DRAMATIC CONCEPTS: GREEK AND INDIAN
A Study of Poetics and Natyasastra
New Delhi: D. K Print World, 1994. Pp. xvii + 295.
The book confronts the rival theories of dramatics, Greek and Indian, with a view to draw conceptual parallels and differences. It is argued that the Greek system of poetics, of which drama was one part, began semiotically but in its later European application tapered into the lexical. On the other hand, the Indian system remained semiotic.
I have placed the two dramatic theories within the broad framework of ancient Indo-European culture and the art of hieropraxis or sacred drama for which they were formulated. Similarity between the theories emerges from a common Indo-European world-view. Ancient Greeks and Indians not only upheld some common metaphysical and epistemological concepts, but they also regarded theatre as a sacred action meant to please gods as well as men.
Sacred drama required the perfection of production techniques which were synesthetic. Music, dance and semiotized gesture were all unified to produce a unified performance text. Aristotle's Poetics and the Natyashastra of Bharata Muni are, above all, manuals that present theories for the production of such performance texts. Thus, in this study, the emphasis is on techniques of production or elements of theatrical representation and not upon dramatic genres such as tragedy, comedy or the Indian dasarupakas. These genres as lexical structures, have been the basis of comparison between Greek and Indian dramatic theories all too long.
Besides pointing out the common Indo-European factor and the hieropraxic nature of the two ancient traditions, I have also emphasized that with the rise of post-Renaissance drama in Europe, the recreation of the Greek tradition tapered from the semiotic to the word-centered performance text. This change was a departure from the hieropraxic towards the secular. From the Renaissance onwards, the sacred was too often redefined and at times even isolated from daily life under the impact of Humanistic and Individualistic ideologies. This resulted ìin the break-up of the aural-visual unity of the hieropraxic kind ìwhich was primarily an expression of human and cosmic unity.
The book is divided into three parts. The first part proposes a definition of hieropraxis and reasons for its decline in Europe. The second part offers a detailed analysis of all the conceptual tools of the two dramaturgies. All the concepts are classified under three broad divisions: theatrical space, aural and visual content, and the dramatic genres.
In both theatres space was divided into areas marked for speech activity, dance motions and musical expressions. It is pointed out that in the ancient theatre, gesture was an independent language, neither subservient to the verbal nor just an amplification of the verbal intent, but a complimentary device that created its own area of signification. The relationship between the spoken and the sung words in theatre is examined in detail. It is shown that rhythm was accepted as the common basis for speech, metre and song in both traditions. Greek musical theory is compared with the Indian musical system called Gandharva.
The third part of the book proposes that two theatres aim at transforming reality, not just depicting it. They also provided a deep emotional arousal and a consequent psychological relief to the audience called katharsis by the Aristotle and rasa as stated by Bharata Muni.Other Places to go
Issues and Reviews
Click here to mail your order