to the queen with a present of modakas. Obviously food is the fond theme of a glutton. Madhavya can give his fullest co-operation only in the eating of modakas. When the hero is consumed with auguish of love, he is devoured by hunger. Madhavya naturally hates the hunting expedition because there he has to cat only roasted food at irregular hours and drink the bitter, lukcwarm water of mountain streams. Vasantaka in Priyadarsikū delightfully goes through the ritual of bathing at the garden well and of moving his lips as if in Vedic recitation to be ready, like a good Brāhmana, to receive the Swastivācana from the queen. Vasantaka in Ratnávali is always eager to receive presents; and since food is the only thing he knows well, he easily mistakes the Dvipadi khanda, a dance item, to be an item of food. Atreya is uneasy because the hero is living like an ascetic; he has to grab roots and fruits to stay his devouring hunger; it is only at the wedding of the hero that he probably must have got food to his heart's content. It appears from these descriptions that the Brāhmana Vidūşaka is not only very fond of food but is particularly partial to sweets, and loves the smell of seasoned preparations. The most common item that is mentioned is the inevitable modaka or the ball of sweet. Maitreya mentions but once the apupa. ? Cf. Firmy I' MFC., IV. 27.1 ·69 2 3 + Ātreya's grub consisted, for some time, of roots and fruits. Mādhavya complains of unseasoned food; he refers metaphorically once to tintiņi (tamarind) and pindakharjūra ( dates ), the former as an item of seasoning, and the latter as a sweet snack. Maitreya smelt in Vasantasenā's kitchen the articles that were fried with Hingu and oil. 4 Sneha or ghyta ( ghee) is also mentioned 5 and sugar is of course there. 6 Māņavaka confesses once to his pleasure of Sikharini and Tasälä ; the former is a preparation of mashed ripe bananas in milk and sugar; the latter must be mango juice. But the passage in Vikramorvasiya where the words Sikhariņi and rasālā occur seems to have been tampered with by the copyists. Mr. S. P. Pandit points out that two of the eight manuscripts which he collated for the purpose of editing the text of the play, show the readings to be micchahariņamansabhoanam' and 'sihariņām mansa-bhoanam' respectively. 8 3 . Cf. 'जेण बह्मणो अदिही भविअ मुणिजणसआसादो लध्देहिं कंदमूलफलेहि पि दाव TUTETTUI TRI'Nāgā., I. 19.3-4. Cf. 'जह कस्स वि पिण्डखजूरेहि उव्वेजिदस्स तित्तिणीए अहिलासो भवे..।' Sāk., II. 8.1-2, Cf. ...अअं दलिइजणलोडुप्पादणअरो आहरइ उवविदो हिंगुतेल्लगंधो।' Mſc., IV. 27.88-87, 5 Cf. ' ....अह्माणं पदीविआओ अवमाणिदनिद्धणकामुआ विअ गणिआ णिस्सिणेहाणो giờ G H I'Mpc., I, 56.46-48. Also,ut farcastutus for OTEHIT L'Avi. V. 5.59 Cf. 'ही ही, इअं खु सीडपाणुव्वेजिदस्स मच्छण्डिमा उवणदा।' Malavika., III. 5.12-18 ? Cf....TE PO FTGT MERUT THIS , l' Vik. III. 10.8-4. 8 Vik. edited by S. P. Pandit (Bombay, Government Central Book Depot, 1879). The reading is: "FAREERUIFHSTO ...l' Vik. III. 10.2- In the foot-note to this passage (op. cit. p. 81), Pandit writes, "That Vidūşaka' is not averse to animal food may be seen from Sākuntala Act II, Speech I. 6 ·70 MW Obviously these must have been the earlier readings. But since these indicate venison and meat, the later copyists and commentators must have altered them, shuddering naturally at the idea of a Brahmin Vidūşaka partaking of non-vegetarian food. However, this is of no use. If ancient practices were to to be judged by modern usage, history and evolution will have no meaning. The Brahmins in ancient India had no oljection to meat-eating, not only during ritual ceremonics but in routine course also. Bhavabhūti mentions how Valmiki arranged for the preparation of beef in honour of Vasiştha, a distinguisheci sage. Maitreya saw in Vasantasena's house the butcher-boy washing the entrails of animal ,10 and the excitement with which he notices these details and the longing which he expresses for being invited to dine, 11 clearly point out.to the fact that Maitreya was willing to eat non-vegetarian preparations. Mādhavya regrets that he has to be satisfied mostly with mcat roasted on iron spits '12 during Duşyanta's hunting expedition; It is very natural that modern Brāhmaṇas should make Vidīşaka more fond of Sikhariņi than of venison, though in reality he only cares for the former, and should have changed the reading accordingly. Kāțayavema and Ranganātha too have apparently yielded to the same prejudice against animal food and to the temptation to change the correct or prefer the modernized reading. Cf. URC., IV. Interlude, 1,14,16-17: Faiat hy FÅ बहुमन्यमानाः श्रोत्रियायाभ्यागताय वत्सतरी महोक्षं वा महाजं का निर्वपन्ति गृहमेधिनः । तं हि धर्म धर्मसूत्रकाराः समामनन्ति ।'. 10 Cf. Msc., IV, 27. 89-90 : 'असं अवरो पडचर विअ पोहि धोअदि रूपिदारओ।' 11 Cf. Myc., IV. 27.81-% : * to reach foot लहिस्स। 12 Cf. Šak., II. II. 5-6:' | FASTSTERT Bostante ' Prof. Karmarkar (Vik., Second ed. 1932, Notes, p. 201 ) who is not prepared to accept flesh-eating in the case of Brahmins, accuses Pandit of having yielded to the temptation of 9 ·71 and his regret is not on account of the fact that he is forced to eat meat; what he is missing are the seasoned preparations ; roasted mutton is plain and without taste; the Vidūşaka would have loved varied fare! It appears, therefore, that Kālidāsa forcing animal food upon the Brahmin Vidūşaka'. (See Note (8) above.) Karmarkar writes, “The reference to Sāk. II can also be explained away. Vidūşaka says in that place 'meals mostly consisting of roasted meat are taken.' Now Vidūşaka describes here the condition of the whole of the hunting party, not necessarily, of himself. Again, Vidūşaka is complaining against the hunting party. If he is taken to be a flesh-eater, his complaint has no force, because he does get plenty of roasted mcat. But Vidūşaka's point is that while everybody else is satisfied with the mcals consisting mostly of roasted meat, he, a poor Brahmin, is practically starved as he has to be content with the little vegetable food served out to him. At any rate, flesh-eating is uncommon even among the Northern Brahmins who are not averse to having fish for their food." Prof. Karmarkar's assumption that the Vidūşaka is describing the condition of the entire hunting party is absolutely misleading. The Vidūşaka opens his speech with, 'I grieve at the companionship of this king who is so fond of hunting.' The condition described therefore is his own. Are we to imagine that the complaint about food, drink, continuous riding on horse-back, stiffness of limbs, physical paralysis, and insufficient sleep represent the condition of the whole of the army? The hunting is a nightmare to the comfort-loving Brāhmaṇa; but it cannot be so in the case of the soldiers and the hunters who comprise the party; they must be virtually enjoying the sport. Prof. Karmarkar has really missed the point in the Vidūşaka's complaint. He is sore first because, the meals are served at irregular hours (apfoteca ); and secondly because, the fare consists mostly of roasted meat (USAFLEST BETT); the preparations lack seasoning and variety, which is really what a lover of food like him could enjoy. > ·72 and Sūdraka include non-vegetarian items in the food of the Brahmin Vidūşaka. And so does Mahādeva in Adbhutudarpana. The Vidūşaka Mahodara is a companion of Kavana and a prics of the Brahmaräkşasa fainily; he has no objection to meat. eating. 18 The practice fell out of use in course of time, and so, the later dramatists naturally show the Vidūşaka as i vegetarian Brāhmaṇa. There is no clear reference to drink'. Waler 14 is, of course, frequently mentioned along with birojana. But since the use of sweet wines, if not liquors, was common particularly on festive occasions and celebrations of secular nature, onc may feel that the Vidūşaka perhaps did not object to the occasional use of wine. Bhāsa's Vasantaka in Pratijiīyaugandharīyarı Says that the modakas he had received were only kanniļa-luddua; It is interesting to note that Abhirāma, who is a Northerner, supports the reading and justifies the flesh-eating on the part of Brahmins by quotations from the Aranyakaparran. Prof. Gajendragadakar's comment on the above passage is, “The Vidūşaka had no objection to eat flesh. This is indicative of the antiquity of the play.” (Śāk., 4th ed., 1950, Notes p. 276.) As a matter of fact, there is plenty of evidence to show that Brahmins partook of meat in ancient days. The prohibition came in course of time, particularly from the strong influence of religion. 18 Viddujjihva describes Mahodara as follows: Hanna निष्पकमांसमोदकस्वादनः । विजिसितमुखो मन्दं विलं चाभिवर्तते || Adbhuta v. 30. Mahodara himself admits : Hitam haramures... C...etc. 18 Cf. Malavika., II. 12.®: 'मोदि विसेसेण पाणमोअण तुवरावेहि।' Vik, III. 17.s; 'किं वा सग्गे समरिदन्वं । ण वा अण्हीमाणिवा पीलादि। Sank., II .: TRATAMENTE REPETÉ FACUT Hapa 15. Cf. Pratijñā., III. 1.64: Am pe मे प्रतीय ·73 > 16 the 6 the word means, balls of flour prepared with liquor ; Sramanaka in this scene describes these modakas to be as sweet as mulled wine. '17 If the Vidūşaka were to have eaten them, it may be permitted to infer that he did not mind the use of wine. When Gautama spots Mālavikä in the Pramadavana, he says to the lovelorn king, "Ha, ha! this is fine sugar brought over to a person sick with drinking liquor ! ” 18 Is the observation of Gautama prompted by general knowledge or by personal experience? If the descriptions found in Sanskrit poetry and drama are to be relied on, it appears that there was no objection to drinking, at least on festive occasions. 19 It may be noted finally that Sāradātanaya lists, among the qualities of the Vidūşaka attached to the Dhiralalita type of hero represented by minister and others, fondness for food both prescribed and prohibited. 20 It may be presumed that some dramatists utilized this trait as much in conformity with the rule as with the permitted social practice. The Vidūşaka in Adbhutadarpana is a case in point. It may not be correct, therefore, to interpret such details in the light of the later prohibition regarding food and drink. In fact, the food and drink of the Vidûşaka are, like his stage appearance and dress, related to contemporary conventions and social usage. These latter are bound to change; and when they did so, the things associated with the Vidūşaka also underwent a corresponding change. 16 tifoso = TL C. R. Devadhar, Bhāsanātakacakram, Select Glossary. Cf. Pratijiā., III. 1.48-50, एदाणि मोदआणि...णिहाणिआ सुरा विअ महुराणि ।' 18 Malavikā., III. 5.12-18; quoted above in note (6). Cf. Kumarasambhava, III. 38; Ratna., act. I. 9.3-4. दाव इमरस महुमत्तकामिणीजण-सअंगाहगहिद-सिङ्गकजल. l'; act I. 16b: क्षीबाया नूपुरी च द्विगुणतरमिमौ क्रन्दतः पादलग्नौ।' 20 CE. BP. GOS, ch. IX: #Haftur fari H**** afat (p. 282, I 3). IO 17 & 19 ·VI LANGUAGE Though the Vidūşaka is a Brahmin, he speaks in the Prakrit language. Bharata clearly lays down that the speeches of the Vidūşaka should be written in Eastern Prakrit,1 This rule is scrupulously followed by Sanskrit «ramatists. Among the theorists, Sagaranandina mentions the rule; Rämacandra å endorses it indirectly; while the others seem to take it for granted. That the Vidūşaka should be a Brahmin but should speak in Prakrit seems, on the face of it, rather strange. But it is possible to adduce definite reasons for this puzzling prescription : (i) In the section where he lays down rules for the use of a particular language by the dramatic characters, Bharata assumes a threefold distinction among the characters: the highest, 1 Cf. Feat Farewaretatt...'NS. GOS, XVII. 52; KM, XVII. 51; KSS, XVIII. 38a : 517791 facevantatat la T arafareti' See, Prof. Dr. D. G. Koparkar's paper Pracyd the Dialect of the Viduşaka'-BDCRI, Vol. IV, 1943, PP. 387-397- Cf. 'शौरसेनीमथ प्राच्यामावन्ती कहिचित् पठेत् । एता एव वणिक्लेष्टिनालकाश्च विदूषकाः ॥ NLRK. II. 51-52 (P. 90). 8 Cf. ND. GOS, IV. 167.; 'fit facia-T-az- MT:1' The Comm. adds, wat in drafting Since the Vidüşaka belongs to the category of lower characters, his use of Prakrit is inevitable. NS. Ch. XVII-479764'; KM-RE TANTE : KSS, Ch. XXVIII भाषाविधानम् . See, 'SHARE TO TI NS. GOS, XVII. 652; KM, XVII. 65a : KSS. XVIIL 2a.

·75 which include the hero, ministers, ascetics and priests; the middling, which include Brahmins in general, pupils, chamberlains, the King's officers etc. ; and the lower, which include women in general and the servants or assistants in the royal household. It will not be quite correct to say that these distinctions invariably correspond to actual social classes. For, the Brahmins as a whole are a superior class socially, although they are put here in the second category. Similarly, the queen should naturally occupy a high position; but she is put down here in the lower category and as a woman character speaks Prakrit. It is more correct to say, therefore, that Bharata's three classes pertain strictly to the nature of dramatic plot; and the characters are classed as the highest, middling and low according to the part that they are supposed to play in the drama proper. In other words, the distinctions of the characters correspond to their status in the dramatic story. Obviously, the Vidūşaka belongs to the 'low' class in this scale of classification; and hence, Bharata lays down the rule that the Vidūşaka should use Prakrit like other minor characters in the Sanskrit drama. It is significant to recall in this connection that Indra, disguised as a Brahmin, in Bhāsa's Karnabhāra, speaks Prakrit, while Karna and his charioteer Salya use Sanskrit. Rāmacandra, s among the later theorists, says that the Vidūşaka, along with the eunuch, Sakāra, Vița and the servants, is a low character. The commentary adds that the lowliness of these characters is natural'. (ii) It has been suggested that the Vidūşaka is a caricature of the ignorant but pretentious Brahmin class; and he is made to speak in Prakrit to make this caricature convincing. Alter- Also, “समासतस्तु प्रकृतित्रिविधा परिकीर्तिता। पुरुषाणामथ स्त्रीणामुत्तमाधममध्यमा ।। NS. GOS, KM, XXIV. I; KSS. XXXIV. Ib, 24. 5 See, Note (3) above.

·76 natively, the use of a particular, alien dialect may be a factor for producing mirth. But it is obvious that the Vidūşaka who was a companion of a god, the hero in the first mythological plays, coull not have but spoken in Sanskrit. Nārada, for instance, cannot be imagined to be using Prakrit. We have further the evidence of the Javanese theatre where the Vidūşaka speaks the language of the highest class. The carliest plays, therefore, must have been in pure Sanskrit, and the question of any character, including the Vidūşaka, making use of Prakrit did not arise at all. Hence, the use of Prakrit does not appear to be a result wholly of the supposed caricature of a particular type. As a matter of fact, the use of Prakrit or the vernacular speech is a fact of social and cultural development, which accompanied the evolution of the spoken language. Its adoption in the drama is a realistic acknowledgement that the drama must be presented in the language of the people. The Prakrit had come to be settled gradually as the spoken language of the people and was a normal means of social communication among a very large majority of the masses. The Sanskrit was, after all, the polished spcech' and could be effectively used only by the educated and the cultured men in their speech as well as their writings. But even then, the author of the Kāmasätra advises against too much use of either Sanskrit or Prakrit especially in social intercourse. It is presumable then that the Brahmins must have been using the spoken tonguém the Prakrita-before they acquired education and training and had mastered the 'cultivated speech. It is significant to recall that Bhavabhūti makes one of the pupils of Valmiki speak in Prakrit in Uttararamacarita ; & and this is generally explained to mean that the boy had not yet mastered the Sanskrit language as the other pupil had done. If these circumstances have any . URC., act IV, Interlude. See, Dr. Belwalkar's Notes on the passage. He writes, we !!

·77 reference to social facts, they do point out to the existence of men, even in the Brahmin class, who used Prakrit in their speech. It is true that such men would turn to Sanskrit, as much in virtue of their acquired proficiency as in demonstration of their status as the highest social class in the society. The Viduşaka in Viddhaśālabhanjikā joins the king in describing the activities of the bees in Spring in a Sanskrit verse ; and the king compliments him for his ability to use Sanskrit. However, it must be equally true that a section of Brahmins never grew out of their ignorance and made their living on the strength of the privileges only of their class. Such a section of Brahmins cannot be expected to speak the polished and cultured language that was Sanskrit. Even in modern days such Brahmins would not be difficult to be found whose everyday speech is marked by incorrect pronunciation, faulty grammar and uncouth vocabulary. The Vidūşaka, I think, represents this section of ignorant Brahmins whose speech could not but be Prakrit. While, therefore, the speech of the Vidūşaka may contain an element of caricature in it, it no doubt represents an existing social fact also. It is plain to all students of Sanskrit drama that it is a curious mixture of idealism and realism. While in the conception of characters and the events connected with them, the Sanskrit drama generally stands for types and ideals, it represents the social setting in which the plot is laid always in a completely realistic way. In fact, the very prescription of " He (Saudhataki) is naughty and playful and younger in age. He is not able yet to pronounce the words correctly; hence instead of speaking in Sanskrit, he is using the Prakrit or the spoken language. Uttararāmacarita, translated into Marathi, with an Introduction; published by K. R. Gondhalekar, Poona, 1915: p. 174. & Cf. Viddha., act I. 30. The king's remark is : *संततेऽपि प्रगल्भसे।

·78 Bharata for the use of different languages has an important element of realism. 0 Dr. Bhandarkar writes : " That a poct should make certain persons in his work speak their peculiar dialect, especially when that is an inferior dialect and likely to create mirth, is natural; and this device is resorted to by writers in all countries. But it was probably more from considerations of propriety than liveliness that these languages (Prakrits) began to le ustl hy Sanskrit dramatists... Similarly, the minute directions about the use of certain Prakrit dialects in the case of certain persons are explicable only on the supposition that the original iclea was to represent in the drama a state of things actually existing in the world."10 (iii) It is further possible to detect a popular element in the Vidūşaka's use of the Prakrit language. The Sanskrit dramatists surely sought to earn their reputation by the approbation of chosen critics and the Icarned judges. But at the same time it is to be remembered that the drama was a form of popular entertainment, and the performances must have been given as much by royal order as for catering to the needs of the appreciative masses who flocked to the show on the occasions of festivals and festivities. In virtue of this need, as also in keeping with the principle of realism referred to above, it is but to be expected that the presentation of a drama will be within the grasp of the larger audience and its language will be generally understood by them. This is especially truc in the case of the language of the most popular figures of the Sanskrit drama, among whom we have to place the Vidūşaka. The speech of the Vidüşaka, therefore, appears to be an inevitable • CE. 'एवं भाषाविधानं तु कर्वभ्य नाटकाश्रयम् । अत्र नोक्तं मया यत्तु लोकाना दुषस्तु तत् ॥ NS. GOS, XVII, 64; KM, XVII. 63; KSS, XVIII. 49. Also, SD. IV. 168: ifren RT HT1 10 Cf. Wilson Philological Lectures, Lecture VII, p. 277.

·79 concession to the legitimate popular demand. How can a drama entertain properly if the jokes, fun and laughter of the Vidūşaka were to go over the head of the larger audience ? Humour, we know, is an effective weapon of social satire ; and in order that it should really be effective, it is necessary that it is carried in the spoken language. It can be supposed that the Vidūşaka in Sanskrit dramas, as the chief conventional character for humour, must naturally make use of the Prakrit language. (iv) The later practice of the Kerala Theatre which is on record amply justifies the above supposition. The Kîțțu type in the Kerala Theatre is a peculiar representation of the Sanskrit dramas, where 'the Vidūşaka appears and gives by word of mouth a vernacular translation of the verses which the hero acts.' The Kūţtu takes the form of social satire, the mouthpiece of which is only the inevitable Vidūşaka. But in this as well as in the Sang hakkali type, the figure employed for satire or humour is supposed to represent a character drawn from real life, and the use of the vernacular cannot be attributed to the motive of caricature. These Kerala dramatic representations are semi-religious popular entertainments and, hence, a satire, say on the Buddhist's use of the vernacular, is out of question; because this is against the religious spirit.' 'We may probably see in this the Buddhist influence in utilizing the spoken language as a medium of religion and religious experience. '11 (v) One more thing: Incongruity, as Bharata suggests and as we are aware, is the very essence of the character of the Vidūşaka. If so, a Brahmin speaking in Prakrit is apt to present a picture of incongruity; and the dramatists must have, therefore, stuck to this detail as an inevitable device for stage laughter. 11 Cf. Kerala Theatre' by K. Rama Pisharoti, JAU, Vol. III, No. 2; Oct. 1934- 11 ·80 Thus, the original prescription for the use of Prakrit by the Vidūşaka was necessitated by the clramatic conventions laid down by Bharata. But its usc was also an important factor of realistic representation. Further, as the character came to be identified in later development with the ignorant Brahmana, Prakrit became a natural speech with him. The dramatists found the Prakrit a realistic medium for the sech of the Vidüşaka, which they could also utilize for ridicule and for carrying the comic appeal directly to the heart of the masses. It is also likely that the effective use that the Buddha made of the vernacular for religious instruction must have impressed the dramatists, who saw in the use of the Prakrit an unfailing means of winning popular favour.

·VII NAME 1 8 Bharata refers to the Vidūşaka only by this general appellation. It is the later theorists who give proper names by which the Vidūşaka should be called. Thus, Sāradātanaya gives: Vätsyāyana, Sakalya, Maudgalya, Vasantaka and Gālava. Viśvanātha 2 says that the Vidūşaka bears Kusuma, Vasanta and such other names. Singa Bhūpāla 3 has Vasantaka, Kāpileya. The name of the Vidūşaka in Ašvaghoşa, Kaumudagandha, conforms to the rule; it denotes the off-spring of the lotussmelling .4 Two of Bhāsa's Vidūşakas5 and two of Harşa's, Cf. वात्स्यायनश्च शाकल्यो मौद्गल्यश्च वसन्तकः । गालवश्वेत्येवमादिनामानः स्युर्विदूषकाः ।। BP. GOS, IX. II. 5-6, (p. 277). Cf. SD. III. 42: ACHAT: ....1 Cf. वसन्तक: कापिलेय इत्याख्येयो विदूषकः । RS. TSS, III. 329a, (p. 302 ). • See, Sk. Dr., p. 85. In Bhāsa's SV. and Pratijñā. & In Harşa's Priya. and Ratnä. That four of the Vidūşakas in the Sanskrit dramas bear an identical name is a little puzzling and calls for an explanation. It appears to me that Bhāsa selected Vasantaka as the name of the Vidūşaka associated with Udayana. This name is found in Kathasaritsägara also. And since both his plays, Sv. and Pratijñā., are Udayana plays, he used the same name.of the Vidūşaka in them. A similar consideration must have weighed with Harşa. The name of Udayana's Vidūşaka, Vasantaka, was handed down in tradition hailing at least from Bhāsa. So when Harsa came to write his Priya. and Ratnā., with Udayana as the hero, he made use of the identical name in both the II 3 6 ·82 bear the name Vasantaka. None of the other names are to be found in the Sanskrit dramas. But the names given by the theorists indicate three things : a certain connection with the spring season or a flower; with the Brahmin caste; and with a physical peculiarity. The first, especially the name Vasantaka, possibly indicates the association of the Vidūşaka with festive celebrations. Harsa actually shows the Vidūşaka in Ratnuvali joining the celebration of the spring festival and adding to the hilarous laughter hy his comic dancing. The Vidūşaka, as alrcady noticed, wis inevitably a popular comic figure in the social life; the theorists or the dramatists must have probably picked up the name from this popular and social association of the Vidūsaka, and it is, thus, an indirect testimony to one of the contributory factors that moulded the character of the Vidūşaka, The other type of names indicates a Brāhmaṇa. Sāgaranandin says that the names of the Brahmin associates of the king like the Vidüşaka, minister, charioteer and chamberlain, should be formed by the use of the derivative suffix meaning * the son of '.8 Some of the proper names to be found in the Sanskrit dramas do indicate the Brahmin caste; these are : Maitreya," Gautama,1. Atreya, Cārāyaṇa, Vaikhanasa, 18 plays. The puzzle of an identical name for four Vidüşakas has, therefore, to be explained by assuming an identical character associated with an identical hero. 9 Cf. Ratna., act I. • Cf. तखितापत्यविहितः प्रत्ययः प्रामणादयः । राज्ञो विदूषकामात्यस्तक किनस्तथा।। NLRK. 11. 2205-2206, (p. 92). In Mſc. 10 In Mālavika. 1 In Nāga. 18. In Viddha. I* En Kanmdr. The name suggests a hermit; but it is indicative of only the Brahmin caste. wuwIWN INI MAMA ·83 Baudhāyana,14 and Sankhyāyana.15 However, the Vidūşaka is tacitly assumed to be a Brāhmaṇa and that is why, the name indicative of the caste does not appear to be an important factor with all the dramatists. < The third type of name, Kāpileya, may suggest the brown' monkey-like appearance of the Vidūşaka. And though this particular name is not found, Rājasekhara has Kapiñjala, 16 which suggests the same thing. This should mean that apart from the spring festivity and Brahmin caste, there was a third factor, that of the appearance of the Vidūşaka, which could supply the proper name. Significant in this connection are 17 the names Mänavaka, which Kālidāsa uses, and Mahodara, which Mahādeva adopts; the formes indicates a dwarfish figure; the second, a pot-bellied person. Then, it is easy to pass from physical deformity to mental defect; Kālidāsa's Māļhavya indicates an idiot.18 A final variation of a slightly different type is the reference to a mental quality of the Vidūşaka, which the theorists have not mentioned but which the dramatists have introduced. Bhâsa 14 16 17 In Canda. of Kşemiśvara. 16 In Ratimanmatha of Pandita Jagannātha. In Karpūra. In Vik. and in Adbhuta., respectively. The name "माणवक' is explained as 'इस्वः मानवः' or, 'मनोरपत्यं कुत्सितं माणवः, अनुकम्पितः माणवः माणवकः'. For the change of न to ण read : अपत्ये कुत्सिते मूढे मनोरौत्सर्गिकः स्मृतः । नकारस्य च मूर्धन्यस्तेन सिध्यति Apora: 11 Patañjali on Pāņini IV. i. 16r. It is significant that Duşyanta refers to Madhavya as Māpavaka (Cf. army: Arra*: 1, Sāk. VI); the appellation suggests here a 'pitiable fellow'. 18 In Śāk. The Vidüşaka himself confesses that he has the intelligence of a clodpated fool (Cf. # For Arequeglume toe meta Act VI. 8.37).

·84 and Sudraka have Santusta and Maitreya; and these names indicate a contented and a devoted companion of the hero, u: The rule about the name of the Vidūşaka is really speaking unimportant. And yet, what must have led the theorists to prescribe the rule was probably the conventional nature of this dramatic character, which could be naturally suggested by an appropriately symbolical name. The divergence between theory and practice, however, though again unimportant, is surprising. The later theorists certainly must have been aware of the classical plays. How did they fail to notice the deviations, at least in the plays of Kälidāsa ? It appears that they possibly had some other minor but currently popular plays before them on which they crew for their rule, and which plays are now lost to us; or, what appears to be more likely is that, they were prescribing a mechanical rule, relying more on the prevailing tradition than on a study of the available dramatic literature. Whatever the proper name of the Vidūşaka, it occurs only in the spoken dialogue. The dramatists rcfer in their writings to this character always by the general name Vidīşaka, as they refer to the hero by the name Rājā. This is undoubtedly indicative of fixed character-types; and, consequently, of the prevailing form of drama. Most of the Sanskrit plays are court comedies; and so, the king' and 'jester are invariably associated with them. The form appears to have assumed such a fixed character that the dramatists did not find it necessary to mention the 'hero' and his companion' by their real names, except in actual conversation. It is only in the mythological, epic and social plays that the hero is mentioned by his real name. But even here, when the Vidāsaka can be Hol' obviously means' contented'. And may be explained as FS ***, * one who is well-disposed towards a friend', therefore, a real and sincere friend. www. + ·85 legitimately provided, as in the social play of the Prakarana type, and the legendary play with a social background, the Vidüşaka is mentioned by the general name only. 20 There appears to be some doubt regarding the correct explanation of this general name, Vidūşaka. Keith took it to mean 'one given to abuse' and connected the Vidūşaka thereby to the Brahmacãrin of the Mahāvrata 21. It has been explained that this cannot be correct. Another attempt to explain the name has been made on the assumption that the Vidūşaka "represents a caricature of the learned Purohita who was the sole adviser of the king in almost all home-affairs", and by taking "the Prakritic basis of his name" as a good proof for his being a popular creation. The name is thus explained: “The name Vidūşakah is just a hyper-Sanskritic back-formation of Prakrit viuso or viusao (with k-suffix) which is to be connected with vidvas. " 22 It is very difficult to accept that the Vidūşaka is a caricature of the Purohita. The Vidūşaka may hold the Brahmin caste to ridicule; but there are many other persons, like the king himself, the king's officers, the courtesans and maids whom he makes targets for his fun, and who do not belong to the Brahmin caste. If the Vidūşaka, therefore, caricatured his own class, it is in a general way that he did so. There is no particular type of Brahmin that is the basis of the Vidūşaka's fun. And if at all it occasionally were, it is the Śrotriya rather than the Purohita who could have been a fitter subject for comic expo- 20 See Mſc. Of the legendary play the illustrations are Avi. of Bhasa, Vik. and Sāk. of Kálidāsa and so on. The exception is a late Rāma drama, Adbhutadarpana, where the Vidūşaka is mentioned by his character name. Sk. Dr., p. 39. * Dr. A. N. Upadhye, Candralekha (Bharatiya Vidya Series, Vol. 6; Bombay, 1945); Introduction, pp. 26-27- ·86 sure. The boast about leaming, the daily routine of ablution and recitation of sacred texts, the love of food and cowardice, are characteristics to be associated with a Srotriya. The Purohita was no doubt a learned Brohmin; but his capability and wisdom lay in quite another sphere. The Purohita was not required to win royal favour and presents of Swastivācana by parading his learning. He held an important post mainly as a Counsellor on military and political matters; and since it is on record that the Purohita accompanicd the king on his campaigns, a trait like cowardice which is generally associated with the Vidūşaka is inconceivable in the case of the Purohita. What is there in the Purohita then that can be comically represented ? Finally, the fact that dramatists like Kalidasa and Vijayabhattārikā put both the Purohita and the Vidüşaka in one and the same play, 23 should have been a warning against such an assumption. For, artistically it is not possible that the original and the caricature could exist side by side on the stage, except if the caricature were of a very broad type representing the general class. It appears that the term Purohita came to denote only an 'officiating or family priest' in later days and lost its connection with active political affairs. Brahmin priests came to be appointed in royal families; they were called Purohita ; sometimes, it may be presumed, they performed the function of managing the religious affairs of the king as well as of advising and entertaining the king. It is in this way that we can understand how Rājaſekhara's Vidūşaka acts as an officiating priest at the wedding of the hero in Viddhasalabhanjiku, and how Mahodara in Adbhutadarpana, who is a family-priest, is appointed by Råvaņa as a minister of love-affairs'. It is a combination of two roles in one person. One is not a caricature of the other. 18 In Sāk., for instance. The play Kaumudimahotsava of Queen Vijayabhattărikā has the Vidūşaka and the Purobita present in a single identical scene in the fifth act.

·87 That the Vidūşaka happens to be a Brahmin and speaks in Prakrit are questions which, as a matter of fact, need not be mixed up with the explanation of the name. A separate explanation of those questions can be very plausibly furnished. 24 An explanation of this nature, it is true, can be very helpful and suggestive. But to regard it as a positive proof for the origin of this dramatic character is apt to be hasty, unless there were independent corroborative evidence to prove the same. Hence, it appears to me quite unnecessary to look upon the name Vidūşaka as a back-formation from Prakrit, although it may be philologically possible. But I suspect an anachronism here. The recent studies tend to prove that the Sanskrit drama originally must have been in Sanskrit, and it gradually made increasing use of the Prakrit which was fast becoming the spoken language of the general mass of people. The Vidūşaka in the original plays could not have but spoken in Sanskrit; and this is proved by the character of the Vidūşaka in the Javanese drama which is an adaptation from the Indian drama.25 Further, the name Vidūşaka appears in Paumacariya as Vidūsaga, 28 where it is obviously a Prakritisation from the original Sanskrit. But the Kathasaritsägara has a story of a Brahmin, whose name is Viduşaka, and who is represented as a very courageous, obliging and noble Brahmin. 27 This is at least an indication that the name Vidūşaka has, socially speaking, no connotation of a stupid Brahmin boasting of his uncertain learning or of the privileges of his caste. See Chapters IV and VI, entitled CASTE and LANG- UAGE. See also Ch. II. 26 See note (34) and (35) to Ch. I. 26 Paumacariya, I. 19. See Note (29) to Ch. III. 17 Kathā. Lävänaka Lambaka III, Taranga iv. See esp. vv. IO9-IIO: रटरतु तेषु तत्रैको निर्जगाम ततो मठात् । विदूषकाख्यो गुणवान् पुर्यः सत्ववतां द्विजः ॥ यो युवा बाहुशाली च तपसाराध्य पावकम् । . प्राप सगोतम तस्माद् ध्यातमात्रोपगामिनम् ॥

·88 The explanation of the name must, therefore, be sought not in a social context but in the context of the drama only. In the particular item of the Parruraiiga known as 7'rigata (literally, the talk of the three, the three being, the Sūtradhara, his Assistant and the Vidūşaka ), the Vicdūsaka holds conversation with the Assistant, which Bharata (lescribes ils Vidrisakavidūsita). • 28 M. Ghosh translates this as The jester who finds fault (with his words)....99 An alternative reading is zirapitah', which should incan 'spoiled'. Obviously, the explanation of the name is suggested here. The word is to be derived from the root düş' with the proposition 'zi': duş has the sense of to blame, find fault with, spoil'. This nature is attributed to the actor Vidūşaka because he turns the entire conversation into a different key and evokes a smile from the Sūtradhāra : In other words, the fault-linding etc. is intended only for laughter; and this particular humorous mode, that the Vidlūşaka adopts for his speech is what is denoted by the preposition ri, which thus means višeşena. The word Vidaşaka, therefore, mcans, 'one who has a characteristic mode of fault-finding, or spoiling, with a view to evoking laughter'; and this fits with the role that the Vidőşaka is expected to play in the Püruaranga. In the play itself, the speech and action of the Vidüşaka have the same characteristic mode and purpose. Among the later theorists, Rāmacandra3o tells us that, "The Vidūşakas are 38 पारिपाधिकसाल्पो विदूषकविदूषितः । (v. 1. विरूपितः) स्थापितः सूत्रधारेण त्रिगतं संप्रयुज्यते ।। NS. GOS, V. 141; not found in KM and KSS. M. Ghosh's translation is, * In the Three Men's Talk an Assistant talks with the Jester who finds fault with his words which are, (however ) supported by the Director. "The Natyasastra, p. 94 an_Read : एषां विथोगिनां विप्रलम्भागारक्तामोनिस्वामतिक्रमेण लिहल्यादयो यथासंभव सन्धि विग्रहेण विना सन्धिना व विशेषण पन्ति विनासयन्ति, विप्रकम्म तु विनोददानेन विस्मारकातीति विभकाः। ND. GOS, Girona. - IV.is, (AZ99). PWM Wiwi w ·89 13 so called because the ascetic and other types of them, spoil peace by conflicts, conflict by peace, in a particular manner, as the occasion demands, in the case of heroes in separation of love and when they are alone; that is, they remove them (viz. peace and conflict); the separation, however, they cause to be forgotten by affording diversion. Rāmacandra thus confirms the etymological explanation, 'Višeşena düşayanti....iti Viduşakāḥ and his paraphrase of düşayanti by vināśayanti and vismārayanti, lays bare the purpose of the Vidūşaka's speech, which is satirising any situation with a view to evoking laughter or providing diversion. He is not a mere Düşaka, a fault-finder; he does it in his characteristic humorous manner, višeşena ; and hence, the name, Socially speaking, the role of the Vidūşaka is critical. The author of the Kamasutra informs that the Vidūşaka, as a companion of the Courtesan and the Nagaraka and enjoying their affection and confidence, criticises their conduct when he finds them going wrong; and in virtue of this chastising, he is known as the' Vidūşaka'. But he is also a sport; and he moves about in public houses and in literary clubs provoking many-sided laughter; he is, therefore, known by another name' Vaihāsika', the jester. 87 These explanations leave no doubt about the meaning of the name: The Vidūşaka is a critic, a jester; 'a spoiler for fun'. He combines in his role humorous laughter as well as a critical attitude towards the incongruities of life. The root düş indicates the latter and the preposition ni the former. Read : 'सच क्या नागरकं बाचित् प्रमाअन्तं लब्धप्रणयवादपवद्रत इति विदूषकः, क्रीडमवाय वेशे मोठमो छ विविधन हासेन चरतीति वैहासिकः, इलुभयनामा! K., Sa Comm. on I. iv. 46. See Note ( 28 ) to Ch. IL : 12 ·VIII TYPES Bharata recognises four types of heroes : Dhiroddhata, aggressively solemn : these are the gods; Dhiralalita, gracefully solemn: these are the kings; Dhirodatta, nobly solemn: these are the ministers and the conmander of the army; and Dhirapraśānta, serenely solemn; these are the Brahmins and the merchants. Corresponding to the four types of the heroes Bharata contemplates four types of the Vidūşakas: Lingi, an ascetic, with reference to the god; Dvija, Brahmin, with reference to the king; Rājajivi, an officer in employ of the king, with reference to the minister ; and Sisya, a pupil, with reference to the Brahmin.1 Cf. अत्र चत्वार एव स्युर्मायकाः परिकीर्तिताः । मध्यमोसमप्रकृतौ नानालक्षणलक्षिताः ॥ वीरोखता धीरललिता धीरोदात्तास्तथैव च । धीरप्रशान्तकाश्चैव नायकाः परिकीर्तिताः ।। देवा धीरोखताशेयाः स्युधीरललिता नृपाः । सेनापतिरमात्यक्ष धीरोदाती प्रकीतितौ ।। धीरप्रशान्ता विधेया प्रामणा वणिजस्तथा। एतेषां तु पुनर्जेयाश्चत्वारस्तु विदूषकाः ।। लिली दिजो राजजीवी शिष्यवति यथाक्रमम् । देवक्षितिमतामात्याक्षणानां प्रयोजयेत् ।। NS.GOS,XXIV. 16-20. KM. (XXIV. 5) does not contain the verse mentioning the types of the Vidüşakas. KSS, XXXIV. 16-20, has all the verses%3; but the reading. 'लिहानि ते परजबा शिष्टाति यथाक्रमम् ।' is obviously corrupt. The text of the Abhinavabharalt on the passage is also corrupt : 'यथाक्रममिति ऋमिकामौचित्यमत्र यथोषित योजना) तया लिकी ऋषिः देवानाम् , दिनो मीरः सेनापते (१), राजा जीबी (१) निको ·91 Among the theorists, Rāmacandra is seen to be repeating the prescription of Bharata. But he explains in his own commentary that, “ The Vidūşaka of the gods should properly be an ascetic; that of Brahmin, a pupil; but in the case of the kings he may be any one of the three types, excluding the pupil; this is true of the merchant and the other type also."* Sāradātanaya follows Bharata in recognising the four types of heroes and the corresponding four types of Vidūşakas. But he adds that the exigency of the Sentiment developed in the story may sometimes necessitate a change in the recognised type of the hero. This, I think, is understandable. For, although Sāradātanaya puts the king-hero under the Dhirodātta type, Bharata recognises him as the Dhiralalita type; and this is how the king-heroes of the Sanskrit dramas are to be generally found, with an element of udätta still present in some of them. Similarly, the minister, who according to Śāradātanaya belongs naturally to the Dhiralalita type, is a Dhirodátta hero according ब्राक्षणस्य ।' (NS, GOS, Vol. III, p. 252). Probably it ought to be, 'द्विजो राज्ञः, वीरः राजाजीवी (च) सेनापतेः (अमात्यस्य च), ' the latter corresponding to the two types mentioned under Dhirodātta by Bharata. Any way, Bharata's prescription is absolutely clear. , Cf. (i) स्निग्धा धीरोद्धतादीनां यथोचित्यं वियोगिनाम् । लिली द्विजो राजजीवी शिष्याश्चैते विदूषकाः ॥ ND.GOS, (No. XLVIII) IV. 168. (ii) The Comm. on the above passage reads: उचितश्च लिङ्गी देवतानाम् , ब्राह्मणस्य शिष्यः, राज्ञां तु शिष्यवर्जास्त्रयः, एवं वणिगादेरपीति। Ibid. p. 199. ३ देवा धीरोखता या धीरोदाचा नृपादयः । अमात्यसेनापतयो ललिताश्च स्वभावतः ।। धीरप्रशान्ता विशेया ब्राह्मणा वणिजश्व ये। कथारसवशात्तेऽपि व्यत्यस्ताः स्युः कचिकचित् ।। नायकानामयतेषां चत्वारः स्युर्विदूषकाः। विदूषकस्त देवानां सत्यवाक्च त्रिकालवित् ।। BP. GOS (No. XLV), Adhikara IX. LL II-I4; P, 281, . M ·92 to Bharata ; and Bharata's description would certainly fit the minister Yaugandharāyana who is the hero of Bhāsa's Prati jñāyaugandharāyana. The Dhiroddhata type which is associated with the gods by the theory is, however, found in the case of a Kşatriya hero; the examples being Duryodhana in the Bhasa plays and Bhima in Verisanikūra. Obviously therefore, the theory did not intend to provide inviolable rules; and the dramatists could take the liberty of adjusting them according to their dramatic purpose. However, Sáradātanaya's observation would suggest that similar freedom was permissible in depicting the type of the Vidüşaka. The opinion of Abhinava cannot be ascertained on this matter, because the text of the commentary on this portion is obviously incorrect. But the rule which Råmacandra provides is a plain deviation from the prescription of Bharata. Bharata associates only the Brahmin Vidüşaka with the kinghero, while Ramacandra allows an ascetic, a Brahmin, or an employee of the king as the Vidūşakas of the king. It is not possible to determine whether this option has a sanction of the actual dramatic practice behind it; if it were there, the plays where an ascetic or a king's dependent (Rājajivi) played the part of the king's Viduşaka, are lost to us. The Classical dramas, on the contrary, show the king's Viduşaka invariably to be a Brahmin and, thus, exemplify the rule of Bharata only. It must at the same time be admitted that it is not possible to exemplify clearly all the four types of the Vidūşakas that Bharata has recognised. We have no play with a god as the hero and so the ascetic type of the Vidūsaka cannot be illustrated. But it may be assumed, as suggested earlier, that Närada represented this particular type. Similarly, there is no Senāpati-hero found in the Classical plays. Of the minister-hero, there are, one may assume, only two examples: One is Mudraraksasa ; the hero here is a & Swe note (2) above ·93 Brahmin minister; but although there is a Sişya attached to Cânakya, be is not a Vidūşaka ; there is no comic character in this play. The other is Pratijñāyaugandharāyana of Bhāsa. The Vidüşaka in this play is really the king's Vidūşaka; but since the king does not figure in this play, the Vidüşaka can be fairly associated with the minister Yaugandharayana, who is surely the hero of this play. This Vidūşaka can, with certain plausibility, be described as illustrating the third, Rājajīvi type; for, apart from the little buffoonery, Vasantaka in this play acts as a valuable partner in the political plot of Yaugandharāyana, and may, therefore, be looked upon more as a royal officer, like other partners, than as a Brahmin Vidūşaka of the familiar type. Mādhava, the hero of Mālatīmādhava, being the son of a minister, can be regarded as belonging to the amātya type; but Bhavabhūti has provided a Pithamarda, and not a Vidūşaka, as the companion of this hero. In the Dhirapraśānta type, Bharata includes the Brahmins and merchants. A combination of both is to be found in Cărudatta of Mrcchakațika, who happens to be a Brahmin-merchant. The Vidūşaka associated with him is, however, a Brahmin and belongs to the second of the four types. Of Sișya type of Vidūşaka, there is no example available from the Classical plays. This type is to be found, however, in the Prahasana plays. Bhagavadajjukiya of Bodhāyana, which according to Dr. Winterneitz is nearer to the times of Bhāsa and Kälidāsa, contains the character of a Parivrājaka, Bhagavān; to him is attached a pupil, Sandilya. The pupil is not represented as a Vidüşaka. But yet his humour, his wilful avoidance of learning his lessons, his craving for food, his cowardice in mistaking a peacock for a tiger and feigning physical paralysis are all real traits of the usual comic character. Śändilya can, therefore, be taken as the earliest example available of a Sişya Vidūsaka. See: Bhagavadaigwktya Prahasana, ed. by P. Anujan ·94 A late Prahasana, Dhartasamāgama, also shows the type. There is a Brahmin priest by name A sajjātimiśra whose business is to settle disputes, officiate at obsequics and negotiate with courtesans. He is a libertine and likes to make love to other people's wives. He has a pupil Bandhuvaiicaka, who is represented as a Vidūşaka. He is a Sişya to match the Guru. He explains to the Guru that commercial business is of no use, because there is trouble and a possibility of losing one's money ; agriculture is equally useless, because the trouble about cattle, wealth and operating rules leads to frustration; learning, too, brings no gain as it involves continuous anxiety over death and fatigue of work; the essence of all the three world's consists, in his opinion, in defrauding people of their money and in the pleasures of gambling ! However, when Visvanagara and the Snätaka approach Asajjāti to get their rival claims over the courtesan Anangasenā settled, both the priest and his pupil, the Vidūşaka, fall a victim to the charms of the harlot. Asajjāti decides to cheat the disputants. He asks them to put down their stakes ; and when they have done so, he asks Anangasena to move to a neutral position. She comes over to the priest's side. Asajjäti then gives his ruling that, since Anangasenā is by his side, she belongs to him, and none of the disputants can lay any claim on her.' The Vidūşaka moves towards Anangasena Achan, The Paliyam MSS. Library, Jayantamangalam, 1925; Preface by Dr. Winterneitz. (p. 3). . Cf. Dhürtasamägama, act ii : कि बाणिज्जेण कर्ज णिअषणविलभ तक्यु काऊण दुक्ख । किं वा कनं किसीए पसु-वसु-णिमामास- णिवदाए । किं विज्जाए फलं वा मरणसमसमुप्पण्णचिन्ताउलाए। एक तेल्लोभसार परचणहरण जूअकीलासुहं च ॥ Ibid. Read: नैषा त्वदीया भवतोऽपि नेयं मत्सनिधिष्ण सुमगा मदीया । स्वमेऽपि पूर्व मयि जातकेलिस् ततोऽपि हेतोः खलु वक्षमा में। weh * # 7 ·95 and whispers to her that the priest is old and has no money; the Snātaka's arrangement is prompted by a desire ; hence, she should better avoid their company and seek the fulfilment of her youth in his own (the Vidūşaka's) company ! 8 Anaogasenā is unable to resist a smile at this spectacle which has turned out to be a 'Farce of the Gathering of Rogues.'' In a Marathi play of this century, called Vidyāharana, a comic sişya is found. The play is based on the story of the winning of the Sanjivani vidyā by Kaca, the representative of the gods, from the preceptor of the Asuras. If Sukrācārya can be looked upon as the most important character in this play, he has a pupil, called actually Sișyavara, who embodies a typical drunkard; he is a character for humour; but it is doubtful whether he can be described as a Vidūşaka. It may be assumed that the four types of the Vidūşakas were not recognised in a mood of theorising only. Probably there must have been plays that exemplified these prescriptions. Alternatively, it is possible to assume that the theory provided rules of propriety, in case the playwrights wanted to work out variations in depicting the heroes of their plays. However, the type of drama that came to stay was the Romantic Court Comedy, with the inevitable king as the hero; and hence, the most familiar type of the Vidüşaka in Sanskrit dramas has been the second one, the Dvija, depicted as a Brahmin. 8 Ibid. Read : विदूषकः (अनासेनामालोक्य जनान्तिकम् )-भो सुन्दरि, एसो मिस्सो बुद्धो भअवं णिद्धणो सिणादओ इच्छारअणो । ता एदाणं समागमं परिहरिअ अम्हसमागमेण तुह जोवणं सफलं मोदुः। Ibid. Cf. SEARTHACHTET HTETHET ·IX QUALITIES ------ 14 1 Śáradātanaya has listed the qualities connected with the four types of the Vidūşakas.? They are as follows: The Vidüşaka of the gods is a truthful speaker ; has knowledge of the past, present and future; knows the specific things that ought to be done and those that ought not to be done; is an expert on judging the pros and cons of an issue; speaks realistically; knows dramatic business, and has an ability for fun and laughter. १ नायकानामयतेषां चत्वारः स्युर्विदूषकाः । विदूषकस्तु तु देवानां सत्यवाक्च त्रिकालवित् ।। कृस्यात्यविशेषज्ञ उहापोहविशारदः । यथावृधार्थवादी च नाव्यवित परिहासकः ।। २ विदूषकस्तु भूपानामग्राम्यपरिहासकः । अर्थेषु खीषु सुखच देवीपरिजनप्रियः ॥ ईकिलहकारी स्यादन्तःपुरचरः सदा । नर्मवित् प्रणयक्रोधे देव्याः किबित प्रसादकः ।। भूपते माँगिनीनां च मिथः प्रीति रति तथा। कचिक घटयत्येव कचिदिषटयत्यपि ।। विदूषकश्च भूपानामेवमादिगुणो भवेद । ३ मशीलवाक्च दम्पत्योरपराधं व्यनक्ति च ॥ मक्ष्यामध्यप्रियो नित्यं मर्मस्पर नर्म वक्ति च । अर्थलामे प्रीतिदानं रमयस्येव मोगिनीः ।। परिहासप्रायवाक्यः परिहासकथारचिः। एवमादिरमात्यादेविदूषकगुणक्रमः ।। ४ सो विस्मवेषध विस्माजवचनमः । विरूपपरिहासन्ध विरूमामिनयान्वितः ॥ इत्यादिमिर्गुणैर्युत वणिका विदूषकः । BP. GOS, IX. PP. 28x-8a. अग्राम्य-those who are not rustic; hence, polished or cultured अग्राम्याना परिहासमः।

·97 It was suggested that Nārada probably represented this ascetic type of the Vidûşaka. Nārada does appear as a dramatic character in Bhäsa's Avimāraka and Balacarita. He describes himself there as a 'lover of quarrels', 'always creating by various means a melody of tunes from his lute as well as quarrels in the world'. He says, 'I do not find any enjoyment in the eternally quiet heavens after the conflict between the gods and the demons has toned down. During the intervals between the sessions of Vedic study, therefore, I tighten the strings of) my lute and feuds (among people) '3 Nārada is also seen in a late play, Ratimanmatha, by Pandita Jagannātha, accompanied by a pupil and watching the fight between Manmatha and Sambūka. He says that he enjoys watching fights between gods and demons, next to devotional utterance of Hari's name. The pupil asks how he occupies himself when this pursuit is not available. Närada replies that a wordy dispute between devoted couples, greedy children fighting with each other for eatables, or a bull raising his horns and charging in a public square, are his sources of diversion; and he roams the world over watching such spectacles. But in these plays as CT-probably in a double sense : He makes a gift of love, that is, helps towards the success of a love affair, if it is materially beneficial to him (zart 504); or if it serves some purpose of his own (अर्थ प्रयोजन). Avi. VI. II cd: उद्पादयाम्यहरहर्विविधैरुपायै- स्तन्त्रीषु च स्वरगणान् कलहांश्च लोके ।। 3 3 Bal. I. 4: क्षीणेषु देवासुरविग्रहेषु नित्यप्रशान्ते न रमेऽन्तरिक्षे । अहं हि वेदाध्ययनान्तरेषु तन्वीच वैराणि च घट्टयामि ॥ . Ratimanmatha, IV. 28 : दम्पत्योरनुरक्तयोरपि मिषात् संपादितं वाक्कलिं प्रकान्तं सहसा नियुबमथवा भक्ष्योलकै लकैः ।

·98 also in Kalidāsa's Vikramorvasiya, Nārada does not play the role which he has assigned to himself; he mercly comes as a deux ex machina to introduce a situation, or tie up the ends of a story. This, however, need not go against the assumption that Nārada could play such a role. In all probability there must have been plays where Närada was depicted as instigating harmless quarrels and enjoying the whole fun. Some Marathi dramas of the present times do show Närada in this light. In fact, the description given by Bhāsa clearly presupposes that Närada had already acquired the particular character which is illustrated from the Purāpic stories. Sāradātanaya's description, too, would admirably fit Nārada : As a divine sage he carries with him the knowledge of the past, present and future. His truthful and realistic way of speech can be easily understood; as also his ability to distinguish between worthy and unworthy actions and to arrive at a proper judgment. The evidence of the Nātyaśāstra is clear on the important role that Närada played in the development of drama ; and hence, he can be appropriately described as “Natyavid'. Even the knowledge of the Veda, which Śāradātanaya has associated with the Vidūşaka elsewhere, is correct in the case of Närada : Bhāsa describes Närada as giving pleasure to Brahmă by his recitations of the Vedas, If to these qualities is added the love of quarrels and of fun, which Bhäsa's Närada attributes to himself, there remains no doubt that Bhāsa, the dramatist, and Săradātanaya, the theorist, have Nārada in their minds as the typical comic character associated with the gods. This strengthens the earlier inference that Närada must have been the first of the Vidüşakas to appear उक्ष्णो वाथ चतुष्पयेऽभिपततो योई विषाणोरा पश्यन्त्रितमानसोऽनवरतं हिण्डे महीमण्डले ॥ I am referring to Saubhadra and Krsnarjunayuddha, particularly . Cf. for BP. GOS, P. 289. 11. 4-5. See Note ( 21 ) below. 7 Avi. VI. II a: बेदैः पितामहमा परितोपवामि।'

·99 in mythological plays based on a personal and domestic life of a god. The Vidūşaka of the king has the ability to make (even ) the cultured people laugh ; in matters of money and women he is irreproachable and is liked by the inaids of the queen ; he moves in the harem and instigates (mutual) jealousies and quarrels; he is witty and is able to pacify to some extent the queen angered by love-matters; he stimulates love and enjoyment between the king and his beloved, as sometimes he brings estrangement also. The Vidūşaka of the kings should possess these and similar qualities. This is, speaking generally, a fairly accurate description of the Vidūşaka as he is found in the classical plays. The Vidūşaka, it will be seen, is always prone to witty observations. That he provokes laughter even among the cultured people is also true : Witness, for instance, how Gautama makes Pandita- Kausiki laugh, and evokes a smile from Malavikā in the musical concert. The jokes which the Vidūşakas cut in the presence of the king, particularly those that are directed against the hero himself, have often the quality of wisdom inspired by the knowledge of the world. That the Vidūşaka has a free access to the harem is invariably true; he is also liked by the maids, although, in some cases, the maids appear to take advantage of the Vidūşaka and derive their fun out of him. The Vidūşaka's role as an instigator of jealousies and quarrels must naturally depend on the dramatic situations actually created in the play; and, hence, it may not be illustrated in every case. Gautama, however, answers the description correctly. He is responsible for setting the two dance-masters against each other; and thereby rousing the anger and jealousy of both the senior queen Dhäripi and the younger queen Irāvati, Vasantaka, too, pro- 8 See Ch. II, entitled EVOLUTION.., • Mälavika., act II.

·100 vokes the jealous anger of Vāsavadattā by indicatting his personal preference for the younger queen Padmāvati.10 Further, Gautama succeeds to some extent in appeasing the angry queens : Iravati, by making the king prostrate himself before her; and Dhāriņi, by himself playing a hoax on her and thereby demonstrating the futility of her opposition to the king's love-affair. Gautama renders extraordinary help in not only encouraging the king in his love-affair but in successfully bringing it to a close also. Most of the Vidūşakas provide encourage ment to the king, though they are not always able to give active help in matters of love. In a few cases, the opposite also is true: Mänavaka does not seem to like the king's passion for Urvasi. 11 Mādhavya registers plain opposition to Duşyanta's fancy for Sakuntalā." And Santuşta annoys the hero and the heroine by refusing to leave them in privacy, till he is dragged out of the apartment by the maid. 13 The question which Vasantaka puts to Udayana, asking him to confess his love for one of the two queens, is in the same category : Udayana is unwilling to answer the question as it was bound to cause estrangement in one or the other case. These may be looked upon as instances where the Vidüşaka is apparently bringing estrange ment between the hero and the heroine, or the queen. The qualities which the Vidūşaka of the minister should possess are in the following order: He uses obscene expression; reveals the fault of the couple; he loves all kinds of food, prescribed and prohibited; he always touches the weak spots of others and talks wittily; he arranges for the enjoy- 10 SV., act IV. 11 Vik., act II, interlude; cf. forefore fauoret TARIM दाब मिअतिहिआदो णिवतेई वमस सदो देवीए मुई पेक्सिस्स ति।' (1.49-50). 13 Säk., act II. 13 Avi., act V. SV., act IV.

·fot ment of pleasure-seeking women by making a gift of love, provided there is some material gain for himself, or alternatively, if it serves some purpose of his own; his utterances are mostly jokular and he likes talk which is full of fun. The only illustration of this type of the Vidüşaka is that of Vasantaka in Pratijñāyaugandharāyana. Vasantaka uses obscene language ;15 he is ready to accept balls of flour prepared in liquor; he exposes the weakness of Udayana in transforming his captivity into an opportunity for courting Vasavadattā; thus, except for service to pleasure-seeking women, most of the traits are illustrated in this character. The Vidūşaka attached to the merchant possesses the following qualities : He is a rogue; his dress, physical appearance and speech are ugly; and equally ugly or uncouth are his jests and gesticulations on the stage. This prescription would appear to be surprising if Cārudatta were to be taken as the type of merchant-hero. Maitreya certainly does not illustrate these traits; and the ugliness in appearance cannot be assumed to be his exclusive trait because the Sanskrit dramatists have associated this characteristic with all the vidūşakas. Most of the other theorists have contented themselves with enumerating the qualities without connecting them with the particular types of the Vidūşakas. Thus, besides the physical appearance of the Vidūşaka, Bharata hạs mentioned a few qualities to be found in this character: He is possessed of a ready wit which is perhaps natural with him ; he is known by humorous doings and by Vasantaka uses a simile of a pig's bladder in describing his breath : "ही ही बुड्ढो विम सूअरवत्थी सुस्वाद एव्य उग्गिरामि ।' Pratijra. III. 11.3-4 18 .

·102 outbursts of humour, with which his speech is endowed. 26 Rudrabhatta speaks of the Vidūşaka in connection with poetical writings. He tells us that the hero in a poetical composition is provided with a Warınasaciva (a humorous counsellor or an associate in sport ) who knows how to guard his counsel, is pure, eloquent in speech, attached, witty and capable of appeasing the wrath of an angry lady. He classifies the Narmasaciva into Pithamarda, Vita and Viduşaka, and distinguishes the last-named as, prone to sport, evoking laughter by his physique, dress and talk, and fully conversant with his own business17" " --- NS. KM, XXXV. 25: प्रत्युत्पन्नप्रतिभो नर्मकृता नर्मगर्भनिदैः । छेदविभूषितवदनो विदूषको नाम विहेयः ।। NS. KSS, XXXV. 71: प्रकृत्युत्पन्न प्रतिभो नर्मकृता नर्मगर्भनिर्भयः । यस्तु विभूषितवचनो विदूषको नाम विशेयः ।। 'कृता' in नर्मकृता should be taken as instr. sing. of कद , a noun in the sense of कृति, and connected with विडेयः. "निर्भेद' probably denotes 'outburst'; 'निर्भय' would mean one who is apt to be bursting';both would suggest humorous outbursts and spontaneous witticisms characteristic of the Vidüşaka. विभूषित' suggests the idea that the speech of the Vidāsaka is marked by wit and humour, and hence it is said to be •decorated'. छेद' has been already explained ; it means 'stripes' of colour put on the face in the make-up of the character. See, Ch. III, Notes Nos. (6) and ( 7). 17 Ct. अथ नर्मसचिवलक्षणम् । गूढमन्त्रः शुचिर्वाग्मी भक्तो नमविचक्षणः । स्यानमसचिवस्तस्य कुपितसीप्रसादकः ।। पीठमदों विटवापि विदूषक इति बिना। स भवेत् प्रथमस्वत्र नायिकानायकानुगः ॥ .

·I03 The author of Agnipurāņa expresses an identical view, describing the Vidūşaka as one of the hero's ministers of wit in love matters ; like them, a follower of the hero, but distinguished from the Pithamarda and Vita by his ability to evoke laughter. 18 Dhananjaya describes the Vidūşaka as one among the companions of the hero, playing the role of a jester by evoking laughter and fun.19 18 Sāgaranandin says that the Vidūşaka is to be identified with the friend and companion of the kings; and is declared as their minister of humour, and has access to the inner apartments.20 According to Sāradātanaya, the Vidūşaka who is ugly in appearance is a witty minister of the hero. He is by nature talkative and rash; loves to instigate quarrels between the hero and his beloved; he is courteous, knows his own business and is एकविद्यो विट: प्रोक्तः क्रीडाप्रायो विदूषकः । स्ववपुर्वेषभाषाभिहस्यिकारी च नर्मवित् ।। (v.1. कर्मवित्, स्वकर्मवित्). Rudrabhatta, ST. KM., I. 29-31. Cf. पीठमर्दो विटश्चैव विदूषक इति त्रयः । शुजारे नर्मसचिवा नायकस्यानुनायकाः ।। पीठमर्दो सम्भलकः श्रीमांस्तद्देशजो विटः । विदूषको वैहसिकस्त्वष्टनायकनायिकाः ।। Agnipurana, Ch. 339, VV. 39-40. 19 Cf. DR. II. 9: '...हास्यकृच्च विदूषकः।' The prose Comm. has, 'हास्यकारी विदूषकः, अस्य विकृताकारवेषादित्वं हास्यकारित्वेनैव लभ्यते ।' 20 Cf. वयस्यकः सहचरः स एव विदूषकः । अन्तःपुरचरो राज्ञां नर्मामात्यः प्रकीर्तितः॥ NLRK. II. 2799-2200, (p. 92). Ranganātha quotes from Sāgara. : Comm. on Vik. II, Nirnayasagara Ed. I914, p. 26. He reads, 'चाटुपटुः' in place of 'सहचरः' above; it would mean, "talkative. and clever', or clever in amusing talk'.

·T04 always fond of food; he knows all dialectical peculiarities and makes every one laugh; he speaks truth and untruth alike; but he should be wise. In another place Sāradātanaya says that the Vidūşaka associated with the hero possesses spontaneous wit, knows Veda, is conversant with humour and knows the practical employment of the fourfold humour.21 Viśvanātha similarly mentions the Vidūşaka as one of the companions of the hero in matters of love. He is, like the other companions, devoted ( to the hero ), expert in witty talks, capable of breaking the pride of angry wives and is purc. He evokes laughter, among other things, by his actions, physical appearance, dress and language; he loves quarrels and knows his business well.2 Singa Bhūpāla, likewise, includes the Vidüşaka along with the Pīthamarda, Vița and Ceça as a helpmate of the hero in the context of love. The qualities of the helpmate that are listed are knowledge of proper time and place, sweetness of spoken 1 Cf. BP. GOS, No. XLV, Adhikära VIII : (i) नेतुः स्यानमसचिवो विरूपस्तु विदूषकः । (1.6%; p. 244). (ii) स्वभावचफ्लो नेतुः प्रियायाः कलहप्रियः । दक्षिणः कार्यविच्चैव सर्वदा भोजनप्रियः ।। सर्वभाषाविकल्पज्ञः सर्वेषां परिहासकः । सत्यासत्यवचोवक्ता पण्डितः स्याद्रिदूषकः ।। ( 11. 17-20%; p. 277). (ii) तदास्वप्रतिभो नर्मचतुर्भेदप्रयोगवित् । वेदविनमवेदी यो नेतुः स स्याद्विदूषकः ।। (11.4-5: p. 289). " Cf. SD. III. 40,42: बारेऽस्य सहाया विटचेटविदूषकायाः स्युः । मका नर्म निपुणाः कुपितवधूमानमानाः एखाः ।। कुसुमवसन्ताधमियः कर्मवपुर्वेषभाषाः । हास्वकर कळदारतिविदूषकः स्थास्यामः ।।

·105 word, polish of learning, skill in giving encouragement, the ability to report faithfully and of guarding a secret counsel.23 It is clear that while Bharata is prescribing here in a general way the most essential quality of the Vidūşaka, namely, his ability to produce humour, the other theorists seem to have in their minds the Vidūşaka in a particular context; for, it is in his capacity as a companion of the hero of an erotic comedy that the Vidūşaka will have an opportunity of displaying some of the qualities developed by the theorists. Moreover, some of the theorists seem to have specific types of the Vidūşakas in their minds, though they have not mentioned them. It is Rārnacandra who makes a plain statement when he says, in a general way, that the Viduşakas associated with the four types of heroes are full of devotion and provide to the heroes an appropriate diversion in their separation from their beloveds. 24 It will be seen that some of the qualities mentioned in this general enumeration are exemplified in the Sanskrit dramas, but some others are not. The Vidūşaka's capacity for wit and humour is obviously his distinguishing trait. Real wit certainly presupposes wisdom; in this sense some of the Vidūsakas at least, like Gautama and Maitreya for instance, can be surely regarded as 'wise'. The 'knowledge of the Veda' has been utilized, however, for fun-making in Sanskrit dramas. 23 Cf. RS., TSS, No. L, I. 89; 92b; 93: (i) अथ गारनेतृणां साहाय्यकरणोचिताः । निरूप्यन्ते पीठमर्दविटचेटविदूषकाः ॥ (i) अथ सहायगुणाः । देशकालज्ञता भाषामाधुर्य च विदग्धता ॥ 'प्रोत्साहने कुशलता यथोक्तकथनं तथा। निगूढमन्त्रतेत्याचाः सहायानां गुणा मताः ।। 84 Çf. ND. GOS, IV. 168: स्निग्धा धीरोखतादीनां यथौचित्यं वियोगिनाम् । लिङ्गी द्विजो राजजीवी शिष्याश्यैते विदूषकाः ।। See also Vivarana, p. 199. 14 ·106 As companions of the heroes, the Vidūşakas have a free access to the harem, and their personal conduct with reference to money and women is above reproach. There is no instance where this trust is betrayed, except in a Prahasana type of drama. The Vidūşakas enjoy the confidence of the heroes, who turn to them with their secrets of love. And if, Gautama blabbers the secret of the king in his sleep, as does Vasantaka in Priyadarśikā; if Mänavaka loses the love-letter, as Maitreya allows the pot of ornaments to be stolen : these are blunders affected for humorous turn, or for story-development; and cannot be interpreted as a betrayal of the trust placed by the heroes in the Vidüşakas. The devotion' of the Vidūşakas to their heroes has been accepted in all the dramas. The stupidity of a Vidūşaka will not mar this devotion, nor will a positive blunder ruin it. A Duşyanta may seek to get the Vidūşaka out of his way for a personal reason; or a Jimūtavāhana may disregard him because he has no use for the Vidūşaka. But that would not alter the mutual bonds. In fact, some dramatists have thought it worthwhile to raise this quality to a level of nobility. Perhaps Bharata himself presumed this relation between the hero and the Vidüşaka when he laid down the rule for an appropriate mode of address to be used by them. According to this rule, * the Vidūsaka is to address the king as ' friend' or 'king'; and the king is either to use the name of the Vidüşaka or call him a friend'. This rule is mentioned indirectly by Sāgaranandin, ** and directly by BCf. वयस्य राजनिति वा भवेद् वाच्यो महीपतिः ।। विदूषकेण राज्ञी च चेठी च भवतीत्यपि । नाम्ना वयस्येत्यपि वा राज्ञा पायो विदूषकः ।।. NS. GOS, XVII. 81b, 82; KM, XVII. 8ob, 81; KSS, XIX. & 17b, 18. * Cf. TETA: FETE : NLRK. I. 2199, P. 92.

·107 Rāmacandra *7 and Singa Bhūpāla 28. The Sanskrit dramatists not only follow this rule, but assume, as seen above, its psychological implication. That the Vidūşaka is talkative is obvious; it is his weapon for producing laughter. And sometimes he is apt to be a little rash. Udayana thinks that Vasantaka is too talkative to be trusted with a confidential confession. 29 Duşyanta has the same fear about Māờhavya. 30 The phrase that Kalidasa has used here is actually found in the writing of Sáradātanaya. Si The Vidūşaka's love of quarrel was illustrated above in the case of Gautama. It appears that some dramatists have utilized situations between the maid and the Vidûşaka to depict quarrelsome talk for humorous effect. This has been presumed in the case of the Ganikā and the Vidüşaka in Asvaghoşa's play. It is particularly noticeable in the plays of Rajasekhara. The Vidūşaka figures in Sanskrit dramas in the context of a love-affair of the king. As a friend and confidant of the royal hero, the Vidūşaka does attempt to help him and save him from awkward situations, though not always successfully. Viśvanātha's statement that the Vidūşaka has a capacity for 'breaking the pride of angry wives' will, therefore, have to be understood somewhat metaphorically. Very probably this is the pre-eminent trait of the Pithamarda, 32 7 Cf. मान्यो नामान्तरै राजा लिङ्गिनाऽथ विदूषकैः । वयस्योऽप्यधमभट्टी लोकैर्देवेति भूपतिः ।। विदूषकैः पुनर्भूपतिर्वयस्यशब्देन अपिशब्दाद् राजनशब्देन च । वयस्य-सखीत्यादयो मित्राख्याः, ताभिर्विदूषको राज्ञा सम्भाष्यः । ND. GOS, IV, 202, and the Comm. on 202-203 ; pp. 211-212. 18 Cf. विदूषकेण तु प्रायः सखे राजन् इतीच्छया ।... RS., TSS, III. 312 a; p. 301. 29 Cf. SV. act IV: भवांस्तु मुखरः ।' 30 Cf. Sāk. act II. 17.10: 'चपलोऽयं बटुः।' 31 Cf. BP. VIII. 1. 17. See Note (21) above. 31 Cf. BP., p. 94, 1. 5: 'स पीठमर्दो विश्वास्यः कुपितस्त्रीप्रसादकः ।' • ( ·108 This rather elaborate survey is primarily meant for getting a better acquaintance with the character of the Vidûşaka. Incidentally it serves to demonstrate the agreement between theory and practice and also emphasise the divergence between them. The former, wherever it is found, can be understood on the assumption that either the dramatists followed the theory, or that the theorists based their rules on observed practice. The divergence, however, has to be explained by a number of factors: Probably the theorists prepared a list of qualities which they considered proper to be associated with the character of the Vidūşaka. And it is possible that the character which they had in mind was not always a dramatic character, but one which could be developed in any poetical writing. Rudrabhațţa, for instance, appears to write with reference to poetic literature in general. It is in this context that some of the traits, like the Vidüşaka's offering his services to passionate women, or essaying to pacify the anger of married ladies, could be better understood. Probably also, there were literally illustrations ; but they are now lost to us. On the other hand, the dramatists must have taken a certain freedom in creating their characters; while following the theory, therefore, as far as they could, they might have forged new paths also. The nature of the dramatic story and the context of situation or incident developed in the play must have imposed a necessary limitation on writing; and the dramatists, therefore, could associate certain qualities only with their character. Some of the qualities again are to be associated with the companions of the hero generally, that is to say, with Pithamarda, Vița or Ceta; they cannot necessarily be the qualities of of the Viduşaka alone. It is obvious, therefore, that all the qualities mentioned by the theorists cannot be expected to be illustrated from each and every character. Neither the dramatists nor the theorists could have hoped to do so.

·X FUNCTION AND ROLE-I A careful analysis of the Natyaśāstra reveals that Bharata assigns to the Vidûşaka a threefold role, although his chief underlying function remains almost the same. I TECHNICAL FUNCTION : ACTOR IN PURVARANGA In the first place, Bharata regards the Vidūşaka as an essential member of the dramatic troupe along with the Sūtradhära and his Assistant. In this capacity the Vidūşaka plays a necessary part in performing the preliminaries or the Pūrvaranga before the actual drama starts. The item of the Pūrvaranga in which the Vidūşaka takes part is technically known as Trigata. As the name itself suggests, the trigata consists of a conversation among three persons, the Sūtradhāra, his Assistant and the Vidūşaka. This trigata is the eighteenth among the nineteen items of the Pūrvaranga, and is presented before the audience. In this the Vidūşaka suddenly steps on the stage and delivers a discourse consisting mostly of irrelevant narration which evokes a smile from the Sūtradhāra. The Vidūşaka enters on a controversial topic, makes an abrupt remark, talks enigmatically and asks questions, such as, 'Who is there ?', and 'Who has won?' and thereby makes allusions to the plot of the composition which is about to be presented. This conversation between the Assistant and the Vidūşaka in which the Vidūşaka finds fault with the speech of the Assistant and which the Sūtradhāra finally establishes, is trigata. 1 NS. GOS, V. 138b-141: तथा च भारतीभेदे त्रिगतं सम्प्रयोजयेत् ॥ १३८ विदूषकस्त्वेकपदा सूत्रधारस्मितावहाम् । असम्बदकथाप्रायां कुर्यात् कथनिकां ततः ।। १३९ 1 ·fro This description is rather vague. But it is possible to imagine the procedure involved in this item. The Sūtradhára has presented the items of dance, music and rāndi which are intended partly to do a religious homage and partly to entertain the audience. Now he enters into a conversation with his assistant about the particular play which is to be presented on that day. It is at this moment that the vidūşaka steps on the stage, interrupts the conversation with his incoherent and humorous chatter, and starts picking up holes in the speech of the Assistant. It is obvious from the words of Bharata that the Vidūşaka's chatter is connected with the composition chosen for production (küvyaprarūpinim). In a later play (Adbhuladarpana ) where the Vidūşaka appears in the dramatic prologue, he is arguing with the Satradhāra himself and protesting against the imposition of a dancing role required to be played on a full belly. But it may be assumed that the Vidūşaka's criticism in the trigata is of a general nature and refers to the particular production of the day. So, the Päripārsvika would say: 'We are presenting a new play today.' The Vidūsaka would object : 'Enough! Who is this new fellow whom you have chosen in disregard to the established So-and-so (kah tişthati) ?' The Pāripărśvika would reply in general terms and speak about the play and its author. The Vidūşaka would again protest : 'I know! I know what happened last time! Who had to suffer mortification? And who was successful ? वितण्डो गण्डसंयुको नालीकं च प्रयोजयेत् । कस्तिष्ठति जित केनेत्यादिकान्यप्ररूपिणीम् ॥ १४० पारिपाधिकसजल्पो विदूषकविदूषितः । स्थापितः सूत्रधारेण त्रिगतं सम्प्रयुज्यते ॥ १४१ KM, V. 124-125 (It has only three lines corresponding to 138b, 139 above). KSS, V. 136-138 (It has upto 140 above; a variant occurs instead of prostat' in 140a). Ghosh, V. 137-141. The terms, A are explained in NS. See KSS, XX. 125-133 Nupur www. IR 1 ·III 1 (jitam kena)?' The Sūtradhāra would now intervene, attempt to convince the Vidūşaka about the quality of the production and express confidence that the play would be liked by the appreciative audience. When the Sūtradhāra has thus 'established' the play, the trigata is over. The item is, therefore, connected with the conversation of the three actors and is vaguely allusive of the play, the playwright and the performance. The Vidūşaka draws out these allusions by his humorous attack, protest and chatter. The next item is technically known as prarocanā, and in it the play and the playwright are directly introduced to the audience by their names; and the Sūtradhāra solicits the attention of the audience towards the performance by means of an appeal and a compliment. The purpose and aim of the two items are, therefore, clear : The prarocană contains a direct introduction of the author and his play. But before it is done, the Vidūşaka makes sly and witty allusions to them in the trigata. The Vidūşaka's humorous manner serves, on the one hand, to elicit laughter from the audience (the Sūtradhāra is himself unable to resist a smile); and, on the other hand, his sly allusions rouse their curiosity also, thereby preparing the ground for the prarocanā. The difference between these two items is as follows: Though both are intended as an introduction to the drama proper, the trigata performs this function by vague and humorous allusions made by the Vidūsaka; the prarocanā, on its part, is a straightforward introduction of the author and his work, together with a courteous appeal to the audience for appreciative attention, It may be difficult to appreciate the purpose of these items of Pūrvayanga in an age of newspapers, advertisements and posters. But in ancient days when such means of publicity were not available, it was the responsibility of the Sutradhāra and his troupe to acquaint the audience with the preliminary details of the production. It was precisely this function that the trigata and the prarocană performed, each in its own way. When this ·II2 introduction was over, the Purvarariga ended and the drama commenced. --- It appears from the statement of Bharata that the Vidūşaka necessarily appeared in this humorous part of the preliminary performance. In the next item the Vidūşaka's appearance was optional. Bharata says that the Sūtradhāra is to perform the prarocană with the help of his wife, Nați, or his assistant, Päripārsvika, or the Vidūşaka.3 Abhinava tells us that the Vidūşaka is really one of the two assistants of the Sūtradhāra; he is only dressed like the Vidūşaka and uses the language and the manner of the Vidūşaka. Rāmacandra repeats the same view by saying that the Pāripärsvika himself dressed as Vidūşaka is the Vidūşaka. Sāradātanaya says that the Sūtradhāra, the Nata, Nati, Pariparsvika and the remaining actors, together with the Vidūşaka, are necessary for the business of the drama. * This is to be gathered from the name Trigata given to this item. It could not be Three Men's Talk' unless the Vidūşaka took part in it. Cf. also, NS. GOS, V. 29: विदूषकः सूत्रधारस्तथा वै पारिपार्श्वकः । यत्र कुर्वन्ति समल्पं तच्चापि त्रिगतं मतम् ॥ s NS.GOS, XX. 30-31: नटी सूत्रधारो वापि पारिपाश्चिक एवं वा । सूत्रधारेण सहिताः संलापं यत्तु कुर्वते । चित्रक्यैिः स्वकार्योत्थैवाथ्यङ्गैरन्यथापि वा। आमुखं तत्तु विज्ञेयं बुधैः प्रस्तावना तु सा ॥ Abhinava's comment on these verses has, 'बा-शम्देन व्यस्तानां नटी- प्रभृतीनां सूत्रधारेण सङ्घातमाह । एव-शब्दः सूत्रधारस्यावश्यंभावं दर्शयति ।'NS.GOS, Vol. III., p.92. NS. KM, XX. 28-293B KSS,XXII. 28. · Abhinava on NS. V. 29 (GOS, Vol. I, p. 221 ) : 'विदूषक इति । पारिपाश्चिकयोरन्यतरो विदूषकवेषभाषाचारो विदूषकः।' 5 ND. (GOS), Comm. on III. 105 (p. 153): पारिफाश्चिक एव विदूषकवेषधारी विदूषकः।' .. BP. (GOS), Adhikarax, (p.287.1.18-20): सूत्रधार प्रथमतोटा पयासतो नही। .

·II3 The above rule of Bharata is repeated by the author of Agnipurana,' by Ramacandras and Visvanātha, who call this item Amukha. Agnipurāņa identifies it with Prastāvanā. Singa Bhüpāla calls it Sthāpanā.10 This evidence of the theory establishes two facts concerning the dramatic practice : The Vidūşaka was acknowledged as a member of the dramatic troupe; and he took an essential part in the preliminaries of dramatic representation. This dramatic practice is indirectly corroborated by the prologue of Mrcchakațika (and of Carudatta, naturally). The Vidūşaka is mentioned in this prologue; the opening scene begins with the Vidūşaka; the Sūtradhāra deliberately switches over to Prakrit and in the course of his talk with his wife, the Nați, sets the dramatic theme in action. The prologue of Mycchakatika which generally has puzzled all students of the Sanskrit drama, is स पारिपाश्चिकः पश्चात्ततस्ते च कुशीलवाः । विदूषकेण सहिता नाट्यकर्मोपयोगिनः ।। ? Agnipurāņa, Ch. 338, v. IIb-13a : नटी विदूषको वापि पारिपाश्विक एव वा ॥ सहिताः सूत्रधारेण संलापं यत्र कुर्वते । चित्रक्यैिः स्वकार्योत्थः प्रस्तुताक्षेपिमिमिथः ।। आमुख तत्तु विज्ञेयं बुधैः प्रस्तावनापि सा । BP. Adhikāra VIII. p. 229, II. 5-9 are practically identical with NS. quoted above, 8 ND. III. 105 (GOS, p. 153): विदूषकनटीमार्फः प्रस्तुताक्षेपि भाषणम् । सूत्रधारस्य वक्रोक्तस्पष्टोक्तैर्यत् तदामुखम् ।। SD.VI. 31-32: नटी विदूषको वापि पारिपार्श्वक एव वा ! सूत्रधारेण सहिताः संलापं यत्र कुर्वते ॥ चित्रक्यैिः स्वकार्योत्थैः प्रस्तुताक्षेपिभिमिथः । आमुखं तत्तु विज्ञेयं नाम्ना प्रस्तावनापि सा ।। 10 RS. III. 160 (TSS, p. 272): सूत्रधारो यत्र नटीविदूषकनटादिभिः । संकपन प्रस्तुतं चार्थमाक्षिपेत् स्थापना हि सा ॥ 15 9 ·114 probably indicative of an older practice, when the preliminaries were performed in the popular manner. As such, the use of Prakrit, the spoken language, and the mention of the Vidüşaka were regarded as inevitable and natural. However, the Pūrvaranga was gradually shedding its elaborate ritual. With the growth of stage plays very elaborate preliminaries must have been looked upon as unnecessarily taxing the patience of the audience. Bharata himself had dropped a realistic hint in this connection, which the players naturally took up.12 And when the introduction of the author and the play came to be written by the author himself and was included in his own dramatic prologue, the older items of the Pūrvaranga could not have much scope. That is probably why after the singing of the Nāndi, the Āmukha that followed did not include the Vidūşaka always. The option that is provided about the Āmukha in the rule given by later theorists has probably to be understood in this way. This does not, however, mean that the Vidüşaka absolutely fell out of the Pūrvaranga in later dramatic practice. He must have continued to appear to do the business of the trigata at least in some representations. There is naturally no record of this business, probably because it pertains to the dramatic company; and the dramatists had no reason to record it in their own plays. But we have in Adbhutadarpana of Mahādeva an evidence of the Vidūşaka appearing in the prologue. The Vidüşaka is an actor 11 NS. GOS, 165-167a : कार्यों नातिप्रसोन नृत्तगीतविधि प्रति । गीतवाद्ये च नृत्ते च प्रवृत्तेऽतिप्रसातः ।। खेदो भवेत् प्रयोक्तृणां प्रेक्षकाणां तथैव च । खिन्नानां रसभावेषु पता नोपजायते ।। ततः शेषप्रयोगस्तु न रामजनको भवेत् । KM, V. 146b-148 ; KSS, V. 1605-167. 13 Cf. the phrase stfearte' which invariably marks the opening speech of the Sotradhára after the Nándi is over, ·115 of the name Romanthaka. He is assigned the role of Mahodara, a counsellor in love affairs, attached to Rāvana. The Sūtradhāra has taken care to put him in good humour by feeding him with modakas. Yet the Brahmin Vidūşaka grumbles about the duties of an actor which require him to dance on a full belly. It is when he is assured that he has only a speaking part and that there is sufficient interval before he made his first appearance that he is comforted, and goes away to have a nap. Similarly, in Ratimanmatha of Pandita Jagannātha, when the prologue is nearly over and the Sūtradhāra is about to depart, announcing the dramatic role he is to assume, an actor suddenly steps on the stage and announces that he is taking the role of the Vidūşaka; and with this the prologue ends. The practice is seen also in later native traditions. On the Kerala stage the type of representation known as the Kūțțu is presented by the Vidūşaka. After the preliminaries are over, the Vidūşaka appears on the third day, and for three days together holds the stage alone expounding his own' puruşărthas' in his usual humorous way." :18 Similarly in the popular dramas presented in some Konkaņa villages, it is the Vidūşaka who takes up the role of the Sūtradhāra or appears as a humorous character in performing the preliminaries. This practice does not appear to be an innovation of later days; it is rather a revival, or a survival, of the older practice; and it confirms Bharata's original conception of the Vidûşaka being an important partner in dramatic business. II DRAMATIC FUNCTION : COMPANION OF THE HERO It is clear that Bharata thought of the Vidūşaka not only as an actor but as a dramatic character also. While invoking protective blessings on the characters in the drama, Bharata writes: 18 See, K. Rama Pisharoti, Kerala Theatre, JAU, Vol. III, No. 2, Oct. 1934 (p. 153).

·116 "Indra protects the hero; Saraswati the heroine; then Omkāra, the Vidūşaka; and the rest of the characters, Hara, "14 Commenting on these lines Abhinava 15 says that a separate protection is proper to be invoked on the principal characters, and hence Bharata refers to the hero etc. The Vidūşaka has been mentioned in this connection because he is a necessary character in the representation of laughter and of love. The words of Bharata imply the ten types of dramatic compositions also, the Vidūşaka being absent in the Samavakāra type. Bharata points out that laughter can arise out of the depiction of love; it is connected with the Rhetorical Sentiment of love. 26 This prescription, together with the friendly mode of address recommended for the Vidūşaka and the hero, 17 and the types of Vidâşakas conceived for the types of heroes, 18 have fixed the position of the Vidūşaka as a companion of the hero in a Romantic Comedy of love, which is the prevailing type of Sanskrit drama. The later theorists confirm this role of the Vidūşaka. The 14 NS. GOS, I. 96b-97a : नायकं रक्षतीन्द्रस्तु नायिकां तु सरस्वती ॥ विदूषकमथोङ्कारः शेषास्तु प्रकृतीहरः । KM, I. 63; KSS, I. 97b-98a; Ghosh, I. 96. 16 NS. GOS, Vol. I, p. 33: 'प्रधानपात्राणि पृथग्रक्षणीयानि इत्याइ नायकमिति । हास्यशुमाराङ्गत्वाद् विदूषक- मित्युक्तम् । अत एव दशरूपप्रयोगसूचनमेतत्, समवकारे विदूषकाभावात् ।' 16 NS. VI. 44 and 45: (i) AT HTETE......! झारानुकृतिर्या तु स हास्यस्तु प्रकीर्तितः । KM, KSS, VI. 39, 40. (ü) Agnipurāna, Ch. 339, v. 7a : UFFT 54 TA...... (ü) ND. GOS, Comm. p. 163 : 49: IMAST, ETET..... 17 See, Notes Nos. ( 25 ). (26), (27), (28) to Chapter IX. 28 See, Note No. (I) to Chapter VIII.

·117 Agnipurāņa includes 19 the Vidūşaka, along with the Pithamarda and the Vița among the followers of the hero, and describes them as 'Narma-saciva' in the development of the Sentiment of Love. Sågaranandin 20 calls the Vidūşaka a Narma-amātya'. According to Rāmacandra, 21 the Vidūşaka is particularly helpful to the heroes when they are experiencing separation of love. The Vidūşakas destroy peace by quarrels, and quarrels by reconciliation; and in actual separations they help to relieve the sorrow by providing humorous diversion. Sāradātanaya 23 describes the Vidüşaka as a 'Kāma-saciva' and as a 'Narmasaciva,' that is to say, as a Minister of Love and a Minister of Humour. Viśvanātha 23 says that the Vidūşaka is one of the assistants of the hero in the matter of love. Singa Bhūpāla24 expresses an identical opinion. The prevailing dramatic practice, as understood from classical Sanskrit plays appears to have fixed the Vidūşaka mostly as a companion of the royal hero, and, thus, connected with a love-story. There are only a few exceptions, particularly of the Prakarana dramas, in which the heroes naturally are not kings, 25 and in one of which the vidūşaka is replaced by a Pithamarda. 26 As a companion of the royal hero, the Vidūşaka performs a two-fold function: assistance in love and diversion in separation. 21 19 See, Note No. (18) to Chapter IX, 20 See, Note No. ( 20 ) to Chapter IX. See, Note No. ( 30 ) to Chapter VII. BP., Adhikāra IV, GOS, P. 93, 11. 21-22: एते स्युः कामसचिवाः पीठमर्दो विटस्तथा । विदूषकश्च सख्यादिपरिवारेण संयुतः ।। See, also Note No. (21 ) to Chapter IX. 3 See, Note No. (22) to Chapter IX. 24 See, Note No. (23) to Chapter IX. 26 The well-known examples are Mſc. and Malati. Makaranda in Bhavabhūti's Malati, ·118 (i) Companion in love-intrigue In the capacity of a king's companion involved in an intrigue of love, the Vidūşaka appears to play a varied role in Sanskrit dramas: (a) The Vidūşaka may positively assist the king in securing the heroine as his bride. It is only Gautama in Malavikāgnimitra who displays this capacity. The traits of strategy and cleverness of which some theorists speak are truly exemplified in Gautama's character. From the first meeting of the hero and heroine to the final ringing of wedding bells it is Gautama who schemes and plots, overcomes obvious obstacles and meets unexpected impediments with such success that the epithet Minister of the Science of Love', 27 which a jealous queen indignantly bestows on him, becomes a true and authentic description of hini. (b) The Vidûşaka may encourage the hero generally in his pursuit of love. This is what most of the Vidūşakas do, as confidants of the hero. They encourage the hero to talk enthusiastically about his beloved ; keep him company; and sometimes conduct him to where the beloved is likely to be found; sometimes they endeavour to arrange a meeting too. Thus, Santuşta supports Avimāraka in his love for Kurangi and even accompanies him in his secret visit to the royal residence. Mādhavya stimulates discussion about Sakuntalā, giving Duşyanta an opportunity not only for vindicating his passion' but for giving also some of the finest descriptions of the heroine. The Vidūşakas in the Udayana plays of Harşa play a similar role. Vasantaka in Ratnávali conducts Udayana to the plantain-grove, where he first discovers a picture-board and, a little later, meets the heroine. 28 Vasantaka participates in the maid's plot for CL. Malavika. IV.: इमल्स कामवंतसचिवस्त णीदी। * Ratna., act II. Note the stage direction, ' 27 ·119 arranging a meeting between Udayana and Sāgarikā near the picture-hall, though the plot misfires on account of mistaken identities.29 Similarly, in Priyadarsika, Vasantaka encourages the king to go forward to ward off the bees; and the king gets an opportunity of embracing Aranyikā. There is, again, conspiracy hatched between the Vidūşaka and the maid whereby the king is able to meet the heroine in the mimic performance. Atreya in Nāgānanda has a genuine reason to persuade the hero to tread the path of love, because the latter is inclined towards an ascetic way of life of which the Vidūşaka has no use. Cãrãyaņa in Viddhaśālabhañjikā guides the king from the Makaranda garden to the pleasure-hill, where the king discovers the sculptured image of the heroine whom he had seen in his dream ; and then sees her behind the crystal wall. (c) The Vidūşaka may help the hero in appeasing the anger of the queen. The royal heroes of Sanskrit dramas are generally polygamous. The king's new love-affair, therefore, presents a concurrent problem, that of conciliating the previous wife or wives of the hero. In such awkward situations, the hero turns to the Vidūşaka for help. But not all Vidūşakas are able to help the hero in this delicate predicament. The usual tactics adopted by them are a bluff, a forced jest, side-tracking the issue, or a straight prayer for forgiveness.80 Even the resourceful Gautama is puzzled when Agnimitra is suddenly caught in a love-intrigue by Iravati, and suggests taking to heels' as the only possible escape out of the situation. But the Vidūşakas always wish that the king 29 Ratnā., act III. See the sarcastic compliment paid by Väsavadatta's maid to the Viduşaka : 'FE HEFFT HE 1 af feat Hesteyr273401 The farefis 19. (Act III, inter iude). 36" Ratna., Act III. Çi. Vidūşaka's apology: " HR, FENYATTI क्खु तुमम् । ता समीमदु दाब एक्को अवराहो पियवक्षस्सस्स ।'

·I20 should placate their angry wives and urge them to do so.31 And if Māņayaka's promise conveyed through the maid to cure the hero of his passion for Urvaśī is not a bluff, it may be looked upon as an attempt to satisfy the jealous queen. A real opportunity to play the role of an appeaser is presented to the Vidüşaka in the plays of Kalidasa only. Gautama breaks skilfully through Dhäriņi's opposition and meets the indignant threats of Irāvati with such remarks as tend to embarrass her. Similarly the stupid Mädhavya is forced to play this role when Duşyanta sends him to the apartment of Hamsapadikå to acknowledge her veiled rebuke. (d) But sometimes the Vidūşaka may adopt an attitude of protest. The question of the Vidūşaka's help either in a pursuit of love, or in appeasing the previous wife of the hero, does not arise in some cases. In Avimāraka and Nāgānanda the heroes have no first wives. In Svapnavāsavadatta, the previous queen Vāsavadattā is supposed to be dead. The wife of Cārudatta is too noble and resigned to present any opposition to her husband's love for Vasantasenā. The problem in Pratijñayaugandharāyana is different. Here the Vidūşaka is a companion of the minister-hero; and hence, he looks upon the love-affair of Udayana as an obstruction to the fulfilment of the minister's vow, and objects to it. In a few cases, however, the Vidūşaka expresses disapproval of the hero's passion. Māpavaka is uncomfortable with the secret of the king's love and is ready, as we have seen, to join the queen's camp. Madhavya, too, puts Duşyanta to a searching examination; and Duşyanta thinks it wiser to keep him out of the Sakuntală affair, Maitreya takes every opportunity to wean Cārudatta away from Vasantasenā. Maitreya often talks with her in unflattering terms. These Vidūşakas appear to get 57. Cf. Viddha, Act I: वा एहि महूम देवी पसादेम्ह।' See Bilhana's Karnasundari før similat attitude of the Victisaka.

·I21 reconciled only because they find that the hero is too deeply gone in love to be willing to consider their protest. But in relation to the queen, the Vidūşakas genuinely wish to remain aloof. Bhasa's Vasantaka is afraid of Väsavadatta's temper. Harsa's Vasantakas have a positive reason to dread the anger of Vāsavadattā; because in their attempts to arrange a meeting between the king and the heroine they had to court imprisonment for themselves. They, therefore, refuse even to accompany the king for placating the angry queen. Mādhavya seems to speak for this kind when he describes the royal harem as a terrifying snare ! 32 (ii) Companion in separation As a companion of the hero in separation, the Vidūşaka plays an important role. He soothes the hero's anguish of love and acts as a true comforting friend. He never fails to provide vinoda or vinodana, by diverting the depressed mind of the hero to pleasanter or lighter things. In this sense, the Vidūşaka is a friend in need and a friend indeed. The Sanskrit dramatists have faithfully worked out this role for the Vidūşaka as conceived or mentioned by the theorists. The Vidũşaka may not win a bride for the hero; he may not succeed in appeasing an angry queen ; but he does not fail the hero in relieving the pain of love. The period of courtship is a period of suspense, agony and despair. for the hero. In this period, as well as when real separation from the beloved occurs, the hero seeks the company of his amusing friend; and the Vidūşaka, too, soothes the nerves of the hero by his humorous nonsense, or by worldly wisdom; and provides, at least ternporarily, a suitable diversion. A common device found in most of the Sanskrit plays in this connetion is for the Vidūsaka to take the hero out in the 3 Cf. Sāk., VI, 22.16–17: FE ** caturat (v. l. aa- कूडादो) मुञ्चीअदि...।' 16 ·I22 privacy of the royal garden. There in the famous Pramadavana, the Vidūşaka draws the hero's attention to the pleasant atmosphere and scenery, or to the seasonal beauty of the garden. He urges and encourages the hero to talk about the lady of his love. He cracks jokes or makes fun, but keeps up the heart of the hero by soothing prophecies of fulfilment, or by assurances of help-though these latter oftcn tum out to be empty. Alike in a state of real agony as in the suspense of a lovelorn condition, the Vidūşaka stands by his royal hero and endeavours to relieve his distress. A Vidūşaka like Maçlhavya may encourage Duşyanta to talk about his lost beloved and thus help him to take an enormous load off his mind. And Bhāsa's Vasantaka is prepared to invent a funny situation with a view to amusing Udayana, regale him with a nonsensical tale and offer explanation for the dream-vision. And whatever may the nature of assistance be that the heroes derive from their jesting companions, there is no doubt about their personal attachment. Hence, the heroes invariably seek the company of their Vidūşakas in their own distress. Even Duşyanta, after the consciousness of Sakuntala's loss has dawned on him, turns to Madhavya whom he had deliberately kept out of his love-affair : Avimāraka remembers the touching devotion of Santuşta ; Cărudatta calls on Maitreya, a friend in all times, in the most acute moment of his personal tragedy. A real attachment to the hero is a genuine trait of the Vidüşakas in the Sanskrit dramas. This devotion' is mentioned by some theorists as a trait of the hero's companions, 88 among whom the Vidūşaka is to be included. But the theorists do not appear to have conceived the height to which the friendly devotion could reach. It is to be remembered that the Vidūşakas are not all stupid and jesting Rudrabhafta; ( See, Note (17) to Ch. IX) ST. I. 29;':', SD. TIL. 40; Rainer:'ND. IV. 168. 88 ·123 companions merely tagged on to the hero: Their pleasure at the good fortune and sorrow at the miserable condition of the hero is not conventional. The instance of the simple Vasantaka in Ratnávali, and the great portraits of Santuşta and Maitreya prove that the devotion of the Vidūşaka could reach the sheer level of sublimity; the Vidūşakas are prepared to die for the sake of their royal companions. This trait of nobility and great humanity is a creation exclusively of the dramatists. III POPULAR FUNCTION: HUMOUR Whether the Vidūşaka assists the Sūtradhāra in executing the preliminaries of the drama, or the hero in his affair of love, the manner in which he does either is that of humour, evoking laughter. Bharata connects the Vidūşaka with the Sentiment of laughter and endows him with ready wit.84 He is the producer of laughter', as the author of Agnipurāņa35 says; the 'cause of laughter', as Rāmacandra36 says; or the maker of laughter' as Dhanañjaya, Sāradātanaya and Visvanatha 87 say. When the theorists speak of the Vidūşaka as knowing his 'business', they mean by it'humour ' 38 The Vidūşaka is naturally employed wherever humour is 34 NS. KM, XXXV. 25, 'Caut', KSS, XXXV. 71, caufà att'. 35 Effi' Agnipurāņa, Ch. 339, V. 40. Kā. Sū. I. iv. 46, has "वैहासिकः'. alte facutant Teatti Hafat i' Comm. on ND. iv. 167. ETRA fay: I'DR. II. 8; AT PETER: 1' BP. viii. 1. 19, p. 227; RET: SD, iii. 42; See also, art ST. i. 31 ; RS. i. 92. 38 SD., III. 42, has 'FanFT: ', which is explained in the Comm. as, 'HISTAI (Kane's ed.) and as ' FETEIG (Nirnayasāgara ed. 1922). ST. I. 31, has 'n prach, sania, Tina'. 86 37 6 4 + ·124 . expected. Bharata recommends that the humour which the Vidūşaka produces by his bragging (or the disruption which he brings in normal course of things ), und by some artifice ( like the comic make-up ), should always be greeted by the audience with loud laughter."). Bharata provides minute instructions el as to the manner in which the actor in his role as a Vidüşaka may produce laughter. When the Vidūşaka moves on the stage with sinple laughable steps, with feet raised high and put forward, such a gait is marked by three-fold laughter: that which is produced by his physique, that by the dramatic lines assigned to liim, and that by his costume and make-up. When the l'iduşaka makes his appearance on the stage with sone physical defornity present in him, or when he walks on the stage like a crane turning his eyes up and down, or takes very long strides, it is the laughter based on the physique. The laughter based on words is produced when the Vidūşaka 39 BP., X. p. 289, 1. 2: 'विदूषकोऽपि सर्वत्र विनोदेषूपयुज्यते।'. 40 NS. GOS, XXVII. 8 (identical in KM and KSS) : विदूषकोच्छेदकृतं भवेच्छिल्पकृतं च यत् । अतिहास्येन तन्नाझं प्रेक्षकैनित्यमेव तु॥ KM, XXVII. 8 has gold 'is to be taken in the sense of 'bragging '; cf. Ghosh, p. 512; '3 lit. means 'disruption, destruction, in the context of humour, it would mean only the 'upsetting in the normal course of things. 41 NS. GOS, XII. 137-142, 142-146; KM, XII. 121-124, 125-129; KSS, XIII. 136-140, 141-144; Ghosh, XIII. 137-140, 140-142 (Pp. 226-227): विदूषकस्यापि गतिहाँस्यत्रयविभूषिता ।। १३७ अङ्गकाव्यकृतं हास्य हास्य नेपथ्यजं स्मृतम् । दन्तुरः खलतिः कुजः खजच विकृताननः ।। १३८ यदीशःप्रवेशः स्याद् अङ्गहास्यं तु तद् मवेत् । यदा तु बकवद् गच्छेद उकिताविको कितः ॥ १३९ अत्यायतपदत्याय महास्यो मवेतु सः। VONIAN ·125 45 babbles incoherently, meaninglessly and unnaturally, using obscene or vulgar words. 42 When the Vidüşaka appears clad in tattered clothes or barks or skins, and is smeared with black soot (or ink?), ashes or yellow ochre, it is the laughter of costume and make-up. Bharata also mentions the poses which the Vidūşaka should affect to suit different conditions. * In his natural gait the Vidūşaka is to place his crooked stick ( kutilaka ) in the left hand and show the Catura gesture with the right hand. He is to bend low, by turns, one of his sides, head, hand and foot, in keeping with the rhythm and the musical time ( tāla ). This will be his natural gait. Other than this will be abnormal; for instance, when he is affecting a gait supposed to be resulting from some feeling like that of pride, it will have a quickened rhythm and prolonged time. 44 When he gets an unexpected gift, such as food or garment, he will affect a stunned pose. The later theorists only paraphrase Bharata's words in deska काव्यहास्यं तु विज्ञेयमसम्बद्धप्रभाषणैः ॥ १४० अनर्थकैर्विकारैश्च तथा चालीलभाषणैः । चीरचर्ममधीभस्मगैरिकायैस्तु मण्डितः ॥ १४१ यस्तादृशो भवेद् विप्रो हास्यो नेपथ्यजस्तु सः । 43_NS.GOS, XII. 142-146; Ghosh, XIII. 143-146 (p. 227): गतिप्रचारं विभजेत् नानावस्थान्तरात्मकम् । स्वभावजायां विन्यस्य कुटिलं वामके करे ॥१४३ तथा दक्षिणहस्ते च कुर्याच्चतुरकं पुनः । पार्श्वमेकं शिरश्चैव हस्तोऽथ चरणस्तथा ॥ १४४ पर्यायशः संनमयेलयतालवशानुगः । स्वभावजा तु तस्यैषा गतिरन्या विकारजा ॥ १४५ अलाभलाभाद् मुक्तस्य स्तब्धा तस्य गतिर्भवेत् । Abhinava commenting on 'गतिरन्या' (XII. 145-146, Gos, p. 360 ) says, 'अन्या द्रुतलयत्वेन प्लुतकालमानाद् बाहुल्येन शोकादिः स्वभावजा । गर्वात्मकोऽपि विकारो भक्तीत्याशयेनाह अलामलामादिति । अलामः लाभपूर्वकाशामात् । भुक्तं वस्त्राथुपलक्षयति ।' 46 ·126 cribing the three-fold base of the Viduşaka's laughter, namely physique, words, and costume and make-up. These are technically known, in the language of abhinaya or acting, as ängika, vācika and āhärya respectively. Thus, Rāmacandra " says that the Vidūşaka deliberately moves unevenly or loosely on the stage in order to evoke laughter. Rāmacandra mentions the threefold laughter of the Vidūşaka arising out of physique, costume and make-up, and words. The laughter of physique, he says, arises if the Vidūşaka appears as bald-headeci, lame, with protruding teeth and deformed face etc. The laughter of dress is due to an extremely loose lower garment that he wears; but Ramacandra wrongly includes here the Vidūşaka's looking up and down, contrary to Bharata's prescription where it is correctly put under the laughter of physique'. The laughter of words naturally arises due to inconsistent, meaningless and vulgar talk. Of the three kinds of laughter, the one based on physique and the other of costume or make-up fall properly within the province of the actor; and rules for his guidance are appropriately provided in the theory. But the dramatists have brought some details in the course of the actual dialogue. Thus, they mention physical deformities of the Vidüşaka : the mis-shapen head or bald head, monkey-like face, and dwarfish or crooked figure.4They suggest gait and poses which the Vidūşaka will have to assume in particular situations and which will involve āngika abhinaya : for instance, while receiving a present of modakas, garment or ornaments; in simulating the act of eating ;** 46 ND. iii. 103, Comm. p. 152: विदूषकोऽपि च हास्यार्थ बुद्धिपूर्वकमेव विसंस्थुलं विचेष्टो।' ND. iv, 167, Comm. p. 199: 'हास्यं चास्य अङ्गनेपथ्यवचोविकारात् त्रेधा । तत्राणहास्य खलतिखभदन्तुरविताननवा- दिना । नेपथ्यहास्यं अत्यायतमम्बरस्वोल्लोकितविलोकितगमनादिना । वचोहास्यमसम्बद्ध- अनर्थक-अश्लीलभाषणादिना भवति । See, Chapter III, PERSONAL APPEARANCE etc. 48' Cli, for instance, Sak: act II: राजा विवान्तेन भवता ममाप्येकस्मिानाबासे कर्मणि सहायेन मक्सिम्यम् । विदूषकः किं मोदमखज्जिमाए । .

·127 53 in dozing off in a squatting position ; 49 in running away from an imaginary object of fear; 50 in affecting physical paralysis ; 51 in expressing loud joy by dancing, clapping of hands or snapping of fingers, 52 in running with the raised stick towards bees, pigeons, or mango-blossom, in a show of anger or heroism; or in striking an attitude of pride. 54 Santuşta feigns to be a female 55 and this would be conveyed, one must imagine, by appropriate gait and gestures. Ātreya clads himself in a pair of red garments, wears the upper garment as a veil, and goes about like a woman. This can be looked upon both as a laughter of dress and of gait. And if the sacred thread ( Yajñopavita ) were to be included in the costume of the Vidūşaka, Gautama's act of binding his finger with it, Vasantaka's swearing by it, and Atreya's being dragged by it, in which attempt it snaps, may also be put down under nepathyaja laughter. The laughter of words is an author's creation. The Vidaşaka's speech as such is intended to be full of laughter. But it For instance, Gautama in Mālavikā, act IV, and Vasantaka in Priya. act III. For instance, Vasantaka in SV. act IV is frightened by the rolling garland which he mistakes for a serpent; Māņavaka, in Vik. act II, mistakes the birch-leaf on which Urvasi's letter is written to be a slough of serpent. For instance, Madhavya, at the opening of Sāk. act II : अङ्गभङ्गविअलो विअ भविअ चिट्ठिस्सं...! 52 For instance, Vasantaka in Ratnā. For instance, Vasantaka in SV., IV, rushing at the bees; Maitreya in Mộc., V, raising his stick at the pigeons; and, Madhavya in Sāk., VI, attacking mango blossoms, imagined as Cupid's arrows. For instance, Māļhavya in Sák., II, while saying, hur fa garrant alt Eget l'or Maitreya in Mộc., I, while addressing Sakāra, 'भो सके गेहे कुक्कुरो वि दाव चण्डो भोदि किं उण अहं बम्हणो।' 55 Avi., act V: अहं पुक्खरिणी णाम चेडी।' 49 50 81 53 54 6 ·128 must be remembered that not all the Vidūşaka's speech is a nonsensical, incoherent and meaningless babble. The classical wit is both sharp and brilliant. Although the laughter of the Vidūşaka is on a popular level, the classical writers have not allowed it to descend into shallow and vulgar humour. The use of abuse and vulgarity as means of laughter is seen in the decadent period and in the hands of lesser writers. 56 Rājasekhara, for instance, parades vulgarity; and the later Prahasanas stoop to obscenity. 68 Rajaſekhara both in Karpūra, and Viddha. puts vulgar terms in the mouth of the Vidūşaka. It is true that Maitreya Iosés his temper in the court scene, Msc. IX; but the occasion is different; Maitreya is anselfish and Sakāra thoroughly deserves the abuse.

·XI FUNCTION AND ROLE_II Apart from the functions which Bharata assigned to the Vidūşaka, the dramatists had to devise additional functions for this character. This was inevitable. For, once the. Vidūşaka 'was accepted in the business of a play as an actor and as a dramatic character, it was natural that he should assume the role of a real participant and not appear as a detached instrument for the production of humour. It would be an artistic defect the Vidişaka, even as a conventional character, were not somehow integrated with the structure of the dramatic story and the business of its stage representation. The dramatists naturally had to take this aspect of the character into consideration. The theory, including that propounded by later writers, has, however, failed to record the role and functions assigned by dramatists to the Vidūsaka. (1) Choric Function It is to be expected that the ancient Sanskrit stage could not have provided elaborate or even adequate scenic background to the plays, and that it had to be devised by some other means. Further, the limited use of curtains on the stage was apt to make, on the one hand, the scene-shifts difficult to be understood by the spectators, as, on the other hand, it was likely to confuse the audience about the identity of new characters. The first difficulty the dramatists met by providing elaborate descriptions in the play itself; and for the second, they utilized varied dramatic devicest the purpose of which was to introduce the character properly to the audience. This is the real expla- 1 Sometimes by direct reference to the character who is about to enter on the stage; or, by adopting the technical modes known as forat, fill and:# : See SD. VI. $4605:1 17 ·I30 nation of the elaborate descriptions of which Sanskrit dramas are full, and of the structural devices used conventionally in the development of the plot. The Vidüşaka is often seen to perform one or both of these functions : describing a change of scene, or introducing the hero whose companion he is. Vasantaka opens the fourth act of Suapnavüsavadatta, where a background is prepared for the appearance of Udayana. The Vidūşaka sums up certain events which fill the gap between the previous and the opening acts. Later he conducts Udayana to the Pramadavana; describes the garden, the flowers, and the white cranes flying at the blue sky-line in beautiful formations, Finally, he brings Udayana to the Madhavi bower where the main scene of the act takes place. In Pratijñāyaugandharāyana the Vidüşaka, again, opens the act; brings a reference to the scene of action; prepares for the introduction of Yaugandharāyana, the hero of the play; and narrates events which finally lead to the conclusion of the act. Santuşta, similarly, opens the second act of Avimāraka and communicates in his opening speech the background of the hero and his love for the heroine which forms the main theme of the play. Later, he describes the city in the sunset and provides the scenic background. In act IV, he gives information about the disappearance of the hero and thereby adds a necessary link to the development of the story. Maitreya is actually referred to in the prologue of Macchakatika. He begins the opening scene of the play, narrates the background of the story and introduces the hero. In the third act, Maitreya's lines indicate passage from the street to the house of Carudatta and, further, to the inner apartment used as a bed-chramber. The entire description of Vasantasena's huge house, faving seven quadrangles, which occurs in the fourth act, is assigned by the Vidisaka. The spese of the fifth act, which Sare of this indicated by Haitreya. In the same way, het date the soglie at the preth act, which is an old ·IZI garden called Puşpakarandaka. In the final act, he takes Carudatta's son to the place of slaughter. Gautama in Malavikāgnimitra arranges for the musical concert and thereby introduces the scene and action of the second act. In the third act, he conducts Agnimitra to the Pramadavana and drops a hint about Irāvati's proposed appearance. At the opening of the fourth act, he brings news about Malavikā and, thus, supplies an intermediate link in the development of the story. In the final act, he conveys the news that Mālavikā has been decked in bridal dress. Māņavaka in Vikramorvasiya opens the second act and, in the interlude, gives the news of the hero's love-affair. In the third act, he conducts the hero to the terrace of the Jewel palace, describes the rising moon and, thus, supplies information about the scene and time of action. He opens the fifth act; and, in the opening speech, he sums up the intermediate events; introduces the hero, and indicates the scene, which is a royal tent near the confluence of the Ganga and Yamunā. Mādhavya in Sakuntala opens the second act, describes the hunting expedition of Duşyanta, and introduces the hero and his love-affair. At the beginning of the fifth act, he acquaints the hero and the audience with the song which queen Hansapadikā is singing. In the sixth act, he brings Duşyanta to the Madhavi bower in Pramadavana. The Vidūşaka in Priyadarsikā opens the second act. He introduces the king and describes the 'shower-house' garden, which is the scene of action. He draws the king's attention to the heroine who is gathering lotuses, and, a little later, asks him to move up to her. In the third act, he gives news of the king's love and, in his search for the heroine, introduces the scene of action. In the first act of Ratnāvali, the Vidūşaka introduces the description of Cupid's festival and of the Makaranda garden. In the second act, he conveys the news of the magic blossoms that have appeared on the king's favourite creeper; and introduces both the hero and the scene. In the following dialogue is suggested the ramble in the garden culminating at ·132 the Kadaligriha, where the hero meets the heroine. In the third act, the Vidūşaka suggests a new phase of development in the story; he describes evening and, thereby, indicates the time of action; a little later, he brings in Sagarikā (who, however, happens to be the queen in disguise). The Viduşaka further appears in the interlude of the fourth act, where intermediate links of the story are supplied. Atreya in Nāgānanda indicates the background of the hero and, in his description, mentions the Malaya breeze, the tapovana and the temple, indicating the changing scene of action. In the second act, he brings the hero to the sandal bower and to the moon-stone slab. In the third act, he refers to the Kusumakara garden, where the action of this act takes place. Cārāyaṇa in Viddhaśālabhañjika performs similar function. His descriptions of the Makaranda garden, the pleasure-mount and the sculptured pillars supply the scenic background in the first act. In the second act, he refers to the playing with a ball, and to the evening time, when the act closes. In the third act, he joins the hero in describing the moonlight; and in the fourth, he mentions day-break. These functions which the Vidūşaka is seen to perform, in the Sanskrit plays, belong, really speaking, not to the dramatic character but to, what is called in Greek drama as, the chorus; that is to say, to the actor who stands a little aloof from the story and supplies the necessary information about the character, events, scenic background or time of the action, to enable the audience to visualise connected development of the story. It may, therefore, be described as choric function. And it is, incidentally, an indication that the Vidūşaka moved on the stage in a dual role, as an actor and as a character in the drama. It appears, therefore that the curtailing of the Parvaranga could not suppress the role of the actor Vidasaka, at least in the. Ronnastao ! wy ·133 (2) Mechanical Function The Vidūşaka as a minor character has often to perform some minor functions in the drama. These usually take the form of conveying a piece of news or a message. This is natural; because, as a personal friend of the king, the Vidûşaka is a kind of a link between the hero and the harem. Sometimes, the Vidūşaka performs this kind of function on his own, particularly when, by bringing a news or carrying a message, he is supplying a link in the development of the story. But sometimes, such functions are assigned to him. Thus, Vasantaka in Svapnavâsavadatta is asked by a maid to convey the news of Padmāvati's headache to Udayana and bring him to the Samudragriha.* Maitreya in Mycchakatika carries the jasmine-scented garment presented to Carudatta by his friend Jürņavěddha. Cărudatta asks Maitreya to place the Bali offerings outside the door. Later, Maitreya takes the Jewel necklace and the ornaments to Vasantasena.s Manavaka is asked to keep the love-letter safe.. ३ SV., act IV, interlude : पनिनिका-अय्य वसन्तअ किं जाणासि तुवं भट्टिदारिआ पदुमावदी सीसवेदणाए दुक्खा- विदेत्ति ।...तेण हि भट्टियो णिवेदेहि णं । विदूषकः-गच्छदु भोदी । जाव अहं वि तत्तहोदो णिवेदइस्सं । s Mrc., act I; opening scene, Maitreya's speech : 'एसो अ अजचारुदत्तस्स पिअवअस्सेण जुण्णबुड्ढेण जादीकुसुमवासिदो पावारओ अणुप्पेसिदो सिध्दी- किददेवकजस्स अज्जचारुदत्तस्स उवणेदवोत्ति ।' This is repeated a little later, and the stage direction reads, 'समर्पयति'. Mrc., I. चारुदत्तः-गच्छ । त्वमपि चतुष्पथे मातृभ्यो बलिमुपहर । (i) Mrc., III. 28.1. चारुदत्तः-मैत्रेय गच्छ रत्नावलीमादाय वसन्त- सेनायाः सकाशम् । वक्तव्या च सा मवचनात्... This task is fulfilled in act IV. (ii) The reference to ornaments occurs at Mrc., IX. 29. 'विदूषकः-पेसिदोम्हि अज्जचारुदत्तेण वसन्तसेणासआसं तहिं अलंकरणाई गेण्हिअ जधा...। ता समप्पेहि ति। Vik., II. 14.2: 'राजा-वयस्य, अङ्गुलीस्वेदेन दूष्येरन् अक्षराणि । धार्यता- मयं स्वहस्ते निक्षेपः प्रियायाः।' The stage direction for the next speech of the Vidusaka is, 'गृहीत्वा'. 4 5 ·134 Madhavya is commissioned by Duşyanta to take the army back to the Capital.? He is sent to Hansapadikā's apartment with a message from Duşyanta. He carries the picture-board to the Meghapraticchanda palace to hide it from queen Vasumati.' The Vidûşaka in Ratnávali similarly carries the jewel-garland to the hero.10 These functions, appropriate to a minor character, may be described as mechanical functions. (3) Function of a Court-jester The Vidūsaka, it must be remembered, is not merely a companion of the hero; he partakes the character of a court-jester too, since the hero usually happens to be a king. But the dramatists have invariably woven their themes round a royal love-affair and, hence, there is hardly any scope left for the Vidūşaka to play the court-jester. It is in the plays of Kālidāsa that we get a fleeting glimpse of this role, when Gautama, for instance, makes fun of the dance masters and instigates a quarrel between them; 11 or when Mädhavya cracks his joke at the Senapati of Dusyanta.12 There is a real hint, if not an actual portrayal, of the Vidū- ' Sak., II. 'राजा-...अतो भवानितः प्रतिनिवृत्य...तत्रभवतीनां पुत्रकूत्यमनु- धातुमईसि !...ननु तपोवनोपरोधः परिहरणीय इति सर्वानानुयात्रिकांस्त्वयैव सह प्रस्थापयामि । 8 Sak., V. 'राजा-सखे मद्वचनादुच्यता हंसपदिका ! निपुणमुपलब्धाः स्म इति ।' And after his futile protest, 'गच्छ । नागरिकवृत्त्या संज्ञापयैनाम् ।' • Sak., VI. 'राजा-वयस्य, उपस्थिता देवी बहुमानगर्विता च । भवानिमा प्रतिकृति रक्षतु ।' विदूषकः-अत्ताणं ति भणाहि । (चित्रफलकमादायोत्थाय च ।) जब भवं अन्वेउरकूडवागुरादो मुञ्चीअदि तदो में मेहप्पडिच्छंदे पासादे समावेहि ।' 10 Ratnã., act IV. interlude: सुसंगता-इअं च रअणमाला ताए जीविदणिरासाए अजवसन्तअस्स हत्थे परिवादेसित्ति मणिअ मम हत्थे समप्पिदा । ता गेण्हादु एदं अजो ।... विदूषकः-. अह वा उवणेहि ! जेण इमाए जेब्य सामरिआविरहदुक्खिदं पिअवयस्सं विणोदइस्सं ।' 11 Malavika., act I. # Sak., act II. 'विदूषकः-अवेहि रे उच्छामहेतुअ ...तुमं दाव अमीदो अडवी आहिण्डन्तो गरणासिआलोलुअस्स जिण्णरिच्छरस कस्स वि मुहे परिस्ससि।' .

·135 şaka's role as a Court-jester in the plays of Rajasekhara. I Karpuramañjarī the Vidūşaka leaves the king as a result of serious and nasty quarrel with a maid. He refuses to return an advises the king to invest the maid with the Fool's wig an beard and appoint her in his own place. It is a clear hint of professional office. The practical joke which the queen's mai plays upon the Vidūşaka in Viddhaśālabhañjikā and the vulga revenge he takes on her are similarly indicative of the infamot private atmosphere of court-life. But the usual dramatic pk eschewed generally the typical atmosphere of court and thereb brought a limitation on the role of the Vidūşaka. (4) Function in Plot-development The theorists considered the Vidüşaka to be a companion the hero and assigned to him the function and the role of a helj mate, particularly in a love-affair. Such a function the Vidüşak no doubt, performs. But it would be incorrect to imagine th: all the Vidūşakas played this role, and in the manner and to th extent assumed in theory. It would take a wise Vidūşaka 1 be of real assistance to the hero. The dramatists, on the cou trary, have portrayed a type of the Vidūşaka who is himself a object of jest, rather than being a jester. And this may be o casionally true in the case of the wise type too ; for, the Vid şaka, after all, is a comic figure. The Vidüşaka is often seen : create difficulties for the hero instead of helping him out them. What is the place of such a Vidūşaka in the story Production of laughter, to be sure. But, if the humour were appear as an appendage to the story, it was bound to affect ti structure of the play as a work of art. Some of the dramatis if not the theorists, appear to have realised this difficulty aj have, therefore, utilized the Vidūşaka for a definite purpose the plot-development. Vasantaka in Svapnavāsavadatta, for instance, asks Udaya whom, between Vāsavadattā and Padmavati, he loves mo: Later, in the Samudragriba, Udayana-asks him to tell a story ·136 beguile his own drowsiness. The question and the story have apparently a humorous effect. The manner in which the question is asked and a reply is forced, is definitely Viduşaka-like ;18 and the tale by its very incoherency produces a comic effect. But it cannot be said that the actions of the Vidūşaka are intended to produce this effect only. Vasantaka is surely responsible for creating that situation in the Pramadavana where Padmāvatī, Vasavadattā and the maid are unexpectedly blocked in the Mādhavi bower, and are able to hear the conversation between the king and the Vidüşaka. Vasantaka's question awakens the memory of Vāsavadattā in Udayana and revives his grief over her supposed death. But Udayana's confession of love for Vāsavadattā brings the necessary solace to her agonised heart. Simultaneously, it results in producing a psychological effect on Padmāvati, which appears in the form of her headache, and which motivates the development in the following act. Udayana was trying to forget Vasavadattā and to reconcile himself to his new wife. The question of the Vidūşaka forces his mind back to his first love. The Vidūşaka's story told in the Samudragriha has a similar effect. In an atmosphere filled with anxiety for Padmāvati's indisposition, the Vidūşaka's reference to Ujjayini and its famous public baths touches an intimate chord in Udayana's heart and revives the memory about Vasavadattā. It is quite possible that the vision which Udayana has in his dream may have been inspired by the psychological stimulus .supplied by the Vidūşaka's story. One of the main objectives 13 SV., act IV. The Vidūsaka promises, 'HT HEUTECTIF वि ण आचक्खिस्सं । एसा सन्दट्ठा मे जीहा।' He forces Udayana. to answer the question, "किं ण भणादि मम | अणाचक्खिअ इमादो सिळावादो ण सकं एकna gigante l' when Udayana gives a counter-threat, he says,' reicg neitag 1 Udayana himself imitates the same mode to get Vidūşaka's own answer to the question. And Padmavati then observes, 'अय्यउत्तो पि वसन्तओ संवुत्तो । See, my edition of Sy.

·137 of the play is the restoration of Väsavadattā to Udayana. In order that this restoration became a real re-union of the loving, hearts, it was essential that Udayana's love for Vāsavadattā remained fresh and unwavering; and that Väsavadattă also got a positive proof of her husband's love. Vasantaka's question and the story achieve this very valuable purpose in the drama. It is the Vidūşaka's business in the drama to keep the remembrance of Vāsayadattà recurringly alive, like the refrain in a song, both for the hero and for the audience. The Vidūşaka in Pratijñāyaugandharāyana is asked to contact Udayana in his captivity and acquaint him with the minister's plot for his release. The Vidūşaka's report about an unexpected development of a love-affair and his criticism of Udayana's action directly lead to the second vow of the minister, which, as we know, is the real theme of the play. If Bhāsa has used the guise of the Vidūşaka to disguise a real dramatic motive for plot-development, some dramatists, it would appear, have utilized the blunders of the Fool for furthering the plot. Thus, Maitreya's babbling in his sleep leads to the stealing of Vasantasenā's ornaments and paves the way for a far-reaching development in the story. Similarly, his second blunder in dropping the ornaments in the court is responsible for clinching the legal issue against Cārudatta and for the final phase of the story. Kālidāsa appears to have made a deliberate use of the Vidūşaka's follies for the purpose of plot-development. Even the wise Gautama once dozes off and betrays the king's secret ; but that fixes the end of the act as it is. Māņavaka is duped out of the king's secret by the sly maid ; he loses the love-letter entrusted to his care; and both these blunders lead to the development of a hot scene between the king and his queen. Mādhavya is an idiot. Kālidāsa uses the Vidüşaka's idiocy for creating opportunities for others for doing their work; and, thus, bringing about certain developments in the story. When 18 ·138 Duşyanta is caught in a dilemma and finds that he has to disobey either the ascetics or his mother, he sends the Vidūşaka as his deputy and dismisses his army. The Vidūşaka accepts Duşyanta's statement that therc is nothing serious about his attraction for Sakuntalā. He is glad that the uncomfortable camp-life has ended for him. He is proud that he will ride at the head of the army as an heir-apparent. Through this stupid behaviour of the Vidūşaka Kālidāsa suggests that Duşyanta is childless ; 14 and simultaneously succeeds in keeping Dusyanta unencumbered and free to pursue his love-affair. The dismissal of the Vidūşaka is, thus, materially helpful in the development of the plot. Later, the Vidūşaka is despatched to Hansapadikā's apartment. He knows that, once he is caught by the queen's maids, there will be no release possible for him as for an ascetic caught by the celestial nymphs'. Yet he suffers himself to go away; and his absence during the following scene indirectly helps the repudiation of Sakuntalā. Finally, the Vidüşaka runs away with the picture-board on getting the news of Vasumati's arrival and furnishes thereby an opportunity for Mātali for rousing the martial spirit of Duşyanta that lay dormant under a heavy grief of separation. Thus, it is the stupidity of the Vidūşaka and his dismissal from the scene of action that bring about material developments in the story of Sakuntala. Harsa imitates the technique of Kālidāsa. The Viduşaka's foolish chase of the Sārikā bird, in Ratnāvali, brings the hero into contact with the heroine. And his sleep-talk in Priya. 14 It was all right for the Vidūşaka to imagine himself to be a younger brother of the king (Tags). But when he calls himself a Prince, an Heir-apparent (as), it is not merely kamorous, it is pathetic. It is a subtle but unmistakable suggestion that Daşyanta was childless. A brotherly relation is only a symbol of affection; and anyone may call himself a king's brother. Baxt to call oneself a king's son is impossible wless, as in the present case, the king were sonless.

·139 darsika betrays the secret plot; and it leads to the imprisonment of the heroine and the Vidūşaka by the queen. (5) Function of a Critic The Vidūşaka often conceals real practical wisdom under the cloak of his foolishness. When it takes the form of playful criticism, the Vidūşaka assumes the role of a critic, symbolising, as it were, the "conscience of the play". This does not happen very often in Sanskrit drama owing to a twofold limitation : that of the conventional story-pattern, and that of the position of the Vidūşaka as a companion of the stately heto. But there are a few instances where the Vidūşaka stands a little detached and makes his intelligent criticism. Vasantaka's criticism of Udayana's love-affair in his captivity comes in this category. 16 The critical role, however, is particularly noticeable in the Vidūşakas of Kālidāsa. The love intrigues of a polygamous hero are bound to create embarrassing situations. When Agnimitra is caught in one, and when Gautama asks him to run away from the angry queen like a thief caught red-handed, 16 or asks him to raise himself from the prostrate position at the feet of the indignant wife, 17 Gautama surely appears as a critic of the affairs of the royal harem. Madhavya's criticism of Duşyanta's fancy for Sakuntalā, which he compares to a temporary transition from sweet dates to tamarind, 18 is a searching light on the proverbial fickleness of royal love, Pratijñā., act III. See esp. the following remarks of the Vidusaka: 'किं तदो तदो ति। बन्धनं दाणिं पमदवणं संभाविअ पउत्तो राअळीळं कत्तुं 1...भो सङ्घआरिणो अणत्थ त्ति ईदिसं एच !...भो, दंसिदो सिणेहो । णिविट्ठ पुरुस- आरं । साहु उज्झिअ णं गच्छामो । 16 Mālavikā., act III. '7511-469 of aforefrei farc:- किं अण्णं । जंधाबलं एव्व ।' 17 Mālavikā., act III. 'SoleiferaCHGITE I' A similar situation occurs in Vik. act II. 18 Sāk., act II. Epifit fe fusest Joel faren aravis अहिलासो भवे, तह इस्थिआरअणपरिभोइणो भवदो इअं अब्भत्थणा । 15 > ·140 Purūravas pulls Urvasi to share his seat in the presence of the Vidüşaka and Citralekhā. Mānavaka's comment, " Has the sun already set for the couple ? " 19 reveals the rashness of the royal hero which, it may be surmised, must have often over-stepped the bounds of decorum. But Maitreya's sphere is not bound by the precincts of the harem. He moves in a larger world and his criticism of men and women, events and manners, is as free and searching as it is wise and delightful. Indeed, if there were a single character who could be truly described as a critic in motley, representing the conscience of the play, it is Maitreya, the Vidūşaka par excellence. ( 6 ) Function of Comic Relief As a companion of the hero in separation the Vidūşaka is expected to confort him by providing a diversion. If the Vidūşaka adopts the mode of laughter for this purpose and does not give practical and wise counsel, the effect is naturally that of comic relief. But the popular form of Sanskrit drama being the Romantic Comedy, the pangs of the hero are often a literary portrait of love in separation (Vipralambha Srñgāra); and the drama does not reach the height of tragic intensity which is noticed in a real tragedy. A formal Tragedy was by rule eschewed in Sanskrit drama; and, therefore, in creating the character of the Vidūşaka, the dramatists devoted their literary effort to . the production of laughter only. What is called.comic relief', and what provides a psychological equilibrium to an intensity of tragic passion is, therefore, rather rare in Sanskrit drama. It is to be found in a few plays only where the development of the story reaches a real pitch of agony. Thus, in Svapnavāsavadatta, the supposed death of Vāsavadattā creates a real tragic situation for Udayana, who is torn between the tearful memory of the first love and the inviting comfort of a new love. The Vidūsåka's humour in the fourth and the fifth acts of this play works certainly as a psychological relief both for the hero and the 18 Vik., III. ce sa TV Sat Etti ·141 spectators. Maitreya's humour in the first act of Mycchakatika is a necessary balance to the sorrowful picture of Cārudatta's poverty. His foolish talk in the third act serves to lighten momentarily the disastrous consequences of the theft of jewels. And had it not been for his comic appearance and behaviour in the court-scene, the trial of Cārudatta would have been excrutiatingly painful. The Vidūşaka in Sākuntala appears first in the second act; and his jests afford a contrast to the delightful and yet serious affair of love, on the one hand; and a balance to a more serious dilemma confronting Duşyanta, on the other hand. The Vidūşaka again appears at the beginning of the fifth act; and between the solemn pathos of the parting scene in the fourth act and the intensely tragic scene of repudiation in the fifth act, the suggestion of a comic situation involving the Vidūşaka serves to maintain the necessary emotional equilibrium. Finally, the jokes of the Vidūşaka and the beating he suffers off the stage give a relief to the tragic sorrow of Dusyanta portrayed in the sixth act. Bhāsa, Sadraka and Kālidasa were certainly aware of the principle of comic relief in the midst of tragic situations; and they utilized the character of the Vidūşaka for fulfilling this artistic function.

·XII THE COMIC SPIRIT The Vidūşaka is a comic character and belongs to the type of drama known as Comedy. But although Bharata and other theorists following him have provided, more or less, a full picture of the appearance, dress, conduct and speech of this character, and have described the function which he is supposed to perform, they have not directly inquired into the nature of comic function itself. Nor do we find a theory of comedy here, although the analytical acumen of the Indian theorists led them to a neat formal division of the drama into ten different types. This is not to say that Bharata, to whom we must trace the beginnings of dramatic theory, was unaware of the nature of the comic function. It is, however, necessary to collect the theoretical statements, correct or adjust them where necessary, and supplement them with knowledge derived from modern theories, Bharata puts the Vidüşaka in the context of laughter which, according to him, is the supreme function this character is required to perform. And whatever Bharata has to say philosophically about laughter is to be found in his treatment of Rasa, in the section devoted to the theoretical discussion of Hāsyarasa. Bharata regards the soul of laughter to be the permanent basic sentiment of laughter that is present in every one of us. This should mean that we laugh because there is an instinctive tendency in us towards laughter. This is true. Man is very often described as a laughing animal. But if it were understood to mean that laughter depends on us, that it is rooted in our instinct or sentiment ( as Bharata uses the word), that, in other 1 NS. GOS, VI. 56-74; KM, VI-49-61; KSS, VI. 49-61. I Cf. 'अथ हास्यो नाम हासस्थायिभावात्मकः ।'

·143 66 words, it is subjective, the description will be partially correct. For, laughter as such is a physical act; it has a physiological foundation. But when we laugh, there is 'a demobilization of forces',: a liberation of energy. It will be more correct, therefore, to understand that laughter has a double aspect, mental as well as physical that it is a psycho-physical process. But even though laughter has a double aspect, will it be correct to say that it depends entirely on us? It could not be that fun is entirely dependent on us and it will cease to be were we not to see it. If you expect to drive a tack in the carpet,' says Max Eastman,' and drive your thumb instead, that is funny. You may not be able to see the point, but it is there, and if some one is looking on he will see it and perhaps hope to show it to you, and if he too is disappointed, that will not make the situation any less intrinsically amusing. In fact, every actual situation has its comic aspect. It may or may not be appreciated. However, it exists and is available for appreciation. If, thus, laughter depends as much on us as on some objective factor outside us, the question is: Why do we laugh? It is not easy to answer this question. We might say that we are amused. But if it is asked, why are we amused ? It may not be possible to make a suitable reply. The question may, therefore, be put more simply: When we laugh, we are always laughing at something. What is it that we laugh at ? The answer which Bharata gives to this question has to be gathered from his writing on the subject. Bharata, for instance, says that the sentiment of laughter arises from that of love, 5 He connects laughter with the depiction of love in dramatic writing and associates the figure of the Vidūşaka with the hero V. K. Krishna Menon, A Theory of Laughter, pp. 15, 27, 40. 4 Max Eastman, The Enjoyment of Laughter, P. 7. NS. GOS, VI. 440; KM and KSS, VI. 39a : 'शाराद्धि भवेद् हास्यो...' 8 ·144 of an erotic drama. The dramatic practice, too, as already noticed, shows that the Vidūşaka and his laughter are to be found in the type of drama which is described as the romantic comedy of love. But it is necessary to recognise a two-fold limitation of Bharata's statement in order to avoid possible errors of omission and commission: First, laughter cannot be associated exclusively with love; and, secondly, depiction of love does not necessarily involve laughter. Abhinava, commenting on Bharata's statement, brings out this limitation and adds the necessary clarification. It is not rati but ratyabhāsa, he says, that evokes laughter. What these technical terms mean is this: Rati or love is among the permanent instincts of humanity. When a writer describes love as associated with a proper subject as, for instance, the love of the hero for the heroine of a Carudatta for a Vasantascnā--the reaction of the audience will never be that of laughter. But when this rati is associated with an improper subject and becomes thereby ratyābhāsa, as when the audience sees Sakāra wooing Vasantasenā, this becomes a source of laughter. This distinction between a real or proper sentiment and the false or improper sentiment brings us to the second point. Whatever is done which tends to become improper will, thus, become a cause for laughter.? And this also means that such impropriety or absurdity is possible in the depiction of every rhetorical sentiment; and so, any rasa may, in these circumstances, give rise to laughter. 8 Genuine pathos, for instance, will affect us with sorrow. But if a Vidūşaka were to cry over the loss of his sweets, or lament because his digestion is ruined, the karuna becomes karunabhāsa, and necessarily evokes laughter. A situation of real danger will strike terror in our 6 Abhinava on VI. 44a : le-TGTHTHang TagATE464 : शंकारेण सूचितम् ।...एवं तदाभासतया प्रकारः शुकारेण सूचितः।' ? Ibid. feclutamia TE TIRIAM...' • Ibid. "तचानौचित्य सर्वरसानां विभावानुभावादौ सम्भाव्यते ।'

·145 heart. But if we see a Vidūşaka frightened by the sight of a crooked stick or a rolling garland which he takes to be a serpent, it is bhayābhāsa and will immediately give rise to laughter. We have here one important element which is the cause of laughter: impropriety or absurdity. Writing about the laughter which is stimulated in the character and which he transmits to others, Bharata mentions the following causes : contrary or incongruous ornaments, conduct, speech, dress and contortions of the body. The significant epithet here is, 'incongruous '. In another context Bharata describes the speech of the Vidüşaka which evokes laughter as incoherent and non-sensical.10 Inconsistency or rather incongruity in any form is, thus, the basic cause for laughter. It is the perception of incongruity and the realisation of impropriety or absurdity that evoke laughter in us. Hence does Bharata endow the Vidūşaka with an ugly or distorted body, incongruous dress and incoherent speech, making the figure a source of inevitable laughter. Bharata further adds that this Rasa, laughter, is seen mostly in women and low characters. 11 Women are included here because the convention of Sanskrit drama groups women with the low characters. 9 3 NS. GOS, VI. 58-59; KM and KSS, VI 49-50 : विपरीतालङ्कारैर्विकृताचाराभिधानवेषैश्च । विकृतैरङ्गविकारैर्हसतीति रसः स्मृतो हास्यः ।। विकृताचारैक्यैिरङ्गविकारैश्च विकृतवैषैश्च । हासयति जनं यस्मात्तस्माज्ञयो रसो हास्यः ।। 10 NS. GOS, V. 139; KM, V. 125 ; KSS, V. 137: असम्बद्धकथाप्रायां...' Also, NS. GOS, XII. 140b-141a; KM, XII. 123-124; KSS, XIII. 139: काव्यहास्यं तु विज्ञेयमसम्बद्धप्रभाषणैः । अनर्थकैर्विकारैश्च तथा चाश्नीलभाषणः ॥ 11 NS. GOS, VI. 6oa; KM, KSS, VI. 51: स्त्रीनीचप्रकृतावेष भूयिष्ठं दृश्यते रसः ।

·146 own. So far Bharata is on sure and firm ground. But although he defines laughter and mentions the cause or source of laughter, he does not speak of humour and of comedy in the formal sense, But neither Bharata nor the Indian theory in general, treats drama as comedy and tragedy. The theorists are primarily concerned with Rasa, with the rhetorical treatment of the permanent sentiments of humanity, wherein laughter has a place of its On the formal side, they devote their attention to the classification of drama into ten major types, the classification being based on the principles of the nature and extent of plot, the kind of hero to be associated with it, and the sentiments which may principally and secondarily be developed in its literary treatment. It is from the employment of laughter as a rasa that we are required to determine the comic types in the Sanskrit drama. For a formal theory of humour, therefore, we have to turn to Western authors. It was indicated that laughter has a subjective or mental aspect and a physical aspect. The idea of humour is connected with the mental aspect. If the physiological reaction that is produced in us on perceiving some kind of incongruity is called laughter, the sense in us which enables us to contemplate the incongruity, either in actual life or in art, is to be called humour. And comedy is the literary or artistic expression of this sense of humour. The word (Humour), thus, means either something within us, as when we speak of a man of humour', or something objective, as in speaking of a comedy as being full of humour.12 Laughter being only an outward physical expression of humour, modern theory turns on the discussion of the nature and function of humour rather than of laughter, and of the comic which finds expression in art. There is a theory which traces the origin of humour and its 12 See, Stephen Leacock, Humour and Humanity, Ch. I, for the etymology of humour' (pp. 15-19); and for the Nature of Humour'.

·147 >> physical expression in laughter to the primitive exultation of the savage over a fallen foe. The passion of laughter", according to Thomas Hobbes, " is nothing else but a sudden glory arising from a sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison of the inferiority of others or with our own formerly.” Primitive laughter was a sense of brutal triumph. In the evolution that followed with the progress of civilization, the exultant shout came gradually to be exchanged for a laugh over the appearance of disaster where no disaster is, as when an elderly gentleman slips on a banana skin. A further stage in the progressive evolution of the idea of humour occurs when the disaster is reduced to a sort of misfit, or distortion of anything out of its true use. The growth of civilization and literature helps to make this misfit or incongruity increasingly subtle as they also widen its range. And when the incongruities are connected with a situation or a personality, we get the comic figures and the merriment that surrounds a character. At the end of the scale it is the incongruity of life itself... Here humour and its expression pass into the sublimities of literature. 13 The consistency with which the origin and growth of humour are explained here has appealed to many a thinker. Plato seems to have a similar idea in his mind when he says that, “The pleasure of the ludicrous springs from the sight of another's misfortune, the misfortune, however, being a kind of selfignorance that is powerless to inflict hurt. A certain malice is here of the essence of comic enjoyment. " 14 Admirable as this theory is, it may not yet satisfy the modern mind, especially in regard to the element of malice which is considered to be an essential ingredient of humour. We are, for instance, aware of simple and pure laughter, a laughter which is devoid of malice and which nonetheless yields a feeling of enjoyment. But leave aside modern psychologists. Aristotle himself does not appear to be satisfied with this conception of the ludicrous. Ibid. See esp. Ch. IX, Humour and Sublimity'. 14 Plato, Philebus, 48-50. 18 ·148 Aristotle's definition is as follows: Comedy is an imitation of characters of a lower type - not however, in the full sense of the word bad, the ludicrous being nerely a subdivision of the ugly. It consists in some defect or ugliness which is not painful or destructive." 16 Modern interpreters take Aristotle's omission of malice' to be significant. It shows, according to them, that the pleasure of the ludicrous is not to be explained by the disinterested delight of the primitive man in the infliction of suffering.' Nor is it to be explained by the gratified feeling of malignity, softened indeed by civilization.' Aristotle's phrase Aristotle's phrase "not painful or destructive" means that the comic representation is not painful to the object of laughter; as an illustration Aristotle refers to " the comic mask which is ugly and distorted, but does not imply pain." The phrase "not destructive" likewise implies a sympathetic attitude on the part of the subject. Tor Aristotle, the quality that provokes laughter is a certain "ugliness", a “ defect", or deformity. There is a remarkable coincidence here between the definition of Aristotle and the prescription of Bharata. For, both mention ugliness or deformity as the source of laughter and refer comedy mainly to low characters. However, this quality which refers primarily to the physically ugly, the disproportionate, or the unsymmetrical, must be extended in meaning so as to include the frailties, follies and infirmities of human nature, as distinguished from its graver vices or crimes.' And, further, Aristotle's conception of beauty will justify us in extending the meaning of defect or ugliness' to embrace'incongruities, absurdities or cross-purposes of life, its blunders and discords, its imperfect correspondences, and adjustments, and that in matters intellectual as well as moral. * 16 The Poetics of Aristotle, Section v, p. 21; Butcher's translation, Fourth ed. 1929. 1.6 Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, P. 375. See also Dowden: "Alike in the tragic and in the comic there is an incongruity to be found...The comic incongruity... 15 ·149 The discussion so for furnishes an answer to one important question as to the source of laughter, the cause of humour. It is incongruity, understood in a broad sense to include everything from the physically incongruous to the intellectually or morally incongruous, that is to say, the incongruities of life itself. If Bharata uses the phrase contrary’, if Abhinava explains that the term refers to the quality of impropriety', and if Aristotle uses the expression ugly 'or defective, they all mean the same thing: About incongruity as the source of laughter and the cause of humour, there need be no two opinions. The problem now refers to the inquiry about the nature of the perception of humour, about the elements that enter into appreciation of humour. The problem is real because, as Butcher puts it," although the ludicrous is always incongruous, yet the incongruous is not always ludicrous. " 17 In other words, there is necessarily some kind of 'transition before the incongruous becomes ludicrous and yields comic pleasure. The incongruous, in the first place, has got to be perceived. And the perception of the incongruous involves the use of intelligence. Meredith says that Comedy appeals to the pure intelligence and aims not at our ribs or armpits but at our heads. “People are ready to surrender themselves to witty thumps on the back, breast and sides, all except the head, and it is there that he ( the Comic poet) aims." 18 Bergson also lays down that laughter as such appeals only to the intelligence to the intelligence pure and simple'. Intelligence as an essential element of humour may be understood as follows: There are, so to say, two orders, of things in life: The order of things as they are, the historical order, or the arises from the disproportion between certain souls of men and even this very ordinary world of ours." Shakespeare, His Mind and Art, p. 351. 17 Butcher, Ibid., p. 376. 18 George Meredith, An Essay on Comedy, p. 8.

·150 order of actuality. Most of us have often felt that there are limitations and imperfections in this order of things. Hence, we create another order of things, the possible order, which is without limitations or imperfections. This is the ideal or the logical order. When we perceive life we become aware of the discrepancy that exists between these two orders. If we compromise with this discrepancy, feeling that the order of actuality is too powerful to be changed, we are adopting an attitude of tragedy. But if we rebel against the order of actuality and refuse to accept its defects and limitations, we arc adopting the attitude of comedy, Thus, the perception of the cornic is an attitude; and since it is an attitude of rebellion, it is a logical and an intellectual 'attitude. 19 It is in this sense that we can understand the dictum of Horace Walpole that 'This world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel'. Dr. Johnson clearly recognised this connection between humour and intelligence when he said, “The size of a man's understanding may be justly measured by his mirth." 20 Meredith goes a little further and postulates not only a subtle penetrating power on the part of the Comic poet, but also a 'corresponding acuteness' on the part of people to be able to appreciate the comic spirit. The perception of the discrepancy or the incongruity, thus, involves a transition, a change of mood, an attitude. This perception comes in a flash, as it were. A sudden recognition of the discrepancy, leads to laughter. There is a shock of surprise in the discovery of the incongruity. A cool, deliberate contemplation of the incongruity is a source of serious and reflective James Feibleman, In Praise of Comedy, pp. 191 ff. Quoted in, A Theory of Laughter, V. K. Krishna Menon, P. 43 21 Meredith, op. cit. p. 8. MYAM 20 ·151 << 6 writing. But its immediate expression elicits laughter. For such a perception the mind must necessarily be continually alert; it must have a capacity of jumping from object to object. We have now two essential conditions for humour: The first is our intellectual attitude typified by a well-stocked mind. "A strong sense of humour is seen in wisdom. The wisest man has the richest and liveliest sense of humour." 22 A man who possesses a well-stocked mind apprehends things quickly enough; but this mode of apprehension is rather erratic in the sense that the mind is continually travelling from point to point, shifting its attitude. This is the second condition, which may be described in the words of Goethe asa capacity for mental hopping.' Apart from the qualities referred to above, the perception of the Comic involves, in the opinion of modern psychologists, a certain detachment. This detachment is not an attitude of coldness, aloofness or indifference. It is rather the ability to rise above the immediate absurdities and look at them from a height. Life is full of absurdities. In prepetually living with them we might get angry, feel hatred and contempt, or sink into sadness. Literature, we know, does express these attitudes. But this kind of detachment enables us to feel superior to the disturbing experiences of life; to appreciate the limitations and imperfections which exist, and to extract joy where anger, contempt of sadness might otherwise have been felt. Meredith says, The laughter of Comedy is impersonal and of unrivalled politeness, nearer a smile; often no more than a smile. It laughs through the mind, for the mind directs it; and it might be called the humour of the mind." Meredith conceives the Comic spirit as 'a Spirit overhead, luminous and watchful, having the sage's brows and the sunny malice of a faun; looking humanely malign and casting an oblique light on humanity, followed by volleys of silvery laughter. 23 V. K. Krishna Menon, A Theory of Laughter, p. 47. 28 Meredith, An Essay on Comedy, pp. 88-90.

·152 Such humour is ideal humour and necessarily involves the quality of sympathy. From the impassioned exultation of savage laughter to the sympathetic 'silvery' laughter of the modern man, is a long march which civilization alone could accomplish. But the alliance of sympathy with humour has succeeded in affecting the range and meaning of humour. It has enriched humour and broadened the base of its enjoyment. Sympathy directs the humorous perception to the" more serious realities of life. It looks below the surface, it rediscovers the hidden incongruities and deeper discords to which use and wont have deadened our perception. It finds everywhere the material both for laughter and tears; and pathos henceforth becomes the companion of humour." 24 In other words, the alliance of sympathy with humour has made the rise of what is called 'humane Comedy' possible. These qualities, detachment and sympathy, which some writers insist on as being important conditions of humour, are closely related to the function of humour. For Meredith, Comedy is critical and its main use is to teach the world what ails it. Philosophers and the Comic poet are of a cousinship in the eye they cast on life.' Comedy is the fountain of sound sense. 'A perception of the comic spirit gives high fellowship.' For, the awareness of deep common-sense which humour engenders binds people together. A cynic shuns company but the humorist will seek it. Meredith, therefore, regards sensitiveness to the comic laughter as 'a step in civilization'. And he believes that there never will be civilization where Comedy is not possible.' And equally, the test of true Comedy is that it shall awaken thoughtful laughter. 26 3 Bergson finds the source of incongruity in a person or 24, Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, pp. 385-386. 25 Meredith, op. cit. pp. 30, 28, 91, 93-94, 60 and 88 respectively.

·153 incident out of keeping with our/social mode and habit; some element of rigidity, inelasticity or automatism in a character ; some suggestion of the mechanical incrusted on the living... This is the common groundwork of the socially laughable. And, according to Bergson, "The purpose of the laughter is corrective; it asserts instinctively, and without benevolence, the surprise of society that anyone should so isolate himself, and with such unconsciousness of his oddity, from the ordinary responses, the customary give and take, of the community in which he lives." 26 Laughter, thus, acts as a check against a one-sided view of life. In relating the theoretical discussion to the practice of humour, however, some limits to the conditions of humour appear to be necessary. Such limitation refers to detachment, sympathy and the function of laughter. Meredith and Bergson were no doubt, considering comedy in its sociological aspect. Meredith particularly had the ideal comedy in his mind, the social comedy of Manners, his ideal poet being Molière.27 It is easy to concede that laughter which does not imply malice, contempt, or anger, and is humane and kindly, is the best type of humour and is a true expression of the fellowship of humanity. But if humour is a weapon in the hands of the social and moral reformer, as it often is, the laughter it produces will not always be benevolent. In fact, if Meredith thought the laughter of comedy to be impersonal and polite, it will be a very personal and unbenevolent laughter according to the conception of Bergson. For, a humorist who wields his laughter as a corrective may, as occasions demand, hold the absurdities of life up to ridicule, satirise them, lash at them with the vehemence of irony, all with the single purpose of correcting the follies of mankind. In such an attitude, detachment and sympathy may be difficult to be found. 26 See, George Gordon, Shakespearian Comedy p. 8 for a summary of Bergson's Theory of Laughter. 17 Meredith, op. cit. p. 26 ff. 20 ·194 Further, is there always a purpose behind the laughter ? A sudden perception of some incongruity or absurdity evokes sometimes a hearty laughter, which is neither the humane laughter of the mind nor the deliberately directed laughter of social purpose. Like the social laughter, this kind of hearty laughter is also to be found in humorous writers whose status and authority are beyond dispute. 'The laughter of the heart and mind are so often in Shakespearian Comedy inextricably interfused',18 We may not approve of laughter which arises out of a physical incongruity, a practical joke, or pure folly ; but it is there, as a matter of fact. The distinction implied by detachment and sympathy must, therefore, be understood as a qualitative distinction, and used for determining the higher and lower types of comedy. Likewise we must not eschew laughter whose only purpose is amusement. The justification for recognising these limits to the theory is the practice of humorous writers. While a theory of humour should certainly provide qualitative standards, it ought not to limit its range and variety, Gordon, op. cit. p. 5.

·XIII THE NATURE AND RANGE OF THE VIDUŞAKA'S HUMOUR The incongruity, which is the source of laughter, can occur on several levels : physical, physiological, psychological and sociological.' A writer can perceive the incongruity on any one of these levels, or on several of them simultaneously. When it comes to presentation, the writer's attitude will probably determine the form that the incongruity will take and the nature of humour he intends to produce. In this way we may have pure ridicule, caricature, or parody where the incongruity or absurdity is held up as an object of derisive laughter; satire, where malignity may be present; irony, where the object is to sting under a semi-caress ; pure comedy, where though you expose, ridicule, or even smack, you are ready to pity and sympathise with the object of humour. * Considered in the context of literary presentation the incongruity may again wear different forms; and thus, we have verbal humour, the humour of situation and the humour of character. This is no attempt at classification; for, the form of humour and the attitude behind it can be so varied and there can be such an inter-mixture that any attempt to reduce humour to well-defined classifiable types may ultimately prove to be useless. But one can understand the variety that humorous presentation can achieve. The perception of the ludicrous, the discrepant, or the incongruous, in order to be comic, has to be sudden. This naturally makes room for an element of surprise which largely enters into every comic instance. It results in the discovery, says Butcher, James Feibleman, In Praise of Comedy, p. 195. • See, George Meredith, An Essay on Comedy, PP. 79-80, 1 ·156 * either of an unexpected resemblance where there was unlikeness, or of an unexpected unlikeness where there was resemblance.'* The humorous writer seems to work on two lines: showing the absence of something which is expected; this being done by understatement; and secondly, showing the presence of something where nothing is expected; this being done by over-statement or exaggeration. Of these exaggeration is commoner than understatement, if only because it is much easier to effect. The mode of exaggeration is a favourite device with the humorist and is employed to ridicule current estimations of customs and manners, institutions and personalities, of social and moral values, 4 The figure of the Vidūşaka is present in Sanskrit drama, which extends over a period of ten to twelve centuries. And taking the presentation of the several dramatists together, it should be possible to illustrate the types and forms of humour mentioned earlier. Like Aristotle, Bharata regards ugliness or deformity as basic in a character intended for the production of laughter. Hence his prescription for the appearance of the Vidūşaka, wbich the dramatists usually adopt. If Shakespeare shows Falstaff as a monster of flesh, the Vidūşakas, too, invariably possess a physical deformity of some kind or the other. This is laughter on the physical level. If under physiological laughter we could include the gesticulations, dress and movements of the Vidūşaka, Bharata has already thought about it and has provided appropriate rules for effecting such laughter on the stage. The dress which the Vidūşaka usually wore must itself have been ridiculous. And when sometimes the Vidūşaka pretended himself to be a woman; & Butcher, Aristotle's Poetics, pp. 375-376. See James Feibleman, op. cit. p. 181. See, Chapter 3. entitled PERSONAL APPEARANCE etc.

·157 or covered himself with feminine robes, and moved on the stage with appropriate gait and gestures, the laughter must have been readily evoked. The psychological level is, naturally, complex and varied. Some Vidūşakas might exhibit mental instability, dullness or stupidity; they may fail to understand a point or misunderstand it. If humour arises on account of these factors, it is to be regarded as on psychological level. Thus, Duşyanta turns to the Vidūşaka for advice and assistance. The Vidūşaka says, "In the matter of eating? Bless the moment !”? Some characters have 'low thresholds of emotional excitation. Given the slightest hint as to the nature of the expected reaction to a situation, they are liable to produce it in an exaggerated form.' The loud laughter, wild dancing, clapping of hands and clicking of fingers at the most trivial instances that are exhibited by the Vidūşaka in Ratnávali can thus be explained. Timidity or cowardice which is to be seen in most of the Vidūşakas is, again, a comic perspective on the psychological level. The reactions of fear which would be expressed by appropriate gesticulation will naturally be understood on the physical level. The complex of hunger with implied gluttony which also is common to most of the Vidūsakas is similarly to be explained both on the psychological and the physical levels. Further, if laziness is a mental attribute, then the life of ease and comfort which is loved by some of the Vidūşakas and liked naturally by all of them will be a comic perspective on the psychological level. The comic perspective on the sociological level is to be realised particularly in two aspects of the character of Vidūşaka. The Vidūşaka holds to ridicule, in his own character, the Brahmin caste, and this ridicule is a social satire on the pretensions, privileges and the parasitic encumbrance of this class. 4 Şee, Chapter X, entitled FUNCTION AND ROLE-I. 7 Sāk., act II: ' दअखज्जिआए । तेण हि असुगहीदो खणो।' 8 See, Feibleman, op. cit., p. 196.

·158 Secondly, the Vidūşaka, as a privileged jester, fires a broadside at social and moral defects. And though the range is limited in most of the cases, there are Vidūşakas who are not so handicapped by being merely butts of ridicule, and who consequently move in a wider circle. Kālidāsa's Vidūşakas, for instance, have their gibes at the absurdities to be found in royal love, the intrigues of the harem and of court life. Bhāsa's Santuşta casts a side-light on the absurd formalities of religion in the matter of apparel. But it is Maitreya of Sūdraka who in his social broadsides is a Prince among Vidūşakas. The nature of the story has made the life of courtesans his principal target for wit and satire; but there is really nothing that seems to escape his observation and fails to stimulate his provocative tongue. Humour on this level takes mostly a verbal form and appears as witty remarks of the Vidūşaka. The formal structure of Sanskrit drama does not encourage a real comedy of Manners, except in the Prakarana type to some extent and in Prahasana, which is a farce. However, there is enough of funny talk coming from the Vidūşakas. Bhāsa employes a kind of malapropism, when the Vidūşaka calls Brahmadatta a city and Kāmpilya a person when the exact reverse is the truth. This Vidūşaka gives a rhyming sound-effect by his words when he compares his kukși-parivarta ( upsetting of stomach) with aksi-parivarta (revolving of the pupil of the eye); this obviously has a humorous turn; and the double-meaning of parivarta becomes a further source of laughter when the Vidūşaka confounds the kokila (cuckoo ) with the kāka ( crow) whose eye is supposed to move from one to the other socket. 10 More delightful probably is the • sv., act v. 'अस्थि णअरं बम्हदत्तं णाम | तहिं किळ राआ कंपिळ्ळो णाम ।' Cf. the king's comment, 'Te, 751 17:, for fifteei fa sfit- धीयताम् । 10 SV., act IV, interlude: 3900 FT ## scopul ofere uttaget विअ कुक्खिपरिव टो संवुत्तो ।' See my dition of SV. for further explanation.

·159 verbal lapse on the part of Maitreya. When he learns that a thief bored a hole through the wall, when they were sleeping, and bolted away with jewels, Maitreya, getting up from his bed, exclaims in confusion, “Eh? Eh? What did you say? Having bored a thief, the hole has bolted away ? "11 But such verbal humour is not in the line of the Vidûşakas. They are not usually punsters. It is their witty remarks that are a source of laughter, and especially so when they are least expected. Queen Dhāriņi wants to suppress the dispute between the two dance masters, though for a personal reason, and explains that it is futile. Gautama remarks, "Queen, let us watch the two rams fighting! Are we not paying them salaries ? "12 Duşyanta is in a real dilemma and is unable to decide whether the should go to the Tapovana or back to his Capital. Madhavya advises, " Hang in the air like Trisanku !” 19 The dramas provide varying situations of comic laughter centering round the figure of the Vidūşaka. In Pratijñāyaugandharāyana, the Vidūşaka has a fight with the Unmattaka over the alleged theft of the modakas. The Vidūşaka uses strong words, threatens to break the Unmattaka's head, and makes a similar show of heroism before the Sramanaka who joins the scuffle. But the Vidūşaka's courage fails him and he comes down to pious platitudes and to weeping ! 14 Santuşta, in Avimāraka, finds himself duped by a cunning maid in broad daylight. She entices him by an invitation to dinner, takes his ring to inspect its workmanship, and vanishes into the crowds on the street. The poor Vidūşaka shouts and runs after her ; but his feet do not carry him any further. Later, Santuşta 11 Mộc., act III: 'T grein ft Pe - foye it णिकन्तो।' 18 Mālavikā. act I: He toetat EseiaTI PJU 2370- दाणेण ।' Śāk., act II: "fahar Farza RT TO FEE I' 14 Pratijñā., act III. 13 ·160 pretends to be a delicate damsel and refuses to go out of Kurangi's apartment despite a suggestion, entreaty and a bribe of Ornaments by Kurangi's maid; and eventually is required to be dragged out by her. 16 Śūdraka's Maitreya is afraid of darkness and of street crowds and requires the company of Cārudatta's maid Radanikā to go out in the street to place the evening Bali offerings. There, he defies Sakāra and uses brave words. But he is conscious that his attitude is like that of a dog that barks bravely standing on the threshold of his master's house. Then, Maitreya cuts a poor figure in the presence of Vasantasenā's Ceta. The latter puts simple riddles about 'senā' and 'Vasanta', which Maitreya is unable to solve. He makes a complete fool of himself by misunderstanding the directions of the Ceța, padāi parivattāvehi, by tuming round himself and turning his feet about, when the Ceța meant only changing the order of the words ! Further, the exchange of hot words and of blows between Sakāra and Maitreya in the court scene is quite amusing; the more so, because the wicked Sakāra thoroughly deserves this retribution, and the situation could have been really delightful had it not been for the tragic consequences to which it led. In the same way, the annoyance which Maitreya feels about the task of guarding the jewels, his babbling in sleep, his handing over the pot of ornaments to Sarvilaka, and the solemn blessings for a sound sleep with which Sarvilaka obediently takes possession of the jewels, create another situation full of mirth, . the tragic side of which is not realised immediately. 16 A deliberately planned situation is the hoax of serpent-bite that Gautama stages before Dhāriņi. Since the audience is wise on this hoax, the contrast between Gautama's pretence of fright and Dhāriņi's sincere anxiety is apt to raise a laughter of amusement. 17 Mädhavya, in Sakuntala, finds himself in two 18 Avi., acts II and V. 16 Mpc., acts I, V, IX and III Ţespectively. 17 Malavikā., act IV.

·I6I situations which are not happy for himself but which, had they been actually shown on the stage, instead of being merely described, would have delighted a section of the audience. The first is when Mādhavya is surrounded by the maids of Hamsapadikā who pull his hair and rain blows on him; and the second occurs when Mätali pounds him like a piece of sugarcane. 18 Harşa creates situations in his Udayana plays which are mortifying to the Vidūşaka. A sympathetic maid and the Vidūşaka arrange for a meeting between the hero and the heroine. But the queen steps unexpectedly on the scene. And this, together with mistaken identity, lead to an angry scene. The Vidūşaka is blamed for the secret plan of the meeting, iş bound hand and foot, and carried from the stage to a prison at the orders of the queen. 19 Harsa paints an elaborate situation in Nāgānanda, which takes the space of a neat interlude. The Vidūşaka Ātreya is returning from the marriage party, bedecked with flowers and carrying a present of a pair of silk garments. A swarm of bees, attracted by the fragrance, attacks him on his way. Atreya wraps a silk garment in a womanly fashion and covers himself completely in order to escape from the bees. He succeeds in doing it, but falls, to his woe, in the hands of the drunken Vița who mistakes him for his beloved, the Ceti. The Ceți arrives on the scene and decides to enjoy herself at the cost of the Vidūşaka. The Vița asks his servant, the Ceta; to hold the Vidūşaka while he turned to propitiate his own beloved. The Vidūşaka makes an attempt to run away; but the Ceta has held him fast by his sacred thread which, therefore, snaps in the attempt. The Vidūşaka is then made to sit by the side of the maid. A glass of wine already tasted by her is forced on him by the Vita. When the Vidūşaka protests vehemently, he is asked to prove that he is a real Brahmin by reciting a few words from the sacred Scriptures. The Vidūşaka is unable to do this, and is constrained to fall at the feet of the maid to get 18 Śák., acts V and VI resp. 19 Priya, and Ratpa., act III, ·162 out of the embarrassing situation. But before he can thank his stars for his lucky escape, another maid, in attendance on the hero and the heroine, fools him by equivocal words and, under the pretext of painting' him, besmears his face with the black juice of tamāla leaves ! 20 Rājasekhara presents a situation in which the vidūşaka Cārāyaṇa is solemnly made to go through a ceremony of his bigamous marriage; and it is discovered that the bride' was a slave boy dressed up in a woman's clothes ! Cårāyana takes his revenge by turning tables on the queen's maid. He dupes her into a belief that she will die on a particular day unless she propitiated a Brahmin of special qualities and crawled between his legs to escape the messengers of death. This ridiculous ritual is presented on the stage and the Vidūşaka stands over the crawling maid demonstrating his personal triumph. But it is the humour of character that is principally to be illustrated in the figure of the Vidūşaka. In theory and practice the Vidūşaka is the comic character. And in this regard several characteristics of the Vidūşaka become a source of humour. First, obviously, is the appearance of the Vidūşaka, which is an object of laughter for others, and of which some Vidūşakas themselves crack jokes. ** 30 Nāgā., act III. Viddha., acts II and III. # Especially, the Vidūşakas of Kālidāsa. Cf. (i) साहु रे पिङ्गलवाणर । साहु परित्तादो तुए संकटादो सपक्खो। Mälavikā., V. (i) किं तत्तमोदी उव्वसी अदुदिआ स्वेण अहं विअ विरुवदार | Vik., II. (ii) किमिति सङ्किस्सदि । णं अस्समवासपरिचिदो एव्व साहामिओ। Vik., V. (iv) The king refers to Madhavya as 'HTU Sāk., VI. Maitreya refers to his own misshapen head: 'अहं पि इमिणा करहजाणुसरिसेण सीसेण दुवेवि तुम्हे पसादेमि | Mrc., act. I ·163 Another is the fact that the Vidūşaka happens to be a Brahmin. He is generally called a Mahābrāhmana, 2 the phrase indicating a stupid and ignorant Brahmin. Bhāsa's Santuşta asserts his caste by the sacred thread he wears. He is unable to decipher letters though he has the nerve to say that the particular letters are not found in the book that he has studied. 28 But his ignorance becomes obvious when he describes the Rāmāyana as a book on dramaturgy. 26 The Vidūşakas of Kālidāsa do not parade their ignorance. It is Gautama only who once dubiously refers to the sacred Gayatri prayer which a Brahmin is expected to repeat in his daily ritual. 27 To Sūdraka's Maitreya, a woman learning Sanskrit appears like a Cow snorting through her nostrils chafing with a new rope; a performance which he will be disinclined to do even for the fun of it. He expresses disapproval of an 'old priest, wearing a garland of withered flowers and muttering sacred texts'. 99 But it is Harsa who makes greater fun of the ignorance of the Vidūşaka. One of his Vidūşakas goes through the formal ritual of ablution and muttering of prayer, and confesses that that alone is his claim to receive gifts in the royal palace. But he does Cf. for instance, SV. act IV, Mālavikā., act. II, Śāk., act II, Priya., act. II etc. 4. Avi., act.v: 'आम भोदि । जण्णोपवीदेण बाणो।' Cf. Avi., act II, interlude : विदूषक :- (आत्मगतम् । ) अजाणमाणे किं भणिसं । भोदु दिहुँ।... (प्रकाशम् । ) भोदि, एदं अक्खरं मम पुत्थए णस्थि । 26 Ibid. 'किस्स अहं अवेदिओ। सुपाहि दाव । अस्थि रामाअमं माम सत्यं । तस्सिं पत्र सुळोआ असम्पुण्णे संवच्छरे मए पठिदा।' 1 Malavika., act IV : मोदि, जइ णीदीए एवं वि अक्रूर पढेअं तदो गाअति वि विसुमरे।' 28 Mrc., act III : 'मम दाव दुवेहिं जेव हस्स जाबदि। ...इथिआ दाव सबों पठन्दी दिपणापवणस्सा विज गिट्टी अहिों सुसुआअदि । मबुस्सो वि काथली वामन्तो सुक्खसुमणोदामवेटिदो बुड्ढपुरोहिदो विअ मन्तं जवन्तो दिदं मे ण रोमदि।' Priya., act. II, opening: 'पं भणिदोम्हि... अज उक्कासणिअवडिआ देवी...सोस्थिकामपणिमित्तं सहावेदि ति। हा अव धारापरूवाणदिग्विाट हाम देवीपास गदुम कुक्कुटवादं करिस्त । अण्हा कहं मम्हावं सरिख बम्हणा रामऊ कीयाई बन्दि ।' 29 28 25 29 ·164 36 not know even the number of the Vedas ! 30 Another, Atreya, is put to'a rigid test to prove his credentials as a Brahmin. He is asked to recite from the Vedas, which he cannot do. He shows some resourcefulness in observing before the drunken Vita that the sacred syllables of the Veda have evaporated on account of the offensive odour of the liquor. 31 The infallible test, therefore, is the sacred thread. Atreya, however, is unable to pass even this test, because his sacred thread had already snapped in the struggle with the Ceța. $2 Cārāyaṇa of Rājasekhara, although a Brahmin, is unable to write. 38 , The lack of Vedic learning is usually coupled with Brahmanical pride. Gautama demands that he, as a Brahmin, ought to have been first worshipped before the musical concert started.34 Mänavaka claims that the Moon speaks through him, 36 Maitreya resents the washing of feet that the servant has asked him to do for Carudatta. Harşa does not show any respect for the Brahmanical dignity of the Vidūşaka. A further characteristic, consistent with the Brahmin caste of the Vidūşaka, is his love of food. This remains an invariable 80 Ibid. act II: 'Eftet e ar-EUit 57 52499 SE UTHIETTI- पंज्जाउले राअउले पुढम अहं एव्व...।' The king's comment is, 'HET Taari VTI' 32 Nāgā., act III': sfat efteratur Paul GT (v. l. ugot) #9a- PERTE I" 82 Ibid, act III. 33 Viddha., act II: faq9:-( # Starterior Rela 1) The king's comment is, 'BETERIA at mai a asiaa: 1 In act I, the Vidūşaka says, 'UNE PIECE FLUGTI 34 Mālavikā., act II: 'पुढमोपदेसदसणे पुढमं बम्हणस्स पूआ कादव्वा । साणं वो विसुमरिदा।' 316 Vik., act III: TUTA Agrard à fcrHÊM PHUJunat आसणट्ठिदो होइ...' * Mrc., act III: Ham... 30 EUR Sati' Cf. for similar attitude of the Vidūşaka, Nāgā., act. III: करराअमिलो बम्हणो भविथ दासीए धीआए पाएसु पहिस्सं । 80 ·165 39 37 38 trait with the Vidūsaka. Though the greed for food is unlimited, its expression has few variations. If Vasantaka of Bhāsa mourns the loss of his digestion, 87 Maitreya laments over the turn of events that has landed him in poverty along with Cārudatta. He recalls the days when he could feed himself like a bull in the market-square. He goes poetical in describing how he could taste dish after dish and push them away, like a painter touching the dishes of his pigments with the delicate tip of his brush. 38 Invitation for dinner is a sufficient bait for the Vidūşaka. Santuşta will allow himself to be duped ; and Māņavaka 40 and Bhasa's Vasantaka 41 will be prepared to change their loyalties for an offer of food. If eating is the only important work in the eyes of Madhavya,42 Māņavaka sees food everywhere ; 43 and the only interesting place on the earth for him is the kitchen.44 Bhāsa's Vasantaka sums up the philosophy Cf. SV., act IV : ‘एको खु महन्तो दोसो, मम आहारो सुगु ण परिणमदि।' Mrc., act I, opening speech : ...हा अवत्थे तुलीअसि | जो णाम अहं तत्तभवदो चारुदत्तस्स रिद्धीए अहोरत्तं पअतणसिद्धेहिं उग्गारसुरहिगन्धेहिं मोदकेहिं जेव असिदो अब्भन्तरचउस्सालअदुआए उवट्ठिदो मलकसदपरिवुदो चित्तअरो विअ अंगुलीहिं छिविध छिविध अवणेमि । णअरचत्तरवुसहो विअ रोमन्थाअमाणो चिहामि !...' 39 See, Avi., act II. 40 Vik., act II. Manavaka. promises to dissuade the king from his passion for Urvasi. au SV., act IV. Vasantaka prefers Padmavati to Vasavadattā, because the former takes care of his meals. 42 Śāk., act II. When Duşyanta asks for his help in a simple task, Madhavya says, किं मोदअखज्जिआए।' 43 Vik., act III. Cf. the king's comment, 'सर्वत्र औदरिकस्य अभ्यवहार्यमेव विषयः । 44 Vik., act II: राजा-अथ वेदानीमात्मानं विनोदयेयम् । विदूषकः-महाणसं गच्छम्ह । राजा.-किं तत्र। विदूषकः-तहिं पञ्चविहस्स अम्भवहारस्स उवणदसंभारस्स जोअणं पेक्खमाणेहिं सक उकण्ठा विणोदेवं.।

·166 46 of food when he defines happiness as excellent digestion coupled with excellent appetite. 45 Cowardice is one more trait that comes in the wake of the Brahmin caste. After all, courage or heroism has not been the strong point of the Brahmins as a community. The dramatists extract fun out of this characteristic in two ways: by an exhibition of open fear and by a show of mock heroism. Many Vidūşakas are afraid of the serpent. Maitreya is afraid of darkness. 47 Ātreya fears bees. 48 Madhavya is frightened by a report about demons. 49 Even the palace maids hold terror for some Vidūşakas. 50 Consequently the Vidūşakas can be brave only before pigeons, bees, or cupid's arrows, that is to say, mango blossoms. Maitreya appears to divulge the secret of such heroism when he says that even a dog is a hero on the threshold of his master's house. 51 Later, in act III, he mocks at heaven: 'T Good ण वा अण्हीअदि ण वा पीअदि । केवलं अणिमिसेहिं णअणेहि मीणा विडम्बीअन्दि ।' 45 SV., act IV, interlude: 'भो सुहं णामअपरिभूदं अकळळवत्तं च ।' 46 For instance, Vasantaka in Sv., Māņavaka in Vik., Gautama in Mālavikā. 47 Mſc., act. I. Maitreya refuses to go out to place the Bali offerings; among other reasons, he mentions, 't Hosts कालसप्पस्स मूसिओ विअ अहिमुदावदिदो वज्झो दाणि भविस्सं ।' 48 Cf. Nāgā., III. 49 Sāk., act II. The king asks the Vidāşaka whether he would like to accompany him to the Tapovana to see Sakuntalā : माढव्य, अप्यस्ति शकुन्तलादर्शने कुतूहलम् ।' The Vidāsaka replies, 'पढमं सपरिवाइं आसि । दाणिं रक्खसवुत्तन्तेन बिन्दु वि णावसेसिदो।' 60 For instance, Mänavaka in Vik. In act II, interlude, be says, on seeing the maid coming, 'इमं दुहृदि पेक्खिम तं राबरहस्स हिअभिन्दिअ णिकमदि।' Madhavya refuses to go in Hamsapadikā's apartment, though Duşyanta rules, out his protest. Sak, art V. 61 Mực., act I: At the agit la apa pustila...I 6 ·167 52 Finally, there is a characteristic which is really independent of the conventional conception of the Vidūşaka--his wit, which is a genuine source of laughter. It manifests itself very often as innocent nonsense ; but occasionally it is crammed with practical wisdom. In fact, the Vidūşaka, often becomes the mouthpiece of sound common-sense. The Vidūşaka's definition of happiness has been referred to above. It wears humour on the surface, but contains a deeper practical truth of life. To the king surprised by his queen, when making love to the heroine, the Vidüşaka's advice is : 'Run! What else can a thief caught red-handed do?' or 'A thief caught in the act might say: I am only testing the theory by a practical application.' 53 His comment on the queen who helplessly gets reconciled with the new co-wife: When a fish slips through the hand, the dejected fisherman says he was observing piety!' 54 To the impatient lover: 'You are a wretched patient! You not only want a doctor but you want the doctor also to fetch the medicine for you !' 55 'A courtesan', says Maitreya, 'is like a pebble caught in the shoe. Even removal hurts ! 58 At times the Vidūşaka is not merely a critic in motley; he is a philosopher, especially when he acts as a sympathetic friend to the distressed hero. Madhavya says to Duşyanta: Good men do not allow themselves to be affected by distress. Mountains are not shaken even by a whirlwind.' 57 68 Cf. Mālavikā., act III : 'किं अण्णं। जंघाबल एव्व । Vik., act II: tau TELEF FFHF3RF apfen at greator in 58 Mālavikā., act III: 'कम्मग्गहीदेण कुम्भीलएण संधिच्छेदे सिक्खिओम्मि त्ति वत्तव्वं होदि। 66 Vik., act III: ESQUIETAT Hyosa Polloquot at hu मेहुविस्सदि त्ति।' 58 Mālavikā., act II: साहु तुमं दलिदो विअ आदुरो वेज्जेण उवणीअमाणं ओसह इच्छसि ।' 56 Mộc., act V: OBAT UIT TE ARCY fast fast i SHTT Gthu णिराकरीअदि ।' Säk., act VI: and fat Fagftat hagfogtut a fart i ujqera fa णिकम्पा गिरिओ।' 57 + ·168 > 59 If the ability to laugh in the face of misfortune is a feature of humane comedy, 68 Santuşta and Maitreya are our examples. Kurangi was about to commit suicide; Avimāraka's timely arrival saves her and tears come to her eyes. Santuşta says: Please don't weep. Else, I will weep with you. But the trouble is I cannot shed tears. I started crying with great effort when my father died. But the tears did not come. Cārudatta's lament over his poverty is deep and harrowing. But Maitreya observes: 'Friend, wealth is a whore's child, an insubstantial breakfast. It runs to where it cannot be enjoyed, like young cowherds, afraid of wasps, running into a forest where they are not bitten !'60 And when Cārudatta is faced with the unkindest moment of his life, the exchange of hot words and of blows between Maitreya and Sakāra brings a sad smile on a grimi background. Both these Vidüşakas, however, follow their friends to death. If ever laughter was mixed with tears Santuşta and Maitreya carry the mixture. This quality, namely wit, illustrates the most essential conditions of humour: acute observation and intelligence. It is not surprising that the Indian theorists, too, associate wisdom with the Vidūşaka. After all, he is not a fool who only looks a fool. He does not wear motley in his brain. 68 Feibleman, op. cit. pp. 241 ff. 59 Avi., act V: 'अळं अदिमत्तं सन्दावेण । अहव अहं वि रोदामि । एक पि तहिं दुळ्ळहं मम णअणादो बफ ण णिग्गच्छइ । जदा मे पिदा उवरदो, तदा वि महन्तेण आरम्मेण रोदिदं आरो। बर्फ ण णिग्गच्छह ।' 8. Mrc.; act I: 'भो वअस्स, एदे क्खु दासीए पुत्ता .अत्थकल्लवत्ता बरडाभीदा विअ गोवालदारा अरण्णे जहिं जहिं ण खज्जन्ति तहि तहिं गच्छन्ति ।'

·XIV THE DECLINE OF THE VIDUŞAKA Bharata shows full awareness of the nature and function of laughter, although he has confined its objective to pure entertainment which he regarded as the supreme purpose of dramatic representation. The types of the Vidūşakas he has conceived and the qualities and function that he has associated with them, especially the quality of wisdom and the role of the Vidūşaka as the hero's companion, clearly suggest that Bharata's idea of laughter was not crude and that the laughter he contemplated was not limited to the physical and physiological levels. Further, Bharata's recognition of laughter as a distinct Rasa, and of such forms of drama as the Prakarana, Prahasana and Bhana, was a positive indication in the direction of social drama, in which comedy and laughter could have ever-widening scope. Bharata's theory is exemplified, even amplified, in the actual dramatic practice. The dramatists followed Bharata in adopting the physical and physiological laughter connected with the Vidūşaka. But they also portrayed humour on the psychological and sociological levels. It may be assumed that the dramatists portrayed all the four types of Vidūşakas which Bharata prescribed, inspite of the fact that the actual specimens are not now available to us. Bharata, however, must have conceived these types in relation to a sort of propriety. The association of a particular type of Vidūşaka alone would have been 'proper' with a particular type of hero. This was a question both of social and literary propriety, especially in the days of the classics. : .But once this principle of propriety was accepted, it was necessary to understand the basic types from a purely literary point of view-the basic types, that is to say, that would be discover- 22 ·170 able in any or all of the four types prescribed by Bharata. For, whether the Vidûşaka happens to be an ascetic, a Brahmin, a royal protégé or a pupil, in playing the fool and evoking laughter he is either laughed at by others, or he laughs at others. In analysing the old classical comedy of Greece, Aristotle gives a threefold classification of fools : The Buffoon, who is a simple fool; the Eiron, who, though a fool, is wise and is aware of his wisdom; and the Imposter, who covers inward cowardice and folly under a vain pretence of bravery and wisdom. In the old comedy to which Aristotle is referring the Buffoon and the Eiron are pitted against the Imposter. The Eiron victimises the Imposter. It is possible to say that the Buffoon and the Imposter correspond to the Vidūşaka and the Eiron is probably the Vița. Harşa's Nāgānanda actually represents a scene where the Vita victimises Atreya, the Vidūşaka, who neatly answers the description of an Imposter in his attempt to cover his cowardice and ignorance. But the Imposter is not a distinct type in Sanskrit drama; the pretence is found in many Vidūşakas. Further, the Vita according to the Sanskrit theory is not a conventional comic character. Prof. Gordon is probably right in saying that there are essentially two types of fools: “One, half wit, half natural; the other, part fool, part knave.” And of course, each type has its varieties'. The Vidüşaka likewise is either a butt of ridicule or he ridicules others. But the wit and wisdom he possesses may be either conscious or unconscious. With this distinction in view, the Vidūşakas appear to reveal three main types, as Aristotle discovered in the classical comedy. The first is the FOOL, the simple Vidūşaka. This is a silly, stupid, idiotic type. The peculiarity of this type is that the 1 See F. M. Cornford, The Origin of Attic Comedy, p. 136. Gordon, Shakespearian Comedy, p. 60.

·171 Vidūsaka has no separate existence of his own but is tagged on to the hero whose friend and companion he is. He is dull and has no business to perform, except the conventional one. But being constantly in the company of the hero some of his tasks devolve on him. He, however, miscarries them, or makes a mess of them; and often creates complications for the hero. He has some wit; but the fun he provides is usually at his own cost. In fact, he is a butt of ridicule, a laughing-stock. Most of the Vidūşakas, and particularly the figures portrayed by later dramatists, fall under this category. The best illustrations of this type are Kālidāsa's Mädhavya and Harşa's Atreya. Māņavaka and Vasantaka in Priyadarśikā are very close to this type in their blundering folly, although there is no open ridicule to which they are subjected. And contrarily, though Santuşta is outwitted by the Ceți and Maitreya by the Ceța, their essential type is different. The second type is the CRITIC, the wise Vidūşaka. This type of Vidūşaka is a clown but he is a 'superior member of this order.'4. His wit and wisdom are of considerable proportion. Shakespeare's Touchstone is the example. Like him, the Vidūşaka moves through the play mocking at everything that comes within his ken, with a salutary mockery; for, 'in his brain he hath strange places cramm'd, with observation.' 'He 8 Cornford thus describes the type: 'The subordinate buffoon who attends the more serious hero has, so to say, no independent existence. He is a mere delegate on whom this side of the hero's (in Comedy) role is devolved in situations where the hero himself has to keep up a less farcical character ... This deputy clown is marked off as a distinct type only in that he is always in a subordinate position, never master of the situation as Eiron is. Hence, he is the Buffoon, pure and simple, as defined by Aristotle-the ungentlemanly person who makes fun for the amusement of others.' op. cit., pp. 139-140. . See, J. B. Priestley, The English Comic Characters, P. 21.

·172 uses his folly like a stalking-horse and, under the presentation of that, he shoots his wit. And probably the real charm of his character is that he is unconscious of the wisdom that he is continually spilling. He is a critic in motley. It is this type, again, that is really distinguished by humane kindness. The supreme example of this type is Śūdraka's Maitreya. Bhāsa's Santuşta also must be placed in this category as much for his practical wisdom as for his humanity, although they do not equal those of Maitreya. Vasantaka in Svapnavāsavadatta and in Ratnävali are close to this type; the one, for his loyalty and wisdom, and the other, for his humane devotion. Kálidāsa's Māņavaka and Madhavya are real critics, but their basic trait is stupidity. The third type is the ROGUE, the Vidūşaka who wears the mantle of a professional fool but is clever and knows it. This type should correspond to Aristotle's Eiron. The clownish dulness of this type is a mask. He plays the fool on purpose. He moves in the play in his motley garb, consciously poking fun at other characters. While his buffoonery prevents the attribution of a motive, he is able to have the whole fun for his own private amusement. If the first type is a butt of ridicule and the second partially so, this type ridicules others, consciously, and on purpose. This type is finely illustrated in Kalidasa's portrait of Gautama, who is a clever rogue who draws his fun out of every character, including the hero. Vasantaka in Pratijñāyaugan- 5 Shakespeare, As You Like It. 6 Cf. Cornford: The Eiron...masks his cleverness under a show of clownish dulness. He is a fox in the sheep's clothing of a Buffoon. His attitude is precisely expressed by Demos, 'I play the simpleton like this on purpose'... In the Rhetoric, Aristotle says that the Ironical Jester makes fun for his own private satisfaction, whereas the Buffoon does it to amuse others.' op. cit., PP. 136 ff., 138.

·173 dharāyaṇa is a little dubious type, but must be included under this category; his clownish behaviour conceals a serious purpose. A similar type, though obviously inferior in merit, is Rajasekhara's Cārāyaṇa, who is subjected to ridicule but succeeds in having his own revenge. . It was essential that Sanskrit dramatists realised these basic types and some theorist of the later period recognised them. Had they done so, Sanskrit drama would have been spared the dull and dead monotony that characterises the figure of the Vidūşaka. Unfortunately the Vidūşaka tended to become a stock character. There are, really speaking, two elements in a comic character that possess the potential of growth and development: 'One is what the comic character stands for, which may be a social type, a social or moral vice. The other is the context or the association in which the character is put. The Vidūşaka symbolises the uneducated, stupid, pretentious Brāhmaṇa who was a social parasite. There certainly was much to ridicule about such a class of Brahmins. Their pride and privileges coupled with enormous ignorance, their clinging to ritual formality which often concealed hypocrisy and selfishness, there apparent piety which became only an excuse for irrepressiable greed all these were fine subjects for ridicule, satire and comic treatment. But how much fun can be drawn out of them and for how long a period? For ten and odd centuries the Vidūşaka has remained a Mahābrāhmaṇa. He has no knowledge of the Vedas. He cannot recite mantras. He cannot read or he cannot write. Again, for ten and odd centuries, his love of food has not abated. He still loves his modakas and lingers about the kitchen. All the jokes are already there. The later dramatists could not but repeat what the early classical poets had already said. In fact, there was nothing left in the caricature that could be put to new comical use. The associations of the Vidūşaka are limited. Some drama- ·174 tists refer to the parents of the Vidūşaka. Harsa mentions his wife, the Brāhmaṇi. Rājaśekbara brings the Brāhmaṇi on the stage." But if Harşa's reference provides at least a ground for the exhibition of Vidūşaka's childish pride, the scene in Viddhasālabhanjikā has not even a semblance of comic treatment. The association of the Vidūşaka with palace maids remains perhaps the only source for the development of humour. But in this sphere too, the possibilities are well-nigh exhausted. The Vidūşaka could either be subjected to ridicule by the maids, or he could make fun of them. But the maid appears to possess intelligence and cunning which are in inverse proportion to her low birth. Hence, the dramatists have to fall back mainly on the first of the two possibilities, making the Vidūşaka a butt of ridicule. Santuşta is duped by the maid. 8 Māņavaka trembles at the approach of the queen's maid and falls an easy victim to her cunning. 9 Mädhavya is surrounded by Hamsapadikā's maids who pull his hair and belabour him. 10 The maid joins in the fun to which Atreya is subjected by the drunken Vita, though, later, she apologises to him. 11 What else could the later dramatists show? The Vidūşaka in Karnasundari notices the plantain leaves and lotus stalks that the maid was carrying, concealed under the skirt of her garment, He calls off her bluff, pulls them out and forces her to divulge the love-sick condition of the heroine. 12 Cārāyaṇa succeeds in having his revenge on Mekhalā by making her crawl between his legs. 18 If this is Vidūşaka's triumph over the maid, he may be granted the credit for being able to arrange it. But how 7 See, Note No. ( 37 ) to Ch. I. • Avi., act II, Interlude. % Vik., act II, Interlude. XO Sāk., act V. 2 Nāgā., act III. 11 Karna., act II. 18 Viditha., act III.

·175 can this cunning be regarded as an improvement in characterisation, when the Vidūşaka of Rājasekhara is already shown to be a victim of the maid's joke, and when his own counter-joke is only a revenge inflicted out of malice? This Vidūşaka only proves that he is both a fool and a knave. He cannot come near Kālidāsa's Gautama who fools the queen by a delightful hoax 14 from which personal hurt and malice are absent. It is true that there was never any love lost between the Vidūşaka and the maid. Ašvaghosa depicts a quarrel between the Vidūşaka and a courtesan. A maid replaces the Gaņikā in later plays. The Vidūşakas, from Bhāsa to Rājasekhara, use abusive language while talking to the maid. The phrases are set and conventional, 15 Rajasekhara tries to improve on Bhāsa in inventing more sonorous epithets which have a greater abusive connotation. 16 But in doing it, Rājasekhara commits a double error: If abuse is a form of humour, it is humour on a primitive and low level. The Vidūşakas portrayed by the classical poets may indulge in conventional abuse of the maid; but that is not their only or chief source of humour. Rājasekhara, on the contrary, employs only a string of abuses and displays a poor taste for humour. Further, the classical poets confine the abuse to scenes between the Vidūşaka and the maid exclusively, and do not go beyond conventional phrases when the royal hero is present. This was a rule of propriety to which Abhinava had already drawn the attention of writers. 17 In 14 Malavikā., act IV. 16 Usually, 'create etc (CTET: 24:) 01, ‘578etc. 18 Bhāsa's Santuşta (Avi., act II) uses '05#grit' and Fagrit'. Rājasekhara's Kapiñjala (Karpūra., act I) has, 'दासीए धूदे भविस्सकुट्टिणि, शिक्खणे', 'दासीए पुचि टेष्टाकराले कोससदचट्टिणि रच्छा- El and etc. Cårāyaṇa (Viddha., act II) uses, greits gfet Felt Hall टेटेटेण्टाकारिणि टुटुसंघलिदे विसमकत्सरि...' etc. · 17 Abhinava on NS. XII. 142 (GOS, vol. II, p. 160): 'नच राजनि संनिस्ते भीखमाषणं समुचितम् । एवं सर्वकोखम् ।' 5 ·176 fact, Bharata had permitted the use of obscene language in a specific type of Vidūşaka only, namely, the one associated with a merchant hero. 18 Rājasekhara is, therefore, guilty of a breach of decorum. The inner circle of the harem in which the Vidūşaka moved was apt to put limitations on his behaviour and speech. It was possible for the Vidūşaka to derive his fun out of court intrigues and the loose sex morality of palace life, and not become merely a victim of such fun. But as a member of the royal harem, the Vidūşaka was required to keep himself unentangled in the affairs of the harem. He could be free with his speech, but not with his behaviour. It is not without reason that the theorists prescribe "purity of conduct” as a qualification for the associates of the king who have a free access to the harem. 19 Secondly, the role of the Vidūşaka was fixed as a companion of the hero of an erotic comedy. These two important reasons restrict the behaviour of the Vidūşaka in an episode of love. The social propriety prevented the Vidūşaka from having any 'affair' of his own; and the dramatic setting excluded him from a major part in a concurrent love-theme, when the hero himself was shown pursuing the course of love. The Vidūşaka, as a Brahmin and as a royal companion, could never play the role of a lover. A maid presents her ornaments to Santuşta and says that by accepting them he has become her lover. 20 It is a good joke; but it is only an excuse to take the Vidūşaka out of the heroine's apartment. 18 See, BP. (GOS), pp. 281-282. See also Note (I) to Ch. IX. Cf. BP. p. 281, ll. 19-20 : विदूषकस्तु भूपानामग्राम्यपरिहासकः । अर्थेषु स्त्रीषु शुद्धश्च देवीपरिजनप्रियः ।। 20 Avi., act V: HA41-faça CFT TEIT) # 4, Health भरणं गेण्हिा वळळहो जादो। 4. Read in continuation of the preceding quotation : विदूषकः-मोदि, मा मा एवं । अदिसुमारो खु. अहं । नलिनिका-जाणामि जाणामि दे सुउमारत्तणं । नइ सुउमारो, सिग्छ एहि । 21 19 ·177 Among the associates of a hero, 22 the Ceța was a slave and the Vidūşaka, both a Brahmin and a jester by profession. It was, therefore, possible only for the Vița and the Pithamarda, both refined and cultured types, to play the role of a lover. Harsa has already shown the Vita playing lover to a palace maid. 28 Bhavabhūti shows Makaranda, a Pīthamarda, involved doubly in love-intrigues. 24 Both Nāgānanda and Mälatimādhava correctly illustrate the types that can be used in an episode of love; and both also illustrate the comic effect that can be derived out of such employment. Alternatively, an independent and a free Brahmin youth like Sarvilaka could fall in love with a courtesan's maid and undertake to burgle a house in order to win her freedom and her love. 25 As long as the Viduşaka was tied down to the king and the harem, and as long as he remained a ludicrous figure in virtue of his physical deformity, in addition to being a Brahmin, it was impossible for him to play a lover even for comic effect. The joke, if perpetrated, could only be at his own cost. The testimony of Rājasekhara is clear on the point that the Vidūşaka could not have a personal connection with a love affair. Kapiñjala, in Karpūramañjari confesses that a person of his type is neither harassed by Cupid nor wilted by the seasonal heat '.28 विदूषकः-मोदि अअं आअच्छामि । (निष्क्रान्तौ ।) Avi., act v. 22 The Agnipurāna gives Pithamarda, Vița and Vidūşaka. BP, (p. 93 ) mentions Pīthamarda, Vita and Vidūşaka. SD. (III. 40 ) gives Vița Ceta Vidūşaka and others. RS. (I. 89) mentions Pīthamarda, Vița, Ceța and Vidūşaka. 28 Nāgā., act III. Cf. Mälati. Makaranda is himself in love with Madayantikā, and dons a bride's robe to dupe her brother Nandana who wanted to marry Mālati. 25 Mrc., acts III and IV. 26 Karpūra., IV (HOS, iv), pp. 92-93: fac4me T- बाहणिज्जा अण्णे तावसोसणिजा। अम्हारिसो उण जणो ण कामस्स बाहणिजी ण तावस्स Ethuroniti 23 24 ·178 27 It is, therefore, wrong to imagine that the treatment of Rajasekhara shows the Vidūşaka to be a Patākānāyaka, that is to say, a hero in an erotic bye-plot. The patāka, 28 by definition, is an episode that has no independent purpose of its own, and which, while merging with the main theme, contributes to its development. Viſvanātha cites, as an example of the patākā, the conduct of the Vidūşaka in Śäkuntala. It is correct; for, the dismissal of the Vidūşaka in all the three scenes in which he appears, definitely contributes to the development of the main theme of the play. The patākā, when correctly employed, will always serve such a contributory purpose. In Harşa's treatment there is some connection that can be discovered between the drunken bout that is staged and one important theme that is developed in the play : It is the hero's marriage and the celebrations that followed that have occasioned the hilarous scene in which the Vita, the Ceta, the Ceți and the Vidūşaka are involved. But already the connection of the humorous episode to the main theme has begun to be loose. In Rājasekhara's treatment, the episode stands detached like an interlude. Cärāyana's second marriage is a practical joke that the queen has practised on the Vidūşaka. The following episode is Vidūşaka's counter-joke inflicted on the daughter of the queen's nurse and is a revenge that he takes for being fooled. 37 This is J. T. Parikh's assumption: The Vidūşaka... gradually ceases to be a merely comic character and emerges as the hero of a farcical bye-plot, the episode or the Patākā.' (Viduşaka : Theory and Practice, p. 36.) I do not think that this interpretation is warranted. 28 Cf. SD., VI. 67: व्यापि प्रासनिक वृत्तं पताकेत्यभिधीयते । पताकानायकस्य स्यान स्वकीयफलान्तरम् ।। यथा रामचरिते सुग्रीवादेः, वेण्यां भीमादेः, शाकुन्तले विदूषकस्य चरितम् | Comm. Alsó, DR., I. 13: ' सानुबन्धं सताकाख्य, प्रकरी च प्रदेशमा ।। दूरं यदनुवर्तते प्रासङ्गिक सा पताका मुग्रीवादिवृत्तान्तवत् ।

·179 It only inspires the queen to carry the joke on to the king himself. The total effect, however, is that the main theme is side-tracked. Besides, the Vidūşaka's joke is not in good taste; for, it shows a woman crawling between the legs of a Brahmin and the royal hero and the queen witnessing the performance. It is possible to understand such a scene in a Prahasana, a farce. But Rājasekhara claims the play to be a Naţikā, which is supposed to be on as dignified a level as a Nätaka. Abuse, practical joke and laughter that have remote connection with the theme of the play, are not signs of development, but of decadence. From the classical poets, who employed conventional tricks for laughter but did not fail to portray simultaneously humour of a refined type, to Rājasekhara who resorts to.primitive modes, it is a downward path to deterioration in literary taste. An examination of the later plays reveals an unmistakable tendency towards mechanical treatment, or alteration of the basis of characterization, depriving the Vidūşaka of his comic essence. Bilhaņa, for instance, does not find it necessary to provide the Vidûşaka with a personal name and mentions him by the general appellation only. 2° As if the Vidūşaka was too mechanical a character to have a distinct individuality! Kşemisvara introduces a Vidūşaka, Baudhāyana, in Candakausika, which is a drama of the cruelty of Viśvāmitra and the sufferings of Hariscandra, which leave really no scope for the conventional Vidūşaka. The author's deviation from settled practice is ineffective, because he fails to utilize the comic motive for tragic relief. The Vidūşaka crack's a few well-worn jokes in the opening act and disappears for good. 30 The Vidūşaka in Ratimanmatha is tagged on to the hero Manmatha and is seen in the first two acts. But he is superfluous in the structure of 29 See, Karna. KM, No. 7 (1888). 20 See, Canda. (Calcutta ), act I.

·180 the story, and his humour is stale. He is an uneducated Brahmin (anūcāna-śrotriya). He boasts of his knowledge of astrology which, he assures the hero, will help him in securing an access to the heroine. The hero's only comment on this is that 'inconsistency of speech is an ornament of the species of Vidūşakas'. a1 The Vidūşaka is a glutton (audarıka), fond of his modakas, and is ready to leave the hero in order to join a picnic of Brahmins. He encourages the hero to paint the heroine's portrait; and drops the canvas so that it can be neatly picked up and carried to the heroine. He cracks a joke about the ugliness of his own Brāhmani; utters one or two platitudes; all of which is in the well-worn tradition. 32 The stupidity of the Vidūşaka and his illuminating practical wisdom provide a contradiction that belongs to the comic order, The fool, as remarked earlier, does not wear motley in his brain. But in order that this incongruity remains on the comic level, it is necessary that the 'brain' of the Vidūşaka is stimulated by authentic happenings shown in the play itself, so that the Vidūşaka's brainy observations appear as a comic perspective on a given situation. If, on the contrary, the Vidūşaka talks foolishly and wisely in alternate turns, the incongruity becomes a contradiction in characterization. For, the Vidūşaka then gives the impression that he talks foolishly on purpose; and that his usual nature is quite its opposite. It is obviously a denial of a real comic character. 83 But this is what happens with these later Vidūşakas. Bilhapa's Vidūşaka and Rājaśekhara's Cārāyaṇa each speak a Sanskrit verse. The latter is actually complimented by the 81 Ratimanmatha, act I: Saabrits ENATE TGHER Ella इति । 33 Ibid., act II: Appreciating Rati's beautiful portrait, the Vidusaka says to Manmatha, 'अस्स, जहत्थं कहेहि किं मह बम्हणीप स्वेण एसा सरिसीति ।' # Karna., I. 50; Viddha., L 30.

·181 hero on his having developed Sanskrit. 34 In fulfilment of a choric function, the Vidüşaka certainly provides scenic description, partly as a poetic diversion and partly as an indication of scene-shift. The elaborate and ornate expressions put in the mouth of the Vidūşaka on these occasions subserve, therefore, an obvious purpose. But when the Vidūşakas in the plays of Bilhana, Rājasekhara and Mahādeva 85 are seen speaking in elaborate language, using long compounds and ornate expressions, in normal context, it cannot but be interpreted as a sign of deviation and decadence of the comic character. The cleavage between the apparent stupidity and the basic sanity in the Vidūşaka's character is most apparent in Rājasekhara's plays and in the Prakrit Sattakas. The Vidūşaka in these plays enters into a poetic contest with the queen's maid and, or otherwise, gives a comic description, making a fool of himself somewhat. 36 But looking to his poetic descriptions on other occasions, his poetic faculty and sane observations, it becomes obvious that the Vidūşaka is making only a professional show of his foolishness. The tales about the lack of learning which the Vidūşaka in the Sattakas tells 87 become, therefore, fairy tales. They are robbed of their comic essence. If Mahodara in Adbhutadarpana possesses the ability to discuss pure logic and politics with Rāvana, 88 Cakora in Candralekha displays accurate knowledge of the theme, rhyme and metre of Cf. Viddha., I. 30. ſ. Áraidsto tiene ' Vide Karņa., Karpūra. and Adbhuta. 86 See, Karpūra., I. 19; Candra., I. 17.18–21. 37 Kapiñjala (Karpura., I. 18.1-3, . HOS, PP. 12-13) says: भो तुम्हाणं सव्वाणं मज्झे अहं एको कालक्खरिओ। जस्स मे ससुरससुरो परघरे पोत्थअभारो वहन्तो आसि ।...अकालजलदवंससंभूदाणं परंपराए पण्डिच्चं ।' Cakora ( Candra., I. 26.1-5) says: 'talga tao na TUT EFTER समाग पंडिअत्तणं कात्तणं च पहिसु पडिरोहअभादो अम्हबम्हणीसअणिज्जेकपाससंठविमा मंजूसिआ णिहाविअ लोहसालाए गाढं बंधिअ मुई वि दाऊण साडम्मि समुद्दे संगहिम आअदो।' See, Adbhuta., act VI (KM, No. 55. 1896). 84 85 1 88 ·182 a poetic composition. 39 Likewise, Rājasekhara's Cârāyana is an expert on Gandharva Veda 40 and is able to quote appropriately from Dharmaśāstra. 41 Kapiñjala calls himself the Výttikära of the king who is described as a Sūtrakāra, 42 An ability of this kind is to be expected not from the comic Vidūşaka but from the refined and cultured Vita. The Vidūşaka seems to have shifted his basis. It is interesting to note that the queen, in Karnasundari, describes the Vidūşaka actually as a Brahmin Vita, 43 This shift is a loss to comic representation. That the Vidūşaka had ceased to be a genuine comic character and had become a professional, and consequently, a mechanical fool, is an inference that cannot be avoided. And if this were not enough, some of the later plays will be found to furnish a more direct testimony for the contradiction between professional requirement and natural inclination. The actor 39 See, Candra., I. 26.17--18. Cakora dictates to the maid as follows: 'जइ अत्तणो छइलणं दंसेदु ववसिदा सि ता जमअं कादब्वं, मलआणिलो वण्णिदव्यो, सद्धरा अ वुत्तं ।' The verse that follows fulfils these characteristics. Cf. Viddha., III. The maid Sulakşaņā reports : ...देवेण ...देवी...मणिदा जधा सुंदरि मा विसण्णा होइ, जादो गंधव्ववेअविअक्खणो साहीणो जेब Eu.../ -Later, the Vidūşaka himself declares : 75 PSE गन्धव्ववेअविअक्खणो रक्खको चिट्ठामि...।' 41 Cf. Viddha., IV. 17: भज्जा दासो अ पुत्तो अणिखणा सअला वि ते । ते समधिअच्छंति जस्स ते तस्स ते धणं ।। Inspite of the sarcastic compliment of the Data (अहो स्मृति- वैशारचं महाराजनर्मसचिवस्य चारायणस्य ।), it is worth remembering that the verse, in Sanskrit form, is quoted in Sabarabhāşya on Mimänsāsūtras, VI. i. 12. The verse is found, with slight variations, in Manu, VIII. 416, and Mbh. Udyogaparvan, 33.66. 44. Cf. Karpūra., II. 32.1-4 (HOS, p. 55): GTART GÅ I अहं उण विसिआरो भविअ वित्थरेण वण्णेमि ।' 4 See, Karna., IV. 12.8 : "एसो संफ्तो मा समं बम्भणविडेण ।' 40 ·183 Vidüşaka, whose real name is Romanthaka, appears in the prologue of Adbhutadarpana and is instructed to play the role of Mahodara, a witty associate and a priest-cum-minister of Rävaņa. 44 Rājasekhara's Kapiñjala expresses his disgust for having to play the fool. He is fed up with the atmosphere in à royal harem where a maid and a Brahmin are treated as on the same par. It is like 'mixing wine and a cow's holy products together, like putting glass and jewel side by side.' He thinks it more honourable to be away from such royal houses, and to serve one's family. He gives notice of quitting his position. He suggests that anyone, even a maid, could be put in his professional role and given the badge and livery of the Vidūşaka. 45 The Vidūşaka in the classical plays is shown to be a genuine friend of the hero. But in some of these later plays, their relations appear to have become a little formal; so that the Vidūşaka treats the hero as his master. Vaikhānasa addresses the hero, in Kaumudimahotsava, as 'master and friend', 48 Kapiñjala addresses the king by the formal title Deva'. 47 44 See, Adbhuta., Prologue, the words of the Sūtradhāra: सखे रोमन्थक, अद्य किल लङ्केश्वरनर्मसुहृदो महोदरस्य भूमिका निष्प्रमादमभिनेतन्या इति प्रागेव दत्तं ते मोदकपारितोषिकम् ।' . 45 Cf. Karpura., act I ( HOS, pp. 19-22.) : (i) 'ईदिसस्स राअउलस्स भई भोदु जहिं चेडिआ बम्हणेण समसीसिआए दीसदि महरा पञ्चगव्वं च एकसि. भण्डए करीअदि कच्चं माणिकं च समं आहरणे पउशीअदि ।' (p. 19). (ii) 'ईदिसं राअउलं दूरे वन्दीअदि जहिं दासी बम्हणेण समं पाडिसिद्धिं करेदि । ता अज्जप्पहुदि णिअवसुंधराबम्हणीए चलणसुस्ससओ भविअ घरे ज्जेव चिट्ठिस्सं ।' (pp. 21-22). (ii) 'ण हुण हु आगमिस्सं । अण्णो को वि पिअवअस्सो अण्णेसीअदु। एसा वा दुट्टासी लम्बकुच्छ टप्परकण्ण पडिसीस दइ मह ठाणे करीअदु । अहं एको मुदो तुम्हाणं मज्झे तुम्हे उण वरिससदं जीवध ।' (p. 22). Cf. Kaumudi., III. 5:3 : भट्टिवअस्सो आणदि ।' r_Cf. Karpura., II. 4x..: 'ता लच्छीसहअरो खणं चिटुंदु देवो जाव अहं सिसिरोवआरसामगि संपादेमि ।' (p.59). And again, II. 47.s: 'भमामि जल्देको ण-कुप्पदि । (P-663..... . is ·184 The plays of Rājasekhara give an unmistakable impression that the Vidüşaka is a decent Brahmin, a man of family, who is called upon to play a professional fool, and that the job often involves a compromising position for him. Had this fact not appeared actually in the plays, the contradiction in the Viduşaka's character could perhaps have been spared. Apparently, the contradiction was too strong to be suppressed. Valuable as this information, therefore, is as social data, it also focusses to a sharp point the cleavage that ultimately ruined the Viduşaka as a comic character. . The mechanical treatment dried up the springs of fresh humour. The contradiction between stupidity and sanity ceased to be a comic incongruity and became, in its cut-anddried juxtaposition, a contradiction in characterization. The drama showed too plainly that the foolishness of the Vidūşaka was only professional and had nothing to do with his real character. It was one thing to clad the character in motley and cram his brain with wisdom. It was another thing to show that the motley was a false disguise. There is no doubt that the Vidüşaka was dead long before he had any chance to grow. When Kālidāsa dismisses the Vidūşaka from the scene of action, subjects him to a pounding that nearly kills him, he is indicating a symbolical death of the Vidūşaka. When Harsa drives the Vidūşaka out, with his face blackened by a maid, it is another indication of the exit and eclipse of the Vidüşaka from the stage. And when Rājaſekhara shows his Vidūşaka giving notice of quitting his office, out of sheer disgust, and suggests that a maid may wear his motley, it is proof of the deterioration of comic business. If the Vidūşaka continues to appear in the later Sanskrit plays and in the Prakrit Sattakas, it is neither a sign of developmense non of revival. Continuity of existence is no sign of growth. It is very often a break between decadence and death The continuity is due to the sheer force of tradition, which has ·185 always proved stronger than reason or propriety. The maid in Rājasekhara's play asks, 'How can convention be snapped '? 48 And Rudradāsa's Cakora observes, 'The mind of even the wise moves in the blind groove of tradition ! ' 49 The Vidūşaka still continues in native tradition. But now he has become a real Choric character. He appears with the Sutradhāra in the prologue, as in the Konkana tradition; or he takes on himself the real function of a Sūtradhåra and introduces .a play and comments on the characters and on the play, as in the Kerala tradition. 50 Thus, the history of the Vidūşaka is a tale of gradual decadence. But it was fortunate that the decline of the Vidūşaka did not seal the fate of humour. The Prahasana type of drama could keep the tradition of humour alive in virtue of new and varied comic characters that it represented. The modern vernacular drama arose out of the ancient indigenous tradition. But it grew under the inspiring influence of Shakespeare and Molière. It turned to contemporary comic types and to the comedy of Manners. And humour could blossom once again. 48 Karpūra., II. 27 d: TOT I QUEI (HOS, p. 51 ). There is a double meaning involved: The Comm. (KM, No. 4, P. 53) explains, THYET ER 74 1091 TariTYT FES- सौन्दर्यस्य अपि इति भावः।' 4 Candra., I. 29.1: Set, iftari la gran ini ak...' 50 See, K. R. Pisharoti, Kerala Theatre, JAU, VOL III, No. 2, Octoi.1934. : 24 ·XV DECADENCE: A DIAGNOSIS What led to the decadence of the Vidūşaka ? Prof. Jagirdar thinks that the cause of the Vidūşaka's deterioration is his increasing association with the menials of the harem'. Stupidity is the price' that he paid to gain access in the world of harem. With the gradual change in life and manners he was first stereotyped and then taken to pieces where all the active elements were reduced to dull technicalities'. 1 It is, however, not the social but the literary factors that must be regarded as relevant in accounting for the gradual decadence that surrounded the Vidüşaka as a dramatic character. First, then, is the failure to understand the essence of a comic character and the principle behind humour. A type is bound to wear out soon. A comic character is, no doubt, a symbol of a social type, or of a prevalent vice. But it will not survive for long, unless it is portrayed in literature as a distinct character having an individuality of its own. The later dramatists copied the mechanical type and, while doing it, failed to portray typical individual characters. There is nothing wrong with stock characters, in point of principle. The early Greek comedy has the types. Aristophanes has stock characters. But Aristophanes was aware that 'the weakness of any contemporary social life is as much in evidence in men's characters as in current customs and institutions'. He used his plays for the purpose of 'fighting against war, the corruption of the jury courts, against the excesses of stoicism and dramatic innovations, and against the imperialistic ambitions '.' But Aristophanes had the true instinct of a dramatist. 1 Jagirdar, Deema in Sanskrit Literature, pp. 70, 71. • Šee, J. Feibleman, In Praise of Comedy, pp. 28. ŽIe .

·187 He did not encrust stock characters on his plays; he created characteristic types in his plays. The greatness of Shakespeare is that he'habitually creates not types but men and women, who are as real to us to-day as when Shakespeare made them', and who, consequently, 'have acquired in our companionable affections a historical as well as a dramatic being '. 8 Writing about the character of Gomukha created by Gupādhya in his Brhatkatha, Lacoté says, “It is strange that posterior writers should not have attemped to turn it into account. No doubt, we find some touches, recalling Gomukha, in the Vidūşaka, and more especially in the Vita, of the theatrical pieces, but those conventional parts can in no way be compared with it." The complaint is real and justified. But what is stranger still is that it was not necessary for the dramatists to go to new sources for guidance. Kālidāsa had given in the characters of the Senapati and the police officers new types that could have been easily exploited for comic purposes. And Sūdraka had opened up literally a world of comic characters: the slave Ceta, who delivers his message not before he has propounded a riddle for Maitreya ; the villain Sakāra, whose humour runs as wild as his lust and is as crude and subtle as his cunning; and that delightful vagabond Darduraka, for whom gambling is a kingdom without a throne ; who unfolds his threadbare garment and refolds it with princely indifference to his poverty. What a wealth and variety of comic characters Sūdraka had created by the side of the conventional Vidüşaka 1 The Prahasana play evinces a true comic spirit. A piece of a very high order is an early Prahasana, Bhagavadajjukiya of Bodhayana, which contains the character of a pupil depicted as a Vidūşaka. But the real fun here is provided by the messenger : Gordon, Shakespearian Comedy, p. 9- Lacoté, Essay on Gupādhya and the Byhatkatha ; English translation by T. A. Bard, Bangalore, 1923; p. 225.

·188 of Yama who picks up the soul of a wrong courtesan to be carried to the abode of Yama, When he discovers his blunder, he finds that the life of the courtesan has been resuscitated by a Yogin who has put his own soul in her body, while the courtesan's soul is lying in his hand ! He temporarily puts the courtesan's soul, therefore, in the lifeless body of the Yogin. This results in a supreme comedy of the Yogin speaking the language of love like the courtesan, and the courtesan uttering ponderous words of wisdom like the Yogin ! The later Prahasanas have many characters similar to those in Greek Comedy, besides the classical figure of the Vidūşaka : although some of them descend to downright vulgarity and brook no ban on obscenity, Latakamelaka has a doctor Jantuketu who, in order to extract a fish-bone from the throat of Madanamañjari, suggests that a rope may be tied round her neck and pulled 15 A comic doctor appears also in Hāsyārnava. The doctor's name is Vyādhisindhu, Ocean of diseases'. His remedies are aweful. It is found that the eyes of an aged harlot, Bandhurā, are affected by a blinding disease called timira. King Anayasindhu (Ocean of bad Policy') who is present at the harlot's house, reproaches the doctor for Bandhura's ailment. The doctor prescribes that her eye-balls may be pierced with a red-hot iron-rod, so that when the eyes are non-existent the disease will have no scope whatever! The Nāyikā Mrgärkalekhā is unable to control her laughter and remarks that a physician's examination should normally begin with the eyes of a patient; how can removal of eyes help a doctor, not to speak of the patient? The doctor finding himself ridiculed even by a harlot takes himself off. There is also a comic General in this Prahasana. This General has captured a female bee drinking the wine of flowers. He clad s Read : जन्तुकेतुः-(सगर्वम् ) दृष्टप्रत्ययस्तावदुपारः। पूर्वमुष्ट्रस्य गले कर्कटी लयासीत् । तत्रास्मत्पित्रा कुटुम्बकेतुना निरक्षरेणोष्ट्रस्य मुखं बन्धयित्वा दृढतररज्जुभि- राम् । ततस्तन्मुखादिमलिता कर्कटी । तदेतस्या अपि मुख बन्धयित्वा किमिति नाकृष्यते । Latakamelaka, KM. No. 20, ·189 himself in full armour, took a force of four soldiers and, cutting the head of the culprit with his sharp sword, neatly effected her capture with heavy leather ropes! About his courage he announces that his senses were paralysed on seeing the red lac-dye on a woman's feet which he mistook for blood. The darkness on a New moon day can send him into a swoon. Is it necessary to say what will happen on a battle-field in the presence of a blood-thirsty enemy? The hetaera, the barber and the police are other characters that receive comic treatment in the Prahasanas. But even in portraying the Vidūşaka, Bhasa and Kålidāsa and Sūdraka had blazed a trail for their successors. Adopting the convention as they did, they created individual characters and not mechanical types. Santuşta, Gautama and Maitreya are foolish Brahmins, ignorant, cowardly, gluttonous; they have even a physical defect-that crude stock-in-trade for comic laughter. And yet, what distinct personality, each one of them possesses ! It is the individuality, even within the conventional bounds, that makes them real comic characters. The classical poets did something more: They showed that the Vidūşaka, inspite of his being a conventional comic figure, did not need to possess a monopoly for humour. Bhäsa, for instance, creates situations which are full of dramatic irony and out of which genuine humour trickles like a pure stream. Śūdraka's gallery of comic characters has a freshness undreamt of in mechanical portraits. For, his characters look upon life itself as a comedy and its unexpected experiences as occasions for amused laughter. Kālidása touches a still more delicate vein and expresses through a playful Priyamvada a refined cf. सद्यो दत्तमलतकं पदयुगे दृष्ट्वाङ्गनाया रतौ रक्तश्रान्तिवशाद भयेन नितरां म्लानेन्द्रियो मेदिनीम् । पश्यन्दर्शनिशातमिस्रनिकरच्छन्नामिवाशां तथा मूछेयं मुवि का कथा समरतो रक्तास्यसक्तद्विषाम् ।। Häsyärnava, (Calcutta, 2nd ed.), I. 43.

·Igo type of humour, which is irresistible for its naughtiness and charm. It is, therefore, a matter for surprise and regret that the later dramatists did not pick up this trail, and allowed the character of the Vidūşaka to deteriorate into a wooden caricature of the stupid Brāhmaṇa. Secondly, the depiction of stock character deteriorating into sheer caricature had the result of replacing the 'Critical' Fool by the 'Mechanical' Fool. The motley critic could have had a freshness of wit and a wider room even within the precincts of his limited world. But the fool, who was only a butt of ridicule, was in unchanging circumstances. His jokes and the jokes about him had to be repeated. Continuous repetition chilled their comic spirit. Too early for Sanskrit drama, the Viduşaka became a mechanical and a dead type. There was no attempt made either to change the type or the circumstances about the character in order to discover a fresh source for comic laughter. The Vidüşaka never could shed his caste, his creed or associations. He did not drop even the primitive attribute of physical ugliness. The humour of the Vidūşaka, therefore, became as mechanical as the type he represented. What was worse, it turned back to the primitive level of abuse, practical joke and physical deformity, inspite of the refinement and touching human element which the classical poets had already introduced in their portrayal of individual comic characters. Thirdly, it is necessary to recognise the unimaginative character of the dramatic theory. If the dramatists are to be blamed for their inability to rise above convention and for ignoring the lead of classical poets, as they must be, the later theorists must share an even larger proportion of blame: The theorists who followed Bharata merely repeated, paraphrased and occasionally expanded the ideas that bharata had already given. In doing this they failed to give a new lead to the rising dramatists; and they also failed to take note of what great writers like Kālidāsa and Sūdraka were doing, or had done, in ·IGI the field of drama. It was all right for Bharatamuni to have formulated the rules for the composition and production of drama. It was equally right that they were respected. But if the classical poets had shown new vistas of comic representation, it was expected that a later theorist, if not a later poet, would notice the literary phenomena and give a progressive direction to dramatic writing and production. But the theory ceased to grow and warped, in its turn, the growth of comic character. Fourthly, the sanctity of theory is a factor that is to be reckoned with. To Bharata must go the credit of formulating a dramatic theory for the first time; and to him, paradoxically enough, must be traced the tyranny of literary convention, with the implied principle of social propriety. The absence of a formal distinction between comedy and tragedy, and the prohibition of tragedy, brought a needless restriction on the range and scope of humour. The drama moved in a set and narrow groove. And although Bharata recognised the Prakarana and Prahasana types, they did not somehow command the same respect as did the Nataka form, which continued to be the norin of dramatic writing. The comic characters which Kālidāsa and Sadraka had created did not find favour with the sophisticated drama. The Vidūşaka also did not outgrow the rules of literary and social propriety, which Bharata had prescribed for him. Bharata's accent on entertainment' had only the effect of circumscribing the social range of Sanskrit drama. Had it not been so, the Prakarana and the Prahasana drama could have blossomed into a Comedy of Manners. The line of Sudraka would not have been broken. Shaw finds from Moliére to Oscar Wilde a line of comic playwrights....who were in revolt against falsehood and imposture...and were not only chastening morals by ridicule but...clearing our minds of cant, and thereby showing an uneasiness in the presence of error which is the surest symptom of intellectual vitality'. ? Such vitality was 3 Bernard Shaw, Bach to Mathusatak, Preface, p. xciv.

·192 denied to Sanskrit drama. No one thought that entertainment was not inconsistent with a social purpose, especially in the delineation of humour, even in high drama. Finally, if literary convention cramped the creative effort, the tyranny of public taste forced it into popular, well-worn groove. Bhavabhūti had shown the boldness and wisdom of dropping the dead Vidūşaka and substituting it by new characters like Kāmandaki, Makaranda 8 and the playful pupil, Saudhātaki." But he had to pay the price of contemporary neglect. It seems that the popular taste was satisfied with the lifeless Viduşaka. The later dramatists, who had neither the imagination nor the genius to rise above the mechanical formula and infuse new life into drama, fell an easy victim to cheap popularity. The Vidūşaka was dead; although humour is deathless. If only the Vidūşaka could have grown! The unconscious cryptic wit of the Vidūşaka could have raised him with his motley into an independent Touchstone" observing, mocking, detached from the main action, yet not completely detached, because identifying himself with the rest of the characters " 110 Or, if the childlike stupidity of a Vasantaka, who no sooner does he begin to tell a story than he confounds the names of the city and the king, and the amusing pretences of a Santuşta, that he cannot produce tears and that he is a delicate damsel, could have been taken out and allowed to grow on their own, a lively, healthy, mirthful Puck might perhaps have been born! # In Málati. On Makaranda's impersonation of Malati, 'and his duping of Nandana, J. T. Parikh's comment' is, ' But unfortunately the lack of genuine sense of humour in Bhava- :bhūti comes in the way, and as a farcical bye-plot it ends in -failure.' (Viduşaka, op. cit., p. 38.) Is it a question of literary 'opinion or of literary judgment ? & In URC., act IV, Interlude. 10 J; B. Priestley, The English Comic Characters. pp. 27:28.

·193 But above all, if the incongruity, which is basic to a comic character, were fully employed to create "a man at once young and old, enterprising and fat, a dupe and a wit, harmless and wicked, weak in principle and resolute by constitution, cowardly in appearance and brave in reality, a knave without malice, a liar without deceipt; and a knight, a gentleman, and a soldier, without either dignity, decency or honour : "11if," the bliss of freedom gained in humour" could have been exhibited in reducing everything to absurdity", 12_We would have been in the presence of a monumental figure : Falstaff! Alas, this did not happen! We are robbed of great comic characters. And we miss the Comedy of Characters as well as the Comedy of Manners. But let us remember Santuşta who is amusing and naughty, and can claim affinity with Puck on the one hand and, by his devotion, with Maitreya, on the other hand. And Maitreya, who is " a butt and a wit, a humorist and a man of humour, a Touchstone and a laughing stock, a jester and a jest ", 18 who resembles Falstaff in being a bundle of incongruities, and is distinguished from him in humane nobility. And Gautama, whose contradictions are superficial and yet, who is irrepressible in his comic domination. These Vidūşakas will linger in our memory. The Sanskrit drama can be legitimately proud of them. If the Vidūşaka's popularity did not decline on the Indian stage even after the comic character was virtually dead, the credit, I think, must go to these figures and their creators. 11 Maurice Morgan, The Character of Falstaf; Shakespeare Criticism, The World's Classics, CCXII, 1916; p. 203. 19 A. C. Bradley, Oxford Lectures, p. 262. 18 Maurice Morgan, op. cit., p. 186. 25

·No text on this page.

·PART II THE FEAST OF FOOLS"

·No text on this page.

·T VASANTA KA (in Pratijñāyaugandharāyana ) वसन्तको भवान् ननु। -Yaugandharāyaṇa, in Act III. Vasantaka appears in the third act in a beggarly guise declaiming in unpolished language. His thoughts and speech centre round the modakas which he has received at some temple along with a gift of gold coins. He displays the characteristic greed of a seasoned glutton for his gift of food, and admires the smell of his own belching. He feels a pitiful concern for the loss of the sweets. But he is prepared to collect his wits and his doubtful courage for investigating the lost eatables. He is a Brahmin which, no doubt, has entitled him to the gift at the temple. Luckily there is no occasion for him to parade his Brahminhood or face the test of learning expected in a Brahmin. He can, therefore, use his caste to defend his privileged rights and cry sacrilege at the madman, Unmattaka, whom he suspects to have stolen his modakas. Once he is in possession of them, thanks to the intervention of the Sramaņaka, he is satisfied. He is ready to recite the benedictory texts for the Gramaņaka and make a further gift of his own gift. His unashamed Brahminhood brooks no insult or discomfiture. He is quite content with the recovery of his lost possession. The Vidūşaka puts on a brave show of courage for some time. Seriously concerned with the fact that a Brahmin like him is robbed of his lawful modakas, he rushes at the madman Unmattaka, who is running towards him like a foamy, dirty monsoon-stream of street-water. Vasantaka stops the madman in his flight, threatens to split his head with his own wooden ·198 stick and then proceeds to argue with him. However, the Brahmin is not noted for personal valour. It is rather the animal fidelity to the bone in possession that has goaded Vasantaka to the rough encounter. He shifts his positions immediately: From the brave threat of a broken head he descends, through the ethical appeal to the virtue of respecting the right of other people's belongings and to the deciding rod of a priest's authority, to mere weeping and the old wife's tale of the Brahmin's sacrosanct dignity! But all this show of sheltered privileges is completely exposed by Šramanaka, the Buddhist mendicant. The Śramanaka takes hold of the situation, threatens Unmattaka with a curse, spits on the modakas; and thus, having asserted his power, advises Vasantaka either to give up the modakas as they might cause consumption or hand them over to himself. Vasantaka cowers before this menacing demonstration. He has to acknowledge the might of the Sramapaka and swallow his own boastful utterances. The Brahmin cuts a poor figure indeed. Obviously the courage of Vasantaka was of a doubtful quality. His wit, however, is not so uncertain. The way he accounts for the loss of his modakas and successively dismisses the nagging beggar, the dog and the wayfarers as the probable pilferers, evinces correct logic. For a moment he is deceived by the picture in Siva's temple : He thinks that the modakas placed in a cocoanut-shell must have been appropriated by Siva, because of the fond connection of the shell with the goddess Kātyāyani. But when he realises that the modakas at the feet of Śiva are only a painted picture, he has the resourceful humour to appreciate the skill of the painter and the choice of bright colours used by him. His speech, however, is uncouth. Perhaps like his dress, his words are tattered and uncivil. Once he actually uses an ugly simile when he compares the smell of his breath to that of the wind passing from the bladder of a pig. Vasantaka has no opportunity to be by the side of King ·199 Udayana, because the latter is in prison. But neither does he assist Udayana in his new-found love for Vāsavadattā nor does he approve of it. He has his own reasons for letting the King down: Udayana's love-affair was apt to be a serious obstacle in the execution of the planned strategy. Hence, he shrewdly remarks that Udayana has converted his prison into a pleasurepark; and his suggestion to abandon the king is born as much out of the skin-saving selffishness as out of the practical considerations about the success of the strategy planned for Udayana's release. The minister Yaugandharāyaṇa, however, dismisses rightly the suggestion made by the Vidūşaka. “You are Vasantaka indeed!" says he; 'this is perhaps to be expected from your clownish nature. But how could Udayana, our master, be left to his uncertain fate ?! The minister is led to renew his resolve and take a second vow of releasing his master along with Vāsavadattā from his imprisonment. This is precisely the function that Vasantaka is expected to fulfil in the play.

·II VASANTAKA ( in Svapnavāsavadatta ) भवांस्तु मुखरः। Udayana, in Act IV. A tremendous fire broke out at Lāvāņaka, a frontier village in the kingdom of Udayana, where he was enjoying himself in the beloved company of his queen Väsavadattā. The fire took the toll of the palatial residence; and, although some of the inmates were luckily away when the flames licked the palace, Vāsavadatta was consumed in the holocaust and the minister Yaugandharāyaṇa lost his own life in a vain effort to save the queen. Such was at least the appearance of things. The later developments brought a welcome change in the life of Udayana and of those connected with him. But the events at Lāvāņaka were too fresh and terrible to be easily forgotten. Even Vasantaka, the Vidüşaka, could not forget how all of them were caught in the whirlpool of calamity' from which no escape seemed possible at that moment. The joyous and festive life in the palace at Magadha could not blunt the recollection of that agonising experience. The only fortunate thing was that it was all over and that the sinking souls had found the shore of sheltered life. Naturally, Vasantaka turns gratefully to the new change that had come over in his life. Thanks also to Udayana's marriage with the Magadha princess Padmāvati and the festivities that followed, Vasantaka could cling to this newfound happiness, which must have been all the more enjoyable on the background of the terrible calamity. It is in this mood that we meet the Vidūşaka when he makes his first appearance in the fourth act. The Vidūşaka's position ·zot as a companion of the bridegroom was enough to secure him a comfortable existence. That he was a Brahmin must have added to his personal enjoyment. Life in the Magadha palace was a treat. One had to live in palatial residences only; bathe at the pools in the inner apartments; and consume quantities of delicate, delightful, sweet dishes. What better allurements could the heavens afford, except perhaps the company of nymphs ? But who cared for them? Vasantaka is quite happy in this local, de-nymphed paradise and is thoroughly enjoying himself. For him good food and personal comfort are the very spice of life. About the latter he is now so sensitive that he is not prepared to sit even for a moment on the heated slab of stone in the Pramada garden. He immediately asks Udayana to enter the cool shady bower which he personally prefers in the heat of an autumnal noon. He is similarly annoyed by the hovering bees; and had it not been for the sentimental intervention of Udayana, he would have loved to put those buzzing insects in their proper place with his raised stick. Naturally, the Vidüşaka does not like any encroachment on his personal comfort. About food he has fortunately not to worry in the least. What is especially remarkable is that Udayana's new bride is always up with a dish loaded with delicacies and, with "Where is the noble Vasantaka?", is solicitously inquiring after him. Vasantaka has every reason to prefer the charming Padmavati to the excitable Väsavadattā. In this heavenly existence Vasantaka has only one grievance: His poor stomach is too lousy to do full justice to the good food that is so generously heaped upon him. He suspects a derangement of wind and blood, perhaps gout. To the maid who comes to inquire if Udayana has finished his bath so that she could bring flowers and unguents, Vasantaka replies, "Bring everything but food.” This sudden aversion to eating is due to the fact that Vasantaka has completely ruined his digestion : 26 ·302 "Like the cuckoo's eye revolving in both the sockets, to quote his words to the maid, "there is a terrible whirling in my belly.” The maid who must have watched the glutton gobble up enormous quantities of food is glad at this sad confession. Vasantaka is surely paying the price of his gluttony. And though he may not be prepared to admit his weakness for food, he admits that he has lost his happiness. For, what is happiness if it is not freedom from disease and capacity to enjoy a full meal? The greedy fool's horizon is very limited no doubt; but he has unconsciously spoken a truth, the wisdom of which cannot be mistaken. This outlook on life bespeaks a comfort-loving, lazy nature; and it is a major clue to the character of this Vasantaka. If the Vidūşaka's dissertation on food and digestion were ad outward expression of this outlook, his drawling conversation and the verbal lapses in his speech are suggestive of the laziness which the habit of overeating has permanently induced. Adjusting his personal comfort to the extent it is possible in a given situation, Vasantaka opens up drawling topics of conversation. He asks Udayana, when they are seated in the Pramada garden, as to whom he loves more, Vāsavadattā or Padmavati. For him it is perhaps an idle talk, probably meant to kill time only and to keep Udayana's mind from wandering towards gloomy thoughts. But for Udayana it is an embarrassing question; for, although he is frankly appreciative of Padmāvati's charming nature, his heart is still with Vāsavadattă. Udayana, therefore, evades a direct answer. The show of bravery which Vasantaka makes and the oath of friendship under which he binds Udayana down to yield a reply to his question, are so comical that Udayana, after reluctantly confessing his love for Väsavadattā, is driven to impose an identical situation on Vasantaka and extract his reply to the same question. Padmavati, who at this moment was standing behind a bower, could not repress the comment that her husband had permitted himself to don the Vidūşaka's cap. Of course, ·203 it is all idle fun for Vasantaka. And his own reply which expresses his preference for Padmavati, because she feeds him with sumptuous meals, is an indication of his love for food and creature comfort, While waiting for the arrival of the ailing Padmavati in the Samudragpha and feeling a little drowsy, Udayana asks Vasantaka to tell him a story. Vasantaka begins to talk in a drawling tone about Ujjayini and its famous baths. The topic he has touched in an idle way strikes, again, an intimate chord in Udayana's heart. Vasantaka is quite willing to change his story : There was a city”, he begins,“ by name Brahmadatta ; in it there was a king called Kampilya". Indeed! The idle tone of narration is perfectly in keeping with the verbal laspe in which Vasantaka has mixed up the names of the city and of the king! On a previous occasion too, Vasantaka had confused the crow's eye with that of the cuckoo ; for, it is the former that travels from one socket to the other according to a popular belief. Here, Udayana corrects him immediately; but there, the maid to whom Vasantaka was addressing must have considered it useless to rectify the lazy lapses of the idle talker and spoil their fun. Besides being a glutton the Vidūşaka is a coward also. His sense of fear may partially be connected with his irrepressible desire for personal comfort. He is afraid of the bees because they destroy his comfort; and he can be brave before them. However, his fear appears to be genuinely connected with his timid nature. He puts up a brave show before Udayana ; but he lowers his colours the moment Udayana suggests physical opposition. Later on, if Udayana yields to him it is only to humour him; for he knows what power this Mahābrähmaņa possesses. Vasantaka talks disapprovingly about Vāsavadattā only because he believes that she is dead and there is no possibility of retribution. But a positive proof of his cowardly nature is to be found in the way he slinks before a garland rolling on the ·204 ground near the entrance of the Samudragpha, which (garland) he mistakes in the fading light of the evening for a serpent. Vasantaka is not really stupid inspite of his verbal lapses and his confusion of names. Especially in regard to Udayana, whose boon companion he is, he is very watchful and does not fail him at a depressing or at an embarrassing moment. Knowing that Udayana's mind is still obsessed with love for Väsavadatta, he makes a conscious attempt to produce a diversion for his friend's melancholy. He directs Udayana to the Pramada garden; he draws his attention to the beauty of the blossoms, to the row of flying cranes spread out in the clear autumnal sky like the extended arm of Balarāma. From the picked Sephālikā blossoms he correctly infers that Padmāvati must be present in the Pramada garden; he institutes a careful search for her. And when all these attempts fail he invents a funny situation to hold Udayana's mind. Although the situation ends rather disastrously for Udayana, on account of a personal emotional factor, there is no doubt that Vasantaka could induce, temporarily at least, the spirit of fun in his gloomy companion. Vasantaka is equally ready to humour the mood of Udayana : He abandons the idea of punishing the inconvenient bees; he is willing to tell stories in order to tempt the soothing sleep; he is even prepared to argue with Udayana by offering a plausible explanation for the vision of Vāsavadatta which Udayana believes to be a reality and not a dream. He is as ready to run errands for Udayana as he is to give him personal assistance. He conveys the news of Padmāvati's ailment and takes Udayana to her bedside. When Udayana is experiencing an emotional breakdown, he runs to his assistance not only by hurriedly carrying water to wash his tear-stained face but also by explaining to Padmavati, who has unexpectedly confronted them, that the dust of the Kāśa flowers was responsible for Udayana's tears. Further, he successfully terminates this embarrassing situation by suggesting that it was time for Udayana's courtesy-call on king Darśaka. Vasantaka's anxiety to curtail inconvenient ·205 explanations elicits an appreciative comment from Padmavati : “Even the attendants of a courteous person are themselves full of courtesy". There may be nothing brilliant about this Vasantaka. But although the timid glutton has ruined his digestion he nevertheless has succeeded in being a cheerful, obliging companion to his royal master.

·III SANTUSTA (in Avimäraka) - गोष्ठीषु हास्यः समरेषु यौधः शोके गुरुः साहसिकः परेषु । महोत्सवो मे हृदि किं प्रलापै- र्द्विधा विभक्तं खलु मे शरीरम् ।। -Avimäraka, at IV. 27. The name of the Vidūşaka in Avimāraka is Santuşta, ("Contented'), rather an unusual name. But such is the irony of life that Santuşta has very little cause to be contented and happy. His love for food, his pretensions to Vedic learning, the simplicity of his nature and, above all, his devotion to Avimāraka, all leave him in an unenviable state of grief, much to the amusement of others. A maid, Candrikā, is wandering in the city and enjoying herself. She happens to see Santuşta. Tickled by the spirit of mischief, she decides to have fun out of him. She pretends to be talking loudly with a non-existing friend and says that she is in search of a Brahmin. Santuşta, who is going out to see Avimāraka at the latter's residence, does not fail to catch the words of the maid. He immediately stops in front of her. Why is Candrikā seeking a Brahmin ? She wants to invite one for dinner, to be sure. But then does not the poor maid know that a real Brahmin is standing before her in person "Am I a Buddhist mendicant ? " asks Santuşta in a tone of resentment. Candrikā points out that Santuşta has no Vedic scholarship to speak of.... . Is that so ? Provoked but enticed by the prospect of a meal, Santuşta parades bis vast ignorance before the maid and plays into her hands easily. Not being quite successful in ?

·207 impressing her with his learning he shows his willingness to accept the food without the necessary fee due to a Brahmin. In his joy that the engagement is settled on this compromise, he allows the maid to inspect his ring. This was exactly what the maid wanted. With the ring in her possession she pretends to see Avimāraka coming by the way; and, as Santuşta turns his face to that direction, she vanishes into the crowd in the street! Deprived both of his dinner and of his ring, the fool stands gaping at the crowds, duped in broad daylight. He shouts and runs after her. But his feet are too numb to move on the street like that of a person attacked by an elephant in his dream'. Too late does he realise that the slut, whose unrighteous character he knew well, has deceived him after all ! Alas! his weakness for food has dragged Santuşta into misery. The painful memory of this deception is apt to linger in the mind of Santuşta. Avimāraka has been waiting impatiently for Santuşta, outside the city, to communicate to him the joyful news that he has found out a way to meet princess Kurangi. When Avimāraka questions Santuşta, in the following scene, about his late arrival, Santuşta remarks, "You appear to be brooding over the same thoughts, day and night, like a Brahmin duped by an invitation for dinner!” But true to his tribe, this Brahmin cannot relinquish so easily his love for food. It colours his impression of the city seen in the glow of the setting sun: The white mansions are like balls of curds and the sun's light reflected on them is like a coating of sweet treacle! When he finds Kurangi sad and weeping and Nalinika, her maid, urging her to pick up the materials of toilette, Santuşta says, " What is the use of these materials when she is weeping ? She is hungry. Hurry up the food. I will be the first to take my seat. Nalinikā may think that the joke is inopportune; but it reveals the true Brahmana, no doubt. Only, the deception that he has suffered has taught Santuşta to be rather wary about gifts. Picking up the hint and wishing to leave Avimāraka and Kurangi to their privacy, Nalinika is ·208 trying to drag Santuşța away. Santuşta misses the hint and refuses to move unless he is promised a dinner, which is always desirable to a guest'. Nalinikā promises to give all her ornaments. Santuşta says, "Put them in my hands. Bile does not disappear merely by uttering the word ghee. Santuşța is a Brahmin because he was born one. Of course, he has some acquaintance with the system of education; otherwise he could not have compared Avimāraka running for the sight of Kurangi to a boy who, after finishing his education, is impatient to go home. But really he is quite innocent of any learning ; though in his Brahminical pride he would never admit it. When Candrika held back the invitation because he was avaidika, Santuşta threw an angry challenge in her face and at once started reciting learned words: " There is a scientific book on Dramaturgy called Rāmāyana !" He had learnt five verses from it before the year was out! Staggered by this knowledge and the quickness of grasp, what could the poor maid do except admit that such power of intellect was only to be expected from the noble family to which Santuşta belonged? But that is not all. Santuşta tells her that he has not only learnt the verses but he knows their meaning as well! Besides, he can decipher letters too. Says he, "A Brahmin who can read the letters and also know their meaning is rare indeed.” One would wish that Candrikā left him there. But the naughty maid holds up her ring and asks him to read the letters inscribed on it. For a moment Santuşta is nonplussed. But he replies cheerfully, “Woman, these letters are not found book. Santuşta must have realised that he could not make a great impression on the maid. But what does it matter? Who could deny that he was a Brahmin ? After all, one does not require much to be a Brahmin. Put on the sacred thread and you are a Brahmin. Wear a. bark and you are a Raktapata :( Sanyasin), Throw away all garments and you are a Gramapaka (Jain tneñdicant) ! .It is, therefore, easy for him to shout when 1 in my ·209 the inviolable dignity of the Brahmin is compromised by a maid dragging him away by force. Santuşta's behaviour on occasions appears to be rather stupid. He fails to appreciate the impatience of Avimäraka to establish a contact with his beloved Kurangi. He attributes Kurangi's tears to her being hungry. He does not see that Nalinikā is dragging him away with the only intention of leaving the lovers to themselves. But all this is meant for fun. It must be remembered that Santuşta displays sometimes a correct sense of observation. He warns Avimāraka about the risk involved in his romantic adventure by pointing out that the ministers of the king are crooked in their policy. He correctly guesses that Kurangi has become emaciated on account of the pangs of separation. Like Ayimāraka he, too, can appreciate the emaciated beauty of Kurangi by comparing her to a new crescent moon. And when Avimāraka expresses surprise at the unexpected 'wisdom' of Santuşta, he cooly remarks," My friend, you laugh at me because we are constantly together. A stranger would not know the quality of my intelligence and would therefore praise me more. Hence, I avoid being intimate with any one in this city!" When Kurangi calls him a * laughing-stock', he reminds her that she was prepared to hang herself in all seriousness, but forgot all about it by the mere sound of thunder; and hence, was in no better company! The truth seems to be that Santuşta is very simple by nature. Candrikā could deceive him easily as much' on account of his proverbial fondness for food as on account of the simplicity of his mind. Avimāraka shows him the magic ring and explains how it makes the wearer invisible to others. Santuşta is so charmed that he tries the effect on himself and cries with glee like a child at the miracle. i The opinion of Candrikā, Kurangi and of Avimāraka is that Santuşta is a laughing-stock. But Santuşta possesses the gift of laughing at himself and make others laugh with him. He 27 ·210 reduces his Brahminical dignity merely to the sacred thread He produces excellent fun in Kurangi's private apartment. On observing tears in Kurangi's eyes he consoles her by saying, "I would fain weep with you. But the trouble is that my tears do not come out easily. When my father died I started crying with great determination and effort; but the tears did not come. How could I then produce tears for somebody else's anguish? Even then I will weep with you. A little later, Nalinikā refers to him as a 'man'. Santuşta remarks, “This seems to be the speciality of the royal household. Otherwise, who could have seen me and said that I was a man?" He proclaims himself to be a maid by name Puşkariņi! And as Nalinikā drags him away by force he protests, " Please, don't. I am very delicate. Santuşta seems to have a genuine desire to make others happy even if it were at his own cost. This is especially true in his relation to Avimāraka for whom he shows a touching concern, A curse has descended upon Avimāraka turning him into an untouchable Sūdra and forcing him to live on the outskirts of the city. No member of the higher castes would even think of associating himself with a Sūdra without the risk of severe reproach and ex-communication from the privileged society. And yet Santuşta is daily running this risk by his secret nightly visits to Avimāraka. Wandering in the city during day time and despaired of any enjoyment I come", he says to Avimāraka, " like a common street-walker to rest by your side. The fate of Avimäraka is a constant source of grief for Santuşta. When he learns that Avimäraka has fallen in love with the daughter of king Kuntibhoja, he feels an additional pang of misery. He knows the devastating effect of love. The path of Avimāraka is crooked and jagged on account of his peculiar position. The king's advisers would come down upon him. And Avimāraka is himself rash like all lovers, though his prowess is well-known. Certainly misfortunes never come ·211 singly. The thought of the gloomy Avimäraka seeking his own solitude fills him with great anxiety. He will not permit Avimāraka to enter Kurangi's palace alone at night. He will not abandon his friend in any condition. He will stick to him like a shadow. It is only when Avimāraka explains to him that the rules permit only a single person to enter a stranger's house that Santuşta gives his consent to Avimāraka and takes him to the house of his friend to await nightfall. That secret meeting with Kurangi cemented the bonds of love between the two lovers. But it also worsened Avimāraka's plight. Unable to meet her again, Avimāraka's thoughts are verging on suicide. He has left his home and has not come back for a pretty long time, so informs Avimāraka's mother. Santuşta becomes gravely concerned about this tender prince, wandering in solitude, cruelly smitten by the God of love. But distress cannot daunt him, despair cannot paralyse him. “I will tread every inch of ground,” he says with firm determination, "till I see the prince or his body. And if I don't succeed in finding him I will go to heaven to keep him company. Avimāraka is himself aware of the noble, filial attachment of Santuşta. He realises that in his own absence the poor Brahmin will perish. It was a grave mistake that he did not keep Santuşta informed about his own movements. For, Santuşta is "Laughable in society, a fighter in conflicts, Preceptor in grief, in front of foes undaunted ; My heart's great festival..but these wordy bubbles Are enough! Tis my body in two divided." When Avimāraka discovers Santuşta sleeping under a tree after his exhausting tireless search, he rushes towards him joyfully and folds him in an affectionate embrace. It is the seal and symbol of true friendship, ·IV GAUTAMA ( in Malavikägnimitra ) अयमपरो कार्यान्तरसचिवोऽस्मानुपस्थितः । -The King, in Act I. इयमस्य कामतन्त्रसचिवस्य नीतिः । -Irāvati, in Act IV. Gautama is a fool by profession and must, therefore, naturally wear the badge and livery of his office. He displays a remarkable efficiency in playing the fool. But his personality outgrows the uniform he wears. He is probably ugly in appearance as the Vidūşakas are supposed to be. He compliments a brown monkey' for frightening Dhāriņi's younger sister and thereby saving an awkward situation in which the king found himself, when, while making love to Mālavikā, he was surprised by Irāvati. Gautama uses the expression 'svapakşa' which punningly implies the king's party' as well as the monkey's partisan', Gautama himself. Gautama is supposed to be timid. During the 'serpent-bite episode Agniinitra describes him sympathetically as timid by nature'. İrävati's maid Nipuņikā knows that he is afraid of serpents'; and actually drops on him a stick 'as crooked as a serpent' when he is dozing, and gives him a nasty scare. Vasantaka in Svapnavāsavadatta mistook a garland for a serpent; Gautama mistakes a crooked stick for the same. But while Vasantaka had to be convinced of his error by the king, Gautama finds out his own mistake himself and laughs beartily over it. His words here supply a clue to the real facts about the earlier serpent-bite episode: Gautama had pricked his DIP ·213 fingers with a Ketaki thorn and pretended that he had been bitten by a serpent. He played the hoax so well, trembling all over, appealing to the king to take care of his old mother, beseeching the queen to forgive him for any offence he might have unconsciously given her, distrusting the skill even of the royal physician, in short, behaving like one who is in a grip of death, that the queen Dhāriņi was scared into the belief that she would be personally responsible if the poor Brahmin died ! He, who would laugh at his own momentary fear and play a frightening hoax so frightfully well, could hardly be imagined to be a coward in the conventional sense of the term. The Vidūşaka in Ratnāuali is unable to stand even an account of war. But here when Mālavikā trembles with fear at Parivrăjikā's narration of the attack of the marauders, it is Gautama who steps forward to assure Malavikā and calm her fears. It appears, therefore, that Gautama exhibits cowardice only professionally. However, Gautama is truly fond of food. He gets up in the midst of the musical concert as soon as the bards announce the mid-day hour. It is meal-time. He quotes medical authority in support of strictly keeping the hour of the meal and asks. the queen to hurry up with food and drink. He describes the king who is impatient to meet Mālavikā as a greedy but nervous bird hovering over the slaughter-house. If the king reminds him of the mission entrusted to him, he asks the kişg to remember that the inside of his belly is blazing like a furnance in a shop. Irāvati's maid states that Gautama is given to filling his belly with modakas received in presents and compares him to a bull in a shop. As is to be expected, Gautama is a Brahmin in name only. Iråvati twice calls him *Brahmabandhu'. And twice does Gautama make a show of his Brahminhood: First, in naming the fault in Malavika's dance performance, namely, that it did not begin with the worship of a Brahmin, thereby setting every one laughing; and secondly, in declaring before Irāvati that he ·214 а. fool very would' unlearn his Gayatri if he had studied a single syllable of diplomacy. Gautama plays his professional role of successfully. Dhāriņi is unhappy over the quarrel of the two dance masters ( act i ). But Gautama says to her, “ Queen, let us enjoy the fight of the rams. What is the use otherwise of paying them a salary?" The queen calls him a quarrelmonger. Gautama promptly states that when two elephants were fighting there could be no peace until one of them was vanquished. And immediately turning to one of the dance masters he observes, “The queen is right. Ah, Gañadāsa ! you have been eating sweet balls offered to Saraswati under the pretext of teaching dance. Why bother about this fight in which you will go down easily ?" During the exhibition of the dance (act ii) he professes to have detected a flaw, which is omission of Brahmin worship Parivrājiki declares ironically that he is a profound critic' indeed! Gautama admits that he belongs to the class of fools and is willing to be satisfied with the opinion of the wise, Immediately he pulls a bracelet from the hand of the king and proceeds to reward Mālavikā. Dhāriņi naturally objects, " Why do you present the ornament when you know nothing of the merits of the performance ?" Gautama replies, " Because, it does not belong to me. Gautama makes another admission of his stupidity when he assures the anxious king that Bakulāvalikā would not forget her mission by saying that he, a dunce himself, could not manage to forget it. Further, he reproves Mālavikā and Bakulāvalikā for having kicked' the king's favourite Asoka tree. The two girls are frightened ; and Irāvati who is hidden behind a creeper heartily abuses Gautama for his meaningless reproach (act iii). When Agnimitra and Mālavikā meet in the Samudragpha Gautama posts himself at the door; but he dozes bff, blabbers in his sleep and thereby provokes Iråvati, whose maid then .drops a stick over him. In his fright Gautama ·215 exposes the lovers and, simultaneously, the concocted plot by which the lovers were enabled to meet each other. The situation is too hopelessly muddled to be saved, if it were not for the sheer coincidence of the accident reported to be caused by a • brown monkey': It is true that Gautama cannot escape the responsibility; partially at least, for the fiasco in which the meeting of the lovers in the Samudragpha ended. But there is another side to the picture. Gautama had planned this meeting very cleverly. He had arranged every single detail of the scheme so methodically that there was no possibility of any loophole in it. And it worked out, too, according to plan. Then having dismissed himself and the maid Bakulāvalikå under the pretext of driving away an imaginary deer from the Asoka tree, with the obvious intention of leaving the lovers to enjoy their privacy, Gautama posted himself as a guard at the Samudragſha. The successful conclusion of the scheme must have made Gautama a little careless; the confidence that nothing was likely to go wrong at this stage must have sent him into a well-earned sleep! Irãvati's arrival at this moment was completely unexpected. Who could have imagined that Irāvati would get the news of Gautama's serpent-bite so quickly, that she would suddenly decide to pay him a sympathetic visit, taking the opportunity simultaneously of apologising to the king for her haughty behaviour in an earlier meeting? This is the reason why Gautama was caught napping, both literally and metaphorically. And besides, how can we afford to miss the tremendous fun of the interesting situation ? Gautama is not created to typify the infallible minister of politics. Consistent with Gautama's character it is necessary that the situation should have ended by the house-pigeon, released from the cage, falling into the mouth of a kite ! But it would not be wise to describe Gautama as a fool except in the professional sense. For, except for the above situation, every move that Gautama plans is deliberate and 1" ·216 properly conceived. His reference to his short-lived memory is humorous and is meant to assure the nervous king. In deliberately frightening Mālavikā near the Asoka tree Gautama must have anticipated the possible developments: Bakulävalikã was their accomplice; she would apologise to the king for kicking the tree, and also make Malavikā do the same, bending down at the feet of the king. This would give Agnimitra an excellent opportunity not only for impressing upon Mālavikā his generous and kindly disposition but also for lifting her up, and thereby getting a physical thrill for which he was obviously pining. Gautama's calculation is so correct that Agnimitra is unable to keep up his gravity and gives himself away with a pleased laugh. It is easy to see through Gautama's folly in the first two acts. Gautama's object in provoking the dance masters is to force their quarrel to a definite head. There is a strong reason to believe that he was responsible for originating the dispute. His references to the dance masters, therefore, as two rams, intoxicated elephants, and to their sinecure jobs, are intended to carry a deliberate sting on the surface of humour. And Ganadāsa, who appears to be more excitable of the two, is really hurt when Gautama charges him with wasting the queen's money by feeding himself only with modakas. Dhāriņi frets and fumes. Gautama is ready to interpret the queen's anger as a spacious gesture to save her protégé from certain defeat. The sensitive Ganadāsa is driven to give an ultimatum to the queen that he is permitted either to demonstrate his real worth or quit the queen's favour. Dhāriņi watches helplessly on. All her defence is knocked down. In fact, it was for this purpose that Gautama had chosen the subtle line of attack on the dance masters and used his wit with the sharpness of a weapon. It is true that Parivrăjika helps him not a little, particularly at those moments where the interference of Gautama would have looked suspicious. But Gautama must have taken her into his confidence and she must have agreed to play her part in the interests of Malavika. In the second acts the ·217 interruption and the foolish question by Gautama serve the obvious purpose of detaining Mālavikä on the stage for the pleasure of the king. And when Malavikā's face is lit up with a smile at the joke of Gautama, the king gets one more opportunity for appreciating her charm. Thus, Gautama is masquerading his folly for the triple purpose of secretly building up his plot, keeping himself, and naturally the king also, above the suspicion of involvement, and ministering to the pleasure and the happiness of his master. That Gautama succeeds thoroughly in fooling Dhāriņi and the dance masters is proved by. Gañadāsa's reply to the queen when she suggests that the objection raised by Gautama should be ignored. Gautama, replies Gañadāsa, can be credited with the power of minute observation on account of his association with the king. "Even a fool acquires wisdom in the company of the wise." In his capacity as a friend of the king, helping him in his love affair, Gautama leaves nothing to be said. The king is so completely dependent on him that the entire initiative of action in the play rests in the hands of Gautama. The king's hope of getting Malavikā is naturally founded on his confidence in Gautama's ability. At the close of the dance performance Gautama says to the king, “ This is all that I can do for you”. The king appeals to him not to draw such a line; for, the assistance of Gautama is needed even for introducing the king to Mālavikā. Needless to say that the king would be completely helpless in situations which are far more complicated as when the meeting near the Aśoka tree is unexpectedly interrupted by Irāvati or when Mālavikā is locked up in a cellar. Gautama is keenly aware of the difficulties that he must meet in fulfilling the wish of the king. The king is too helpless to take any initiative or risk. As for Mālavikā, she is blocked by Dhāriņi.' as moonlight by clouds', and is jealously guarded ' like a treasure by a serpent'. But the resourcefulness and wit af Gautama: do not fail him: He plans everything with caution and thoroughness. He 28 ·218 warns the king, on the eve and during the performance of the opera, against betraying himself by his too happy look. "The honey is within reach," he says, " but the bee is also near. He advises the king against cancelling his appointment with Irāvati in his eagerness to meet Mālavikā. He leads the king to Pramadavana and gives him a cautious hint at the approach of Irāvati. Even in the first two acts where he is playing the fool, it is Gautama who dominates. He sums up the issue of the quarrel between the two dance masters. He gives instructions for making preparations for the demonstration, and informing the king by the sound of the drum when the arrangements are completed. He interprets the subtle meaning of Mälavikā's song for the king. He correctly guesses the occasion for the visit of Mālavikā to the Pramadavana and assures the king that Dhāriņi would not permit a maid (as Mālavikā was then supposed to be ) to wear the family ornaments unless it were for fulfilling the dohada of the Aśoka. He proves to the sceptical king that Mālavikā is also in love by convincingly interpreting her words addressed to Bakulā valikā. Sometimes, it is true that Gautama is himself a little confused by an unexpected development; as, for example, by Irāvati's arrival in the Pramadavana, or by the exposure in the Samudragſha. In the latter situation he was nearly helpless. In the Pramadavana scene too, his first reaction is confused. Surprised by Irāvati he asks the king to “take to heels". "If a thief," he says, “were caught in the act of boring a hole, he should say that he was only practising the theory that he had learnt". But a little later, Gautama gets his composure. He tells Irāvati that the king was only amusing himself, awaiting her arrival. “ If a casual talk with the queen's maid, seen by chance, is an offence," he says to Irāvati," then you are the only authority for this special ruling." Irāvati is unable to find any words and only fumes in impotent rage.

·219 But the superb wit of Gautama shines in his pre-planned manoeuyres. With the arrival of the dance masters whom Gautama has set fighting, the king says to him, “Friend, your clever strategy has blossomed into a flower." Gautama remarks with calm confidence, “ You will soon see the fruit also." This the king does in the form of the dance performance. The meeting in the Pramadavana could also be attributed in the final analysis to Gautama. Dhāriņi received some injury to her foot when she fell down from the swing "due to a prank on the part of Gautama”. It is presumable that Gautama deliberately caused this minor accident. He knew that the queen loved her Aśoka blossoms exceedingly; that under the circumstances she could not herself fulfil the Aśoka dohada; that it was less likely that she would ask the younger queen to oblige her, particularly when her own beautiful maid was available; that, therefore, Mālavikā was most likely to be sent to the Asoka tree. The meeting between the lovers was then quite possible. About the second meeting in the Samudragpha there is no doubt whatsoever, because the manoevure is put into operation before our eyes. Gautama puts the superb hoax of serpent-bite on Dhāriņi, obtains the possession of her signet-ring by taking the royal physician and the queen's maid into his confidence, gets the king out by a pre-arranged message to attend state business and, thus, brings the two lovers together in the Samudragpha. Gautama had anticipated the objection of the keeper of the cellar, Madhavikā, and was ready with a suitable answer. The release of all prisoners, he tells her, was to be done on the advice of the king's astrologers who had discovered unpropitious stars in the king's horoscope. The signet-ring was not sent through the queen's maid and Gautama was asked to take it personally because the queen, who had put Mālavikā into prison in order to please Irāvati, wished to create the impression that it was not she who was releasing Mālavika but that the king was doing so. The explanation is completely ·220 satisfactory. When the king, therefore, tries to attribute the success of the scheme entirely to the stupidity of the keeper of the cellar, Gautama reproaches him with, "I may be dull; but I do possess ready wit". Thus does Gautama move in the play dominating the whole action. And while he does so, he enjoys himself thoroughly at the cost of every other character in the play. He provokes and pokes fun at the dance masters. He fools Dhāriņi twice. Besides, he compares her successively to a fly, a row of clouds, a cat and once describes her as 'red-eyed'. The irascible Irāvati he compares to Mars who has the habit of moving crookedly. Gautama does not spare even Parivrājikā and Malavika. The former is called Pithamardikā which she is not; and Mälavikā languishing in the prison is compared to a Nāgakanyā. A greater object of fun for Gautama is naturally the king in whose company he is constantly moving. Moreover, the king is so ridiculously dependent on him that Gautama has once to tell him bluntly, “I would appreciate it better if you had patience and hoped for the successful end of our work". He compares the king to a greedy bird who is afraid to fly into the slaughter-house to pick up his meat. Gautama had made it possible for the king to see Malavikā at her best in the opera and, had. set the ball rolling. When the king turns to him again for further help Gautamn remarks, "That's fine! You are like a wretched patient. You want the doctor himself to bring the medicine to your door !" When the meeting in the Pramadavana ends disastrously, with the king lying prostrate at the feet of Irāvati, and Irāvatī walking haughtily away, Gautama. puts: a seal on the ridiculous situation by remarking to the king, "Now. get up. The propitiation is done!" When Mālavikā: is appreciating the portrait of the king, Gautama teases the king by saying, “ Did you hear? She prefers the picture to you. Your pride of your, youth is like that of a casket of its jewels. And when finally. Malayikā is presented to the king: note menaly 1 ·221 as a wife but as a full-fledged queen, Gautama has his final joke at the blushing Agnimitra : “All bridegrooms are shy ! ” It is true that Gautama's wit has neither the cutting sharpness nor the amazing brilliance of that of Maitreya. Gautama is only funny. But he is unsurpassed as a clever and a resourceful schemer. There is no doubt that Agnimitra owes his Malavikā entirely to the efforts of Gautama. Truly does Gautama deserve the title of a Minister of Love affairs '! 6 While playing the professional fool Gautama fools every one. It is here that the uniqueness of his character lies.

·MĀŅAVAKA (in Vikramorvašīya ) सर्वत्र प्रमादी वैधेयः । -The king, in act II. भो अहल्याकामुकस्य इन्द्रस्य वज्रः सचिवः उर्वशी- पर्युत्सुकस्य भवतः अपि अहम् । द्वौ अपि अत्र उन्मत्तौ । --Vidūşaka, in act II, The name of this Vidūşaka, Māņavaka, implies a dimunitive human, The Ceți thinks that he looks like a monkey drawn in a picture'. Māņavaka is conscious himself of his own looks: The king asks his son Ayus to salute the Brahmin without fear'. Māṇavaka asks, “Why should he fear ? Having lived in the hermitage he should be familiar with a monkey." This ability to laugh at himself finds the highest expression in the disarming question that Māņavaka puts to the king : "Is Urvašī," he asks, “as incomparable in beauty as I am in ugliness ? " Though only a Brahmabandhu ( to use the Ceți's expression), the fact that he happens to be a Brahmin by birth and a personal friend of the king, entitles him, he thinks, to a proper respect from every one. He demands that Urvasi should salute him. He is prepared to bless a friend or a foe alike if he were only saluted, or a present were given to him. Māņavaka regards himself as the representative of the Moon who happens to be the grandfather of Purūravas; and this being so, he assures the king that the ancestor's message is conveyed through him! The facts are that the king was offering his prayer to the moon and the Vidūşaka got tired standing up; and so, he told the king that the moon, speaking through the Brahmin, had given the ·223 permission to sit down ! He expresses a pious hope about the king's success in love. Luckily the king experiences a good omen at the moment. Māņavaka loses no time in boastfully declaring that a Brahmin's words are bound to come true. Love of food is in Māņayaka's blood. The queen suspects that the physical and the mental change that has come over the king is possibly due to a love affair. Māņavaka assures her that the real cause is an upset bile; and asks her to rush appropriate food-stuffs. When the queen having slighted the prostration of the king departs in anger and the king, feeling a bit annoyed, decides to be stiff with her in future, Māņavaka protests, “Hang your stiffness! Support first the life of a hungry Brāhmaṇa. It is high time for bath and meals." The queen has undertaken a vow to please her lord. The king politely tells her that it was unnecessary. Māņavaka misunderstands the object of the king's courtesy; and, afraid of losing the present of modakas in fulfilment of the vow, cuts the king's words by saying, “Stop that! It is not proper to oppose well-spoken words." Naturally, Māņavaka is thrilled at the prospect of receiving the svastivācana. The queen coming with a dish of sweet balls is to him an object of beauty. Ceremonies do not interfere with his personal convenience, provided there is always a present to be given at the end. On such occasions he is generous with his blessings. Though Māņavaka does not mind a share in unguents and flowers, his natural preference is for sweet food. Food is always present in his mind and it invariably colours his observations and utterances. In possession of the king's secret of love, he compares his own condition to that of a Brahmin who is bursting with food crammed into his belly. He compares the king's joy in getting a letter from Urvasi with his own delight on receiving a present of food. The moon appears to him as a broken piece of a sweet ball. Surely, as the king observes, 'Food is always the fond theme of a glutton."

·224 No wonder that Mänavaka is able to divinc satisfaction merely by the contemplation of food. To look at the various things laid out before cooking and to watch the preparation of an infinite variety of dishes, is a pleasure the like of which cannot be found either on earth or in heaven. What is there in heaven?" he asks Urvasi with undisguiscd contempt: "One neither eats nor drinks in hcaven but sits only mocking at the fish with unwinking eyes!" The best and the happiest place for Mänavaka is, of course, the kitchen. When the lovelorn king asks him to suggest some diversion for his sorrow Mänavaka promptly says, “Let us go to the kitchen." Māņavaka is afraid of serpents. Urvasi's birchleaf letter is mistaken by him for the slough of a serpent and he runs away from it in fear. He is equally afraid of the queen's maid, though this fear is based on his incapacity to match his own wits with the maid's. He sees the maid from a distance only and the king's secret seems to rush out breaking the citadel of his heart. His attempt to control his own tongue proves to be useless. The maid is quite conscious that she will take no time in fooling him. The secret will easily slip from him as dewdrops slide on a blade of grass. With a simple trick the maid says to him that the king addressed the queen absent-mindedly with the name of his new beloved. And Mänavaka shakes the entire secret information out of his system, glad that he need imprison his tongue no longer. Māpavaka stumbles from folly to folly. His greatest blunder is, of course, to lose the love letter written by Urvasi. His explanation, that it was a divine parchment and it disappeared on the divine path: followed by Urvasi, is a ridiculous bluff. But afterwards when the queen confronts the king with the letter and the king endeavours to save the situation by disowning the letter, Mapayaka butts. in with unwanted remarks: and makes the confusion. Worse confounded. As a matter of factibecamet taimele of any way out of the situation. "What can a thief say when he is caught red-handed ?" he asks the ling. But he ·225 tells the queen nevertheless that it was not the letter but a disorder of the bile that was the cause of the king's distraction. He advises her to offer food as a sure means of propitiating even a goblin. But this advice has a dangerous implication. It would imply that the king could not be expected to admit his connection with the letter without due propitiation. And the king has been striving to disprove the very connection! The king remarks disgustedly, "Fool, you are forcing the guilt on me. In turning to Mänavaka for help and assistance, the king is courting only trouble and despair, Māņavaka shows a little interest in the king's love affair; but that extends only as far as describing the king as a Cătaka craving for heavenly drops of water. The king wishes to explain his own love-sick condition, probably with a view to unburdening his heart; but Māņavaka's comment is that it is too apparent to need any description. Mänavaka has no ability to offer any kind of assistance. All that he can suggest is that the king may either dream about Urvasi or paint her picture, as a means of mitigating his lovesickness. When the king, however, points out that none of these means are available to him on account of sentimental reasons, Māņavaka remarks, “This is the limit of my intellectual faculty. I can do nothing further for you. 23 Mänavaka has no imagination also. His observations that the birch-leaf may be Urvasi's letter, and that the vow that the queen has undertaken may be the result of her repentance for having slighted the king, are conjectures on which he has luckily stumbled. Reasoning is not in his line. He either misinterprets things or he bluffs. His construction on the abrupt exit of the angry queen as being favourable to the progress of the king's secret love affair is naturally not correct. When he discovers that he was trapped into revealing the king's secret, and further that it was a blunder to lose the love letter which was entrusted to him, Mänavaka tries to cover his folly by useless bluffing. 29 ·226 As a friend, Māņavaka is expected to assist the king in his love affair. The king would not otherwise turn to him for assistance or consultation. But Mänavaka is more a nuisance than a help. Strangely enough, Māņavaka is prepared to work in the opposite camp too. He openly sympathises with the queen and sends his personal assurance through her maid that he would not show his face to her until he had saved the king from the mirage of love. Māņavaka's own dictum that even a goblin can be bribed with food is certainly very true in his own case. Māņavaka moves in the play poking fun at everybody. The king in love with Urvasi is to him a Cātaka craving for heavenly rain-drops. When the king is confronted with the love letter by the queen, Māņavaka uses the imagery of a thief caught redhanded. When Urvašī sits by the side of the king on the moonlit terrace, he bluntly asks them both : 'Is it night for you already?' The queen decides in a spirit of resignation to permit the king to marry the woman he loves and leaves him. The king is about to address a few appropriate words of courtesy to her. Mänavaka encourages the king by saying, "Speak up, no fear! You have been given up by the queen as a physician abandons a patient who is past cure." Māņavaka does not spare the poor queen too on this occasion. Her conciliatory attitude he identifies with that of a fisherman who, finding that the fish has slipped through his fingers, says: 'I am observing piety.' Naturally he can have a dig at Urvasi also : The king asks Māņavaka what possibly could have led Urvasi to hide from him the fact that a son was born to them. Mänavaka confesses that it is beyond his power to explain her behaviour, but adds as an afterthought that Urvasi could not admit her motherhood because it would have meant that she was getting old: she must be afraid of losing her hold on the king! Māņavaka's fun knows no propriety. Urvasi explains to the king that she was permitted to stay with him on a stipulated condition; the association was to terminate at the ·227 23 sight of a son. The explanation creates a wave of sorrow which overtakes all who are present. Purūravas and Urvasi are naturally affected most. Māravaka remarks at this moment, Now, I guess, you will put on barks and repair to a penance grove. It was certainly foolish to expect either assistance or helpful advice from Māņavaka. Neither go beyond pious platitudes like, 'Don't lament. The God of love will soon look upon you with favour'; 'Urvaśī has shown the flower of your desire ( the love letter ) ; now she will not fail about the fruit (the actual meeting)'; 'You will get her in a short time'. Māņavaka is only a blundering fool' as the king rightly says. To imagine him as an ally of the king in love affairs is ridiculous. Mānavaka himself exclaims laughingly, “Ah! The thunderbolt to be the minister of Indra infatuated with Ahalyā and I to be your counsellor in your mad passion for Urvasi! Methinks both are mad.” Māņavaka's self-comment is perfectly justified.

·VI MADHAVYA (in Abhijriinaśūkuntala) चपलोऽयं बटुः -Duşyanta, in Act II, मया अपि मृत्पिण्डबुद्धिना तथैव गृहीतम् । -Vidūşaka, in Act VI. Mädhavya is seen in the pleasure garden attached to Duşyanta's palace, rushing forward with a raised stick in order to destroy one of Cupid's arrows, the mango blossom. Duşyanta stops him with the remark that he is quite convinced of the latter's Brahmanical prowess. This obscrvation fixes the caste and the type of this Vidūşaka : Madhavya is a stupid, cowardly Brahmin. Duşyanta's hunting expedition on which Mädhavya had to accompany him has given him the creeps of his life. It has totally destroyed the settled and comfortable life of this poor Brahmin to such an extent that he rues the very friendship with the king which has obliged him to keep him company. Rushing after the wild game from one forest into another, when the sun is climbing towards the zenith, is not a very comfortable way of living life. The hot season, the bare trees and the thin shade of the groves make it worse. There is no means to slake the overpowering thirst and soothe the parched throat ; because the only water that is available in the forest is that of mountain streams; and it is tepid and the falling withered leaves have given it a bitter taste. There is no good food to be seen anywhere except the meat of the killed game which is simply roasted on iron spikes and is eaten without any condiments or side dishes; and, that too, at extremely irregular hours. Riding ·229 on horse-back in hot pursuit of the animals of the forest has loosened and dislocated every joint in Madhavya's body. The sorely aching limbs have destroyed his sleep at night. And if he tried to snatch a few moments of rest in the grateful hours of the morning, the hunters, who crept into the forest along with their hounds in the small hours in order to catch the quarry in a surprise seige, kicked up such a terrible din as would awaken even the dead from their graves. How could one exist under such conditions ? Mãờhavya's bitter complaint appears to be: What is this life if full of creep An' no time for drink, food and sleep? Madhavya would have very much liked if Duşyanta had left him alone, or at least stopped this fooling about the forest for a day. It is on this background that the Sakuntalā affair appears to him as the addition of a nasty pimple to a blistering boil. For, assuming that Duşyanta has fallen in love with a forest girl there is no hope of the camp life coming to an end. Madhavya, therefore, collects his wits together in order to present a stiff opposition to Duşyanta. He declares that his body is stiff and paralysed; he can greet Duşyanta only by using his tongue uttering the formula of welcome but omitting the accompanying gesture of the body. He holds Duşyanta directly responsible for the sorry state to which he has been reduced. If a cane on a river bank were to bend like a hunchback, it would not do so out of pleasure or love; this sport is imposed on it by the force of the river water; likewise, it is by Duşyanta's hunt that Madhavya is crippled. Madhavya grumbles, argues aggressively, appeals to Duşyanta and begs for a brief respite. It was necessary for him to use every means of persuasion while he was talking to Duşyanta. But he need not follow any decorum with reference to the king's General; and so, he openly and heartily curses him for his apparent enthusiasm for hunting. Mighty glad must Madhavya have been when Duşyanta decided to drop the hunting, whatever may be his reasons for doing so.

·230 And when a little later, Madhavya gets an opportunity for returning to the Capital with the arny, leaving Duşyanta alone to his fascination of the forest, his pride and joy know no bounds. It does not mean that Māghavyat has no sympathy for Duşyanta. His opposition to the love affair of Duşyanta springs partially, as indicated, from the fact that it was an encroachment on his personal comfort. In addition, it must have been due to his ignorance about Sakuntala and also the desire that his royal friend should not be involved in anything that would invite moral reproach. He does not wish that Duşyanta, a Kşatriya, should entertain a passion for a Tāpasakanyā who perhaps was a Brahmin. Besides, Dusyanta's passion may prove to be a passing fancy like that of a man who turns from sweet dates to tamarind only to return back with increased craving for sweet enjoyment. When Duşyanta satisfics him on these counts, Madhavya withdraws his objection. " You have transformed the penance grove", he says, "into a pleasure garden". He encourages Duşyanta to talk about Sakuntalā and asks him to be patient in a characteristic blunt way: "You don't expect the girl to sit on your knee the inoment she sees you, do you?" But he is confident about Duşyanta. Giving his blessings for a successful journey of love he tells Duşyanta to collect the necessary provisions'. ... It was natural that Māghavya should have lent a sympathe tic, ear to Duşyanta once his personal comfort was assured. But it must be remembered that he is also a close friend of the king for whose personal charm and majesty he has a genuine appreciation. The queen mother looks on him as Duşyanta's younger brother. Duşyanta sends him back to the Capital with the honours of an heir-apparent. Humouring apart, Madhavya has every reason to display a friendly concern for Duşyanta. When Duşyanta is submerged in sorrow at the loss of Sakuntala, Mashawya stands by his side, urges him to talk about Sa atalā, asks himento complete the unfinished picture and, in one way or ·231 the other, endeavours to provide comforting diversion from the depression of great misery. He appeals to Duşyanta not to lose courage : “Mountains do not tremble in a stormy wind", he says. He asks Duşyanta to be patient and not give up hope. The miraculous recovery of the ring, he observes, is a promise of an equally miraculous reunion in future. He adds with shrewd wisdom that no parents would like their married daughter to be separated from her husband for a long time; and so, Śakuntala's parents would not sit with folded hands helplessly watching the spectacle of sorrow. But essentially Mādhavya is stupid. While wishing to be sympathetic to Dusyanta in his sorrow he still thinks that Duşyanta's sentimental grief is a madman's grief. Duşyanta's addresses to the bee in the picture are to him the ravings of a madman and he blames himself for being taken in by them. While Duşyanta is consumed with grief Mādhavya remembers his own gnawing hunger. While Duşyanta describes the beautiful background he wishes to paint for his picture, Mädhavya confesses, albeit to himself, that the canvas should be filled with hosts of long-bearded ascetics. And though Mādhavya has kept this stupid observation to himself in the Pramadavana scene, he has not concealed it in the earlier camp scene. Duşyanta turns to him for advice. Madhavya inevitably thinks that the advice is sought in the matter of eating sweet things on which he probably thinks himself to be an authority. What Duşyanta really wanted to find out was some plausible excuse for repeating his visit to the hermitage. Mādhavya asks him to go there as a tax collector! Further, Duşyanta finds himself caught in a painful dilemma and is unable to decide whether he should remain in the hermitage as the ascetics want him to do, or return to his palace as his mother wishes him to do. Mäəhavya suggests the golden mean of hanging in between the two courses, as Trišaiku did of old, being suspended in mid-air ! Dusyanta must be fully aware of the stupidity of Madhavya which sometimes might have been only funny although unhelp- ·232 ful, but which at times was apt to be inconveniently embarrassing. Wisely, therefore, does Duşyanta decide to keep Madhavya out of his love affair. A little flattery is enough to convince the Vidūşaka into believing anything. We have it on the confession of the 'clodpated fool' himself. This fool is a coward also. The mention of the invisible demons in the forest takes the wind completely out of him: He did have some curiosity to see Sakuntala, overflowing curiosity, as he says; but the news of the demons dried it up so completely that not a drop was left. However, when it is decided that he should return to the Capital he says to Duşyanta, "Surely, you don't think that I am afraid of demons ?” Duşyanta replies with a smile, "Great Brahmin, how can I imagine this in your case!" Madhavya is equally afraid of the harem which he describes as a 'snare' where unwary souls are caught to their woe. Hence, he is unwilling to go to Haṁsapadikā's apartment to deliver Duşyanta's message. He knows that once Hamsa. padikā's maids caught him he would be like an ascetic in the hands of celestial nymphs, hopeless of any chance of emancipation. But he is not able to escape this contingency, as he does not escape the pounding at the hands of Indra's charioteer Mätali, But if Duşyanta decided to drop a curtain over his love affair before the babbling fool, Kalidasa too chose to keep this butt of ridicule behind the scene. One would have loved, for the sheer fun of it, to see Mādhavya surrounded by the maids of Hamsapadikā, pulling him by the lock of his hair and raining blows on him. One would have liked to see how Mätali held him, pushing his neck down and legs in the air and crushing him like a piece of sugarcane into small bits. But the foolish Brahmin is mercifully spared by the poet and we miss this violent fun on the stage.

·VII MAI TRE Y A (in Mcchakatika) अये सर्वकालमित्र मैत्रेयः प्राप्तः । ...अथवा नाहं दरिद्रः यस्य मम विभवानुगता भार्या, सुखदुःखसुहृद् भवान् । -Cārudatta, in Act I and III. 28. Maitreya is happily a brilliant exception to the common run of the Vidūşakas. Of course, being a Vidūşaka he has certain fixed traits of his class. His appearance is somewhat ugly. Sakāra twice calls him crow-foot-headed'; and Maitreya himself compares the shape of his bead to the knee of a young camel. He is a Brahmin. His Brahminhood, however, has neither the depth of apparent learning nor the height of boastful pretensions. He is certainly aware of the recitation of Vedic mantras, sacrificial performance and ritual slaughter; and his talk is naturally coloured by these references. When he sees the dozing doorkeeper of Vasantasena, the comparison that comes to his mind is that of a self-complacent Vedic Brahmin. He confesses that he cannot resist laughing when he sees a woman learning Sanskrit and a man singing in narrow pitch : the former reminds him of a cow snorting with a new nose-string; and the latter of an old priest wearing faded flowers and muttering the mantras. While moving through the apartments of Vasantasena's house he is envious of his good luck. For, Rävaņa got his Puspaka Vimāna after severe penance: but without the slightest discomfort Maitreya could roam through the heavenly apartments escorted by males and females. Maitreya's comments imply a dislike of the mechanical daily routine of the Brahmanical order and a love of lazy life supported by other peoples' food ·234 Maitreya's love of food is already hinted at in the invitation that the Sūtradhāra gives. But Maitreya waxes really eloquent when he comes to the kitchen in Vasantasena's palatial mansion. The bustling activities in the kitchen---the butcher's boy washing the tendrils of the slaughtered animals, the preparation of modakas on the one hand and the frying of the apapas on the other-and that delicious and exciting smell of seasoned preparations... present such an inviting panorama that it would be a surprise if, watching it, Maitreya did not feel that he was in paradise! When he sees the enormously fat mother of Vasantasenā, he at once knows that her fatness and illness are due to overeating; and he envies her ! An irresistible desire for seeking an invitation shapes in his mind. He imagines that somebody will cordially ask him to wash his hands and feet and place before him dishes of food! It appears that the frustration of his desire has left a strong mark on Maitreya's mind. But his gluttony has a pathetic side. During the days of Cärudatta's prosperity Maitreya had before him a heap of specially prepared, delicious desserts. He only touched the many dishes as a painter touches his bowls of paints; he rested completely satisfied like a bull in the market ruminating his food in a public square. But now Maitreya has to go out and search for food. That is why, it is not merely greed that colours his recollection ; along with the comic, it has a pathetic side too. As a. Vidûşaka, Maitreya is cowardly. He may growl at the tresspassers and threaten them for having molested Radanikā in the dark; or he may raise his stick at the pigeons; but he has no courage to go out in the dark alone. He must have a lamp and the company of Radanikă too. When Cărudatta asks him to escort Vasantasenā, he replies, “ It will be better if you go. You will look like a swan following the goose !” This timidity of Maitreya is not merely a physical trait. He is Beally afraid that in the evening time when the streets are erowded with royal favourites and courtesans he will be like a rabbit surtounded by serpents, people will rush at him to have ·235 fun, as wild dogs pounce on the offerings of food. Maitreya's apparent stupidity is matched by his timid nature. He is unable to solve a simple riddle which Vasantasena's Ceta puts to him. He does not know when the mangoes blossom and what protects a city; and even when he gets the answers from Cârudatta he fails to connect the words properly to get the name Vasanta-senā'. It appears that he cannot divine the subtlety in a situation or a speech. Vasantasenä сlings to Cărudatta frightened by the thunder ; Carudatta experiences a thrill; but Maitreya starts to hit at the cloud for frightening Vasantasenā! But there are two very obvious instances of his stupidity in the play. In a way it is Maitreya who is responsible for the theft of the ornaments. His unwillingness to forego his sweet sleep and his nervous rattling in the sleep supply the necessary facility for Sarvilaka. Further, Maitreya drops the ornaments in the court in an unguarded moment. The blunder is so fatal, it almost costs the life of Cărudatta. It is obvious that Maitreya's blunders help the development of the dramatic story. It is quite likely that Sudraka may have utilized, like Kālidāsa, the follies of the Vidūşaka as deliberate devices for plot-development. Sūdraka has tenderly delineated these traits in his Vidūşaka. But bad Śūdraka stopped with this treatment his portrayal of Maitreya would have been but conventional, Sudraka's success and the real worth of Maitreya's portrait consist in going beyond the conventional frame. Maitreya's tongue knows no restraint. He does not speak but hits. In these lashes of his tongue there appear to be two prejudices : wealth and harlot. His hatred for wealth may have been born out of Cā rudatta's poverty; but his attitude is different from that of Cārudatta. Unlike Cărudatta he does neither sigh over the recollection of past grandeur, nor is he perturbed over the calculating, selfish and heartless treatment of the world at a change of fortune. While offering consolation to Cãrudatta, Maitreya appears to probe deeper into the reall ·236 nature of wealth. He describes wealth as' the morning breakfast'-unsubstantial and insufficient to stay hunger. It goes exactly where it is not wanted! Since Maitreya looks at the dealings of wealth from this philosophical angle, there is no sentimentalism in his attitude. It is true that the inhospitable treatment in Vasantasena's house enraged him. But there is nothing surprising in his anger. For the poor are not frugal at least of rich words; it is the rich who are really miserly. It is probably with this understanding that Maitreya describes Vasantasenā's mother, who is swollen with fat and wealth, as a penny-goblin'. Maitreya's hatred of harlots finds expression in his criticism of woman, money and prostitution. Vasantasena's wealth dazzles his eyes but does not impress his mind. Seeing Vasantasenā's brother clad in fine silk and bejewelled with ornaments, he confesses that that position is not possible without the merit and austerity of a previous life. But he does not forget to add that the company of such people has to be shunned like flowers growing on the cemetery-grounds. He is merciless in his jest of Vasantasena's mother. He refuses to believe that her enormously fat body could pass through any doors and wonders if the walls and the doors were built after having placed her in the room first. He has no sympathy for her supposed illness and he remarks that her dead body would feed at least a thousand jackals! He tries to guess the source of this enormous wealth in Vasantasenā's house. He first thinks that it must be a prosperous trade on the sea; but he immediately corrects himself and remarks, 'How stupid of me! Your breasts, hips and buttocks are your charming ships floating on the waters of passion in the ocean of love '! Maitreya certainly flings away the limits of decorum and decency in pouring a stinging ridicule on the life of prostitution. But blunt speech is characteristic of Maitreya. He has come to the conclusion that a courtesan can only be painfully thrown out like a pebble caught in the shoe. Having experienced the inhospitable treatment in Vasantasena's ·237 house and having seen her avarice in accepting the preciou necklace for the stolen ornaments, Maitreya's only concern is ti persuade Cārudatta to give up Vasantasenā for good; and thi he does by entreaty, importunity and blunt criticism. Whe Cărudatta asks him to help Vasantasenā in stepping down fron the car, he says in an uncourteous way, “ Has she her feet ii chains that she cannot alight herself ? ” Even though he is awar that Vasantasenā has come, out of love, to the house o Cărudatta, through thunder and rain, he asks her maid an uncivi question, " Are you planning to sleep bere tonight?" Maitreya speech is undoubtedly blunt and ungentlemanly. But there is n personal malice. He firmly believes that a lotus-creeper grow ing without root, a merchant who does not cheat, a goldsmit! who does not appropriate the customer's gold, a concourse a villagers where there are no quarrels and a courtesan who has n greed for money', these are impossible in the world. Maitreya' opinions about women and wealth do not change and hence they amount to a prejudice. But it seems that Maitreya is in clined to look at everything through a critical eye. Maitreya turns his sharp satire to every inconsistency an shortcoming. Nothing seems to escape his observant an thoughtful eye. He does not exclude Cârudatta and eve: himself from criticism. It is no wonder then that the entir creation figures in his witty similes. From the clod of eart to the heaven, from flowers to stars, from the inanimate creatio to the animals and human beings, and from zoology t mythology, all things swim into his unchecked vision and suppl the themes for his sharp and satirical humour. Maitreya move in the whole play putting on the clown's cap but talking wisel and brandishing his tongue in multi-coloured jest, wit, satir parody and subtle practical wisdom. Maitreya is not that for who only makes a laughing-stock of himself. His unshapel head contains a really wise brain. It is the wisdom which not taught, which is not acquired by the study of books, bt which has to be slowly accumulated by keeping the eves, ea:

·238 and mind open in the struggling existence of the world. Of course, Maitreya is foolish: Whatever he does turns topsyturvy like the reflected image in a mirror'. He does not know the time and place for jest. But his observations are no doubt rooted in deep. reflection, cool intellect and practical wisdom. Such wisdom which is dressed in the clown's clothes may appear to be inconsistent; but it is indeed what puts life into the dead bones of a conventional Vidūşaka. As Maitreya moves in the play shooting his folly at all observable things, he certainly reminds us of Shakespeare's Touchstone, like whom, "... in his brain · he hath strange places cramm'd With observation.' In the midst of apparent inconsistencies, there is one consistency that shines out in Maitreya's character and lifts him to a noble level. It is his affection for Cărudatta. It bears no comparison. Cārudatta's poverty has added only human sympathy to Maitreya's filial devotion. He has to wander away to find food but like a domestic pigeon' he returns to his friend's house without fail. He will never forsake Cärudatta whatever might happen. He is ever straining himself to console Carudatta whose mind is weighed with dejection and sorrow. Inspite of his prejudice against the courtesans, he is prepared to go to Vasantasenā's house whenever Cārudatta asks him to do so. Maitreya is often moved by the unjust spectacle of a righteous and generous man like Cārudatta being visited by penury. At the thought of this undeserved calamity his blood boils and he does not hesitate to question the utility of human devotion to the gods in heaven. The charge of murder against the innocent Cārudatta moves him to the depths of his heart. He rushes to the court and, bursting with uncontrollable rage, sadness and frustration, he addresses the jury: "Ye noble Sires ! How can you believe that he who bas spent his precious fortune in raising colonies, convents, parks, temples, tanks, wells and sacrificial pillars and has ·239 bestowed lavish beauty on this city of Ujjayini, would commit such a base act of murder when he is thrown on poverty? Tell me, oh! will this my friend do a deed that will deny him both heaven and earth, when he is not prepared even to bend the Mädhavi creeper and pluck her flowers in fear that he might tear her tender leaves ? This spontaneous appeal of Maitreya is packed with concern for justice, logical argument, entreaty, moving emotion and righteous indignation dissolved in pathos. It is difficult to find such ringing eloquence springing from a pious emotion of the human heart. Who could have expected this stupid Vidūşaka to hold a brief for justice and humanity with such boldness and wisdom! But Maitreya's appeal falls filat before the circumstantial evidence gathered in the court. Hit to the depth of his being, mad with rage at the blind injustice, Maitreya releases his wrath on the diabolical Sakāra. For a moment he forgets the formal behaviour expected in a solemn court of justice; he forgets even his weakness and timidity. He attacks Sakára in the court with his merciless tongue and his stick which is as crooked as the villain's heart'. When Cārudatta is sentenced to death, the world comes to an end for Maitreya. It is impossible for him to leave Cărudatta alone at the threshold of death, when he has kept him company along the whole passage of the living world. • The tree must fall when the roots are dug out'. He will, therefore, permit himself to live for a while only till he brings Rohasena to Cārudatta in fulfilment of his last desire. Holding the little hand of the child firmly in his grip, this poor Brahmin jostles through the crowds collected at the scene of the gallows, pushed to and fro, crying in bewilderment and pathos and shouting the name of Cārudatta. He has never gone against Cārudatta's word. But for once, on the border of life and death, he has decided to disobey him. He would entrust Rohasena to his ·240 mother and free himself from the responsibility. But when he returns from seeing Cārudatta, he finds to his bewilderment that Āryā Dhūtā is preparing to burn herself to death. Neither persuasion nor Sastric injunction is of avail with her. Maitreya then utters his last words that burn with Brahmanic lustre in defiance of death : “The Brahmin must have precedence in religious works undertaken for achieving a desired object. I will enter the fire first. You can follow me". It is remarkable that while in the court Cārudatta's first thought turns to Maitreya. There cannot be a more apt description of Maitreya than that contained in Cārudatta's phrase : Sarva-käla-mitra'. A friend in need, Maitreya is a friend indeed ! The ability of Maitreya to forget the frailty of human flesh in a court of law makes us feel annoyed with the stiff judge who orders him uncerernoniously out. But Maitreya's colossal courage in face of leaping death restores our faith in life, despite its perverted justice, mean wickedness and wanton cruelty, ·VIII VASANTAKA (in Priyadarsikā) मूर्ख, नैषः कालः परिहासस्य । -The King, in Act III. Vasantaka is a Brahmin quite innocent of any learning but ready to jump at the prospect of a sweet present. He is unable to conceal his joy when he receives an invitation from Vasavadattā to accept the Svastivācana. In this moment of delight he boasts before his friend, the king, that though the palace is full of Brahmins who have studied four, five and six Vedas, the queen's choice has fallen on him. The king remarks, “ Your claim to being a Brahmin is proved by the mere number of Vedas you have mentioned". Vasantaka knows in his own heart what he is worth; but he knows the tricks of his trade too. He promptly decides to take a hurried bath at the pond attached to the shower-house and present himself before the queen, in time, cackling like a cock. How otherwise could Brahmins like him receive any presents in the royal household ? Vasantaka loves good food as well as personal comfort, Though not devoid of a sense of beauty he shows no enthusiasm for witnessing the performance given by Aranyikā: He has passed anxious days and sleepless nights with the king who had fallen in love with Aranyikā and who was pining for a union with her. The performance gives the king an opportunity to meet her. Vasantaka does not grudge the king his pleasure, although he knows how kings in love make themselves ridiculous and how they can be twisted round their small fingers even by palace maids. But he must now have his own pleasure; he must make up for his lost sleep. He therefore dozes off on the ZI ·242 eve of the performance. The maid Manoramā rouses him when the performance is about to begin. Vasantaka is so angry that he abuses the maid heartily and goes away to have his sleep in peace. Vasantaka exhibits, at times, downright stupidity. The king waxes sentimentally over the virtues of captivity because it had brought him, along with other things, a jewel of a woman in the form of Vasavadattā. Vasantaka asks him whether he has forgotten how he had faced restless nights when he was himself captured like an elephant, when iron fetters clanked round his feet, his mouth became dry, his mind was in torture and his eyes gaped with impotent rage. The king explains to him that the love of Vasavadattā had turned the prison into a pleasure. As if he had detected a logical flaw in the statement, the Vidūşaka asks proudly: If the fetters were fetters of joy, why should the king worry about the capture of Dşdhavarman (the father of the heroine )? What is true in one case ought to be true in the other also ! The king naturally has to ask the fool to shut up. Vasantaka is responsible for giving out the secret scheme according to which the king was to take the place of Manorama in the dance performance and meet his beloved on the stage. When he goes away to sleep, Vasantaka babbles out the whole secret before Väsa vadatta's maid. Manoramā is shocked to find that Vasantaka has made a perfect mess of the whole thing. But then why should she suffer for the Vidūşaka's stupid behaviour ? She lies to Vasavadattā who takes Vasantaka to be the real string-puller of the love intrigue and promptly orders him to be put in chains. Vasantaka must have realised now at least that all fetters are not fetters of joy! To add to his mortification Manoramă reproaches him for his miscarried diplomacy. And Vasantaka's vain attempt to explain the situation to Våsavadattă elicits only derisive laughter. It is true that Vasantaka's love of sleep was responsible for tie bungling of the affair of dance performance. Bat sometimes ·243 his stupidity appears to be deliberate : The heroine is put in prison by the jealous queen. The king consults Vasantaka with a view to finding out a remedy for her release. Vasantaka suggests an invasion of the harem with the whole army! The king dismisses this nonsensical suggestion and points out that nothing can be done by displeasing the queen. Vasantaka then advises, “ Friend, observe fast for one month. The angry queen will be pleased ". Vasantaka has every reason to be afraid of queen Väsavadattā. He has been directed by the love-sick king to search for Āranyikā and, failing that, to bring from the pond the lotus leaves hallowed by the touch of her hand. The poor fool does not know how to pick up the particular leaves. Manorama tells him, “I will inform you". Vasantaka misunderstands her words and, trembling with fear, says, "To whom will you inform me?' To the queen ? But I didn't say anything !" Vasantaka is glad at first about the secret scheme of the dance performance and is ready to play his part. But he must have rued the day he allowed himself to be drawn into the intrigue, considering the fiasco that resulted from it. No wonder he refuses to accompany the king at the time of approaching the queen with a plea for releasing the fettered Aranyikā. The king may laugh at Vasantaka's nervousness; but the latter's fear is real. It is possible that Vasantaka's nervousness and his love of physical comfort go together. Anything that interferes with his personal comfort-may it be the disturbance to his sleep, the idea of fetter, or of seige, or the fear of punishment-seems to take the wind out of him. On such occasions his utterances and his reaction become very stupid and funny. Sometines Vasantaka is in a different element. He shows a surprising sense of aesthetic appreciation when he is moving in the garden with the king. He notices the Sapta parna tree porſusely shedding its flowers, releasing at the same time, at ·244 the close of the rainy season, drops of water through the folds of its leaves. This fancy encourages the king to notice further resemblances of the garden to a rainy day. It is Vasantaka, again, whose eye moves fron the beauty of nature to the beauty of human form. Like a skilled observer le compares the roving figure of Āranyikā to an incarnation of the garden deity; her braid of black hair fragrant with the perfume of flowers is like a row of bees; and her arms are a radiant, lean, delicate creeper. He is impressed by the fact that, as Āranyika's hand moves in the water to pick up the lotuses, the lustre of her coral palm throws into background the beauty of lotus-beds. The soaring fancy does not deprive Vasantaka, however, of a cool practical sense. As a friend and companion of the king he certainly tries to assist the king as far as his wits permit him to do so. He sympathises with the king in his torment of love and undertakes to search for Aranyikā. He is the first to catch the sight of Aranyikā and the maid Indīvarikā. When further Aranyikā is harassed by bees and covers her face with her veil, it is Vasantaka who prompts the king to move forward, predicting that Aranyikā will mistake him for the accompanying maid and, in her agitation, will fall into his arms. This, the king admits, is a timely advice. Aranyikā naturally falls in the arms of the king and discovering her mistake moves away, nervously calling Indīvarikā for help. Vasantaka remarks pleasantly, “ Lady, should you shout for Indivarikā, a maid, when the capable protector of the whole earth, the Vatsa king, is offering you help ? " Vasantaka behaves warily on this occasion and asks the king to get in the plantain grove, lest the approaching maid reported the incident to the queen. But Aranyikä is a little nervous. The day is getting hot. The maid persuades her to go back to the palace. The disappointed king turns to the Vidūşaka for help in having another meeting with Aranyikā. Vasantaka, However, gets into a nasty mood. He blames the king, to the låtter's great surprise, for spoiling the present chance by not ·245 heecling to his advice. Did he not tell the king to approach Aranyikā silently? But the king wanted to show off his begotten wisdom before the girl, and actually talked to her in reproachful words expressing lyrical sentiment ! " You broke your own doll. How do you cry now?” What can the king say to this fool? But later on, when Aranyikā-Priyadarśikā is poisoned and the king stands before hier shedding helpless tears, Vasantaka keeps his head cool and advises the king to use his serpent-charm to counteract the poison, and himself runs to get the water needed for reciting the incantations. In the final moment of triumph he acts superbly in the interests of the king: The news of victory over the Kalinga king, who had imprisoned the heroine's father, is an occasion for joy. Vasantaka assumes the role of a preceptor and dictates : « On such an occasion of prosperity, the following things ought to be done in the royal household: (Pointing out to the king, and gesticulating playing on the lute), Worship of the Sire. (Showing his sacred thread). Worthy reception to a Brahmin. (Suggesting Aranyikā), Release of all prisoners.” Vasantaka clinches the issue by reminding Väsavadatta that the Physician (namely, the king), who saved the life of her sister ( Aranyikā), deserves to be appropriately rewarded.

·VASAN TAK A (in Ratnävali ) अयि ऋजुके वसन्तकः खल्ल पषः । न सि त्वं पतस्य चक्रभणितानि । -Vasavadattā, in Act II. This Vasantaka is a foolish Bralınin, and a companion of the king. The comical side of his character, however, is more emphasised than in the case of his alter ego. Alrcadly, there is a hint at his ugly appearance : Sāgarikä mistakes liis voice for that of a wicked monkey. And when he makes his appearance, she cannot help remarking that he is indeed a sight for the cyes. Vasantaka is a Mahābrähmaņa, as the king observes. And Vasantaka justifies the appellation when he mistakes a Gätha for a R. He does not seem to have taken any trouble, any time, to learn things that require application, and he has no desire to do so now. The sight of the dancing maids inspires him to join the hilarous festival. He is prepared, for a moment, to learn what he thinks to be a carcari from the maids. But when he is told that it was a dripadikhanda that they were singing, and that it required to be learnt by heart, he immediately gives up the idea. For, he has nothing to do with any kind of learning which involves physical or mental effort. Vasantaka has a Brahmin's love of food. When he lears that what he called carcari was a dvipadi-khanda, the second word deludes him into a belief that it may mean the stuff out of which modakas are made. Imagine his disappointment to find that it meant a piece of song and not an eatable. The celebration of Cupid worship is pleasing to bim only because it is an occasion for receiving presents. His release from fetters is not in itself ·247 >> so much a matter of joy to him as the immense helpings of modakas that followed his freedom. Vasantaka certainly betrays a weakness for all sorts of presents and gifts. He is glad that, besides his release, he has also been given a pair of silken garments and ear-rings as presents. Earlier, he demands from the king a reward before putting into his hands the picture of the heroine. The king has to satisfy him. And so, when Vasantaka brings the joyful news that the king's beloved is not only well but that the king will be able to meet her also in person, the king voluntarily offers him a gold bracelet. Vasantaka dons it on his wrist and says with complete satisfaction," Ah! now I will go to my Brāhmaṇi and show her my wrist decked with a bracelet of pure gold. Vasantaka bubbles with mirth. He dances on the stage. But it will be more correct to say that the maids lay their hands on him, and make him jump about. When Vasantaka is able to free himself, he runs excitedly to the side of the king, quite pleased with his performance. But, on another occasion, the Vidüşaka's exuberance brings only distress to the king. The king is happy to have met Sāgarikā in the plantain grove. But the queen surprises him by coming unexpectedly on the scene. The king explains his own joyful appearance as due to the blossoming of Navamālikā. Imagining that the queen has accepted the explanation, Vasantaka spreads his hands and starts dancing in triumph, thereby dropping the picture canvas and exposing the king's secret. Vasantaka tries to save the awkward situation by remarking that the king was doing his own portrait-a difficult art, indeed! But he is unable to account for the portrait of Sagarikā. He swears by his sacred thread that the second portrait is non-existent-a bluff, which even a sympathetic friend could hardly swallow, much less the angry queen. Vasantaka is relieved to find that the untimely blast' of the queen has left them without doing any damage. But the king knows that there is no ground for any consolation, ·248 d In describing the queen as an 'untimely blast of wind', Vasantaka was really giving an expression to his timid nature. The queen's maid, Susangatā, discovers the Vidūşaka and the king with the picture canvas, and jestingly threatens to report the matter to the queen. The simple Vidūşaka is alarmed. He urges the king to pacify the maid with a present. True to his nature he believes that the maid could be bribed with a present. Nevertheless, his fear is genuine. A vividl narration of the progress of the battle is enough to cause a treinor in his heart. He appeals to Vijayasena to be brief in his description. He mistakes the Sårikā on the Bakula tree for a goblin. He hears imaginary sounds. Even the king's assurances do not help him. But when, a little afterwards, he learns the truth, he gets angry with the bird and rushes at it, raising his stick, which is crooked like a wicked person's heart,' resolved to bring the Särikā down,' like a ripe Kapittha fruit'. The king is sorry both for the imaginary fears of the Vidūşaka as well as for this unnecessary show of heroism, because the bird was really speaking very sweetly. Vasantaka compensates for this loss by reporting the speech of the bird. Both of them follow the bird to the plantain grove, where the king unexpectedly meets Sāgarikā. Vasantaka's folly has a silver lining. Vasantaka is not altogether stupid. He correctly gusses the arrival of the ladies in the Makaranda garden from the tinkling sound of their anklets, which the king had imagined to be the humming of the bees. The possession of the Ratnamālā by Sågarikā sensibly leads him to conjecture that she could not be a maid but must come from a noble family. And when he learns, later, that his conjecture was right, he is pleased with his own cleverness. And once, at least, his remark has almost a prophetic significance : The king is propitiating the angry Sagarikă (act ii). Seeing that she is not easily pleased, Vasantaka remarks, " Here is another queen Våsavadatta, indeed!" The king suddenly drops Sagarika's hand, which he ·249 was holding, fearing that the queen has arrived. But the queen really arrives on the spot at that moment, and the king is luckily saved from being found in a situation which, otherwise, would certainly have been embarrassing. Though Vasantaka is innocent of any kind of knowledge either of a lore or of an art, he is unrestrained, unlike the Vidūşaka in Priyadarsika, in his enthusiastic appreciation and in his spirit of mirth. He compliments Srikhandadāsa for making the Navamālikā bloom to perfection and, thus, surpass the queen's favourite Mādhavi creeper. He is in a jubilant mood at the festivities in honour of Cupid. He notices the youthful ladies playing, with syringes of coloured liquid in their hands, and dancing to the tune of music and the thythm of drum, as the scattered fragrant powder fills the open space. He draws the king's attention to the furtive glances of courtesans, as they gleefully cry out when hit by the coloured liquid from syringes. He is equally attracted by the two maids as they enter dancing a vernal dance. He does not fail to observe the beauty of the Makaranda garden, where the dust of the mango blossom, tossed by the Malaya wind, has raised a regular canopy, and a welcome is offered to visitors by the mingled notes of humming bees and cooing cuckoos. His description of darkness and his appreciation of Sāgarika's beauty have an aesthetic note, albeit conventional. Vasantaka's attachment to the king is more genuine than that of the Vidūşaka in Priyadarśikā. He is pleased to please the king. He congratulates the king for the Navamālikā blossoms, knowing what proud interest the latter takes in that creeper. The prospect of a meeting with Sagarikā (act ii) fills him with joy and he is happy to become the bearer of this glad news to the king who, he is sure, will be more pleased with it than by the gain of the Kausambi kingdom. The secrecy successfully observed about the king's meeting with Sāgarika impels him to open hilarity. Vasantaka really likes his handsome friend, the king, whom he compares to Cupid. He 32 ·250 not only runs errands for the king but tries to help him also. It is true that the idea of bringing in Sāgarikā dressed as Vasavadattā has originated with the maid Kancanamälā; but Vasantaka is a party to the plot. Unfortunately the ruse miscarries, for no fault of Vasantaka, by Vasavadattā arriving too early for the schemers. Vasantaka's explanations are of no avail and he is removed from the spot in fetters by the order of the queen. Vasantaka had considered himself to be wiser than Bphaspati. He was sure of the success of the scheme. Vasantaka's boast is proved to be unreal. But his concern for the king is genuine. Hence, Kāñcanamāla's compliment that Vasantaka outdoes the minister Yaugandharāyaṇa in his anxiety for sandhi and vigraha, meaning, not the strategy of peace and war but, union (with Sāgarika ) and discord ( with Väsavadattā). Vasantaka's interests are those of his royal friend. When he learns from Susangatā that Sāgarika has been packed off to some unknown destination, he is very much moved. He breaks into tears and declines to take the Ratnamālā. He is persuaded to accept it only by the consideration that the jewel necklace may bring some comfort to the king so cruelly deprived of his love. And Vasantaka rises to the occassion when the king is about to rush into the fire that has enveloped the harem. He tries to stop the king from this precipitate action. But in his concern for rescuing Sāgarikā, the king pushes him away and runs into the fire. Vāsavadattā goes after the king. Vasantaka then jumps ahead and says, Queen, I will lead the way." Vasantaka is more prone to emotion and excitement than the Vidūşaka in Priyadarsika. His simple sentiments are the internal signs of his simple nature, as his wild dancing, loud laughter, clapping of hands and clicking of fingers are the external signs of his childish temper. However, in his concern for the king Vasantaka touches a height that was not expected of this bubbling, babbling fool, ·X ĀTREYA (in Nāgānanda) भोः युष्माकं पुरतोऽहं दास्याःपुन्याः खलीकृतः । तत् किं मम इह स्थितेन । . - Vidūşaka, in Act III. . The portrait of Atreya is drawn in colours which are different from those that Harşa used in painting his other two Vidūşakas. In these colours are tinges which are, no doubt, familiarly conventional. For instance, Ātreya, is a Brāhmaṇa. As such, he displays great love for food. His belly blazes with the fire of hunger in proportion to the progress of the sun towards the zenith. When he is hungry he can have patience neither with the aesthetic delights of the hero nor with his sentimental ravings. He must go and grab whatever roots and fruits he can lay his hands on. When the Nāyikā is accepted by the hero's parents as a bride for their son, Atreya's first thought is happiness for the couple and he dances with joy. But on second thought he realises that the celebration of the marriage is going to give him an opportunity for having real food to his heart's content. He probably has his desire fulfilled. And, in addition, he receives, as a friend of the bridegroom, certain formal honours. He is anointed with fragrant unguents. A wreath of flowers is placed on his head, Ātreya is very much pleased. Ātreya is not without common-sense. Moving on the Malaya mountain in the company of the hero, Atreya finds that the heroine is avoiding them out of bashfulness. Ātreya approaches her with a mild reproach: "Lady, is this the custom in your penance grove," he asks, " that a guest is not welcomed even by a word?” Mitrāvasu requests the hero to ·252 accept the hand of his daughter. The hero is attracted towards the heroine, but is not aware that she is Malayavati herself. He, therefore, excuses himself by stating the fact. The heroine misunderstands his words and swoons away. A treya comes forward in this distressing situation and wisely advises Mitrāvasu to approach the hero's parents and obtain their consent to the marriage. Ātreya is the hero's friend and would have loved to assist him in matters of love. But this opportunity is denied him because the hero is interested in ideals of ascetic life and does not care for worldly things. Atreya argues with the hero. The hero, according to hiin, is wasting his precious youth in waiting upon his parents, who are not far away from the ultimate end of human existence. The pleasures of kingly life and the duty of preserving the kingdom are awaiting the hero. But the serene Jimātavāhana is firmly resolved to dedicate his life to the service of others. Though baffled, Ātreya persists in his endeavour to bring about a change of heart in the hero. He describes how the Malaya breeze, heavily loaded with the perfume of sandal and delightfully cool with particles of spring water, is as thrilling as the first embrace of an eager beloved. He invites the hero's attention to the Tapovana which harbours, in the thick shade of its glossy trees, a multitude of creatures, undisturbed by the profuse effusion of the fragrant smoke of holy oblations. He notices the deer listening with closed eyes to the strains of music, turning their necks to the direction of the sound, and forgetting to swallow the half-chewed mouthfuls of grass. But Atreya's enthusiastic appreciation of the surrounding beauty meets with only a cold approval from Jimütavāhana. Alas, even the beauty of the maiden, who was rendering that song, fails to produce any striking impression on the mind of the hero! Atreya is forced to drag the hero into the presence of the maiden. Luckily for Atreya, once Jimütavāhana is in the presence of MI ·253 the heroine, his heart catches the warmth of youth. He charmed by her comliness. For some time he neglects the care of his parents, and becomes love-sick. Ātreya has an opportunity of becoming the hero's companion in love. But he does not know how to produce a diversion from the anguish of unfulfilled love. He suggests that the hero may revert to his routine of waiting on the parents; alternatively, he asks him to turn to the slab of moonstone; but all, to no purpose. Atreya then tries to linger on a narration about the hero's beloved, and induces him to paint her portrait. He praises the hero's skill and succeeds in drawing a smile on his face. Later, Jimūtavāhana meets his beloved and stands holding her hand. Ātreya has a solitary opportunity of enjoying himself : "Friend," he remarks, "the Gāndharva marriage is accomplished. So, leave her hand. But the position of Ātreya as a companion in love is weak. The ascetic idealism of the hero has deprived him of the usual function of a Vidūşaka. The hero may be temporarily love-sick. But the settlement of the marriage by the parents on both the sides, has robbed the play of erotic motive. The Vidūşaka, having no real function in a comedy of love, has sunk into the position of a comic butt, an object of ridicule and laughter for others. In this respect, Atreya's Brāhmanya provides the ground for fun. Atreya is going to the garden to meet the hero (act iii). He has left the marriage party only a while ago. The presents he has received are with him. The fragrance, both of the unguents applied to his body and of the flowers in the wreath he is wearing, attracts a swarm of bees towards him. A treya woefully realises that the honours he so joyfully received as a friend of the bridegroom have brought him into a calamity. What can he do ? He has an idea. He could use the pair of red garments given by Malayavati to cover his body, from head to foot, in the feminine fashion. Thus protected, he could defy the accursed bees!

·254 But then the drunken Vița enters on the scene along with the Ceta. He mistakes Ātreya for the Ceți Navamälikā who, he imagines, is avoiding him because he has failed to sce her for a long time. The Vița runs up to Atreya, embraces him by the neck, tries to push the tāmbūla in his mouth, falls at his feet and makes an appeal to give up anger. The poor Ātreya holds his nose, turns away his face at the offensive smell of liquor, realising that if he has avoided one madhukara (bee), he has fallen into the hands of another madhukuru (drunkard)! At this moment the Ceți Navamālikā enters. She is at first angry to see the Vița propitiating some other woman' by falling at 'her' feet. However, she soon realises hcr mistake, thanks to Ātreya howling at the Vita. But she is lured into mischief and deliberately keeps mum. The Ceta, however, has noticed the Ceți and requests his master Vița to leave Ātreya alone. In the meanwhile, Atreya removes his veil and reveals his pitiable identity. The drunken Vița is angry, because he thinks that Atreya has played a deliberate trick on him. He abuses him as a brown monkey and orders the Ceţa to hold him fast, till he is attending on Navamälikā. The Ceta obeys his master. While the Vița is at the feet of Navamālikā, Ātreya makes a vain attempt to run away. The cautious Ceta pulls him by his sacred thread, which snaps in the scuffle. The Ceța now turns on Atreya with, “You brown monkey! where are you running ?", and drags him by coiling his upper garment round his neck. Ātreya turns to Navamälikā for help. She laughs at him and suggests that she would intervene if he fell at her feet, touching the ground with his head. Atreya flies into wild rage at the audacity of a mere maid. Oh ! the impudence in asking Ātreya, the very friend of the king and, above all, a Brahmin, to fall at the feet of a whore's daughter! But the maid's menacing attitude is not to be changed by A treya's anger. For a while, she turns to the Vița and points out to him that the Brāhmaṇa is a friend of the bridegroom and, therefore, in treat- < ·255 ing him roughly the Vița was running the risk of incurring the displeasure of Mitrāvasu. The Vita obeys the command of his beloved. He embraces Atreya by the neck and apologises to him for having made fun of him. But the Vița is anxious to know whether the epithet 'chief of drunkards' (mattapālaka), used by Atreya for him a short while ago, was seriously intended. Ātreya hastens to say that it was not so intended. The Vița is reconciled. He folds his upper garment to make a seat for Ātreya. Atreya is asked to take his seat. He does so, hoping that the Vița is getting sober. Now, the Vița asks Navamālikā to sit beside Atreya, so that he could do the honour to both of them simultaneously. The Vița then orders the Ceța to fill a glass of wine. The Vița takes the glass in his hand, puts flowers in it, bends on his knees, and proffers the glass to Navamālikā. She sips the wine smilingly. The Vița then holds the glass before Ātreya, assuring him that the wine is untasted by any one, and that it has acquired a special fragrance in virtue of its contact with Navamālikā's mouth. The face of Atreya twitches into a nervous smile. He reminds the Vița that he is a Brahmin and cannot drink wine, The Vita asks him to prove that he is a Brahmin. But alas ! Ātreya's sacred thread had been snapped by the rough Ceta. Navamālikā is awefully amused. But she suggests that Ātreya can still prove his caste by reciting a few words from the Vedas. Ātreya should have been dumbfounded; but he has the resourcefulness to say that the Vedic words have evaporated by the smell of liquor. But Atreya knows in his own heart that he has been trapped by the maid. There is no way out but to beg mercy of her. The threat of the maid has come true. The pitiable Brāhmaṇa is at her feet. Navamālikā had not certainly wanted all this from Ātreya. She was trying to get a bit of fun only. She, therefore, stops Atreya, falls herself at his feet, and explains to him that she regarded him as' a relation' and so, took the liberty of a joke. She begs his pardon, and assures the Vița that he is a real ·256 Brahmin. The Vița follows the example of his beloved. He apologises to Atreya for the offence he had given him under the influence of intoxication. Ātreya mercifully accepts all apologies and grants his pardon. The party goes to a liquor shop. Atreya hopes that he has escaped narrowly from an accidental death. He heaves a sigh of relief and turns to a well to wash off the sin of contact with a drunkard. But the misfortune of Atreya is not over yt. After hathing at the well he joins the hero's party. Jimītavāhana asks him why he is late. Atreya is too shrewd to own his recent humiliation. He bluffs that he was delayed on account of his curiosity in watching the drinking assembly of the Siddhas and the Vidyādharas that had gathered for the marriage feast. The hero is in a happy mood. He says to the heroine that he should have spared her the trouble of going up to the Kusumākara garden. For, her face is veritablc Nandana, her eyebrows being creepers and her red lip being foliage. The heroine's maid is delighted by this handsome compliment, and digs at Atreya. Atreya reproaches her for her vanity. “Don't be puffed up by the praise of a woman's beauty," he says. "Men are equally handsome. Only, nobody paints (their beauty), out of sheer jealousy!" The maid immediately gets into a Inischievous mood and offers to paint' him. Atreya is too pleased to believe that the maid was really serious. But with the insulting abuses still fresh in his mind, hc implores her to do him the favour. He says, “I will be given a new lease of life!....Nobody will then call me this or that brown monkey!" The maid asks him to sit properly. She reminds him that, after keeping awake for the whole night for the marriage ceremony, when he had dozed off he had made an excellent picture. She would like to paint him in that pose. She persuades him to close his eyes and assume that pose. Atreya cheerfully follows all the instructions of the maid. The hero, too, compliments Atreya, because the maid had chosen him for painting..

·257 The maid then presses tamala leaves between her palms and with that liquid blackens the face of Atreya ! That was the maid's idea of painting! Atreya raises his stick in impotent rage. But the heroine laughs at the practical joke. And the hero is mum. The silent approval of both of them takes the wind out of Atreya's sail. He turns to Jimūtavāhana and says helplessly, "Do you see? The whore's daughter has insulted me in your presence. What's the good of my staying here now?" And with his face blackened Atreya leaves the stage. The maid runs after him to appease his anger. But Ātreya does not return. He has gone for good, carrying haughtily his disgrace and discomfiture, 33 ·XI VAIKHĀNASA (in Kaumudimahotsava विदूषकः-इदानीं प्राप्तराज्यानां अशित्वा पीत्वा तिष्ठताम् ।... निपुणिका-यदा वं राजा तदा इदं राजकार्यम् । -Act V. The maid Nipuņikā's first impression about Vaikhānasa is that he resembles a monkey by his appearance and a donkey by his voice'. But none of these conventional traits are used for any comic treatment. The reference is only a reminder that Vaikhănasa is a Vidüşaka. Vaikhānasa's love of food, however, receives a particular emphasis. The pearl necklace lying bundled up on the ground is to him like a heap of cooked rice. When he is moving about in the second act and nobody seems to take notice of him, he feels sore that he is treated like a camp guest'. But when afterwards he sees the hero's nurse he is joyful and remarks, "I was moving about begging ; but I have obtained a regular invitation'. When the hero is engrossed in painting the picture of the heroine, in the third act, he grumbles that he is hungry. In the fifth act, the love-lorn hero turns to him for diversion. Vaikānasa suggests, "Shall we go to the dining-hall, or the kitchen ?" In fact, his advice to the hero is to forget the past love. “Now that you have regained your kingdom,' he says "eat, drink and be happy. This is Vaikhānasa's idea of royal duty'. The maid naturally observes that Vaikhānasa may eat and drink and think that he has done his royal duty if he were to be a king some day!' Vaikhānasa is timid, He mistakes the picture-scroll for a ·259 ) serpent and is frightened for a moment. He asks the heroine's maid to paint his picture. But when she contemptuously dismisses him he turns to propitiate her and gives her the pearl necklace. As a friend of the hero Vaikhānasa jokes about his love and shows him sympathy too. The hero has lost his kingdom. Now he has fallen in love. It is like a blind man falling in a well'. Vaikhānasa, therefore, feels sore about the love-sick condition of the hero. When he finds the hero gazing at his own picture drawn by the heroine, Vaikhānasa asks him, “ Are you admiring her skill in drawing or your own handsome figure ?" Later, when the hero is lamenting, he says, "It's no use howling like a lonely jackal. Speak to me. But Vaikhānasa is sympathetic also to the hero. He is unwilling to pick up the necklace lying on the ground, thinking that it may be an act of thieving. But he picks it up when the hero urges him to do so. He satisfies the hero by explaining to him, later, why he handed over the necklace to the heroine's maid. He encourages the hero to paint the heroine's picture, to talk about his own condition and conducts him to an arbour —all with a view to providing a diversion to the hero from his depression and sorrow of unfulfilled love. The hero is moved to tears on seeing the necklace, once again, in the last act. Vaikhānasa comments with sympathy, "A tale about good men is apt to move one to tears. And when it's a question of an ornament previously worn by them, tears are inevitable.” The hero's desire is fulfilled. But he is unable to believe in his own good fortune. Vaikhānasa, again, says, “Trust the horripilation that has covered all your body." In fact, if an indirect reference were to be trusted, a proof of mutual friendliness will be found in the fact that the hero, in his love-sick condition, seeks the lap of Vaikhānasa as a pillow to soothe his burning head in sleep. Vaikhānasa does not play any particular part in the development of the story. But he is not altogether detached ·260 from it. There are minor functions that he fulfils in the play. Probably one important task that was entrusted to him by the minister Mantragupta was to contact the hero's nurse, Vinayandharā, who was moving with the heroine's household, disguised as a Parivrăjikā. Vaikhānasa succeeds in contacting her though without any special effort on his part and he considers himself to be a 'snātaka' in spite of being dubbed as a fool. The necklace which he hands over to the maid serves to establish a bond between the hero and the heroine. The same is true about the picture-scroll. Vaikhānasa carries the picturc to the horn along with a messsage from the nurse whom lic has fully acquainted with the hero's condition. And though preparink the heroine's mind for accepting the hero's love has apparently fallen to the share of the nurse, the encouragement whiclı Vaikhānasa gives to the hero in drawing the heroine's picture on the same scroll serves to strengthen the mutual bonds of love. The picture becomes, as it were, a symbol of the union. The necklace, too, assumes the significance of a love token. The priest delivers it to the hero through Vaikhānasa. It is through these small tasks, albeit menial, that Vaikhānasa contributes his share to the development of love. However, Vaikhānasa is a pale figure by the side of the Vidūşakas in the classical plays. He shares with Mänavaka and Madhavya their love of food; but Vaikhānasa repeats their jokes. He has their stupidity; but it affects neither comic kaughter for the development of the story. His devotion to the hero is probably genuine ; but it nowhere rises to any touching level as in the case of Santuşta or Maitreya. Yaugandharāyana bad entrusted an important task to the Vidūşaka in establishing a contact with Udayana and he achieves it successfully. To Vaikhapasa success comes in contacting the nurse without any special effort on his own part. Vaikhānasa has neither the delightful stupidity nor the shining wit which are to be found in a genuine VidhiasakaHe is a pale, insignificant shadow Conventionally attached to the hero, ·XII KAPIÑJALA (in Karpūramañjari) ईदृशं राजकुलं दूरे वन्यताम् यत्र दासी ब्राह्मणेन समं प्रतिस्पर्धा करोति। तदद्यप्रभृति निजवसुन्धराब्राह्मण्या: चरणशुश्रूषको भूत्वा गृहे एव स्थास्यामि ! -Vidūşaka, in Act I. The Vidūşaka in Karpũramañjari, a Prakrit Sattaka, is generally known in the play by the name of Kapiñjala Brāhmaṇa. The name suggests that he is a Brahmin of ugly appearance. From his own reference to his costume and make-up it appears that Kapiñjala had a beard and big, basket-like ears. A parrot talks of uprooting his top-lock of hair. His name is indicative of a brown monkey-like complexion. His love of food is suggested in his talk. 'A Brahmin languishing with hunger', he says, 'dreams of modakas'. He compares the Sindhuvāra blossoms to rice-pudding and the Jasmine flowers to a buffalo's milk. In a humorous reference about the queen he mentions milk and butter-milk. Kapiñjala is ignorant and unlettered, but boasts that he is a bit of a scholar. He says that his father-in-law's father-inlaw was employed to carry books in the house of a scholar ! The maid Vicakşaņā, who knows that Kapiñjala is 'like a beam of a balance which carries no marks of weight', comments that he has come to learning only by anvaya, a remote family connection. Kapiõjala is angry and remarks that those who are born in the Akālajalada family get learning by anvaya, inheritance. The exchange of words is enough to start a quarrel between the Vidūşaka and the maid. Kapiñjala is ·262 ready to demonstrate his abilities. He is aware that 'musk is not sold either in a village or jungle', and 'gold can be tested only on a touchstone'. Yet he is prepared to prove his worth in the presence of the king and the queen, confident that one does not require a mirror to look at a bracelet on one's own wrist'. The demonstration is immecliately arranged. Both Kapiñjala and Vicakşaņā arc asked to describe the spring season. They recite poetic verses by turns. It, however, transpires that the maid has a better poetic gift. The king who was probably expected to support his friend, the Vidūşaka, acknowledges the superiority of the maid. Kapiñjala is sore and nettled. The maid says that the Vidūşaka has the ability to use tender expression, but that it is wasted on paltry subjects. Kapiñjala, however, is not to be consoled. He and the maid start abusing each other heartily in the royal presence. From words they come to blows. Kapiñjala threatens to break the maid's ear and smash her face; she promises to cut his hand ! Out of sheer disgust over his discomfiture Kapiñjala bemoans the state of affairs in a royal household. "If wine and cow's five products are to be kept in the same vessel', 'if glass and ruby are to be employed in the same ornament', if, in other words, 'a low-caste maid is to be allowed the same status with a Brahmin', it is better, he feels, to bid goodbye to such a royal house, stay at home and give devoted attention to one's own wife! Kapiñjala does not merely talk angrily, he leaves the king and the queen and goes out. The queen feels that there cannot be fun without Kapiñjala.' She wants him to be called back. The maid says it is no use. And Kapiñjala shouts from a distance that if a jester were wanted in the palace the maid could be dressed up as one; she would play the fool. He was going. The episode ends in ridicule and discomfiture for the Vidūşaka. He goes out but returns again. And from this moment onwards till the end of the story he plays altogether a new role, ·263 The king is in love with Karpūramañjari and Kapiñjala, as che king's friend, proceeds to help him in the matter. He is not yet quite sure about the maid who, he knows, is given to fooling. But she promises that she would not mix jest with work. They make peace with each other and join in a mutual plan to assist the king in gaining his object of love. Once this pact is made, Kapiñjala has no hesitation in acknowledging the superiority of the maid and of her elder sister in poetic composition. He describes Vicakşaņā as the 'Goddess of Poetry on the earth', and her sister Sulaksaņā as the 'Goddess of Poetry in all the three worlds'! As the hero's companion Kapiñjala occasionally adopts the humorous attitude. Thus, at the beginning of the third act, when the hero is talking loudly to himself about the lady of his love Kapiñjala comments, "Why are you standing here croaking like a hen-pecked husband?" Afterwards the king narrates his dream. Kapiñjala regales him with a lengthy description of his own fantastic dream. The king understands the moral that day-dreaming yields no results ! But such an attitude is only occasional. In company with the maid, and independently, Kapiñjala renders active help to the hero in love. He suggests to the Magician to produce Karpūramañjari. At the queen's behest he invites Karpūramañjarī to narrate her personal story. He offers his upper garment to her as a seat. Taking the hint from the maid he brings the hero to the Emerald seat in the garden from which he can watch the heroine swinging in a swing. A little later, he takes the hero behind the Tamāla tree so as to be still nearer the heroine. He and the maid have been able to do this in spite of the jealous eye of the queen. When the king compliments him on this piece of work he remarks that, “The old cat (the queen) was made to drink sour milk and think it was milk 1" Kapiñjala encourages the hero to talk about his love and ·264 go ahead with the affair. In the matter of talking Kapiñjala displays a volubility which probably is consistent with his caste and creed. But he displays also a finc poctic ability which is contradictory to his alleged lack of Icarning and his comic role. However, it is there. He describes the hero and the heroine and their love-lorn condition in a neat poetic style. To him is assigned, again, the description of the moon and of the theatreplay presented in celebration of the festival. In fact, if the king is an Aphorist, Kapiñjala, on his own statement, is an elaborate Commentator. Kapiñjala is prepared to do even menial service for the king and the heroine. He offers to bring the cooling ingredients to alleviate the hero's 'heat of love'. He fans the heroine when she is perspiring in the closed chamber. He communicates to the king the news of the heroine's imprisonment. Although the credit for the manoevures by which the hero and the heroine are able to meet each other after the queen put the heroine under strict vigilance and lock-up, must go to the Magician, who is also responsible for arranging their wedding, Kapiñjala and the maid do everything else, between them, to strengthen the bonds of mutual love. The king admits that the Vidūşaka is a real help to him. " Who else will do my work ?" the king says; “Who but the moon can raise the tide of the ocean ?" Kapiñjala finally officiates as a priest at the wedding ceremony and the king grants him ' a hundred villages' as his fees. In the assistance that Kapiñjala renders to the king in presiding over the marriage as a priest and in supplying long poetic descriptions there is, however, no glimpse of a comic character. Whatever little there is of the Vidūşaka is in the first act. In the remaining acts of the story, Kapiñjala is a social companion of the hero, the king's helpmate in love. There is a sharp cleavage between these two roles. Nothing has been done to fuse them together. Kapiñjala ceases to be a Vidāşaka and becomes a professional associato of a king.

·XIII CĀ RĀ Y A N A ( in Viddhaśālabhañjika ) ही ही भो एते खलु पण्डिता अलीकविकल्पैः स्मृतफला इव मर्कटा मूलमलभन्तः पल्लवग्राहिणो भवन्ति । मूर्खाः पुनः पनसवनपालका इव मूलमनुसरन्तः फलं प्राप्नुवन्ति । Vidūşaka, in Act II. The appearance of Cårāyaṇa is that of a traditional Vidūşaka. He looks like a monkey with big, basket-like ears. It comes out indirectly. Cārāyaṇa conducts the king to the sport pavilion, Kelikailāsa and draws his attention, among other things, to the picture of a monkey in a stable. The king remarks that it is Cārāyaṇa's own picture. Cărāyaṇa is angry and dismisses the words of the king as a 'bad man's speech', But later, he admits his baldness. Cārāyaṇa is a Brahmin. He blesses the king with his sacred thread that the latter's dream vision of a beautiful young girl may turn into reality. Like all Brahmins Cārāyaṇa must be fond of food although his love of food is not specially exhibited. Cārāyapa draws his analogies occasionally from the province of food. Wanting to learn the secret of the king's love he realises that the knots of mango stems do not yield juice till they are pressed'. His heart is bursting with curiosity 'like a ripe pomegranate about to burst open'. He compares the king invoking his dream vision to a person who, dreaming of modakas, sends out invitation to the entire town. Cārāyana is ready to accept any kind of gift. The king is decked with cosmetics and new apparel for his marriage. Cārāyaṇa picks up for himself whatever is left over. He demands a gift as the king's companion on the eve of the royal wedding. 34 ·266 Cārāyaṇa pretends ignorance about reading and writing. He confesses that he has never learnt to write. Cāriyana is observing a vow of silence on the eve of his second marriage. He replies to the king's question ly scribbling something on the floor. The king, 'though conversant with cighteen scripts', is unable to decipher Carāyaṇa's reply! Carāyana's inability to read may be gathered from the fact that he asks the king to read the poetic letter inscribed on a palm-leaf instead of reading it out himself. The king is in love and has put the queen out of his mind. Cârāyaṇa remarks that it is like a lazy person forgetting readily his lessons. As for himself Cariyana is a Mahābrāhmaṇa. He has learnt half a line of his own Sūtras! Cårāyana makes a show of cowardice too. Ilcaring words spoken behind the crystal wall he asks the king to tic up the top lock of hair, imagining that the voice which spoke the words was that of a supernatural being. Struck against the crystal wall and stuck in their movement, Cārāyana offers to display his 'heroism ' in bringing the spirit' behind the wall down to the ground by his crooked stick. However, he feels that it is the Brahmarākşasas who are talking. " After all", he observes, "goblins love night". Cārāyana, thus, possesses all the traits that a Vidüşaka is expected to possess. He has physical deformity. He is a Brahmin. And he has the Brahmin's typical lack of education, fondness for food and gifts, cowardice and pretentiousness. What is more, he has, unlike many Vidūşakas, a Brāhmaṇī, a wife by the name of Pingalikā; and he is blessed with many a children, But Cārāyana is prepared to play the fool. He falls an easy victim to a practical joke that the queen plays on him. The queen gets a slave boy dressed up as a bride and makes Cārāyana enter on his second marriage. The so-called bride is supposed to be a daughter of the Purohita of Mrgānkavarman who is staying as ransom with the king Vidyādharamalla, the ·267 hero of the Nātikā. The name of the bride is Ambaramālā (Sky-garland); and the names of her parents are Śaśasſiga ( Hare's horn) and Mțgatſşņikā ( Mirage). The hero immediately sees the joke but does not interfere. Cārāyana gets ready with all pomp and flourish and goes lustily through the ritual of wedding. He fails to see the joke even when the slave boy commits an obvious error in his speech in referring to himself in the masculine. Cārāyana goes on to correct the error by pointing out that the 'bride' should use feminine gender in her speech. It is only when the slave boy throws away his disguise that Cārāyaṇa realises that he has been fooled. And then, he works up his temper and hurls a string of abuses at Mekhalā, the daughter of the queen's nurse and the queen's companion, who had taken a leading part in arranging the mock wedding. Cārāyana fumes and frets and raises his stick, but to no purpose. He withdraws himself from the scene, stands behind a thicket of Navamālikā and hangs his head down. However, Cårāyana is not like the usual Vidūşakas. Though discomfited he is not to be humbled. He nurses a sense of his injury and plans a revenge. He takes a maid, Sulakşaņā, into his confidence. He asks her to conceal herself in the Kesara tree at evening time. When it becomes pitchy dark and Mekhalā is found in the Pramoda garden, Sulakşaņā is to address her in a nasal voice and announce that Mekhalā will die on the evening of the full-moon day of Vaišākha, Mekhala will get the fright of her life. She will beg the 'Supernatural voice' to tell her a remedy to counteract the premature death. Then Sulakşaņā is to announce that Mekhalā .can hope to prevent her death by duly and ceremoniously honouring a Brahmin who is well-versed in Gāndharva Veda; she must fall at his feet and crawl between his legs. The hoax works and Mekhalã and the queen are all taken in by it. The ladies of the harem prepare themselves for the ritual. The king assures that Cārāyaṇa will fulfil the role of the required Brāhmaṇa. The ritual is done. Mekhalā falls at the feet of Cārāyana. He ·268 raises his stick and raves at the imaginary messengers of death', and offers his protection to the unlucky girl. Finally Mekhalā crawls between his legs. At this moment Cärāyana sings out of joy and shouts that he has succeeded in 'mounting the chariot of love-in bringing a pleasure-woman of the harem under his feet! Ho announces loudly to Mckhalā that it is his revenge for the mockery of a second marriage which was inflicted on him. Mekhalā bursts into tears. Tlic queen pleads that the joke was improper. But Cáriyana replics that if the queen inflicted a joke on him because he was the king's companion, he had an equal right to return the joke because Mekhalā was the queen's companion. The episode dissolve's in tears and anger, Cārāyana caring for neither. Cārāyana certainly has a temper and he loses it easily. On another occasion when he asks for a wedding present as the hero's friend and the maid euphemistically tells him that lic will get the 'crescent moon' (meaning, that he will be unceremoniously expelled), Cārāyana turns upon her angrily and promises her that he will twist the faces of the whole brood of palace maids so that they will be abhorred by their paramours. One of the maids says that Cārāyana has the temper of the irascible Durvāsas. She is probably right. But it is unusual for a Viduşaka to exhibit such a temper. Even if it were understood as a possible reaction of the mockery to which he was subjected, the malice in planning a revenge and in threatening punishment is still a strange trait in a comic character. A Sakāra could be malicious, menacing and yet comic. But Cārāyaṇa is not a villain. In fact, Cäräyana is not a genuine Vidûşaka also. He appears to play his role professionally. He makes fun of the king when the latter becomes sentimental over his dream lovo. He describes the halting movements of the king as those of a bull weighted down with a heavy yoke. He is prepared to leave the king who is standing for a long time in one place to ·269 ball as let him 'grow like a tree'. The king feels concerned when Cārāyana's practical joke on Mekhalā brings tears to the eyes of the queen. But Cārāyana says that the queen was not shedding 'pearls' so that the king should be concerned about them. Cārāyana describes the heroine who is playing with a doing thumping and thrashing'. The wife of a brother-in-law, he says, is one's half a wife'. When Kuvalayamālā, who was married to the disguised Mțgārkāvali, is offered to the king as his bride, Cârāyaṇa remarks that she is no longer a half wife but has become a 'full wife' to the king. There is a lot of wisdom in Cārāyana's statements. " When the moon has spread his rays, how long can the night lotus remain without opening her flowers ?" This is his remark in encouraging the hero to approach the heroine. But he advises him to stick to the queen also: For, "a Tittiri in hand is better than a pea-hen in future." In the second act he encourages the king by pointing out that, “A doll made of moonstone will not but melt by lunar rays.” In the third act Cārāyana wavers between loyalty to the queen and pursuit of new love: He blames the king for neglecting the queen as' a lazy person neglects study'. But at the same time he says, "New blossoms will not appear unless the old leaf is removed. A musk-deer loves to pluck herbal shoots that are newly formed and is not interested in a restricted patch of field." The king rightly says that Cārāyana's speech has no restraint. Cārāyana is voluble. Cārāyaṇa moves with the king as his companion, directs him to various spots and describes the scenery. But he has no hand in the development of the love theme. He neither helps the king directly in securing for him his object of love nor does he create any complications by his so-called stupidity and, thus, indirectly help the development of the plot. Cārāyana is a conventional tag to the hero. His wit and wisdom are professional. He is put in situations which are meant for comic effect only and have no bearing, or very remote, if at all, on the ·2770 central theme. As a matter of fact, Carayana's stupidity as a comic character is suspect. He professes ignorance and lack of education. But his observations are those of it sane person. He has not only an ability to describe scenic effects practically, but he can produce a metrical composition, tno, on varying levels of experience. What is more, he can recite a Sanskrit verse with the king. The king is constrained to observe that Carāyana' has developed Sanskrit tuo'. Carāyana can quote from Dharmaśāstra. He is an expert, we are assured by the king. on Gandharva Veda. And he gives an exhibition of singing and dancing on the occasion of the king's wedding which, though a little superfluous, is not altogether comic. Cårāyana's stupidity is, therefore, a part of his professional cquipment. And he is quite conscious of the advantage in donning a fool's cap: The wise, he says, are deluded by fanciful considerations ; they forget, like monkeys, the real fruit and, thus, unable to reach the root, have to content themselves with the leaves only. The fools, on the other hand, straightway make for the root like keepers of the bread-fruit grove and get the fruit. Really speaking, Cäräyana is a Brahmin who has a family of his own and is devoted to his wife. He appears to have been employed as a fool and is, therefore, required to fulfil his job. But Cârāyana's wit and wisdom, having nothing brilliant about them, are deprived of authentic comic context. His malice, too, does not reveal the quality of laughing at one's self. Cārāyaṇa, therefore, lacks the capacity to grow into the stature of Gautama. Nor can be fall in line with Sakāra who, in spite of his villainy, has the gift of laughing at himself. Carayana is a jester who either does not love a jest or is unable to tolerate a joke at his own cost. In introducing this contradiction in the characterization of Cārāyaṇa, Rājasekhara has deprived him of the essence of a comic character: Far, it is not that incongruity which makes & comic character.

·XIV THE VIDŪ Ş A KA (in Karnasundari ) एष सम्प्राप्तः भर्ता समं ब्राह्मणविटेन । -The Queen, in Act IV. The Vidūşaka in Karnasundarī bears no personal name. That he is a Brahmin is not to be doubted. Both the king and the queen refer to him, once, as a Brahmin though the reference is not flattering. The Vidūşaka has a wife called by the general name of Brāhmaṇi. The Vidüşaka displays some characteristic traits. For instance, he feigns tremor when the account of a serious battle is being narrated. His pleasure in good food and gifts is indicated. The angry queen is propitiated; and, to the delight of the Vidūşaka, she has seen to it that his belly is properly filled with modakas. The Vidūşaka, on his part, hopes to win over the queen to the king's love-affair by offering her Svastivāyana. He demands Svastivāyana when the king is wedded. On the eve of the royal wedding the Vidūşaka receives the king's old ornaments. The Vidūşaka feigns stupidity and exhibits childish behaviour. The king narrates to him how he saw the Vidyadhara girl in the garden and how she kindled love in his heart as a result of which the garden became a source of temporary torment to him. The Vidūşaka asks, " What shall we do of the garden which has caused all this trouble?" Later, he asks the king why lovers prefer the side-long glances of the beloved to a straight, face-to-face, meeting. Further, he suggests to the king to present himself before the heroine when she was narrating to her friend her own condition of love; and the king thinks ·272 that the suggestion was 'rash'. The titlūşaka indulges in snapping of fingers in reply to a sentimental question by the king, and in dancing at the news of military victory. The king naturally calls the Vidūsaka 'stupid'. But the Vidūşaka's stupidity and childish behaviour are only conventional to such an extent that they are contradicted in the play itself. The Vidūşaka displays a cleverness, not found in a stereotyped comic character, in learning the secret from the queen's maid. It is the maid who is trying to avoid the Vidūsaka, as the moon avoids Rähu'. But the Vidüşaka stops the maid, calls her bluff off by pulling out the plantain leaves and lotus stalks' from under her upper garment and extracts a confession from her that those cooling appliances were meant to alleviate the love-torture of Karnasundari. It is the maid again who has to request the Vidüşaka to guard the secret of love. In his relation with the king the Vidāsaka's attitude is partly that of a jester and partly that of an associate. He advises the king to give up his pursuit of love and follow the queen. He says to the king, "You will talk sweetly to the queen, fall at her feet and somehow win her over ; but she will call me 'a wicked Brahmin' and blame everything on me. Later, when he gives the news of the heroine's response to love and the king is too happy to believe the report, the Vidüşaka remarks that lovers are mad people' not to believe even in direct proof. And in order to convince the king of the truthfulness of the news he says, “I swear by the feet of my Brāhmani" But the Vidūşaka also helps the king by fulfilling his routine tasks. He conducts the hero through the garden, the Cupid's park and the Ripple-house ; describes the southerly wind, the trees and the blossoms; and thus, provides the usual diversion. In the second act he takes the hero to the Pleasure-grove and brings him to the lake where a meeting with the heroine ·273 takes place. In the third act he brings the hero to the rendezvous. He drops warnings of the queen's arrival. And though on one occasion the king is annoyed to find that the wretched Brahmin's inauspicious prophecy is fulfilled,' it nevertheless saves an awkward situation in act two. However, in the third act the king is surprised by the arrival of the queen and the Vidūşaka also has no answer to give to explain the situation away. At the wedding, however, he correctly advises the king to submit to the whole procedure silently. The Vidūşaka performs some small duties for the king. At the king's behest, he finds out from the maid the secret of Karnasundari's love-sick condition. He brings a letter of love from the heroine to the king. Thus, by encouraging the king in his love, by joining him in poetic descriptions of love and of scenic beauty and by performing small tasks entrusted to him the Vidūşaka helps the king. But the Vidūşaka is not entitled to any real credit. The meetings with the heroine are not planned by him; they are a lucky coincidence. The queen, therefore, is not correct in attributing the initiative to the Vidūşaka. Also, the queen's ruse of deceiving the king by marrying him to her own sister's son (who resembles the heroine) is foiled not by any effort of the Vidūşaka but by the altertness and tact of the Minister. Beyond executing the usual and conventional functionsand that too, with no originality or brilliance --the Vidūşaka does practically nothing. Though a conventional jester he does not jest, as a Vidūşaka is expected to do. In fact, the Vidūşaka is more like an ordinary helpmate to the king than a laughing companion. His poetic descriptions, his use of Sanskrit (I. 50) and his occasional formal address to the king_mall go to show that the Vidūşaka is not really cast for the role of a fool. The queen is perfectly right in calling the Vidūşaka'a Brahmin Vita'. 35 ·XV CAKORA (in Candralekha) अहो विदग्धतायाः विलासः। -The King, in Act II. The Vidūşaka in the Prakrit Sattaka Candulehā is called Cakora Brāhmaṇa. And as a Brahmin his particular trait which has received a great emphasis is his love of food. It colours most of his statements and observations. When he starts describing the great city, in competition with the inaid Candanikā, he draws his analogies deliberately from the province of food. Thus, he compares the loud voice of the cuckoos to that of well-fed Brahmins, the flying bees to a column of smoke rising from the kitchen and the fragrance of flowers to the smell of mustard fried in ample ghee! He thinks that the wonderful jewel had served its purpose in revealing the wonderful girl to view and that it had no further use, as husk is useless after rice-grains are procured. The hero is pining for a meeting with the heroine. Cakora has the information that she is to be found near the well in the royal garden. He says to the king, "Why do you cry and waste your time when a sweet dish of cooked rice, milk and sugar has been brought for you?" He describes the words of the heroine as a drink of nectar to the ears and her appearance as a feast to the eyes of the king. It would not be altogether wrong to say, in the words of Kālidäsa, that food is the only subject for a glutton. Again, as a Brahmin, Cakora is given to some conceit. He dismisses the maid's poetic description of the city (act i) as a · feeding on dregs left by others, implying that his own description based on novel similes drawn from the province of food is ·275 original! The king's right eye throbs; Cakora interprets the omen, being a Brahmin, as suggestive of sovereignty. Cakora is prepared to take a loan of poetic faculty' from the king. But he refuses the same from the low-caste maid although she is willing to give it. “Who will go to a Castor tree," says he, "in preference to the Pārijāta ? " The king once pays Cakora a compliment for his polish and learning. Cakora boasts, "The script-arrangement by Vyāsa, Vālmīki's poetic composition and Bphaspati's theory of six political remedies are no objects of wonder.” So, the erudition of Cakora is quite in the nature of things! That is why, when the king is inclined to praise the queen for the courteous reception given by her to Cakora, he contradicts him and asks, " Does not Indra's queen feel honoured when Nārada arrives ? Is not Lakşmi full of praise when Vasiştha makes his appearance ? But Cakora is not without his conventional stupidity. He gives an absurd description of the city as already noticed. He shows disbelief in the powers of a mere jewel to grant one's wishes. He asks the king to throw away the precious jewel after it has secured the Nāyikā, and receives the epithet 'bull' (Gosanjña) from the king! In the queen's apartment he babbles in his sleep and lets out the secret of the king's meeting with the Nāyikā, which results in the queen reinforcing her vigil over the Nāyikā. Cakora, however, has an interesting explanation for his apparent lack of learning: He says that he has stored his ancestral learning and poetic powers in a box, locked it, sealed it and kept it in the place where his wife sleeps, in fear of robbers in the streets ! And this is the reason why he is some times required to borrow wisdom from others. It is a good joke, indeed. But it is a joke only. For the Vidūşaka is full of practical wisdom and learning which run counter to his pretext of foolishness. When he asks the maid to demonstrate her poetic ability he dictates that the verse shall ·276 contain internal rhymes, shall be in Sragdharā metre and the subject shall be the Malaya breeze. When he pretends disbelief in the super-natural powers of the wish-fulfilling jewel, he observes that a belief in this case is analogous to that in the rise of a hare's horn, appearance of sky-blossoms and manifestation of water in mirage, in short, belief in the impossible. He blames the king for beating about the bush in asking news about the queen in stead of about the Nāyikā. He demands, " Why show a leaf to one who knows the root? Why sell a piece of glass in stead of a jewel in a jeweller's mansion? Why spread jugglar's tricks before one who has tasted the ecstatic bliss of Paradise ?" To the king's question whether he got any news from the maids he replies in a similar strain with a series of observations: "Is musk sold in villages ? Is purodūša, the sacrificial cake, distributed among the Sabaras? Is pašicaganya, the five holy products of a cow, brought to crows ?" The king is really amazed at the intellectual brilliance of Cakora. Cakora suggests that it is not the brilliance but its absence that would have been a matter for wonder! 17 As a companion of the hero Cakora renders all possible help to his royal master. Cakora is responsible for directing that the wish-fulfilling jewel be uncovered. His apparent disbelief in the miraculous powers of the jewel goads its putting to a practical test. And when it is done he wishes for the king a maiden who will be a jewel of maidens'. Cakora is, thus, responsible though indirectly, for procuring the Nāyikā for the king. He at once notices that the king has fallen in love with her. He sympathises with the king's emaciated condition. He proceeds to provide appropriate diversion by taking the hero to various spots of beauty, by describing the beauty of the Näyikā and by encouraging the king to do so. The queen had managed to get the lover's talk reported to her through a Sárikā put in the throat of a doll. She is angry. But Cakora assures the king not to worry Consoles him appropriately. He assists the king by furnishing ·277 him news about the Nāyikā from time to time, by bringing a letter from her and, later, by directing the hero to a meeting with her near the garden well. In an earlier meeting he gives a timely warning of the queen's arrival and saves the lovers being exposed. Of course, he slips once in divulging the secret of love by his sleep-talk; but it has, luckily, no disastrous consequences. If to this service, albeit small, is added Cakora's power of correct observation demonstrated in reading the astrological marks on the body of the Nāyikā to be indicative of her future status as an Empress, in explaining how the maid Candrikā got the confidence of the Nãyikā, in guessing from the jingling anklets the arrival of the queen and in inferring the musical talents of the Nāyikā from the presence of the lute, --Cakora emerges as a clever companion of the hero. The truth appears to be that Cakora is only pretending to be a fool. Though in describing scenic effects the Vidūşaka is fulfilling a conventional function, his poetic faculty and use of elaborate language are not confined to these occasions only. He is normally given to florid expression and it is not comic unless it is deliberately made to appear so. He describes the city elaborately. He enters into a sort of poetic competition with the bards and the maid in describing the moon-rise', His picture of how the Nāyikā looked at him (II. 9. 57-59 ) is a beautiful Paryāyokta. He joins the king in describing the Nāyikā (act ii. 24 to 32) in alternate metrical lines. As the king remarks on another occasion, 'It is a charming display of polished learning'. And it is not a trait to be found in the comic vein of a Vidüşaka.

·XVI MAHODARA (in Adbhutudar pamu) कथम् अध नर्तित यम् । अथवा दृशी एच दुीविका मौल्योपजीवकानाम् । Vidūşakit, in the Prologue. न केवलं मम कामत-त्रेषु सविधः, अपि तु महाराज्यत-त्रेषु भाप ! Råvana, in act VI. The Vidūşaka in this late Sanskrit play appears first in the dramatic prologue and takes part, with the Sütradhära, in performing the preliminarics. His real name is Romanthaka and he has been assigned the role of Mahodara, the humorous companion of the Lord of Lanka. The Sütradhára is aware of the nature of a Brāhmaṇa and has taken the precaution of filling his belly with modakas before inducing him to play the assigned role. To this extent the Vidūşaka is happy and is flattered too; because, as a Brahmin, he got the honours first even before the theatre ritual was done. But he does not like the idea of dancing with a.full belly, He blames the profession of actors which demands this duty at the sacrifice of physical comfort and ease. He blames the Sütradhāra for his.itch' for dancing. The Sūtradhāra assures him that he can sleep till Rävapa appeared on the scene. Moreover, the Vidüşaka is assigned not any angahāra or dance, but only a speaking part as a Brāhmaṇa. The Vidūşaka is relieved and goes out to get his nap. Even as an actor the Vidūşaka has displayed some typical traits : love of food and honour, and a disinclination to sacrifice creature comforts. When he appears in the role of Mahodara, in the fifth act, he enters on the stage holding his loaded stomach with both his hands. He has fed himself with marrow, fat, well-cooked meat and desserts like modakas. His mouth is ·279 distorted by over-eating, his breath is laboured and he has perforce to walk very slowly! The name Mahodara, which means pot-bellied, coupled with the other physical details completes the picture of the traditional, laughable appearance of the Vidūşaka. Once, during the exhibition of the dramatic illusion, Mahodara shows that he is frightened on hearing Laksmana's orders to the monkeys to lay a seige to Larkā. Rävaņa assures the fool that it is a reproduction of a past incident only. In this Mahodara displays the conventional cowardice of a Brahmin. There is another instance of his apparent stupidity: Viddyujjihva, one of the ministers of Rāvana, has been commanded to get news about Sītā who is confined in the Aśokavanikā. Since it was forbidden for any 'male' to enter into that place, Viddyujjihva asks Mahodara to go ahead and find out what Sītā was doing. Mahodara is angry, because he thinks that he is not treated as a 'male'. He blurts out, " How now? Am I not a man? My wife Kundodarī delivers a baby every year. She knows how much a man I am." This is a typical utterance of the Vidüşaka : It combines his apparent stupidity with a boastful nature and humour with downright obscenity. But these shades of characterization are probably meant as an indication only that Mahodara is a Vidūşaka. For, contrary to the usual dramatic practice, Mahodara is mentioned by his real name and very rarely by his general appellation Vidūşaka. Further, he is attached not to the hero but to the villain of the play, Rāvana. And though he is called Narmamitra' or Narmasuhrd', it is not the humorous aspect but the witty, that is to say, the clever aspect of his character that is particularly accented in the play. Mabodara is the chief: priest of the Brahmarāksasa family to which Rāvana belongs. He is an expert on the affairs of sex. Rāvana calls him a minister of the department of great sex-passion'. His proven ability in subduing the hearts of women conquered and captured by ·250 Ravana has induced the latter to appuint Vihorlar to the task of winning Sitā over, by assisting the minister Villyujjiliva or by independent design. . And so, Jahodara movex about in the play as a companion of Rāvana who is consumeilly his love for Sitz, In playing this role Mahodara shows remarkable commonsense and practical wisdom wliich could have served the ulterior interest of Rāvana and saved him from ruin. Mahnılara has his eye more on the final outcome of Ravana's passion than on its inunediate fulfilment which, he thinks, both impossible and disastrous. Rāvana's desire to be united with Sita is, in his opinion, like asking for the union of darkness and moonlight. IIopenly censures Rāvana by describing his passion as it bad, wicked desire'. And he argues with Rāvaņa very ably and reasonably. He advises Rāvana to stop the war and return Sitä to her husband either the real Sitä or her counterfeit image. Råvana is afraid that making peace with Rāma would involve splitting up the kingdom of Larikå with Vibhişana. Mahodara argues that in settling peace a definite condition could be stipulated whereby Vibhişana will be given a kingdom far away from Lanka and partition avoided. But Ravana is not sure that Vibhisana will not make trouble for him even if he were far away from Ladká. Mabodara observes that Răvana will have no peace unless he conquered one of the twow-Rāma or Kama (passion for Sita). And he is more in favour of controlling the latter. He puts a dilemma before Rāvana : If Rama were alive, Sita will not show any affection for Råvana. Contrarily, that is, it Rama were not living, Sita will not live herself. Either way, Rāvana bas no chance of having his desire fulfilled! The logic of Mahodara is irresistible. And he wins the praise of Rāma and Laksmana, who are able to watch the show and listen to the conversation with the help of the adbhuta darpana, the .. miraculous mirror'. But Rävana's passion proves to be stronger than his reason. He bows down ·281 to this priest of his and requests him to find out some remedy in order to make Sītā favourably disposed towards him. Thus constrained, Mahodara tries to do what he can for helping and comforting Rāvana. Mahodara would have liked Rāvana to capture Rāma. But consideration for Sita' prevents Ravana from doing so. The idea of returning illusory' Sitä to Rāma--which Rāvana could have done on account of his control of magic-does not appeal to Rāvana, Mahodara suggests use of force'. But that too Rāvana is not inclined to accept, because of the advice of Grand-father, Brahmā, not to rape an unwilling woman. Likewise, Rāvana does not wish to assume the form of Rāma, though he has the power to do so; because such deception has proved to be ineffective in the case of Sītā. With the war on the threshold of Larkā, Răvaşa wants to see Sītā in a happy mood in her custody. It would be enough for him to go into the battle and win it. Mahodara, therefore, takes Rāvana to the extremity of the pleasure-mount where Trijata and Saramå have arranged for the benefit of Sita a magical dramatic performance representing the incidents of the battle. During this performance Mahodara sustains the interest of Rāvana; diverts his passion-ridden mind to the aspects of the show; dispels his illusion about the interference of the monkeys in his movement by pointing out that Rāvana's hair were caught in the branches of a tree and consequently his crown was displaced. He advises Rävana to remain concealed and silent as the show is on. When the illusory Lakşmaņa in the magic show accuses Rāvana of cowardice in loitering in the harem and avoiding war, Mahodara soothes Rāvana by pointing out that 'a son of a man is incapable of knowing the prowess of a hero of the three worlds'. He flatters Rāvana by observing that his valour, exhibited even in description, brings on horripilation. But the show is not really in favour of Rāvana. It depicts his gradual fall and the defeat of his army. Ravana 36 ·is painfully angry at this hetzval se lip l'unjati ami Sarama and is ready to kill them. Vahortar. suremulls for some time in controlling Ravina and keeping him ingebed in witnessing the performance. But obviously it could not man for aver. It is only the sight of the deutlı nf kuriliislitin. ind Inulmnjit in the magical show that sends Rinna int it soun and prevents the slaughter of Sarama and Trista. Valular: clisules Rāvana who now rushes into the battis. Mahodara promises to come back after receiving the gift of modakas given for Rāvana's victory march into the war. But he has no occasion to do so. The little is lnst. Käma ciestroys one and all. Mahodara, however, and a few like him are spared, we Icarn, probably out of rogarıl for their being Brahmins or priests, and certainly (on the condition that they changed their policies. It is obvious that Mahodara is rather a counsellor on matters of love and shows his ability in understanding politics too. His being a Vidüşaka is, thercfore, a matter of convention which, though allowed to remain in the play, has no scope for development.

·INDEX [ Figures refer to pages. Bracketed figure indicates reference in footnote on the page.] I Authors and Works Abhinava: 49, 53, 54, 56, 61, Avimāraka : 3, 43, ( 50 ), (59), ( 64), 92, 112, 116, (125), 67, (69), (85), 97, (98), (100), 120, (127), 130, 144, 149, 175 Abhirāma: (72) 159, (160), (163), (165), Achan, P. Anujan: (93, 94) (168),(174), (175), (176), ( 177 ), 206 Adbhutadarpana: 24, 39, 51, ( 52), 72, 73, (83), (85), Būlacarita : 97 86, IIO, 114, 181, 183, 278 Bāņa : 36, (54) Agnipurāna: 103, II3, II6, Bard, T. A.: (187) 117, 123, (177) Belwalkar, Dr.: (76) Agrawala, Dr. V. S.: (54) Bergson : 149, 152, 153 Aitareya Brāhmana : 48 Bhagavadajjukiya: 93, 187 An Essay on Comedy: (149, Bhandarkar, Dr.: 78 150, 151, 152, 153, 155) Bharata Aranyaka... on Characters in drama : Aitareya: 12; 74-75; Sankhayana : 12 on Curse on actors: 36, Aristophanes: 186 41; Aristotle : 147, 148, 149, 156, on Dandakāștha (Kutilaka) : 170, (171), 172 6I; Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and on Dramatic performance: Fine Art: (148, 149, 152) 22, 32, 33; on Dress : 59; Ašvaghosa : 4, 13, 32, 81, Influence of: I90, IGI; 107, 175 on Mode of address; 106; As You Like It: (172) Natyaśāstra of: 3, 19, 109; A Theory of Laughter : (143, on Pratisira : 55, 56, 57, 58; 750, ISI) on Pärvaranga: 114;

·- on Sūtradhūra ; 17; (hamburs, E. K.: 29, 30, (37), on Theory of Laughter: 79, 142, 143, 144, 145, Cuomar.swamy, a. K.: ( 16 ) 146, 148, 149, 150, i Contributions to the History of хбо; Ilindu Drumi etc.: (12), on Trigala : 88, 110, 112, I13; Cornfori, . I.: (27), 28, on Types of heroes: 65,00; (170), 171, 172) on Vidūşaka : 20, 21, 3. pasiripuku : (103, 123, 178) 27. 34, 45, 46, 48 41). Devader, C. R.: (73) 50, 53, 54, 63, 64, 74, Dhananjay : 103, 123 78, 80, 81, 90, 91, 92, Dhartusumugama: 94, (95) 93, IOI, 105, 109, 115, Dowden: (1.8) 116, 123, 124, 125, 126, Drama in Sanskrit Literature: 129, 142, 145. 170, 176 (180) Bhāsa: 3, 15, 17, (20), 42, 43, 50, 72, 75, 81, 83, 85, Eastman, Max: 143 92, 93, 97, 98, 121, 122, Elliot, Sir Walter: 37. (38) 137, 141, 158, 163, 165, English Comedy: (25) 192, 175, 189 Essay on Gunadhya and the Bhasa-ntaka-oakram: (73) Brhatkatha: (187) Bhavabhiti: 33, 39, 42, 44, 70, 76, 93, (117), 177, 192 Feibleman, J.: 25, (150, 155, Bhavaprakasana: ( 48, 59, 73, 156, 157, 268, 186) Frazer, Dr.: 37 81, 91, 96, 104, 107, 112, IIZ, 117, 123, 124, 176, 177) Gajendragadkar, Prof.: (72) Bilhana : (120), 179, 180, 181 Ghosh, M.: (12, 16, 33, 34, Bodhāyana : 93, 187 50 ), 57, ( 63 ), 88, ( 110, Bradley, A. C.: (193) 124, 125 ) Brhatkatha : ( 20 ), 187 Goethe: 151 Butcher : (148), 149, (152), Gordon, Prof.: 24, 25, (26), 155, (156) (153, 154), 170. (187) Guntbyt: 187 Ondastha : (82), 179 Harsa : (18), 33, 86. .SI, 5X, Candrahthha: 685), 181,(182), 60, 81, 82, 118, 121, 238, ( 285 ),-274 761, 163, 164, 170, 171, Cariniita: 73 174, 177, 178, 184, SI ·285 Harsacarita : 36 Kavyaprakāśa: (40) Hāsyārnava : 188, (189) Keith, (Dr.): 4, 5, 6, 8, IO, Hillebrandt: 6 II, 12, 13, 14, 15,"17, 31, 85 Hobbes, Thomas : 147 Kerala Theatre: (79, 115, Humour and Humanity : 185) (146), (147) Ketkar, Kum. Godavari : (16) Konow: 7; ('55), 57 In Praise of Comedy: (25), Koparkar, (Dr.) D. G.: (74) ( 150, 155, 156, 157, 168, Krşnārjunayuddha: (98) 186) Kşemīśvara: (83), 179 Kumārasambhava : (73) Jagannātha, Pandita : (83), 97, II5 Lacoté : 187 Jagirdar, Prof. : 186 Lanman: (55), 57 Johnson, Dr.: 150 Latakamelaka: 188 Leacock, Stephan: (146) Kadambari: (54) Levi : 5,6 Kälidāsa: IO, (18), 20, 21, Lindenau: 8 32, 43, 50, 51, 52, 71, 83, 84, 85, 86, 93, 98, 107, 120, Mahābhārata: 39, (182) 134, 137, 138, 139, 141, Mahadeva: (18), 24, 52, 72, 158, 171, 172, 175, 184, 83, 114, 181 187, 189, 190, 232, 235, 274 Mālatimädhava : 33, 93, (I17), Kāmasutra: 40, 41, 44, 76, 177. ( 192 ) 89, (123) Malavikagnimitra : (21), 37, Kane, (Dr.): (123) ( 51, 60, 69, 72, 73, 82), Karmarkar, Prof. : (70, 71 ) I18, (127), 13I, ( 134, 139, Karnabhara: 17, (42), 75 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, Karnasundari : (120), 174, 167, 175), 212 (179, 180, 181 ), 182, 271 Mammata: (40) Karparamafijari: 13. (50), Manu: 42 55, 57, (61, 83, 128), 135, Manusmrti : (42, 182 ) (175), 177, (I81, Meghadata : (49) 183, 185), 261 Menon, V. K. Krishna : (143, Kätayavema: (70) 150, ISI) Kathaka samhita : (T2) Meredith, George: "149, 150, Kathasaritsagaa; ('81'), 87 151, 152, 153, ( 155 ) Kanmdmahotsava : (51, 82, Mimänsåsutras : (182) 86), 183, 258 Molière : 153, 285, IGI 182, ·286 Morgan, Maurice : (193) Panini: 5, 22, (83) Mycchakaļika : 13, 15, 17, 24, Parikh, Prof. : ( 17, 48, 49, 63, 39, 41, (42), (57), (59), 178, 192) 65, 67, ( 68 ), (09). (70), Patanjali : 5,22, 32, 33, (83) (82), (85), 93, 113, (117), Paumuzariya: 54,87 ( 127 ), 130, 133, 141,(159), I'hilelius : (1.17) (160), ( 162 ), (163), l'ischel: 0 (164), (165), (166), Pisharoti, Rama K.: (79, 115, (167), (168), ( 177 ), 233 185) Mudrārāksasa : 92 Plato: Müller-Hess, E.: 5 Irulijriyuugundhurivana : 67, 72, (73), (81), 92, 93, 101, Nāgananda : (51, 52, 60, 60, 120, 130, 137, ( 139 ), 159, 82), 119, 120, 132, TÁZ, 172, 197 ( 162 ), (164), (166), 170, Priestley, J. B.: (171, 192) 174, 177, 251 Priyadarsika: 68, (NI), 106, Nataka-laksana-ratnakośa : (59. 119. (127), 131, 138, 139, 74, 82, 103, 106) (161), (203), 171, 241, Nātyadarpana : (58, 74, 88, 249, 250 91, 105, 107, 112, 113, 116, 122, 123, 126) Rajasekhara : 13, (18), 50, 51, Nātyaśāstra : 3, 19, 20, (21), 58, 61, 83, 86, 107, 128, (22), 26, 32, (33), (34), 135, 162, 164, 173, 174, 175, 35. (36), 39, 45, 48, 49, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 50, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 67, 182, 183, 184, 185, 270 63, 64, 65, 74, 75, 78, 88, Rāmacandra: 58, 74, 75, 88, 90 ), 98, ( 102 ), ( 106 ), 109, 89, 91, 92, 105, 107. II2, (IIO, II2, I14, II6, 123, II3, 127, 123, 126 124, 125, 142, 143, 145, Ramayana : 39, 163, 208 175) Ranganatha : (70, 103) Nirukta : (42) Rasárnavasudhakara : ( 59, 81, IOS, 107, 113, 123) Outline of Humour : ( 25 ) Ratimanmatha: 39.97. 115, Oxford Lectures on Poetry : 179, (180) (193) Ratnivali : 33, (51), (60), 68, (73), ( 81 ), 82, 118, (119), Padmacarita : 54 123, (127), 131, 134, 138, Pandit, S. P.: 69, (70). 157, (IÓT), 172, 246.

·287 106, 117 Ravişena: 54, 55 Syngāratilaka : (102, 103, 122, Reich : 5 123) Rgveda : 8, 26, (31); Śūdraka : 3, 39, 42, 43, 51, 72, --Dialogue hymns: 8, 10 84, 141, 158, 160, 163, 172, Rhetoric: (172) 187, 189, 190, 191, 235 Rudrabhatta : 102, 108, ( 122) Svapraväsavadatta : 67, (81), Rudradāsa: 185 ( 100 ), (107), 120, (127), 130, 133, 135, (136), 140, Sabarabhāsya : (182) ( 158 ), (163), (165), (166), Sāgaranandin : 59, 74, 82, 103, 172, 200, 212 The Character of Falstaff: Sāhityadarpana: (81, 104, 113, ( 193 ) 122, 123, 177, 178 ) The English Comic Characters : Sākuntala ( Abhijñāna-): (43, ( 171 ), (192) 50, 52, 69, 70, 71, 83, 85, The Enjoyment of Laughter : 86, 100, 107, 121, 126, 127), (143) 131, (134), 138, (139), The Mediaeval Stage : ( 28, 29, 141, (157), (159), 160, ( 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, The Origin of Attic Comedy: 30, 37, 38) 167, 174), 178, 228 Šāradātanaya: 48, 59,673, 81, The Poetics of Aristotle : ( 148, (27, 28, 170, 171, 172) 91, 92, 96, 98, 103, 104, 156) 107, 112, 117, 123 The Sanskrit Drama (Keith) : Säriputra prakarana : 4 (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, II, 15, 16, Saubhadra: 24, (98) 17, 81, 85) Schuyler, M.: 7,8 Thorndike, Prof.: 24 Shakespeare: 24, 30, 154, 156, 171, (172), 185, 187, 238 Upadhye, Dr.: (55, 85) Shakespearian Comedy: (24, Uttararāmacarita : (42, 44, 70), 153, 154, 170, 187) 76, (77, 192) Shakespeare, His Mind and Art: (149) Velankar, Prof. : (9) Shaw, Bernard: 191 Ventsamhāra: 92 Singa Bhūpāla : 59, 81, 104, Viddhasalabhanjikā : (18, 50, 107, II3, II 52, 61, 77, 82), 86, IIS, Srauta Sutra: ( 120 ), (128), 132, 135. Katyayana--12 ( 162 ), (164), 174, (175, Latyayana-13 180, 181, 182), 265

·ZAS
Vidyūharanu: 95
Walpole, Horace: 150
Vijayabhaçțārikā, Queen: SG Wells, Carolyn : ( 25 )
Vikramoruasiya : (35, 51, 60), Wilde, Oscar: 191
69, 70, 72, 83, 85), 38,
I'ilson Philological Lectures :
(100, 103, 127), 131, (133,
(78)
139, 140, 762, 164, 165, 166,
Windisch:
167, 174), 222
Winterneitz, Dr. : 93. (94)
Vimala: 54, 58
Visvanatha: 81, 104, 107, II3,
Wright, Thoinas: (25)
117, 123, 178
Vyakarana-Mahābhâsya : (22) / Yaska : 42

·II Subjects 218, 219 Balarama : 204 Beef : 70 Adbhuta-darpana (mirror): 280 | Bacchus : 27 Agnimitra : 119, 131, 139, 212, Bakulāvalikā: 214, 215, 216, 214, 216, 221 Ahalyā: 227 Akälajalada : 261 Bali (The binding of ): 22 Amanullah : 25 Bali (offerings ) : 133, 160, Ambaramālā : 267 (166) Amytamanthana : 22 Bandhurā : 188 Amukha: 113, 114 Bandhuvažicaka: 94 Anangasenā: 94, 95 Batu : ( 18, 19) Anayasindhu : 188 Baudhāyana : 83, 179 Angahāra : 278 Ankamukha : (129) Bhagavän (Parivrājaka): 93 Ankāvatūra : (129) Bhaya : 169 Anvaya : 261 Bhāsa plays : 5, 92 Apupa : 68, 234 Bhima : 92 Aranyaka-parvan : (72) Brahmä: 22, 23, (Prajāpati) Aranyikä : 119, 241, 243, 244, 36, 61, 98, 281 245 ( Priyadarsika) Brahmabandhu : 213, 222 Arjuna : 24 Brahmacārin: IO, II, 12, 13, Aryan: 9 14, 15, (17), (18), ( 20 ), Asajjätimisra : 94 31, 32, 85 Asoka : 214, 215, 217, 218, Brahmadatta : 158, 203 Brāhmana Literature : 23 219;-vanika 279 Brahmarākşasa: 266, 279 Ašvamedha : 15, 16 Bphaspati: 250, 275 Atreya: 51, 60, 68, 69, 82, 119, Buddha : 4,80 127, 132, 161, 164, 166, 170, Buddhist drama : 3,5 171, 174; 251-257 Buddhist mendicant: 206 Audarika : 180 Buffoon: 170, ( 171 ), ( 172 ) Avimāraka : 118, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 Cakora : 181, (182), 185, 274, Āyus : 222 275, 276, 277 37 122, 168 ·290 Cāņakya: 93 Dhāriņi: 99, 100, 120, 159, Candanikā: 274 160), 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, Candräpida : (54) 218, 214, 220 Candrikā: 206, 208, 209, 277 Dharmuśistra : 270 Carāyana : 50, 51, 61, 82, 119, Dhūtā: 2.10) 132, 162, 164, 173, 174, 173, 174, Dialogue (between Brahma- (175), 178, 180, 182, 265, carin and hetacra): 10, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 II, 12, 13 Carcari: 246 Dima: Cârudatta : 59, 67, 93, IOI, Dionysius: 27, 28 120, 122, 130, 131, 133, Dohada: 218, 219 137, 141, 144, 160, 164, Dominus festi: 30 165, 168, 233, 234, 235, Drdhavarman : 242 237, 238, 239, 240 Durväsas: 268 Cātaka: 225, 226 Duryodhana : 02 Catura ( gesture ) 125 Duşyanta : (18), (19), 43, Cave-drawings : 25 70, (83), 100, 106, 107, Ceta: 53, 60, 104, 108, 160, II8, 120, 122, 131, 134, I61, 164, 171, 177, 178, 138, 139, 141, 157, 159, 187, 235, 254, 255 (165), (166), 167, 228, Ceți : 14, 161, 171, 178, 222; 229, 230, 231, 232 (Nayamālikā) 254, 255 Dvipadikhanda: 68, 246 Citralekhă: 140 Clown: 24, 25 Eiron: 170, ( 171 ), 172 Comedy, western: 3,27 Elizabeth: 24 Compagnies des fous : 30 Constantinople (Church of): Falstaff : 156, 193 28 Feast of Fools: 28-30, 37 Caliki: (129) Fool (in Western Comedy): Cupid: (127), 131, 177, 228, 3, 29, 30 246, 249, 272 Fous: 30 Curds : 67, 207 Fruits : 68, 69 Darduraka: 187 Darsaka, : 204 Dāsa: 9 Demon Asura) :. 22, 23 Demos: (1721) Gapadāsa : 214, 216, 217 Gandharvas : II Gândharva-veda : 282, 267, 270 Ganika : 13, 32 ·219, 220 170, 186, 188 Gātha : 246 Indrajit: 282 Gautama: 59, 68, 73, 82, 99, Innocent's Day : 28 100, 105, 106, 107, 118, 119, Irāvati : 99, 100, 119, 120, I3I, I20, 127, 131, 134, 137, 212, 213, 214, 215, 217, 218, 139, 159, 160, 163, 164, (166), 172, 175, 189, 193, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, Jantuketu : T188 218, 219, 220, 221, 270 Jarjara (Danậakästha, Kuti- Gayatrī : 163, 214 laka): 61 General : 43, 188, 229 Javanese drama : 16, 87 Ghyta (Sneha, ghee ): 69, 208, -Theatre : 76 274 Jewel Palace : I3I Gomukha: 187 Jimūtavahana : 106, 252, 253, Gosarjña : 275 256 Grāmadevatā : 38 Jupiter : 27 Greek Drama : ( figures in ) 4; Jürņavrddha : 133 15; (Comedy) 28; 132, Kaca : 95 Kadalīgyha : 132 Harsapadikā : 120, 131, 134, Kākapada : 49; 138, 161, (166), 174, 232 Khalli- : 53 Hara : 116 Kalends : 28, 29 Kaliiga (King): 245 Hariscandra : 179 Kamandaki : 192 Häsya-rasa: 142 Kämpilya : 158, 203 Hetaera : 189 Kansa ( The killing of): 22 Hetaera dramas: 4 Kāñcanamālā : 250 Hingu : 69 Kāñcukiya : ( 20 ) Kannila-laddua : 72 Imposter : 170 Kapiñjala : 50, 51, 61, 83, 175, Indivarikā: 244 177, (181), 182, 183, 261- Indra : 8, 9, 17, 32, 42, 75, 264 II6, 227, 275; Karna : 75 Charioteer of: 32, 52, 232; Karnasundari : 272, 273 Festival of (Indramaha, Karpūramañjari : 61, 263 Festival of Banner) : 22, Kaša (flowers): 204 33; Katyayani: 198 Wife of (Indrāni): 8,9 Kaumudagandha : 81 Hari : 97 ·292 Kausambi: 249 106, 107, 108, 192, 198, Kelikailāsa: 265 216; Kerala. based on dress, Natya : 185; make-up (repathya): Stage : 115; 50, 125, 126, 127, 145, Theatre : 79, (185) 156; Ketaki : 213 -based on physique Komos (Revel of Dionysius) : (arigika): 107, 124, 126, 145, 156; 27 Konds (Kuingas) : 38 -based on poses, gait Konkaņa : 115, 185 (Ruti): 125, 126, 157; --bascii on words Krşpa : 24 Kumbhakarna : 282 (Tacika): 124, 126, Kundodari: 279 127, 128, 145, 167, ISO, Kuntibhoja: 210 IOS; Kurangi : 118, 160, 168, 207, Limitations (theoretical): 208, 209, 210, 211 153-154; Kusumakara (garden): 132, Purpose: 79, 152, 153 256 154; Kutilaka : 61, 125 Theory-Aristotle's : 148, Kūţtu : 79, 115 149: Kuvalayamālā : 269 Bergson's : 152, 153; Bharata's: Häsyarasa Laksmana : 279, 280, 281 142; Love and laughter Lakşmi : 275 143 ; Ratyabhasa 144 ; Lakşmisvayamvara : 32, (35) Elements 145, 146; Lankā : 278, 279, 280, 281 Meredith's: 149-152; Lāvānaka : 200 Primitive laughter: Laughter 146, 147; Comic character: 103, 105; Vidūşaka's laughter: Ix6, elements of growth in- 123, 124, 125, 126, 142 ; 155-168 173, 174; Comic relief: 140; Conditions : 145, 149, 151, Madanmañjari: 188 152; Madayantika : (177) Kinds based on character : Madhava : 93 103, 105, 162, 163, 164- Madhavika : 119 ·293 227, 260 Madhavya: ( 18 ), 43, 50, 52, 174, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 68, 69, 70, 83, 100, 107, II8, I20, I2I, I22, (I27 ), | Mag: 38 131, 134, 137, 139, 159, 160, Manmatha : 97, 179, ( 180 ) 161, ( 162 ), 165, 166, 167, Manoramā: 242, 243 171, 172, 174, 228, 229, 230, Mantragupta : 260 231, 232, 260 Mātali: 138, I6I, 222 (See Madhukara : 254 also, Charioteer of Indra) Magadha: 200, 20I Meat: 70, 71 Mahābrahmana: 163, 173, 203, Meghapraticchanda (palace) : 246, 266 134 Mahāvrata : IO, II, 12, 14, 15, Mekhalā: 174, 267, 268, 269 16, 17, 26, 31, 85 Miles Gloriosus : 4 Mahodara: 51, 52, 72, 83, 86, Miracles (The Old): 24 115, 181, 183, 278, 279, 280, Mitrāvasu : 251, 252, 255 281, 282 Modaka: 67, 68, 72, 73, 115, Maitreya: 3, 42, 43, 51, 59, 126, 173, 180, 197, 198, 67, 68, 69, 70, 82, 84, IOI, 213, 216, 223, 234, 246, 105, 106, 120, 122, 123, 247, 261, 265, 271, 278, 282 (127), (128), 130, 133, Mākos : 5, 6 137, 140, 141, 158, 159, 160, Mrgānkalekha : 188 ( 162 ), 163, 164, 165, 166, Mrgānkavarman; 266 167, 168, 171, 172, 187, 189, Mşgänkävalï: 269 193, 221, 233, 234, 235, 236, Mygatrsnikā: 267 237, 238, 239, 240, 260 Makaranda : (117), 177, 192 Nagakanya : 220 --garden: 119, 131, 132, 248, Nāgaraka : 89 249 Nahuşa : 36, 38, 39 Malapropism : 158 Nalinikā: 207, 208, 209, 210 Mālati: (177, 192) Nandana : (177, 192 ) Mālavikā: 73, 99, 131, 212, Nandi: 22, IIO, II4 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, Nārada: 34, 35, 45, 76, 92, 220, 221 97, 98, 275 Malayavati: 252, 253 Nata: 112 Māņavaka : (52), 60, 68, 69, Nataka : 179, 191 83, 100, 106, 120, (127), Naţi : 112, 113 131, 133, 137, 140, (162), Naţikā : 179, 267 164, 165, (166), 171, 172, | Natya: 20 # ·294 249, 267 Nāțyācārya: 37 Pramadarenu : 73, 122, 131, Nātyaveda : 35 136), 201, 202, 2014, 218, 219, Navamalika (creeper): 247, 220, 231; (l rumoulanana 267 Nipuņikā: (51), 212, 258 Prarocand: 111, 112 Noah : 24 Prastavand : II3 Priyanvadá : 184) Oil : 69 Puck : 192, 193 Omkāra : 116 Pumscali : 13, 31, 32 Oracle at Delphi: 27 Puppet play : 0 Padisisaa (Sk. Pratiśirsaka, Purodüśa : 276 also, Pratiśira): 53, 55, Purohita : 85, 80) Purüravas: 140, 222, 227 56, 57 Padmavati: (19), ( 20 ), 67, Pärvaranga : 21, 45, 61, 64, IOO, 133, 135, 136, (165), 65, 88, rog, III, 112, 114, 132 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205 Padminikā : ( 133 ) Paşkariņi ( maid): 210 Puspakarandaku : 131 Pancagavya : 276 Pandita-kausiki: 99 Puşpaka Vimūna : 233 Parasite: 4 Puys : 30 Paria : 38 Pārijata: 275 Radanikå : 160, 234 Pāripārsvika: IIO, IT2 Rahu : 272 Parivrājikă : 213, 214, 216, Raivataka : 24 Raktapata : 208 Paryāyokta: 277 Rāma : 280, 281, 282 Patākā : 178 Rasa : 144, 145, 146, 169 Persian Tapestry: 5 Rasala : 69 Pindakharjura: 69 Rati (wile of Madana): (180) Pingalikā : 266 Rati (sthayibhava of Srågara): Pithamarda: 39, 93, 102, 103, 144 104, 107, 108, 117, 177 Rainamala: 248, 250 Pithamardikā: 220 Ratyabhasa : 144 Prahasana: 93, 94, 106, 128, Rāvana : 24, 58, 72, 86, 115. 130, 131, 158, 169, 179, 181, 183, 233, 278, 279, 280, 185, 187, 188, 189, 191 281, 282 Prakarana : 39, 85, 117, 158, Rc: 246 169, 191 Robusena 39 220, 260 ·wy Roman mime : 5, 15 Hero: (18), 34, 65, 66 Romanthaka : 115, 183, 278 73, 90, 91, 95, 116, II Roots : 68, 69 II9, 120, 122, 134, 140 Rumaņvat : ( 19, 20 ) 177; Stock Comic figure : 3, 27 Sāgarikā : 119, 132, 246, 247, 190; 248, 249, 250 Tragedy: 140, 146, 191 Sailūsa : 36 Santuşta : 3, 43, 50, 59, 67 Sakāra : 4, 5, 15, 24, 51, 75, 84, 100, 118, 122, 123, 127 (127), (128), 144, 160, 168, 130, 158, 159, 163, 165, 16E 187, 233, 239, 268, 270 I71, 172, 174, (175), 176 Sakuntalā : 100, 118, 122, 138, 189, 192, 193, 206-211 ; 26 139, (166), 229, 230, 231, Saptaparna: 243 232 Saramā: 281, 282 Salya : 75 Saraswati : 116, 214 Samavakāra : 22, 116 Särika: 138, 248, 276 Sambūka: 97 Sarvilaka: 160, 177, 235 Samudragrha : 133, 135, 136, Sašaśynga: 267 203, 204, 214, 215, 218, 219 Satan : 24 Śåndilya : 93 Sattaka: 181, 184, 261, 274 Sanghakkali: 79 Saudhātaki: (77), 192 Sanjīvani vidyā: 95 Senāpati: 134, 187 Sankhyāyana: 83 Sephalika: 204 Sapskrit Drama- Sermon joyeux : 30 Absence of formal division : Servus currens: 4, 5 142, 146, 191; Siddha: 256 Comedy: of Characters Sikhariņi: 69, (70) 193; of Manners 185, Sisyavara: 95 191, 193; Romantic Sitä : 279, 280, 281 court-65, 84, 95, II6, Siva: 12, 22, 198 132, 140, 142, 144, 146; Snātaka: 94, 260 Conventions: 66; Societés joyeuses : 30 Dramatic Theory: 190, Soma- IGI; drink: 32; Early phase (Deva-Asura purchase: II, 15; doandua): 22, 24, 45, sacrifice: II, 15,31; 97: sale: 26, 32; Greek Influence: 4, 5; seller: 31, 32;

·296 198, 208 259, 26x) -winning of: Tripuradakı: 22 Sons of Bharata: 32, 35, 36, Triſanku: 150, 231 Trivandrun play's: 3 37, 41, 42 Sots: 30 Udayana: (19, 20), XI), 100, Sottics : 30 101, 107, 118, 119, 120, 122, Sragdhara : 276 Śramanaka : 130, 1,33, 197 73, 159, 135. 136, 137, 140, 1410), 200, 201, 202, Srikhandadāsa: 249 203, 204, 2470 Śrotriya: 85, 86, 180 Udd yoga-parnun: (182) Sthapanā: II3 L'jjayini: 136, 203,239 Unmattaka : 159, 197, 198 Subhadrã: 24 Südra: II, 26, 31, 210 Urvasi: 32, 900, 120, (127), 140, ( 265 ), 222-227 Sugar: 69, 73 Sukrācārya : 95 Vaikhānasa: 51, 82, 183, 258, Sulakşaņā: (182), 263, 267 Susangatā: ( 134), 248, 250 Vaisya : I Sūtradhāra: 17, 21, 55, 57, Valmiki : 42, 70, 76), 275 64, 67, 88, 109, JIO, III, Vasantaka--81, 82: II2, II3. (114), 115, 123, (183), 185, 234, 278 in Pralijitizaugurihariya- Sūtrakāra : 182 na : 67, (81). 93, IOI, Svastivācana: 68, 86, 223 247, 139, 172, 197-199; 271 in Priyadarsika : 68, (81), 106, 119, 121, 127, 171, Tala: 125 241, 242, 243, 244, Tamala : 162, 257, 263 245; Tambala: 254 in Ratudvalt: 60, 68, (81), Tapasakanya: 230 118, 121, 123, (127), Tapovana : 252 172, 246, 247, 248, 249, Timira: 188 250; Tintini: 69 Tittiri: 269 in Svapnavisavadaha : 67, Touchstone: 30, 171, 192, (81), 99, 100, 107, 193, 238 121, 122, (127), 130, Trigatas (64); 88, 109, IIO, 133, 135, 136, 137, III, I14 165, (166), 172, 192, Trijatā : 281, 282 200-205, 212 ·Vasantasenā: 13, 67, 68, 69, 70, 120, 130, 133, 137, 144, 160, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238 Vāsavadattā : (19), ( 20 ), 67, 100, 101, (119), 120, 121, 135, 136, 137, 140, (165), 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 241, 242, 243, 245, 246, 248, 250 Vasiştha : 42, 70, 275 Vasumati : 134, 138 Vatsa (king): 244 Vedic ritual : IO Venision : 70 Vernaculardrama: 185 village play: 7, 8, 14, 32 Vibhīşaña : 280 Vicakşaņā : 261, 262, 263 Vice (dramatic character ): 24, 25 Viddyujjihva: (72), 279 Vidüşaka Address (Vayasya): (18), 106, 116, 183, 273; Age (?): (17, 18, 19, 20); Appearance: (monkeylike) 10, II; (ugly) 23; 44, 48; (make-up) 50, 53; 83, IOI, 126, 156, 162, 163, 212, 222, 233, 246, 258, 261, 265, 279; Barks (skins) 58; Beard 50, 52, 54, 135, Dandakaştha (Kutilaka) 61; Dhoti 58; Ears 52, 54, 58, 261, 265; Flowers (unguents) 60, 251, 253; Garments ( silken) 60, 61, 247, 253 ; ( tawny) 59; (upper garment, Uttariya) 61, 126, 254; Head-dress 53, 55, 56, 57, 58; Mask ? 54, 55, 57, 58; Ornaments 60, 61, 126; Tribikha-Triśikhandaka 54 ; Wig 57, 58, 135; Yajñopavīta 59, 60, 127; Associations : Brāhmaṇi (18), 60, 174, 180, 247, 261, 262, 266, 270, 271, 272,279; Harem 6, 133, 176, 186; Married man (18), 184, 270; Parents 174 Case of: 3 Caste: II, I5, 21, 23, 41, 43, 63-66, 83, 87, 162, 228, 233, 251, 253, 261, 265, 271, 274; Characteristics : Brahmanical pride 163, 164, 213, 214, 222, 233, 241, 254, 268; Cowardice 86, 157, 166 261 ; Cap 54, 58; 38 ·298 198, 202, 203, 212, 213, 224, 232, 234, 243, 248, 258, 266, 271, 279; Fondness for food 67, 68,70-73, 104, 164-166, 197, 201, 203, 207, 213, 223, 224, 229, 231, 234, 241, 246, 251, 258, 261, 265, 271, 274, 278; Love of comfort (71), 202, 203, 228, 229, 230, 233, 241, 243, 246, 278; Stupidity 137, 138, 180, 209, 214, 224, 225, 231, 232, 235, 242, 243, 247, 266, 270, 271, 272, 275, 279; Decadence : 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 190, 192; Development: 45, 46 Food: 67, 68, 73, 104; Non-vegetarian 70, (71), 72, 278; Functions: 64, 65 Choric 129-132, 181, 185; Comic relief 4, 7, 140, 141; Companion in love 118-121; Companion in separation 121-123 ; Court jester 25, 39, 46, 134, 135; Critic 89, 139, 140, 190, 236, 237, 238; Mechanical 133, 134; Plot-development 135- 139; Popular ( Humour) 123-128, 135, 142; Technical 21, 61, 64, 88, 109, IIO, I14; Language: 4, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 23, 44, 74-80, 87, 1.4; (Sanskrit) I6, 76; Laughter: 155-168 ; Name: 4, II; (Etymology) 14, 88, 89;( Proper Names) 81-84; 279; Origins: Asura 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 45, 53; Greek drama 4, 5; Nārada 34, 35, 45, 92, 97, 98; Popular village plays 7, 8, I7; Prakrit drama 6,7; Puppet play 6; Religious-Brahmacärin IO, II, I4, 17, 31, 85; Mahāurata IO, I5, '17, 26, 31; Südra element II, 15. 17, 26; Ridicule-of Brahmin 42, 43, 44, 55, 66, 75, 77, 157, 163, 173. 190, 241; of Purohita 85; Roman mime 5: Vrsäkapi 8, 10, 26; Popular figure: 3, 7, 38, 39. 82, ZI5, 193;

·299 260; Qualities : Ability to evoke laughter 96, 102, 103, 104, 105, Devotion 105, 106, 107, 122, 123, 211, 238, 249, 250, Incongruity 79; Love of quarrel 97, 99, IOO, 107, 200, 214; Natyavid 98, 105; Obscene language 100, IOI; Purity of conduct 176; Talkative 107; Vedavid 98, 105; Wit and wisdom 99, IOI, I03, 105, 135, 139, 169, 219, 220, 221, 231, 237, 238, 251, 269, 275, 276, 280; Role: Companion of the hero 65, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, II5, 117-120, 135, 139, 140, 171, 176, 177, 205, 217, 226, 230, 244, 252, 253, 259, 263, 264, 269, 276, 277; Critical 89, 139-141; In Harem 65, 99, 119, 120, 157, 158, 169; Kāmasaciva 118; Narmasaciva 102, 117; In Parvaranga 88, 109, In Trigata IIO, 1141 Types : 34, 63, 66, 90-95, 96, IOI, 105, 116, 135, 169, 170; Basic types 170; Classification-Aristotle's 170; Gordon's 170; New 170-173 ; Propriety 169, 186, I9I; ...of Brahmin hero 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 170, 187; of God hero 34, 45, 76, 90, 91, 96, 97, 98, 170; -of King hero 41, 46, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 99, 100, IOI, 170, 176; -of Merchant hero 90, 93, IOI, 170, 174 ; ---of Minister hero 90, 93, 199; ---as Actor: 20, 21, 27, 109, IIO, 114, 115, 124, 125, 129 132, 183, 278; -as Character in drama: 20, 27, 34, 44, 75, 88, II5, 129, 132, 135, 142, 186, 189; as Companion of Nagaraka ; 89; -as Conventional figure: 4, 22, 27, 47, 84, 173, 179, 183, 186, 187, 189, 190, 238; -as Dvija: 44, 46, 48, 59, 63, 64; as Lover ? 176, 177; -as Patakānāyaka ? 178, 179; as Professional Jester: 41, 46, 184, 214, 215, 221, 264, 268 ; -Rangia 38; in Brhatkathā; 20; in Kamasutra : 40 ;

·300 in Kathasaritsägara : 87, --in Candakausika : (83), 179; (88), -in Candralekhi : 274, 276, -in Kerala Natya: (49), 277; 115, 185; in Karnasundari : (120), -in Native Tradition: 185; 174, 179, ISI, 182, 271-273; -in Social life: .15, 39, 40, -in Karpūramañjari : (55), 41, 82, 89; 57, ( 61), ( 83 ), 135, (177), -in Terracotta panel : 54; 181, 184, 261, 262, 264; -in Weyang Orang : 16; in Kaumudimahotsava : and Ganika : 13, 41, 107, (51), (82), 258; 158, 167, 175; in Malavikāgnimitra : --and Maid: II, 13, 14, 41, (51), (82), 100, (127), 52, 67, 99, 100, 107, 131, (139), 212-221; 118, 119, 133, 135, 137, -in Myochakațika : 13, (51), 138, 159, 160, 161, 162, (82), 106, 113, (127), 130, 166, 171, 174, 175, 176, 140, 160, ( 168 ), 233, 234, 178, 179, 181, (182), 235, 239; 183, 184, 201, 202, 203, in Nāgānanda : (51 ), (52), 206, 207, 208, 209, 212, (60), 68, (82), 106, 119, 214, 224, 232, 242, 247, 127, 132, IOI, (164), 170, 248, 254-258, 261, 262, 184, 251-257; 263, 267, 268, 272, 274, in Pratijñayaugandhara- 275, 277, yana: 67, 72, 81, 93, TOI, ---and Pāripārsvika (Assi 120, 130, 137, (139), 159, stant): 88, 109, ITO, 197-199, 260; II2; in Priyadarsika: 68, 81, -and Purohita: 85, 86 ; 106, 118, (127), 131, 138, -and Sūtradhāra: 88, 109, -139, 161, 163; 241, 242, IIO, III, II3, 114, 115, 244, 249, 250; 278; -in Ratimanmatha ; (83), min Adbhutadarpana : (18), II5, 179; 24, 51, 72, 73, (83), --in Ratnavali: (51), 60, 81, (85), 86, IIO, 114, 115, 82, 118, (1127), 131, 132, 181, 278, 279, 282; 134, 138, 157, 161, 213, 246, in Asvaghoşa's play : 107 247, 248, 250; Lin Avimäraka : (59), 100, in Sakuntala : (18, 19, 20), 130, 159, (163), (168), 32, (52), (83), 100, 106, ( 776), (197), 206; (107), (127), 131, 138, 141, ·301 (157), 160, 161, (166), 178, Viśvanagara : 94 184, 228, 232; Vița: 4, 41, 51, 75, 102, 103, in Suapnavāsavadatta: (17), 104, 108, 117, IOI, 164, 170, (19), 67, 81, TOO, (107), 174, 177, 178, 182, 187, 254, (127), 130, 136, 140, 158, 255, 256, 273 200, 201, 202 ; Vșşākapi : 8, 9, 10, 12; -in Viddhaśālabhanjika : -hymn : 9, 26 (52), (61), 77, ( 82 ), 86, Všttikära : 182 119, 132, 135, 162, (164), Vyādhisindhu : 188 175, 265-268, 270; Vyāsa: 275 -in Vikramorvasiya : (51), ( 60 ), (83), 100, 106, (127), Wayang Orang: 16 131, 140, (165), 222-227 Wine: 72, 73 Vidyadhara: 256, 271 Vidyadharamalla: 266 Yakşiņi: (19, 20) Yama: 188 Vighnas : 61 Yaugandharāyaṇa : 92, 93, 130, Vijayasena : 248 197, 199, 200, 250, 260 Vinayandharā: 260 Yavanika (Javanikā): 5 Vinoda-dana : Yuvarāja : (18, 19) Vipralambha Srågāra : 140 Visvāmitra : 179 Zēlotypos: 5 I21

·No text on this page.

·BIBLIOGRAPHY I. Original Plays AŚVAGHOSA: Bruchstücke buddhistischer Dramen, Lüders, I9II. BHAVABHOTI: Malatīmādhava, ed. by M. R. Kale, 2nd ed., Bombay, 1928; (Ist ed., 1913 ); Uttararāmacarita, Translated into Marathi with Notes, by S. K. Belwalkar, Poona, 1915; ed. with English Translation, Notes and Introduction, by G, K. Bhat, Surat, 1953. BHĀSA: Bhāsa-nataka-cakram, ed. by C. R. Devadhar, Oriental Book Agency, Poona, 1937; Avimāraka; Balacarita ; Cārudatta; Karnabhāra; Pratijñāyaugandharāyana; Svapnavāsavadatta, ed. with English Translation, Notes and Introduction, by G. K. Bhat, Surat, 1952. BILHANA: Karnasundari, Kavyamālā 7, Bombay, 1888. HARŞA: Nāgānanda, ed. by R. D. Karmarkar, 2nd ed., Bombay, 1923; Priyadarsika, ed. by M. R. Kale, Ist, ed., Bombay, 1928; Ratnävalt, ed. by M. R. Kale, and ed., Bombay, 1925; ( Ist ed., JAGANNATHA, PAŅDITA: Ratimanmatha, Gopal Narayan, Bombay, (?). KĀLIDĀSA: Abhijñānašakuntala, ed. by M. R. Kale, 7th ed., Bombay, 1934; -by A. B. Gajendragadkar, 4th ed., Surat, 1950; by S. Ray, 5th ed., Calcutta, 1920; Malavikāgrimitra, ed., by M. R. Kale, 3rd ed., Bombay, 1933 : 1921).

·304 Vikramorzasiya, ed. by S. P, Pandit. Bombay, 1879; -Nirnayasagara ed., Bombay, 1914; -by R. D. Karmarkar, 2nd ed., Poona, 1932. KŞEMISVARA, ARYA: Candakaušika, Calcutta, 188.4. RĀJASEKHARA: Karpüramañjuri, ed. by Sten Kunow, translated into English with Notes by C. R. Lanman, HOS. Vol. IV, Cambridge, Mass., 1901 ; Kävyamālā, No. 4, Bombay, 1887; Viddhaśālabhañjika, Calcutta, 1873 and 1883. MAHADEVA: Adbhutadarpana, Kävyamälä 55, Bombay, 1896. RUDRADĀSA: Candralekha, ed. by A. N. Upadhye, Bharatiya Vidya Series, Vol. 6, Bombay, 1945. SODRAKA: Macchakatika, ed. by R. D. Karmarkar, ist ed., Poona, 1937 VIJAYABHATTĀRIKĀ: Kaumudimahotsara, ed. by Sakuntala Rao Sastri, Bombay, 1952. II. Original works on Theory -Agnipurāna, ed. Anandāśrama, Poona, 1900. BHARATA: Natyašastra, Gaekwad's Oriental Series, Vol. I, 1926 (2nd ed. Revised, 1956); Vol. II, 1934; Vol. III, 1954; Baroda; -Kavyamāla, No. 42, Bombay, 1894 ; -Kashi Sanskrit Series, No. 60, Benaras, 1929: -Translated into English by Manomohan Ghosh, Bibliotheca Indica, Issue No. 1559, Calcutta, 1951. DHANAÑJAYA: Dašarapaka, ed. Haas, New York, 1912. MAMMATA : Kavyaprakasa, with the Commentary of Zalakikar, 5th ed., Poona, 1933. RĀMACANDRA & GUNACANDRA: Nafyadarpana. Gaekwad's Oriental Series, No. XLVIII, Baroda, 1999. RUDRABHATTA: Spigaratilaha, Kävyamalk III, Bombay, 1887. ŞÅGARANANDIN: Natakanlahşaya-vanakosa, Vol. I, ed. by Myles Dillon, Oxford Un. Press, London, 1937.

·305 3 SARADĀTANAYA: Bhāvaprakāśana, Gaekwad's Oriental Series, No. XLV, Baroda, 1930. SINGA BHUPĀLA: Rasārnavasudhākara, Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, No. L, Trivandrum, 1916. VĀTSYÃYANA: Kámasútra, Kāshi Sanskri Şeries, No. 29, Benaras, 1929; Translated into English and edited by Dr. B. N. Basu, Revised by S. L. Ghosh, ist ed., 1943, 6th ed., 1945, Calcutta. VISVANÁTHA: Sahityadarpana, Nirnayasāgara, Bombay 192 ; ed, by P. V. Kane, Bombay, 1923. III. Original Works in References L.hagavadajjukiya ; BODHAYANA; ed. by P. Anujan Achan, The Paliyam MSS. Library : Jayantamangalam, 1925. Dhürtasamāyama, JYOTIRISVARA; Anthologia Sanscritica, ed. C. Lassen, Bonn., 1838. Ilūsyūrnara, JAGADISVARA BHATTĀCĀRYA; 2nd ed., Calcutta, 1886. Kathasaritsāgara, SOMADEVA; Bombay, 1889; 1930 edition. Katyāyana Srauta Satra, Chowkhambă Sanskrit Series, 415, Benaras, 1933 Kathaka Samhita, ed. Schroeder, Leipzig, 1900-1912. Kumarasambhara, KĀLIDĀSA; Nirnayasāgara, 2nd ed., Bombay, 1886. Kautukasarvasva, (Keith, The Sanskrit Drama). Latakamelaka, SANKHADHARA; Kāvyamālā 20, Bombay, 1889. Latyāyana Srauta Sætra, Bibliotheca Indica, New Series, No. 181, Calcutta, 1870. Manusmrti, Bombay, 1950. Meghaduta, KĀLIDĀSA ; Nirnayasagara, 8th ed., Bombay 1912. Nirukta, YASKA; ed. Bhadakamkar, Bombay, 1942. 39 ·306 Paumacariya, VIMALASŪRI; ed. H. Jacobi, Bhavanagar, 1914. Padmacarita, RAVISEŅA ; ed. Darbari Lal, Bombay, 1928. Rgveda-Sarihitā, Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala, Poona, 1933- 1941. Vyākarana-Mahābhāsya, PATAÑJALI ; ed. Keilhorn, Bombay, 1880, 1883 IV. Criticism : Sanskrit Dramatic Theory and Practice GHOSH, MANOMOHAN : The Natyaśāstra, Translated into English, Bibliotheca Indica, No. 1559, Calcutta, 1951; Contribution to the History of Hindu Drana : Its Originz and Diffusion, Calcutta, 1957. JAGIRDAR, R. V.: Drama in Sanskrit Literature, Bonbay, 1947. KEITH, A. B.: The Sanskrit Drama, Oxford, 1924. KETKAR, Kum. GODAVARI VASUDEVA : Bharatiya Nātyaścīstra, (Marathi), Chiplon (Dist. Ratnagiri) 1928. KOPARKAR, D. G.: Prācyā, The Dialect of the Vidūşaka, Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, Vol. IV, Poona, 1943; Were the Vidūşakas of Kālidāsa Non-vegetarian?, MI.G.E.S. Girl's College Magazine, Vol. II, Poona, March 1948. LACOTE: 'Essay on Gunādhya and the Bphatkathā, English translation by T. A. Bard, Bangalore, 1923. PARIKH, J. T.: Sanskrit Comic Characlers, Surat, 1952 ; The Vidüşaka : Theory and Practice, Surat, 1953 ; The Brahmacārin in the first act of the Svapnavāsavadattam, Bulletin of the Chunilal Gandhi Vidyabhavan, No. 2, Surat, August, 1955. PISHAROTI, RAMA K.: Kerala Theatre, Journal of the Annamalai University, Vol. III, No. 2, Oct. 1934. RAMANUJASWAMI, P. V.: Humour in Sanskrit Plays, Journal of Sri Venkatesvara Oriental Institute, Vol. v, No. I, Tirupati, Jan.-June, 1944.

·307 RAOU. VENKATA KRISHNA : Blisa's Vidasakas, Poona Orientalist, Vol. XVIII, Jan.-Oct. 1953. SCHƯYLER, M. (Jr.) : The Origin of the l'idūşaka and the employment of this Character in the Plays of Harşadeva, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. XX, Second Half, New York, 1899. UPADHYE, A. N.; Candralekhā, Introduction, Bombay, 1945; Viduşaka's Ears, Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. VIII, No. 4, Dec. 1932 V. Criticism : General AGRAWALA, V. S.: Gupla Art, U. P. Historical Society, Lucknow, 1947; Journal of the India Society of Oriental Art, Vol. X, Calcutta, 1942. ARISTOTLE: The Poctics of Aristotle, ed. by S. H. Butcher, London, 1898; 4th ed. 1929. BHANDARKAR, R. G.: Wilson Philological Lectures, Bombay, IG14. BRADLEY, A. C.: Oxford Lectures on Poctry, London, 1934; ed. 1950. BUTCHER, S. H.: Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, First ed. Edinburgh, 1894; 4th ed. Dover, New York, 1951 (Reprint). CHAMBERS, E. K.: The Mediacval Stage, Vol. I and II, London, 1925. CORNFORD, F. M.; The Origin of Attic Comedy, Cambridge, 1934. DOWDEN, EDWARD: Shakespeare: His Mind and Art, London, 1880; 16th ed. EASTMAN, MAX: The Enjoyment of Laughter, London, 1937. ELLIOT, SIR WALTER: On the Characteristics of the Population of Contral India, Journal of the Ethnological Society of London, N. S. L. 94, 7869.

·308
FEIBLEMAN, JAMES: In Praise of Comedy, London, 1939-
GORDON, GEORGE: Shakespearian Comedy and other Studies,
London, 1944.
LEACOCK, STEPHAN: Humour and Humanity, London, 1937.
MENON, V. K. KRISHNA : A Thcory of Laughter, London,
1931.
MEREDITH, GEORGE: An Essay on Comedy, Mickleham
Edition, London, 1927; Reprint, 1934.
MORGAN, MAURICE: An Essay on the Dramatic Character
of Sir John Falstaff. The World's Classics, CCXII,;
Shakespeare Criticism, A Selection; Oxford Un. Press,
Ist ed., 1916.
PLATO: Philebus, The Woks of Plato, Translated by
George Burgess, London, 1883.
PRIESTLEY, J. B : The English Comic Characters, London,
1928.
SHAKESPEARE: As You Like It, The Arden Shakespeare,
London, 1920.
SHAW, BERNARD : Back to Methuselah, Preface, London,
1949.
THORND'KE, ASHLEY H.: English Comedy, New York,
1929.
VELANKAR, H, D.: Hymns to Indra in Mandala X, Journal
of the University of Bombay, Vol. XXII, Part 2, Sept.
1953
WELLS, CAROLYN: An Outline of Humow, New York, 1923.

·No text on this page.

·No text on this page.

·No text on this page.