Plot Structure and the Development of Rasa in the akuntal. Pt.

I
Author(s): Edwin Gerow
Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 99, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1979), pp.
559-572
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/601446
Accessed: 08-06-2016 09:58 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal
of the American Oriental Society

This content downloaded from 14.139.211.229 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:58:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

PLOT STRUCTURE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF RASA

IN THE SAKUNTALA. PT. I

EDWIN GEROW
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

The Sakuntala is generally taken to be the finest example of a rasa drama in Classical Sanskrit
literature. Here the relation of plot-structure to rasa is explored, and an attempt is made to show that the
Indian theory of plot, often overlooked or regarded as a mechanical formula, is a carefully crafted
complement to the rasa theory, of great help in the interpretation of dramatic works.

would probably deny the bald proposition, there

IT HAS BECOME CONVENTIONAL to study Indian

aesthetics as a philosophical or psychological

seems to be an unspoken agreement that what is so

problem. While it is generally recognized that the

clearly borrowed or adapted from other media cannot

aesthetic doctrine par excellence, the rasa, bears

be the key element in the drama's aesthetic

peculiar and doubtless original relations with the

achievement.

dramatic literature in Sanskrit, studies of this

And so, it is in effect not remarkable that plot

emotional tone have tended to follow the line

(despite the intricate traditional analysis) has been

established by Abhinavagupta and Bhatta Nayaka in

undervalued in our discussions of Sanskrit drama; we

the 9th and 10th centuries, in emphasizing its

find, in fact, that dramas tend to be judged (insofar as

intuitive, cognitive and even transcendental (or

they are judged) not as dramas at all but as kavyas:

theological) character, instead of seeking to under-

we find treatments of Kalidasa's imagery, the

stand it in and through the plays that articulate it.'

delicacy of Harsa's style, the force of Bhavabhfiti's

And again, although the very same early "poetic"

depiction of character.4 The writers rarely distin-

literature (the Natyaiastra of Bharata) provides us

guish between Kalidasa's natakas and his kavyas.5-

with an elaborate analysis of dramatic plot-structure,

Mrcchakatika and Mudraraksasa are often discussed

our modern critics have tended to dismiss it either as

in terms of their realism (an unexpected quality!) or

artificial or self-evident,2 with the rather odd result

as versions of the narrative poetry of the Brhatkatha

that no extant Sanskrit drama has to my knowledge

of the late Gupta period.6 And there is a truth

been shown to demonstrate or illustrate a plot as

embedded in this confusion of genres, for the

crucial to the realization of drama's aesthetic effect

Sanskrit drama has been, for the past millennium at

(its "rasa")!

least, a purely literary form.7 Drama, written without

On the other hand, the Sanskrit Drama is studied

hope or possibility of performance, is accepted as

almost exclusively in its historical or cultural

kavya, stylistically variant. And it is the plot, in

dimensions.3 It is remarkable that the great dramas of

Aristotle's words, the "imitation of actions," that

the classical period: of Kalidasa, Bhavabhuti, Bhatta

tends to characterize the drama among other poetic

Narayana, etc., have not been subjected to the kind of

forms-not in the sense that kavyas can have no plot

stringent structural analysis, concentrated on the

(though this is in effect true for the Indian exemplars)8

drama's action, that our own critical tradition insists

nor in the sense that poetic elements are not present

upon. Indeed, steeped in an Aristotelian poetics that

in the drama (one cannot abstract the language and

postulates first of all the autonomy of the literary

verse forms of the Sanskrit drama from its aesthetic

product (creation) we might think it more likely that a

effect anymore than one can do the same in

Western indologist would follow this line than his

Shakespeare). It is rather that, in written poetry, the

Indian counterpart. It is probably our tendency to

verbal arts acomplish the entire aesthetic purpose,

equate the Indian drama as plot with dramatic forms

and have effectively substituted other means for the

in our tradition that are not serious (melodrama, etc.)

properly representational domain of the drama

that has inhibited what would otherwise be a normal

(spectacle, dance, characterization)-what we sum

interest in plot as such. The inevitable historical bias

up in the ironical term "acting." This paper hopes to

of modern Indology (Western and Indian) tends to be

bridge the gap between these two kinds of treatment

satisfied with the discovery that plots, as such, are

of the drama, by showing in a dramatic work of art

rarely original, but are likely to be borrowed from

the internal coherence of traditional dramatic theory,

epical or Katha literature. Though most indologists

and thereby to suggest an aesthetic insight into the

559

This content downloaded from 14.139.211.229 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:58:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

560 Journal of the American Oriental Society 99.4 (1979)

drama that is not dependent on a mere psychology.

terms of its rasa-destiny, so to speak. The grouping

Inevitably, the central question will be: how and for

of "elements" (vibhazvas, anubhazvas, etc.) is already

what purpose is the drama constructed?

an analysis of the "body" of the play that is

It is taken for granted that the consequences, and

functional, and therefore for our purposes, somewhat

also the purpose, of the Sanskrit drama (and every

circular: "character" (to take an example) (or a type

extant Sanskrit drama) in performance is an

of character, the noyaka) is a vibhava (an

awakening of a rasa (latent emotional state) in the

Olambanavibhova, to be precise) only insofar as its

spectators or audience. Much controversy surrounds

relation to the bhdva (dominant expressed emotion)

this process of awakening, extensively dealt with

and thus to the rasa (latent emotional state) is

both in tradition and in modern scholarship.9 Modern

granted. In this functional analysis, the "body" of

interest has tended to focus on the psychological

the play is immediately reflected through the

fact, and to inquire into the relation between rasa

emotional medium of the play's purpose. The quality

and other states of consciousness (taking its cue, no

of the "body" as such, is somewhat reduced,

doubt from Abhinava's interesting analogy between

precipitated, made to appear evanescent- nothing

the enjoyment that is rasa, released through the play,

but a means, freed from any determinations not

and the enjoyment that is moksa, released through

having to do with the dominant emotion of the play.

the real [world]). The pre-Abhinavagupta critics,

We cease to be aware of Ram-a, the individual divine

however, whose writings often are not preserved

personaltiy, and instead are absorbed in his

except as Abhinava and others have quoted or

" character" qua hero: the divine lover, the male

characterized them, seem less interested in the

aspect of the dharmic relationship. The process that

condition or state as such, and more in the question

Abhinava terms "generalization" thus applies even

of its coming-to-be or origin-taking their cue from

at the level of determining the elements of a play.

the enigmatic phrase in the Natyasastra, whereby the

And while this analysis may be perfectly consonant

rasa is said to "arise" (nispatti, as noun) from a

with the dominant aesthetic effect of the drama, and

combination (samyoga) of various elements (vibhczva,

explains both the play's sentimentality and the

anubhova, vyabhicdribhdva are named), all of

appearance of improbable or random plots, it is well

which characterize, in a quite technical sense,

to keep in mind that the analysis, by its strength-

dimensions of the play as performed."0 Hence the

which is in fact its circularity-hides from us the

focus of this older stratum of criticism might be said

body of the play, seen in and of itself. And it

to be on the play itself, conceived as means (in what

certainly is a legitimate question to ask whether any

precise sense, most controversial) suited (and thus

constraints are put upon the construction and

composed) to evoke a rasa.

organization of the plot that are not presupposed by,

I have written elsewhere on the character of the

and may in fat themselves condition, the ultimate

experience that qualifies rasa as an aesthetic

rasa-experience. Another way of phrasing the

concept. It is to the other half of the question that I

question is to ask whether there is a structure of the

wish to turn here, the question of production'2 of the

play that is not immediately in subordination to a

rasa; and to do so in as neutral a way as possible-

rasa; further, whether such a non-sentimental

taking no position on the psychological status of the

structure is necessarily involved in the expression of

rasa, except that it is (as we have said) an emotional

the rasa. Does the rasa (conceived of as an

result, and that the play (in some sense) is uniquely

architectonic medley of related but inherently

able to produce it. We ask the question the first

"static" moods) need a plot, a sequence of events in

critics of Bharata asked: how? While this approach

and for its manifestation? If so, the rasa will have a

may nto lead us to any novel understanding of the

dynamic aspect as well thatt cannot be reduced to the

rasa experience, it may heighten our appreciation of

logic of the moods as such. Bharata appears to pose

the aesthetic instrumentality of the work itself, seen

these questions in his 19th chapter-distinguishing at

as doing what it is most suited to do. We may even be

least provisionally itivrtta (sarira of the play) from

able, in this way, to "feel ourselves into" an alien art-

rasa (its atman or soul).

form, and thus find in ourselves new predispositions

to experience.

Accounts of this chapter 19, which is repeated

essentially unchanged by later Scistris, notably

I am not going to follow, however, the lead of

Dhana .jaya, Vigvanatha and many of the writers on

Bhatta Lollata, and the other pre-Abhinava critics, in

rasa (Saradatanaya) are limited in modern scholar-

considering the play abstractly-already qualified in

ship to inventorying the various analytical categories

This content downloaded from 14.139.211.229 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:58:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

GEROW: Plot Structure in the Sakuntalh. Pt. I 561

and to illustrating them by reference to typical

relevant context: agent, means, aim, result. The

Sanskrit dramas. Still best is S. Levi, Theatre

inherent ambiguity of the term "actor" (in our

Indien, pp. 30-57. It is not clear from what sources

dramatic language) is thus brought out; and this

Levi takes his illustrations, but they are in general

characterizes also the sense in which the nayaka is

accord for the Sakuntala with its standard commen-

the kartr (or rather the adhikartr) of the dramatic

tary (of Raghavabhatta), and also appear to be

action. Furthermore, the "ethicality" of the action

consistent with Abhinavagupta's commentary on the

defines its essential sequentiality: from "motive" to

19th chapter in his Bharatr (which draws its

" result." Subsequent distinctions, the "artha-

illustrations from several sources, among them the

prakrtis" and the "samdhis" (especially) link this

Venisamhara), and with Dhanika on the Dasaripaka

"real world" more directly to the "play" as such. In

(who illustrates the Ratnavalf). The following essay

this sense the drama is indeed an "imitation" of the

will use these sources heavily and constantly, and the

world (Dasarupaka 1.6.). Firstly,

indebtedness will be acknowledged only when the

detail is of some special interest.

The Polish indologist, M. Christopher Byrski, has

recently rekindled interest in this mode of interpret-

(1) The five "avasthas" (19.7)16 are not dramatic

at all (unless life is a drama), but count as the five

sequential aspects of any purposive undertaking

(vyapdra), namely: (19.8) the beginning (prarambha,

ing the Sanskrit drama with his article "Sanskrit

viz., the motive, preceding all activity); the effort

Drama as an Aggregate of Model Situations";' 3 it is

(prayatna, which is of course a consequence of the

to this work that the following essay owes its

implanted motive); the (understanding of the)

inspiration (without of course presuming to attribute

possibility of success (prapteS ca sambhavah, or

its methods or conclusions to Byrski). I do not wish

"praptyasa" in Dhanarpjaya and most later litera-

to confront here his major thesis, that of parallelisms

ture, "the hope of attainment"); the certainty of

between the ritual and the drama as models of

success (niyata ca phalapraptih, viz., "certainty"

(fruitful) action. The distinction between "process"

but not yet actuality"); and success, or as it is aptly

termed, conjunction with the fruit (phalayoga).

and "form," drawn above, is certainly none other

than that of the Mfmamsa, which distinguishes

criteria (pram ana) of principal and subordinate

These five stages of the action pertaining necessarily

relationships (adhyayas 3, 4) from criteria of

character whose actions are the drama) state at the

sequentiality (adhyaya 5). Byrski's insight, however,

beginning his functional significnace and "entitle-

and properly (adhikarika: 19.2) to the hero (that

that the analysis of the action (scil., "plot") of the

ment." His is the success, provided the action is

drama provides a wholly coherent account of "body"

of the play is accepted here without reservation.

complete. Such optimism by definition, appears to

preclude even the possibility of failure, of "tragedy,"

What I will try to add to his treatment is a tentative

integration of the rasa mode into the theory of plot-

but we would do well to go cautiously here, for it is

not clear that the five avasthas are in the drama at

structure: the aesthetic final-cause into the aesthetic

all; as an analysis of "worldly" action, they do little

formal clause.

more than state the evident implications of the ritual

The "body" (sarra) of the play, given the special

karma theory - which in no sense precludes errors,

technical designation "itivrtta"I 4 appears to place

incompetence and the divine malice that may

the drama in the context of the epic-as different

postpone "phalayoga" well into the next life. And as

modes of what is essentially narrative."5 The sarira

an analaysis of action relevant to the agent, it is also

unexceptionable, in the sense (even for Western

is by Bharata immediately subjected to three five-

fold distinctions, which involve a theory of action,

tragic man) that no one acts for a goal thought

motivated and, particularly, successful action, and

un attainable.

attempt to adapt that theory to the conventions of

presumption of response on the part of an audience,

According to Byrski, the five avasthas locate the

"actions" of the hero, but also of others, in relation
to the motive and the goals of an agent, and
constitute a "subjective" reading of the sequence of
acts that gives it unity as activity, make it possible as

but in the motives and character of the actors

a "plot."

represented: action at this level is in other words not

(2) That same activity, viewed without reference

to its agent or "subject," but therefore "objectively"

drama.

Noteworthy about the first of the three sets of

distinctions is that its basis lies not in any

already dramatized, is ordinary, worldly action

viewed ethically, determined in its immediately

is divided again into five aspects, called "arthaprakgis"

This content downloaded from 14.139.211.229 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:58:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

562 Journal of the American Oriental Society 99.4 (1979)

(or, "matter of action," a term well chosen from

incompetent to arrest the movement toward the main

Byrski's point of view: 19.20).' The second five do

goal. If so the patdka and the prakart are mirror

not however correspond neatly to the first, despite

images of each other and express possibility and

some efforts to make them do so (see Venkatacarya,

necessity respectively, vis a vis the "actuality" of

ibid.). The first of the five "matters" is termed

phalayoga: "possession." From this point of view, it

"bja," or "seed" (19.22); the second, "bindu" or

is perhaps clearer why the sub-plots cannot intrude

"drop(let)" (19.23), and the fifth, "karya," or'thing-

on the final "actualization" of the play!

to-be-done" (19.26: yad adhikczrikam vastu... tat

(Abhinava gives the episodes of Sugriva and

karyam ... ). The last seems clearly to refer to the

Vibhfsana in the Ramayana as examples of patdkd:

"fruit," subjectivization of which constitutes the

the monkey sub-plot is distinctly relevant to Rama's

motive, and reference to which is implied by all five

karyam and has a character of its own; and in the

of the avasthas; similarly, brja and bindu appear to

Venmsamhdra, Krsna is an example of aprakarf sub-

be implied by all the avasthas, the former as that

plot, having no business of his own in the play to

aspect of the eventual fruit sufficient to provoke

accomplish yet being distinctly useful to the

action (thus also the "motive" pure and simple, as

Pandavas.)20

grasped in the "prarambha" avastha, and the latter

The evident rationale for introducing the "objec-

the capacity of that action to be sustained through

tive" and "subjective" categorizations of "action" is

various sorts of circumstances, many of them

certainly that they aid in defining the dimension of

hostile-prayofanana-m vicchede. The image of the

action pertinent only to the play-the doctrine of the

"drop" has been variously explained (as a "drop" of

samdhis as such-but perhaps a less obvious

oil spreads out on a water surface, etc.),'8 but may be

purpose is to underscore the difference between the

as simple as a (rain)drop making its way down any

"real world" and the "play," for however the

surface, now hesitant, now quick, never ceasing and

avasthds and arthaprakrtis may enter into the play,

never disappearing. Just as "karya" seems logically

it is only the five samdhis that immediately define it,

(if not sequentially) to correspond to the last

avasthd, and bija to the first, so bindu appears the

as a plot.
(3) How does this theory of action become

"objective" doublet of the second (effort), for the

dramatic? While the attainment of goals may be

sustinant quality of the thing pursued is manifest only

intrinsically interesting, it is so chiefly to the

in our effort.

participants, not to any observers who may attend.

But the third and fourth arthaprakrtis do not seem

And on this level, as we know, the play differs from

to refer to the main action of the plot (the

the "real world" in just the sense that the

"adhikdrika" aspect of the play). The pataka

"participants" are fictions-actors (as we so

(19.24) is defined essentially as a sub-plot furthering

ironically say), and the focus of interest shifts to the

the main story line (pradhdnasya upakdrakam) and

spectators-now an audience (sahrdaya). While we

parallel to it (pradhanavac ca); the prakarr (19.25)

seem here to be drawn back toward the notion of

is simply a diversionary sub-plot (pararthayaiva

rasa, away from our theory of action as such,

kevalam). Here the lack of correspondence, logical

Bharata (or whoever wrote this part of the text) does

or sequential, to the five avasthas is clearest,

inasmuch as the patakd, and presumably the prakart

first attempt (before moving to questions of aesthetic

response) to understand the consequences of this

are not allowed to intrude upon the "phalayoga"

shift in focus for the theory of action itself;

(19.29). But it is still inviting to seek a rationale for

"actions," though they may not be ultimate, are the

the inclusion of these two dissonant terms among the

inescapable ground of the play, the play's perform-

arthaprakrtis that do apparently correspond to

ance, understood in some sense as an imitation of

avasthas. If the pataka, or "relevant sub-plot" does

logically relate to the "possibility of success" it may

other actions, more or differently real. The relation

be in the sense that it is precisely an aspect of the

action not related directly to the "matter" at hand,

our understanding of the action of the play as play,

which does nevertheless contribute to the attainment

confronts directly. How are the actions of the play

of performance to this sense of reality is crucial to

and it is this issue that the analysis of the samdhis

of that matter, and thus proves "possibility of

different from those of the world? How must actions

success." And the prakari, if related to the

be modified to make them suitable to the expectation

"certainty" of success in any way at all, might be as

of rasa?

an irrelevant episode,19 that is by its nature

According again to Byrski, "the samdhis are the

This content downloaded from 14.139.211.229 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:58:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

GEROW: Plot Structure in the Sakuntalz. Pt. I 563

projection of the action set onto the entire manifold

own necessity, not merely as motive, is what gives

nature of the subject matter." 2' By "action," he

special force to the properly dramatic notion of hte

means the avasthas: action determined subjectively

samdhis. The relationship also accounts for the

from the actor's point of view. Looking toward the

instructive quality of drama, indeed of narrative art

avasthas, the five samdhis appear to have the same

generally.

property of sequential purposiveness leading to the

In this sense the play is nothing but an ideal vision,

attainment of a desired object, but now the "actor"

different from the "real world" only in its perfection:

has become "character" in the play. In the mukha

the bfja, bindu, phala, etc., are related correctly to

samrdhi (19.39 "head") occurs the arambha; in the

pratimukha (19.40: "head [reflectedi back"), the

the subjective condition of man, not only in that the

fruit is won (for it often is in the real world too), but

yatna; in the garbha (19.41: "womb" or "foetus")

in the more philosophical sense that time as an

occurs the prdptvysS: in the vimarsa (19.42:

obstacle is itself overcome in the process. Time,

"reconsideration") is the niyatdpti; and in the

sequence, in the form of the samdhis have become

nirvahana (19.43: "conclusion"), comes the phala-

necessities and therfore instrumentalities in the

gg~ma. So close is this relationship that it does not at

drama: the element of chance, of choice, that marks

first seem clear why two sets of five distinctions are

time as a problem, has been mediated. Our interest

needed by the theory. Bharata's text in part responds

realigns itself when we realize that this seed will bear

to this problem by defining the samdhis not in terms

fruit, for it can no longer remain fixed on the worldly

of the avasthas, but in relation to the arthaprakrtis,

red herring: whether it will bear fruit.

the "matters" of action of the play-or perhaps more

This same process of "realization" or generaliza-

accurately, in relation to the , the first "matter"

tion marks the transformation of "content" into

of action. The "seed" analogy is fully developed: in

dramatic element (vibhava, etc.), and expresses the

the mukha, it is "produced" (i.e., planted), in the

sense in which (in Abhinava's view) the drama

pratimukha, it unfolds-to the point of seeming to

constitutes an inversion of the "real"; what are

disappear each time it is seen (drstanastam iva

preconditions or "causes" in reality (circumstance,

kvacit); in the garbha (scil., "womb") it develops-

time) become in the drama effects of (predicated

to the point where its fruition or attainment seems

upon) "causes" that in reality are only consequences.

possible (and therefore its non-fruition becomes an

In the "world" I need a woman, and the right set of

issue: praptir apraptir eva va); in the virmarsa, the

conditions to experience "love"; in the drama,

bija thus developed is subjected to a test in the form

"love" (the rasa) becomes the ground which

of anger or contrary passion, thus certifying its

determines the character and actions of us all. And

viability; and of course, in the nirvahan.a, the "seed"

because this is an ideal action, it is not of the agents

is resolved, has effect, becomes its fruit through the

(actors, in either of the two senses) anymore, but

essential contrasts of development and the tensions

may be participated in by all and all equally.

of survival. Stated here is the insight that the

This fact of participation, this broadening of

"matters" of action, the arthaprakrtis are not given

'actor" to include "audience" is the minimum

in a temporal sense at all,22 but "are" in the play as

transformation necessary to involve the audience in

the basic material worked over and given subjective

the play, and as such becomes the central issue of

shape. That "union" is the "samdhi" (indeed, it its

dramatic reality. But our interest here is not in the

literal sense). The btja, as well as the bindu, and the

audience as such: we note only the conclusion that

karya, are in all five sam.dhis, but conceived

the treatment of the plot also is crucial to the rasa.

differently in each, as differently validated in each

Let us return to the drama as an action-model,

other. The proper business of the play is the relation

reviewing these matters in terms of a concrete drama,

of those matters to a subjective purpose, according to

the Sakuntala of Kalidasa.

the "map" given by the five avasthas. That relation

PART I: THE SAMDHIS

of the objective and subjective in all its constructive

reality, is the play. The theory of action presented is

Raghavabhatta's commentary, the "Arthadyotani-

not merely subjective, not merely my action, but is

ka,"23 on the Devanagarf rescension of the Sakuntala,

generalized and objectivized as that of a "character"

is remarkable for the careful attention paid (among

potentially universal, who thus becomes my guide

other things) to the question of plot-structure. In

(nayaka), and leads me through the intricacies of my

what follows, we take his analysis of the plot for

self. The notion of subjective action determined in its

granted, and attempt to show what his explanation

This content downloaded from 14.139.211.229 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:58:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

564 Journal of the American Oriental Society 99.4 (1979)

explains. The many prior questions such a procedure

Sakuntala as drama, we are also at the center of the

raises are largely ignored, for lack of evidence, and

Indian poetic problem. By the judgment of the

also for lack of relevance: it will be enough if

tradition itself, the Sakuntala is the validating

Raghavabhatta can be shown to have provided some

aesthetic creation of a civilization. Form and content

help, to have outlined a possible interpretation. Our

unite in this play to express persistent cultural

interest in other words is not historical, and we leave

verities; the aesthetic success, the formal aspect per

historical issues aside-recognizing fully well that

se, is certainly a function of that relation of a culture

our procedure is open, from an historical point of

to itself. The Sakuntala is not merely a document

view, to the charge of circularity: Raghavabhatta's

that provides evidence about culture, it is not just a

vyakhyo, many centuries later than the Sakuntala,

cultured exemplar; it defines an integral part of the

may not be a direct explanation of the play at all, but

outlook and internal relationships of a civilization.

reflect the imperiousness of the Natyasastra, which

Let us inquire how its form contributes to that

had by that time through an authoritative tradition

success.

decreed its relevance to all dramatic literature; it

The Sakuntala, like all the Indian drama,

may be (as some think) that the play serving as fact-

impresses the Western reader as a drama of

model for the plot theory of the Natyagastra was

certitudes, emphasizing through many twists of fate

indeed the Sakuntala, and so in applying that theory

and much tension to be sure, a stable and proper

condition of life. This sense of well being is in part a
function of the style of the play-its scenes of

to the play, we may be demonstrating the Sakuntala.tvam of Sakuntala. So many thorny chronological
issues are irresolvably posed that the best we can do
is resolutely put them aside; not to do so condemns
us to interminable fact-bargaining that not only
makes it impossible to rise to the level of aesthetic
concerns, but seems to deny even the importance of

the effort. We then take Raghavabhafta (one

peaceful hermitage and royal pleasure grove, its ideal

hero and heroine and the absence of a veil between
themselves and Gods, but is even more strongly
stated by the form and structure of the play. An
interpretation based primarily on the play's content
tends to exaggerate the cloying sweetness of ideal

commentator among many on thefour rescensions!)

characters and stately language (and to undervalue

as an expositor of the play, and ask: what has he

the moments of incipient violence, cruelty and pathos

exposited?

[scil., Durvasas, the King's abjuration, his lonelinessj-for these appear quite clearly secondary,
functions of chance or error, and ultimately are
erased in the final reintegration). From the point of
view of content, the play's real drama, its dramatic
moments, seem genuinely less important, less real,
than its happy optimism-and I am sure this has
much to do with the difficulty we have in taking it
seriously (for in our view of "serious" existence, it is
happiness that is fleeting and suffering that is real).
But if we take our standpoint on the play's form,
another view of the world emerges, one more solemn
for us, and more diagnostic of his condition for the
Indian. The Indian dramatic tradition persists in not
discussing "content" as such. Content, as we have
seen is already determined by its emotional tone-a

That the samdhis are the level on which the play's

existence is determined is further illustrated by the
intricate analysis of each samdhi into 12, 13 or even

14 sub-samdhis (samdhy-aflgas)- an analysis not

paralleled by any similar treatment of the avasthas
or the arthaprakrtis. What these sub-divisions are
and how they function in relation both to the main
samdhi and to the play, will be questions that
provide us an entree into the more general issues of
the Sakuntala's plot-construction and its relation to
relevant aesthetic purposes. For we take it as
established, again, that the samdhi analysis sums up

Raghavabhatla's (and likely his tradition's) understanding of Sakuntala as plot.

kAvyesu natakaramyam

"vibhova"; it is not significant per se, not

tatra ramyA sakuntala

representative of a world elsewhere, but only

tatrApi ca caturtho'nkal

evocative of the special world (already in principle

tatra sMokacatustayam

within us) of the drama.24 While noting that this

yAsyatyadyeti tatrApi

tendency to disvalue content in its "objective" (or

"significant") mode in favor of a subjective or
emotional construction is entirely consistent with
leading Indian philosophical viewpoints (Vedanta),
we do not rest our case on such intra-cultural

padyaip ramyatamarn matam Anon.

Such traditional verses exaggerate a point that

nevertheless deserves our attention: in discussing the

This content downloaded from 14.139.211.229 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:58:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

GEROW: Plot Structure in the Sakuntala. Pt. I 565

analogies, but stress again the issue of dramatic form

test of his valor, the bee (in the first), and the serpent

per se, and the message it may carry precisely

(in the last), passing which the King enters into a

because its content is revalued. Formally, the

conversation that validates the relationship of the

certitude that the play conveys derives in part from

persons involved (lover, mother, son, etc.). This

the circularity of its plot, and from the harmonics that

parallelism, suggesting so strongly the inevitability of

the plot's symmetrical repetitions suggest. In the

the lovers' union, forces us to consider what may

preliminaries of Act I-the hunting scene, the entry

have changed in their relationship between the

into hermitage grounds-before Sakuntala is even

termini of the play. And an answer emerges in

mentioned, is contained the entire play; both the

reflecting on the major tension of the play: love and

result (karya) or the play and the suitability of

duty. At the beginning of the play, the King, though a

Dusyanta's superintendence of it: the King subordi-

dharmic hero (and in this he does not change) has yet

nates his power to the ascetic symbolism of the

to discover love: his respect for nature is founded

hermitage, and therefore becomes a dharmic hero,

only on the authority of the hermits; Sakuntala,

who thereby receives the gift of a son ( 1.1 1 ) as token

whose affection for living things marks her immedi-

of his submission. Where there is certainty as to the

ately as a child of nature, knows nothing whatever of

result,25 our interest can reside only in a demonstra-

the harsh world of social duties (how easy is her

tion of that certainty, the raising of that sense of

conquest therefore! and how certain her downfall, as

success to a conviction. The play thus appears as a

soon as she meets an irascible ascetic). At the

structure of circles extending from this kernel-result

beginning of the play, the two characters appear to

("bija" ).26 But also, as the play makes clear, the

embody (separately) the two principles of the play.

natural production of a son, ridiculously easy as it is,

But at the end, just as obviously, and without any

is not the mode in which the King is properly related

fundamental change in character, the two have found

either to his wife or son, for the son is to be a

in the other the very abolition of their own one-

"cakravartin," inheritor of the King's moral quality,

sidedness: the King has found a love consistent with

his ethical estate, his "dharma," as well. The tension

his royal duty (through rediscovery of his son!), and

between these two themes, of nature (which is

Sakuntala has won in her husband her rightful place

expressed in loving), and of duty (which is expressed

in the dharmic world (without losing one whit of her

in dharmic heroism) is the dramatic mode of the play

natural beauty). And of course, the rczhasya of the

and only when a proper resolution between them is

play, if it has one, must lie in the growing conviction

found, can the play end.

Still there is no tension in the sense that the two

that the two principles really are not as separate as

they did appear, but in mysterious ways, must relate

emotional tones or "rasas" actually do battle for

to each other, involve each other, for each to be

supremacy; such would indeed blur the distinction

successful in itself. For they are not successful apart.

between the drama and the world, where emotions

Act I, according to Raghavabhatta, is the first, or

are indeed dependent and consequential. Rather it is

"mukha" sam. dhi; of course Act VII is the last, the

clear that the tension is that of "primary" and

"nirvahana," together expressing the reciprocity of

"subordinate," the very terms suggesting both the

the seed (bija) and the fruit (karya) therein

certainty and the mode of their eventual reconcilia-

demonstrated.

tion (Dhv. 3.20 ff.). By his act of submission the hero

Other significant parallelisms of action are

states the accessory character of his dharma to the

observed: the second and third acts have the same

nature of the hermitage, and to the love implicit

ethical structure: in the second, the King, and in the

therein for the forest-sprite Sakuntala, soon to be his

third, Sakuntald, are shown ab initio separated,

wife.

therefore in the Indian conventions, lovelorn,

Reinforcing the impression that the play ends

emaciated; in the course of the acts, the "central"

where it began is the studied parallelism of incident

characters pursue their love as an alternative to an

between the first and last acts: in both the King, virile

"obligation" (the King to remain in the forest while

qualities rampant, enters, accompanied by a charioteer;

sending his clown to the palace with civil messages;

they soon discover a hermitage; the King experiences

Sakuntala to declare her love to the King via the

a "nimitta"; in the first act, the King hides in bushes

Gandharva route), and the third act ends with both

to discover Sakuntala, the mother of his promised

principals being recalled to "duty": the King to his

son, in the last, in bushes to discover his son, through

"dharma" as protector of the roksasa infested

hermitage, and Sakuntala by Gautamf, the hermit's

whom the mother is found; the King is subjected to a

This content downloaded from 14.139.211.229 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:58:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

566 Journal of the American Oriental Society 99.4 (1979)

wife, to her forest life, seen as a duty (for the first

King's viraha is a direct manifestation of (his or the

time?). In these acts, the opposition between duty

play's) "vimarda": because of Sakuntala's lapse in

and love is further developed beyond its initial

duty (the curse of Durvasas is the poetic medium of

statement in Act I, to a condition of active

the communication) the King also "forgets him-

confrontation, by which it is clear that neither

self"-lapses from his own sworn oath, his dharma,

character can resolve the difficulty either by

for indeed he is not able to have a queen of this sort.

remaining separate, or by "uniting" (if this be done

Thus both, as lovers, disappear, Sakuntala to

as an alternative to duty). Doubtless the ethical

heaven, the King to his despondency of spirit. But

parallelism of the second and third acts is reflected in

concealed in this apparent futility and contradiction

Raghavabhatta's determination of them together as

is the solution (and thus the certainty of attainment:

the second (or pratimukha) samdhi of the play. We

niyatapti) to the problem of love and duty, for the

have an illustration also of the sense in which the

divorce of the King and Sakuntala, inasmuch as it is

theme or blija of the play is taken up and given new

a function of having abandoned their own natures,

complexity (bindu!), and also the sense in which the

will be resolved as soon as their natures are found

"object" (karya) of the play emerges from a state of

again. But this does not mean a return to their

pure potentiality (that the King and Sakuntala are

original condition (innocence?) for it is now

attracted to each other) to the first level of actuality,

recognized that love and duty are inseparable and

accompanied by effort (prayatna), such that it can

reciprocal. Indeed Sakuntala's lapse in duty has led

now be said to be something (to disappear as soon as

directly to her failure in love, as the King's failure at

recognizing his beloved had led directly to his

it appears).

The fourth and the sixth acts are also ethically

abandonment of duty.

parallel, and show the principal characters being

The fifth act, the "climax" of the play in Western

shorn of that which till then had been their very

dramatic terms, in which the King and Sakuntala

"nature": in the fourth Sakuntala leaves the

confront one another and express in anger and

hermitage and all her "natural" affections and

contempt their failure of recognition, is not regarded

experiences "viraha" for the first time, compounded

per se by Raghavabhatta as an integral part of the

by forebodings centering on the absent King. In the

sixth, the King experiences viraha for the girl he now

drama, but is divided between the garbha and the

knows he has abandoned, but even more pointedly,

which Sakuntala's veil is put aside (5.18/19 p. 173)

has also lost all touch with his own self; his courage,

that demarcates the two sam. dhis). In the fifth act,

vimarsa samdhis (though it is the precise point at

fortitude, his dharmic character are as surely

the latent emotions of the characters reach such a

abandoned as was the hermitage by Sakuntala. In

sharp opposition that the very texture of the play

both acts, the other (first the King, then Sakuntala) is

seems on the verge of being rent asunder. Sakuntala

conspicuously absent (in his/her own place; the

offers her few words of anger and the King is

city/heaven). Not surprisingly, these two characters,

uncharacteristically coarse. Yet this "climax" is a

having become quite other than what they were, have

turning point only in the sense that it ushers in the

very inversion of both characters' original naive
infatuation (vimarsa samdhi); an inversion out of

also become quite incapable either of loving (each

other) or doing their duty (and this is pointedly

referred to by Matali, Indra's charioteer, who calls
Dusyanta back to service at the end of Act VI). This
opposition, now developed to an open contradiction

which is in turn born the eventual reversion to

character. The "climax" in other words achieves its
impact only by being clearly derivative, unreal.

by the playwright, is taken by Raghavabhatta as the

The seventh act is the "nirvahana" or samdhi of

basis for defining the third and fourth samdhis of the

play. In the "garbha," Sakuntala, innocently, fails in

"resolution." In one sense that "resolution" is

entirely a function of the prince Bharata (who of

her duty to the ascetic Durvasas, and yet is made to

course was not present in the first act): as future

abandon also her natural world (and her love of

cakravartin and dharmic representative of the King,

the son, by his very being, expresses the mutual

nature) for a social position suited to her dharma.

Action has here passed beyond the vague explorings

dependence of love and order, for he is also

of the two infatuated lovers to a positive hope of

Sakuntala's son. But the resolution is more symbolic

attainment (praptyasM), in the sense that Sakuntala's

than emotionally integrating; the true resolution must

be sought among the rasas themselves.

duty (both omission and commission) is known to be

the key to the lovers' eventual reunion. Similarly the

How that resolution is achieved through the five

This content downloaded from 14.139.211.229 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:58:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

GEROW: Plot Structure in the Sakuntala. Pt. I 567

samdhis we must deal with next, keeping in mind

only at the beginning that the two relate to each other

Ananda's dictum that the real comes to life in its

as contrasting externals, as "embodiments." We

disciplined contrasts: this is the essential contribu-

take it that the "subtle" progress of the hero and the

tion of "plot" to dramatic pleasure.27

heroine towards each other must involve some

The division of the play into five sarhdhis that

adjustment in this mode at least of external

reflect the progress of an action is also a dissection of

relationship, and so severely qualify any simple

the basic emotional mode of the play and the thereto

allegorical interpretation we might make of the two

subjoined interrelations of the main characters. If we

figures. It is in fact the series of contrasts, defined by

are correct in asserting that the basic theme, the

the sam. dhis, that gives progressively new contents to

spring to action, of the play is the need to relate

the principles of love and duty, and makes of the

dharma (or duty) and love and that the two

King and Sakuntala, even in their generality (and

protagonists represent that relation in its various

perhaps because of it) instructive way-farers on the

shapes, then each of the five samdhis, insofar as they

paths of human experience. If the play be seen as

are unitary stages in the statement and resolution of

action it must inevitably be impressed with a deeply

that relation, will reflect through the changing status

moral character.

of the characters both a mode of that relation, and the

logic of its place in the sequence.

A) In the mukha samdhi (whose avasth2 is

arambha, and whose prakrti is bija), as we have

The thematic conflict of the play, viewed as

already suggested, the principal characters are

content, directly provokes a rasa-awareness or

related as externals, "wholly novel in each other's

emotional conflict, insofar as certain contexts are

experience." The King, a dharmic hero, engaged in

suitable to the statement and evocation of a rasa.

the sport of hunting life, though he respects the right

Love of hero and heroine, of course, suggests

of the czsrama to forbid this activity, discovers

immediately s~rigara rasa, and its conventional

progressively its uncongenial nature in the innocent

development, from vipralambha to sambhoga

but wise nymph Sakuntala. Sakuntala of course is

(separation to union) is clearly a major issue.

unacquainted with the personation of dharmic vigor

Kalidasa, in the character of Sakuntala, has further

and social authority that is the King, and he must be

explored the resonance of srnggara in the wider

revealed to her only in stages, through explorations

context of nature and unreflective affection, thus

of their mutual suitability. The mode through which

complicating the tone of the rasa. Srngara looks here

the two characters relate to each other, though each

both to the love relationship, narrowly defined, of the

represents his own principle to the fullest, is external,

hero and the heroine, and to the universal harmonies

and their attraction is only an infatuation (which of

of "pre-societal" life that are embodied in the Indian

course is both the b-ja, and as a "need to act," the

czsrama ideal. Similarly, duty, or dharma, involving

arambha, of the play).

renunciation for others' interest, suggests vfra rasa,

That their relation is an infatuation puts immedi-

the "heroic" sentiment; and it is via the character of

ately the focus of the play on srngara rasa, rather

the King that this theme is for the most part stated

than on its other basis, vira, and we are invited to

and developed. And of the three types of vira, the

consider the play chiefly as a love story, though in

King is also the most typical, the yuddhavtra, the

terms of the outcome a case can be made for

hero in battle, although there are occasional

understanding the play primarily in the vtra rasa.

overtones of the compassionate hero (dayavira) and

Some of the play's lasting authority may indeed

the magnanimous hero (danavtra) (DR 4.73 etc.).28

As srFugara looks to the wider world of nature, so

derive from such knowing equivoque betwen princi-

vfra here looks not only to the individual prowess of

opposed. In any case, Indian theory is unanimous

the King, but to dharma, in the broadest sense: for

that in any serious art form one and only one rasa is

the King truly is a protector and guarantor of the

"dominant" (pradhana), that this emotional domi-

social order.

ples so basic and in experience so constantly

nance defines the play's basic unity, and that is

In one sense, the two principles of the play are

expressed or developed out of its inherent contrasts

embodied in its chief characters, but it is to miss the

with related emotions and their typical grounds.

artistry of the poet (and his purpose) to consider it

Seeing the play as srrngara pradhana has several

only an allegory. In fact, while we have present both

interesting implications: the main story line becomes

Sakuntala and the King as a "natural" and a

that of Sakuntala, insofar as she most directly

"dharmic" hero(ine) respectively, it is in the play

represents the notion of love, tenderness, affection,

This content downloaded from 14.139.211.229 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:58:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

568 Journal of the American Oriental Society 99.4 (1979)

etc.; but gakuntala, at the beginning at least, no more

Sakuntala's embodiment of "love"-at the begin-

"realizes" the full intent of love than does the King.

ning); in any case, the King's "dharma" such as it is,

The poet's wise depiction of "love" in its general

has not been able properly to relate to love, but has in

mode of affection for all life (even trees and deer) not

fact already been destroyed by it (a theme that

only gives greater resonance to the notion, but also

becomes self-evident in the next samdhis), where

makes it possible for Sakuntala to be "in love"

"dharma" itself is transferred to an 'absent' and

without any partner whatever. Her journey of course

irascible sage, Durvasas.

involves a farewell to this innocence and a discovery

Sakuntala's role in the pratimukha samdhi is

of "human" love. Dusyanta, as his attitude reveals,

is really interested in little but a good lay, and he too

somewhat less prominent. She reappears in Act III, a

reenactment of Act I, during which the main focus of

at the outset has almost no acquaintance with the

conversational inquiry falls on the dharmic character

nature of love (the good lay is about what one would

of the protagonists' love, instead of (the theme of)

expect a yuddhavira to be interested in). In the

Sakuntala's suitability as a love-object. Having

mukha samdhi (Act I) the two characters, and the

principles they "represent" are depicted in a state of

determined the cause of their respective emaciation

(etc.) to be love for each other, Sakuntala, as did the

"mere" contrast, as externals each having its own

King, succumbs to a less than dharmic interpretation

sphere (the King in the capital, Sakuntala in the

of it; receiving the King's "promise" of a respectable

hermitage), but still (and here the play properly

marriage, in effect she agrees to bed down with him

begins) not able to remain apart: infatuation. The

according to the "gandharva" ritual (i.e., mutual

play ends, as it must, by each character withdrawing

consent) (3.20). Out of this unseemly haste spring

from contact into his "original" condition: the King

from lover to "protector" of the hermitage,

both the denouement and its many obstructions; but

the point we are to retain is that while love and

Sakuntala from beloved to her Osrama duties, etc.

dharma must in some sense cease to be externals to

B) In the pratimukha samdhi, the condition of

one antoher, love is nothing but desire (longing,

both lovers has become that of effort (prayatna)-to

find a way to unite, despite the differences of their

preoccupation) when dharma is treated as a mere

estates, and the btja "spreads" (one interpretation of

the "bindu") in that the two principles (love,

nothing but trouble in its wake. Thus does infatuation

grow to passion. In the "reinterpretation" of love and

dharma) begin to be seen (not as externals but)

perhaps as pretexts to their respective accomplish-

pratimukha samdhi, we note that Sakuntala has

means to its physical accomplishment, bringing

duty implied by the characters' actions in the

ments. The King, in conversation with his clown,

indeed "progressed" from her generalized state of

seeks a way of remaining in the hermitage to pursue

affection for living beings, to a definite concentration

his infatuation, and a pretext is found (au hasard?)

on one of them, the King; this must be considered for

when some deities are reported in the vicinity

her not only change, but progress, as deepening her

threatening the tranquillity of the sacrifices (Act II:

love; and the King, in his infatuation, seems also to

2.15/16, p. 80). Thus the King can maintain his

be discovering something of love's nature, though at

the cost of his own character. If it were merely a

character ("protector") in propriety while pursuing

Sakuntala. But while "love" and "duty" may no
longer be related as externals, this mode, whereby

duty is demoted to the status of pretext is an amorous

game, deprives both love and duty of their essential
character: the King's "love" for Sakuntala is

physical attraction for the girl (as it appears to have

been in the Mahabharata original) we would not see

the issue of the King's dharma so squarely posed
(gandharva "marriages" as the King opines are

explicitly recognized here as something that needs to

entirely in keeping with royal "duty"). The King is,

in Kalidasa's wise revisions, experiencing that form

be concealed (is "improper"), whereas seeing

dharma as mere propriety reduces it of course to an

ments and the conventions of duty. The relation of

of true love that wreaks havoc on social arrange-

appearance. And so when the Devf invites the King

love and duty, though necessary in the eyes of the

to return to the capital for the performance of a

poet, is not immediately to be sought in reduction of

dharmic ritual, he not only sends the clown(!) in his

one to the status of service to the other: a reduction

that destroys the independence of both principles (cf.
Act I), and fails to state their integral subordination.
Act III ends (as did Act I) with a seduction halted

place, but has to lie about his reasons (2.18). In view

of these events, we are led to question whether the

King's dharma is anything but appearance (and his
"embodiment" of dharma any more real than

in course of accomplishment; both characters are

This content downloaded from 14.139.211.229 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:58:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

GEROW: Plot Structure in the Sakuntala. Pt. I 569

recalled to "duty" (a duty abandoned by both):

opposites, and their relation is hostile. But inasmuch

Sakuntala by Gautamf, the symbol of Osrama-

as the relation, for the first time in the play, is now

dharma (3.21/22), and the King, by assembled

founded on an internal necessity (rather than on

demons, to his rajadharma (3.24). This recall, so

pretext), it gives form to the third avastha: hope of

unnecessary in our view of the plot's progress (for

attainment, hope of true reconciliation.

Sakuntala is obviously seduced), restates the poet's

The King reappears in Act V, again embodying the

view that character cannot be abandoned so easily,

form of vira suitable to the play's progress; it is not

and if abandoned in the name of love, turns love into

surprising that his character has become (as far as

its opposite.

Sakuntala is concerned) that of Durvasas: he angrily

The mode of love in the pratimukha samdhi,

renounces his gandharva wife and the promised

focussed through the avastha of "effort" is that of

issue of that union. The mode of his love, imitating

longing and preoccupation with the beloved object:

again Sakuntala, is that of renunciation (and

passion; similarly the mode of heroism suitable to

renunciation indeed of all that he holds dear, as we

"effort" is expressed as the King-as-protector (of the

fully realize); it is only the Sakuntala of the forest

osrama, etc.). These modes differ chiefly from those

of the mukha samdhi-love as affection for life and

that he refuses to acknowledge, and so, even in his

confusion, he expresses an attitude similar to

the heroism of dharmic vigor-by clearly sustaining

Sakuntala's in leaving the forest. Thus are the themes

a relation to one another. That relation, though,

of 'love' and 'dharma' even more intimately

founded on circumstantial convenience, seems to

entwined.

engender only effort, and cannot express the

permanence or necessity of the relation.

C) We have then, in the garbha samdhi (Act IV

At this point we are obliged to consider the

element of the plot that is always considered weakest

by Western or modern critics: the sage's curse (a

to V. 19) the consequences of that effort: Sakuntala's

"deus ex machina") and Dusyanta's contrived

natural love-for the forest and its denizens-must

forgetfulness that are the very essence of this garbha

samdhi. This departure from psychological realism

be given up; Sakuntala experiences the pains of

separation and annulment which are integral to

is enough to mark the play as a melodrama, and to

human love. The tenderness of the parting is all the

remove it for us from the category of fundamentally

more poignant for it is precisely the generalized

serious art. The explanations that have been offered

tenderness of girlish adolescence that is being

have a curiously apologetic character, viz.: that one

abandoned, and all concerned are aware of the

cannot expect a dramatic representation of a self-

necessity of this going-forward into more human and

reflecting and responsible individual in a culture that

more dangerous affections.

The appositeness of the sage's curse in this context

disvalues that kind of independence; or that the

curse, etc., are effective social realities to the Indian

is all the more telling, for it not only represents the

audience, though they may appear contrived to us; or

forces of convention and protocol that Sakuntala

that the Sanskrit drama stems from religious and

ignores, and to which she must turn from her beloved

cultic sources that are essentially normative and

forest, but Durvasas, the irascible muni, is themati-

stress edification over insight, etc. Such explanations

cally the form of vFra rasa, heroism, suitable to the

appear chiefly to excuse the Indian forms for not

expression of love-in-separation: The powers of

the self, and make a virtue of the very separation

achieving ideals that are self-evidently valid (to us),

and thus assert in variously subtle forms both
weakness of the Indian, and the preeminence of our

which Sakuntala suffers. Here too, heroism as the

own, value systems. But in our effort to trace the

sub-dominant rasa, sustains relation to the dominant

developing thematic contrasts in a rasa-content

renunciation derive precisely from the conquest of

amorous mode that completely revalues the content

through the five samdhis, we have come upon

of the relation, renews it utterly. It is all the more

another kind of explanation entirely: it is the proper

obvious that this relation between love and heroism,

structure of the play that demands the curse and the

however appropriate (and it is more appropriate than

in happy and self-confidnet expression at the

forgetfulness because of the inherent logic of the two

emotional modes whose contrast constitute the play.
Should Dusyanta renounce Sakuntala wilfully, as in
the Mahabharata version, we should have greater
psychological realism perhaps, but his renunciation

beginning of the play) have been reduced to

would have a private quality that in no way expresses

the pretextual one of the pratimukha samdhi!), is not

the final and permanent one we seek, for in effect the
principles of love and heroism (such as we saw them

This content downloaded from 14.139.211.229 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:58:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

570 Journal of the American Oriental Society 99.4 (1979)

the heroic sentiment, nor, ipso facto, defines its

is interesting in our sequence of samdhis for one

manifold relations with the amorous sentiment. It is

reason only: it is now clear, in effect demonstrated

essential that the King not be privately guilty for this

(in the logic of the emotions) that love and duty have

would certainly distract us from contemplating the

both disappeared because of each other: love

truly frightful gulf that separates the emotions

because of a failure in dharma (both the King's and

themselves at this stage: for heroism here must be the

Sakuntala's); dharma because of a failure in love

very denial of love. The same remark holds good of

(both the King's and Sakuntala's). It is this certainty,

course for Sakuntala: her inattention to the sage

now a reciprocity between the two emotional modes,

Durvasas is not founded on true disrespect, but is a

that marks the vimarsa an advance on the garbha,

function of her loving distraction. Disrespect ( as in

where we had "hope" only (niyatapti/praptyasa) of

the King's case) would imply a motived relation

success. The only thing we must do, is make that

between the two principles (that one in effect chooses

reciprocity positive, and the play will be over. It is

between love and heroism) that is both at this stage of

perhaps not such a token of Indian "optimism" that

the play passe (being in effect that of the pratimukha

this inversion can apparently take place only at the

samdhi) and foreign to Kalidasa's view of the nature

invitation of the Gods: Indra's charioteer enters at

of things. The curse-ring-recognition theme is thus

the end of Act VI to recall the King from his

the "pataka" or sub-plot that has interest in itself

uncharacteristic despondency to reassume his dhar-

and also is crucial in developing the main plot. Its

mic ideality: in service to the King of Gods. (The

place here in the garbha samdhi (extending into

"prakart incident.)

vimarsa) is typical, and also perhaps in part explains

E) In Act VI (the nirvahana samdhi), love

the designation "garbha" (womb)-for by the pataka

assumes its fully developed human form: that of

sub-plot the elements of the main plot are being so

sambhoga, or love in union; but he reunion of the

reconstituted as to make their proper issue certain.

King and Sakuntala is no longer a mere liaison in the

D) The "hope of attainment" that is the avasthc

forest: it is fully authenticated, not only by dharma

of garbha samdhi has meant for the characters and

(the blessings of Marfca and Kanva) and publicly

the principles they represent a withdrawal from

acknowledged (that Sakuntala becomes the Queen),

"natural" and contingent affections, and is even in its

but also by the tiny son playing with the lion-cub,

apparently negative quality, a decided advance on

who, as the future cakravartin, is the embodiment of

the path to success, inasmuch as this last must

love and duty's inherent interdependence. The

involve a relation between emotional modes (love

independent significance of the son should not be

and duty) that is inherent and proper. But the

underestimated: as in certain non-European and pre-

negative quality is itself a major obstacle that first

modern cultures, we may be dealing with a view that

must be exhausted: in the vimarsa samdhi (5.19

the love relationship is not itself validated or realized

through act VI) "love," refined through the hostility

until its fruit has issued. The King is again a dharmic

hero, but the scope of his heroism is no longer

of asceticism, becomes its very opposite: despair

(love in separation); and heroism also (in a form

external to the world of the hermitage: he is King

thereto apposite), in effect, disappears; the King

both in heaven and over nature, and this has become

possible only in his conquest of the forest nymph
Sakuntala. The characters of the King and Queen

ceases to be a dharmic hero, withdraws from the

affairs of state into utter depression and loss of

identity.

now express positively the proper inseparability of

Sakuntala is not present after 5.29/30 during this

the principles of love and duty, and are the products

samdhi: her assumption to heaven serves both to

of a dramatic achievement across progressively more

adequate statements of their possible tensions. The
play thus becomes in effect a model of the human

express the existential bereavement of the King, and

poetically, her "non-being": as complete as is the

King's, though somewhat more metaphorical. As

condition, insofar as two of its chief drives are

have all the preceding sam. dhis, this one seems to

concerned. It is properly an exploration of the stages

accept the emotional consequences of the former,

of love, in the context of love's most significant

and to develop them in further understanding of the

relationship. The sense of the play as a world, as a

possible (and sequentially necessary) overtones of

paradigm of the psyche, is further enhanced by the

the love-duty relationship. Here both love and duty

deft way the poet interweaves the other major

(dharma) have become their emotional opposites:

emotional tones of human experience into the

despair and faiblesse which, curiously, are one. This

dominant warp and woof of srngara and vtra: of the

This content downloaded from 14.139.211.229 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:58:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

GEROW: Plot Structure in the Sakuntala. Pt. I 571

six remaining rasas, five appear to be extremely

nothing in and of itself, as a chair may be said to

important as tones complementing and therefore

accomplish repose. Rather the plot is thought of in

communicating the "understanding" we have of love

terms of the condition of reasonable sequentiality,

in the various samdhis of the play. Only in the first,

just as the vibhovas, etc., represent the precondition

the mukha samdhi, do we get no clear indication of a

of content. Both represent the transformation of

sub-dominant in this sense, perhaps because the

"real" sequentiality and "real" content, a trans-

poet's business in mukha samdhi was to introduce us

formation which itself demonstrates the rasa, and in

to srhga-ra and vira themselves, in their natural

which the rasa is evoked, sustained and intensified.

condition, and to clarify the fundamental tone of the

But the rasa can no more be derived from plot than

play. But inpratimukha, both the playful repartee of

it can from character (a vibhova), as such. Its

the clown and the bashful play of Sakuntala serve to

constancy is in the soul of the percipient spectator,

characterize the King's love as "comic," or better,

and becomes explicit as soon as the inversion of plot

"ironic," at this stage: hasya rasa. And indeed, its

and character have been understood. Both plot and

lack of seriousness has been amply documented in

character are instrumental, not functional, and like

the foregoing. In the garbha samdhi, the twin

instruments, we may put them aside when the job is

emotional tones of fear (bhaya) and anger (krodha)

done. The "instrument" has no "thingness" expres-

express the nature of the separation then in course of

sive of the "work's" character; that is perceived

achievement: Sakuntala's fear of the unknown

perhaps paradoxically in the rasa itself (in its mere

outside the hermitage is indeed the mode of her

being) and not in the work at all. Thus the Indian plot

parting and pursuit of human love; the sage's heroism

is necessary (as precondition) and adventitious (in its

(and the King's) is both founded on anger (at

instrumentality). Yet awareness of it as such will

perceived slights), and is developed to a pitch that

only distract us from the plenitude that is rasa. The

suitably expresses the hostility of love and dharma

statue exists neither in the tools of the sculptor nor in

(and Sakuntala and the King for that matter) in this

the matter of the stone.

samdhi. After anger, regret. And the mode of love in

This model of the play, may be compared a la

the vimarsa samdhi, seemingly becomes its very

Byrski, to the model of the sacrifice: both are kriya,

opposite, is pitiable (karuna rasa), the mode of

both produce an unseen "fruit," the "substance" of

sympathy for the lost and for great enterprises

both is modality: itikartavyata. Indeed a world is

foundering. The relation between pity and love in

crystallized in this play, a world, like all worlds, that

separation is in any case so close as not to require

is a construction of basic experiences, but one that

great defense here. Finally, in the last samdhi, as

satisfies the Indian thirst for complexity and strain

decreed by the critics, the appropriate sub-dominant

contained within a perfect stillness, the adamantine

expression of our final and beatific love is given in

life. As such we moderns may appreciate a

adbhuta rasa, wonder: wonder at obstacles over-

categorically perfect art form that gives life to a

come, and at the perfect symmetry of the human

vision of ourselves that we do not share, that lives, in

condition.

its stillness, in a region often beyond our capacity to

It is important to stress that this notion of plot is

feel. (To be continued.)

subordinate to the emotional tone, and is not the

"chief thing," as per Aristotle. Plot is the "chief'

I E.g., S. K. De, History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. II,

among the parts of the tragedy, because it expresses

Chs. IV-VI; Sanskrit Poetics as a Study of Aesthetic, Ch.

best the sense in which the play (as a work) is a thing,

4. Gerow, "Rasa as a Category of Literary Criticism"

constituted (by an author "wrought") to accomplish

(Honolulu Conference Vol.). The work of H. R. Mishra,

something proper to it (in the case of tragedy, the

The Theory of Rasa in Sanskrit Drama, despite its title,

purgation of pity and fear). Even though plot, in that

treats of Rasa in one section (2), and Drama in another (1).

sense too is subsidiary, it is the subordination of form

Nevertheless in its short third section, some of the issues

to function: an analytical distinction at best within an

developed in this paper are adumbrated (pp. 540-42 on the

organically conceived whole. In the same way, the

Sakuntala). The perspective is still that of the theoretician,

"form" of the hammer is what it is in terms of the

not that of the dramatist.

hammer's function and through the notion of its

function we can judge better and worse form.

But the Indian plot is itivrtta, a happening, which

bears no such relation to rasa. It accomplishes

I wish to express my thanks to T. G. Rosenmeyer and to

James Redfield, who have read earlier drafts of this article,

much to my benefit.

2 A. B. Keith, Sanskrit Drama, pp. 299-300; not so

This content downloaded from 14.139.211.229 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:58:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

572 Journal of the American Oriental Society 99.4 (1979)

(exceptionally): S. Levi, ThPdtre Indien, passim.

3Keith, idib.; De and Dasgupta, A History of Sanskrit

Literature, Classical Period.

4 E.g., Renou, IC 1877, 1878, 1881; indeed, "Book II"

of De, Dasgupta, "Kavya," includes "Natya."!

5E.g., De, Dasgupta, op. cit., pp. 146-54. T. G.

Mainkar: see note 13.

18 Laghutfkq ad DR 1.17.
19 In the sense that it has no independent charcter, as
does the pataka, and thus must relate to the main plot.

20 Bharati ad NS 19.25-26: GOS CXXIV, p. 15.

21 Proceedings, op. cit.

22 Apparently contra Dhanarpjaya (1.24, 30, 36, 43, 48)

for whom the theory had ossified to the extent of wanting to

6 E.g., De, Dasgupta, op. cit., p. 265-6.

link temporally the five arthaprakrtis to the five avasthas

7Exceptionally as a temple drama by the Chakyars of

(ipso facto the five samdhis). Cf. Keith, Sanskrit Drama,

Kerala, and of course much of the technique survives in the

"dance-dramas" of regional tradition, or in the resurrected

"bharatanatyam."

pp. 298ff.

23 See T. G. Mainkar, "Arthadyotanika," pp. 38-54, in

Studies in Sanskrit Dramatic Criticism. On what is known

8 Cf. Renou, "Sur la Structure du Kavya," no.2.

of the historical R (15th century?) see P. K. Gode in

9 See my "Rasa as a Category of Literary Criticism"

Calcutta Or. Jour., III, 1936.

(Honolulu Conference on Sanskrit Drama in Performance)

for references.

24 Though the "anukarana point of view did have its

Indian representatives Srfsafikuka, Mahimabhatta, and esp.

10 NS 6.31/32 and generally adhyayas 6,7.

l l Cf. the discussion of the rasasitra in Abhinavabharati,

translated by Gnoli, Serie Oriental Roma XI.

12 "Awakening" is already psychological.

13 Also in the proceedings of the Honolulu Conference;

our Dhanarpjaya. Supra p. 560

25 No other result is conceivable, once we understand the
King's character; and if the King's character is not certain,
the play will not be about him: a King is not a King unless
distinguishable from the common herd! All this is but

similarly his Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre, esp. Ch.

another way of saying that "content" does not carry our

9. My analysis of the Sakuntala also owes much to an

interest as such.

unpublished paper of Sanna Deutsch: Sakuntala, An

Interpretation of Classical Indian Drama, also written in

connection with the Conference. Mrs. Deutsch carefully

26 Truistically, there can be no son without Sakuntala,

and the winning of Sakuntala is the mode of the play!

27 Sanna Deutsch (op. cit.) suggests another interpreta-

evaluates the five avasthas in their dramatic significance.

tion of the plot of the Sakuntala based on the acts (seven),

Cf. also two Indian attempts, less successful. T. G.

rather than the samrdhis (five). It has much to recommend it,

Mainkar, On the Samdhis and the Samdhyangas and S.

and certainly enables us to focus on the distinctive quality

Chattopadhyaya The Notakalaksanaratnakosa.

14 "Thus it happened" (was performed?), in contrast

probably to "itihosa" 'thus it was said.'

15 So Aristotle, for whom drama and epic differ only in

of the sam. dhi analysis. She notes particularly the

parallelisms of acts 1 and 7 (not different from our
analysis), 2 and 6 (penance grove/pleasure grove turned
into its other), 3 and 5 (seduction and rejection; forest and

their "manner," i.e., "acted out" as opposed to "recited"

city): which parallelisms serve to highlight the centrality of

Poetics 1449b 9, 25.

the fourth act: the transition and parting.

16 Cf. T. Venkatacarya, in his "Introduction" to his

Edition of the DR, pp. lix-lxiv.

17 Quotations from Honolulu Conference Proceedings (in

28 Later texts, Sahityadarpana, etc. add a fourth:

dhirodatta, even more likely to be our King.

29 Levi, p. 53.

publication).

This content downloaded from 14.139.211.229 on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:58:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms