Buddhist Evidence for the Early Existence of Drama

·期刊原文

Buddhist Evidence for the Early Existence of Drama

Wijesekera, O.H. De. A.

Indian History Quarterly

Vol.17 No.2, June 1941, P.196-206

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.196

In his masterly survey of the evolution of the
Sanskrit drama, Professor Berriedale Keith summarily
disposes of the relevant Buddhist evidence with the
unequivocal statement that " The extreme dubiety of
the date of the Buddhist Suttas renders it
impossible to come to any satisfactory decision
regarding the existence of drama at an early date,
while the terms employed, such as Visuukadassana,
Nacca and Pekkhaa, and reference to Samajjas leave
us wholly without any ground for belief in an actual
drama."(1) But a critical examination of the Paali
Nikaayas shows us that the evidence afforded by
these collections of dialogues throws much more
light on this obscure problem than may be implied in
a cursory allusion to the occurrence of such terms
as Visuukadassana etc., and, that the available
facts establish, with an appreciable degree of
certainty, for the beginnings of dramatic spectacles
in India, if not for the Sanskrit drama in a
primitive form, a dare that anticipated the one
assigned to it by Keith at least by a century, if
not more.
Professor Keith bases his main argument for the
conclusion that "....the Sanskrit drama came into
being shortly after, if not before, the middle of
the second century B.C.",(2) on the criticism of
Kaatyaayana's rule regarding the use of the
imperfect tense and the occurrence and import of the
words Na.ta, 'Sobhanika (or 'Saubhika) and kathaka
etc,. as found in the Mahaabha.sya of Pata~njali
whom he places "with reasonable assurance" about 140
"B.C.(3) For him, Indian literature before the time
of Pata~njali contains no positive evidence for the
existence of drama even in a primitive form.
Referring to the mention of `Na.tasuutras' in
Paa.nini (iv.3. 110 f.) whom he places in the fourth
century B.C., he remarks: "But we unfortunately are
here as ever in no position to establish the meaning
of Na.ta, which may mean no more than a pantomime."
(4) It is regarded as significant that na.ta does
not occur in the Yajurveda list of " persons of
every kind covering every possible sort of
occupations." In the Mahabhaa.sya, however, he sees
more certain evidence; "We seem in fact to have in
the Mahabhaa.sya evidence of a stage in which all
the elements of drama were present; we have acting
in

1. Sanskrit Drama, p.43.
2. Ibid., p.45.
3. ibid., p.31.
4. Ibid., p.31.

p.197

dumb show, if not with words also; we have
recitations divided between two parties.Morever, we
hear of Na.tas who not only recite but also
sing...We cannot absolutely prove that in
Pata~njali's time the drama in its full form of
action allied to speech was present, but we know
that all its elements existed, and we may
legitimately and properly accept its existence in a
primitive form."(5)
Now,it is difficult to understand how the impor-
tant word Na.ta which occurs a number of times in
the Pali literature has escaped the notice of Prof.
Keith. in the Nikaayas there are references to
Na.tas and even Na.tagaama.nis who were not merely
mimes or dancers, but were clearly ` comedians' who
by mimicry and words delighted audiences at fairs
and shows. In the Gaama.ni Sa.myutta we meet with
the following: 
"Ekamanta.m nisinno kho Taalapa.to Na.tagaama.ni
Bhagavantam etad avoca: Sutam me ta.m bhante
pubbakaana.m aacariyapaacariyaana.m Na.taana.m
bhaasamaanaana.m : Yo so na.to ra^ngamajjhe samajja-
majjhe saccaalikena jana.m haaseti rameti so
kaayassa bhedaa param mara.naa Pahaasaana.m
devaana.m sahavyata.m upapajjatiiti. Idha Bhagavaa
ki.m aahaati." (6) " Then taalapu.ta, the chief of
the village of dancers, came to the Exalted One,
saluted him and sat down at one side. So seated
taalapu.ta said to the Exalted One: `I have heard,
lord, traditional teachers of old who were actors
speaking (in this wise): "A player who on the stage
or in the arena makes people laugh and delights them
with truth and falsehood, on the dissolution of the
body after death, is reborn in the company of the
Laughing Devas." What does the Exalted say regarding
this matter?.'
It goes without saying that the above passage is
of great importance for the subject, origin of
dramas, in that it contains not only the important
word Na.ta, but also refers to a number of other
facts. One important fact that emerges from a
careful scrutiny of the above quotation is that the
Na.ta was originally a figure of mirth (haaseti,
rameti), thereby supporting the contention in favour
of an at least partly secular origin for the drama.
Let us take the important terms one by one. First of
all, the name of the interlocutor itself is highly
suggestive of the source of the main inspiration of
comedy. The name taalapu.ta (not Talapu.ta, Taala 
being supported by two Burmese Mss. and Cy.; cp.
also Th.1. 1145, p.103) alludes to the custom quite
common in ancient India

5. Sanskrit Drama, pp.36, 37.
6. S.IV. p.306 ”3.

p.198

of using nicknames for reputed persons (cp.
`Ka.naada,' name of the author of the Vai'se.sika
Suutras, which literally means `atom-eater'). Here
`taala-' must mean `musical rhythm' or `beating
time' as found in the ancient texts on musical
theory. The second member of the compound viz.
`-pu.ta'means `the hollow of the folded palm.'(7)
The reference is no doubt to the practice prevalent
even today among Indian musicians of beating time by
clapping in either leading an orchestra or teaching
pupils the rudiments of rhythm. this sense agrees
perfectly well with the connotation of the word
Na.tagaama.ni or `leader of Na.tas,' a term that
later obtained vogue in dramatic theory as a
designation for Suutradhara or Naa.tyaacaarya.(8)
This identification of Na.tagaama.ni and Suutradhara
leaves no room for doubt as to the former's
connection with drama proper. Moreover, we may
dismiss the suggestion of the commentator
Buddhaghosa as unwarranted, though highly amusing,
when he explains taalapu.ta as referring to the
person's "bright complexion which was like the
colour of a ripe palmyra nut severed from the
stalk" ( bandhanaa-mutta-taala-paka-va.n.no viya
mukha-va.n.no vippasanno ahosi,Saarattbappakaasinii,
III. 102). Woodward's " basket of woven palm-leaves"
for ` Taalapu.ta' is clearly beside the point.(9)
Next, the phrase `pubbakaana.m aacariyapaacariy-
aana.m Na.taana.m, ' despite its stereotyped
phraseology, must be taken in this context to refer
to a genuine tradition regarding generations of such
`Na.ta-preceptors' of the past,  a fact that
cannot be ignored in discussing the nature of the
Na.ta-suutras mentioned by Paa.nini. As for the
key-word Na.ta itself, the succeeding sentence
proves without a shadow of doubt that the persons
referred to here were at least comedians if not
actors of comedies, who entered the stage (ra^nga)
to delight and make people laugh, with  and this
is the most important fact  truth and lies
(sacaalikena; Buddhaghosa: `saccena ca alikena ca,'
Saaratth., III. 193, which also shows that
Woodward's " counterfeiting of the truth " falls far
short of the actual significance). So these Na.tas
were much more than mere mimes or dumb actors.
Furthermore, we may suggest with some plausibility
that the word `alika' here might contain an implicit
reference to 'fiction,' that is to say, fabricated
anecdotes which form part of the stock-in-trade of
comedians everywhere in the world. Important also is
the word `ra^nga' (10) inasmuch as it must needs
refer in

7. Cp. Miln. p.87, `hatha-puta'.
8. Vide Keith, ibid., p.360.
9. Book of Kindred Sayings, p.214, fn. 1.
10.Cp. Vinaya, II. 10, 12.

P.199

the context either to an arena in general or to a
play-house or theatre. The term is found in Paa.nini
(vi.4.27) and the Petersburg Dictionary has (s.v.) "
Theater, Schaub乭ne, Schauplatz, Arena"; in the
technical literature ra^nga is universally used for
`stage.' (11) Similarly, this passage makes it
certain that the word `samajja' denotes a concourse
of people come together for amusement, a `show'
where the Na.tas took a leading r搇e. In this
connection we may observe that the Raamaaya.na in
one of its genuine portions (ii. 67. 15) refers to
`samaajas' where Na.tas and Nartakas, comedians and
dancers, delight themselves. (12) According to Prof.
Winternitz, (13) this part must have been composed
earlier than the third century B.C., and as we shall
see later the Buddhist reference is equally old, if
not older, from which it may be inferred that at
this time the samaajas or samajjas were a recognized
institution. It may be mentioned that ` Na.ta-
nartakaa.h' occurs in the Anu'saasana Parvan of the
Mahabhaarata (xiii. 33. 12) , and that the
commentator Nilaka.n.tha takes the compound to mean
`comedians and dancers' a sense that may not seem so
imporobable as Kieth supposes (p.28) when taken in
the light of the Sa.myutta passage. We may suggest,
enpassant, that the older root n.rt (vide na.ta,
Petersburg Dict.) with its derivatives nartaka,
n.rtya etc. in Sanskrit, and na.t.taka, na.t.takii
(Th. I. 267), nacca, naccaka etc. in Paali referred
to dancing, whereas its later dialectical form na.t
which gives Na.ta, Na.tanka, na.tii (also naa.tya in
Skt.) etc. signified gesticulation and in course of
time came to be applied to the art of the `comedian'
and thence to `acting' proper. As for Paali, the
distinction seems to have been preserved at least in
pre-Christian times, (14) though the commentators
often confuse the two (VvA. 210 Na.tari = naccati).
In the face of the above facts the conclusion is
irresistible that the Na.tans were originally a
class of comedians who performed on the stage or at
assemblies using words to delight their audiences,
and that Paa.nini's Na.tasuutras may, therefore,
legitimately be taken to refer to something more
than mere rules regulating the mode of gesticulation
of the pantomime.
Another important passage bearing on the sub-
ject is found in the Brahmajaala Suttanta of the
Diigha Nikaaya, containing as it does a list of
terms denoting various amusements and shows
(visuukadassana): 

11. Vide Keith, p.359; cp.Manu, iv,215 `ra^ngaava-
taraka, " "stage-player" according to B乭ler.
12. Keith, p. 29.
13. History of Indian Literature, vol. 1, p.516.
14. Miln., p. 359 `Na.ta-naccaka'.

P.200

" Yathaa vaa pan'eke bhonto sama.na-braahma.naa
saddhaa-deyyaani bhojanaani bhu~njitvaa te evaruupa.m
visuukadassana.m anuyuttaaviharanti- seyyathiida.m
nacca.m giita.m vaadita.m pekkha.m akkhaana.m
paa.nissara.m vetaala.m kumbha- thuuna.m
Sobha-nagaraka.m...iti vaa iti evaruupaa
visuukadassanaa pa.tivirato Sama.no Gotamo ti"
(D.I., p.6, ” 13). Professor Rhys Davids rendered
this passage as follows:  " Or he might say:
`Whereas some recluses and Braahma.nas, while living
on food provided by the faithful, continue addicted
to visiting shows; that is to say, nautch dances,
singing of songs, instrumental music, shows at
fairs, ballad recitations, hand-music, the chanting
of bards, tam-tam playing, fairy scenes,...Gotama
the recluse holds aloof from visiting such shows. "
(15)
Here `nacca.m giita.m vaadita.m' refer to the
old conception of `sa.mgiita' or `triple symphony',
via., dancing, singing and instrumental music. Such
entertainments are said to have been held at public
assemblies such as those already referred to,
concourses or fairs, samajjas (16) and at the
so-called mountain-fairs or giragga-samajjas (17)
said to be frequented even by ministers and other
high personages. (18) The word `nacca' may refer to
the dancing of both sexes; female dances are
specifically called `laasa' (19) and the four are
sometimes mentioned togther. (20) The last no doubt
refers to an old practice and it is of significance
for the later division into taa.n.dava and laasya
types attributed to 'Siva and Paarvatii
respectively. (21)
Of doubtful, but not negligible, importance is
the word `pekkha.m' which is clearly a
collective-abstract formation with the suffix `a'
from `pekkhaa' (Skt. prek.saa> * praik.sa.m)as most
words in the list are (cp. paa.nissara.m <
pa.nissaro). The Sanskrit is not found in any work
earlier than Manusm.rti (22) and Hariva.m'sa. (23)
Rhys Davids refuses to agree with Weber, Neumann,
Burnouf and others who saw in the Pali `pekkhaa'
"theatrical representations", and remarks: "But it
is most unlikely that the theatre was already known
in the fifth century B.C." (24) It is significant
though that Buddhaghosa equates the word to
`Na.ta-samajja.m' (25) a gloss that estab

15. Dialogues of the Buddha. Pt. I, pp. 7,8.
16. Vide D. III, 183.
17. Vin. II, 107.
18. Vin. II, 150.
19. Skt. laasah; cp. Miln. p.331, `laaska' =female
dancer.
20. Vin. II, 10 "naccanti pi gaayanti pi vaadenti
pi laasenti pi."
21. Naatya'saastra, 1. 2; Keith, p.12.
22. `Prek.saa-samaaja.m' ix. 84; ix. 264.
23. `Prek.saasu tu subahvi.su' 8702, 8685.
24. Dial. I.7.fn.4.
25. Sum. 1,84; cp. III. 946.

P.201

lishes the connection, at least in tradition,
between `pekkhaa' and `samaaja' as evidenced by the
quotations from the Sanskrit sources, and also
connects these shows with the activity of the Na.tas
who, as seen from the Sa.myutta passage, performed
also at samajjas.
Commenting on `akkaana.m' the exegetist says
that it refers to "recitations of Bhaarata and
Raamaaya.na" (`Bhaarata-Raamaayanaadi, ta.m yasmi.m
thaane kathiiyarti...' Sum. I.84) ; the word
`kathiiyati' no doubt refers to the work of the
Kathakas mentioned by Pata~njali. But, if these
recitations were of any "epics", it is clear on
chronological grounds that the reference is not the
Mahabhaarata and Raamaaya.na as we now have them but
to the original "ballad" from of these legends. In
the case of the former, Winternitz calls it " the
old heroic poem" which he believes (26) is contained
in the so-called "nucleus" of the Mahabhaarata. The
latter, according to him,"....was composed in the
third century B.C. by Vaalmiiki on the basis of
ancient ballads" (27) The word `vetaala.m' meaning
`the chanting of bards, ' (28) also alludes to
similar recitations of wandering minstrels. the
occurrence of these two terms in the list is of
considerable importance for the subject of the
origin of drama for, as Keith himself points out, "
while the epics cannot be said to know the drama,
there is abundant evidence of the strong influence
on the development of the drama exercised by the
recitation of the epics" (p.29) . The Sigaala
Sutta(29) gives `akkhaana.m' as one of the six
features of the samajjas where, as we have already
seen, the Na.tas took a leading part, and, thereby
establishes the contact between the `comedians' and
the `ballad reciters.' Moreover, our passage proves
that these ballad recitations, from which probably
developed in the course of time the vocation of the
Kathakas, were at least as old as the oldest
dialogues of the Paali Canon, if they were not
already popular in the time of the Buddha.
Consequently, the imspiration for the origin of
drama from this source must be admitted to be much
older than the middle of the second century B.C. as
has been supposed by Keith (p.45).
But the most important word in the list is
undoubtedly the term `Sobhanagaraka.m'  a term
that has intrigued both the old and the new
commentators. The reading itself is far from
settled. The Sinhalese Mss

26. Sum, I. p.459.
27. Ibid., p.517.
28. Rhys Davids ; cp. " na.tavaitaalika - stotra
nartakaah suutamaagadhaa.h" M.Bh. i. ” 940, Hariv.
8575, referred to sub Na.ta in the Petersburg Dict.
29. D. III. 183.

P.202

read `Sobhanagaraka.m, ' `Sobhanakaaraka.m' and
`Sobhanagarana.m,' whereas a Burmese MS. of the text
has `Sobha.naka.m.' The Sinhalese MS. of the
commentary gives the reading `Sobhanagaraka.m,' a
Burmese MS. of the same having a variant
`Sobha.naga.m.' It may be observed that the Burmese
MSS. of text and commentary do actually agree, for
the -g- of the latter can easily be explained as
phonetic variation of -k- in the former, the
presence of the cerebralized -.n- in both (as
opposed to the dental in all Sinh. MSS.) supporting
the identification. These variants may point to two
main traditions: `Sobhanagaraka.m' among the
Sinhalese, and `Sobha.naka.m' among the Burmese. Now
what is important is that both these forms can be
satisfactorily explained, though the latter is by
far the more likely historical one as we shall
presently see. If the reading is taken to be
`Sob.hanagaraka.m' the allusion may be to the city
of Sobha which, as Weber discovered,(30) may refer
to the city of the Gandharvas by that name. He
quotes from a commentary on 'Satarudriya: `Sobha iti
gandharva-nagaram; referred to also by Rhys Davids.
(31) So this compound viz. `Sobha-nagaraka.m' may
mean `a collection of Sobha-denizens,' i.e., `a
troupe of Gandharvas,' with a probable reference to
the traditional connection of these celestial
musicians with the drama. On the other hand Rhys
Davids' translation 'fairy scenes' is only a surmise
based on the gloss `patibhaana-citta' of the
commentary, which as we shall see below is not what
Buddhaghosa considered as the more probable sense.
Now to take the other reading viz. `Sobhanaka.m,'
this is grammatically to be explained as a
collective formation, of the same order as
`pekkha.m' discussed above, from a Paali masculine
noun `Sobhanaka.' This brings us to the most
important observation that this is no other than the
paali counterpart of Sanskrit `Sobhanika' as found
in the Mahabhaa.sya of Pata~njali, the suffixes -aka
and -ika being syntactically interchangeable. Now,
Pata~njali, in justification of the use of the
present tense for deeds of the remote past as found
in such sentences as ` He causes the death of
Ka.msa' etc., says that the present is permissible
"because the sense is, not that they are being
actually done, but that they are being described."
(32) He then sets out three such modes of
description of which the first refers to the
profession of the 'Sobhanikas: `ye taavad ete
'sobhanikaa (v.i. 'saubhikaa) naamaite pratyaksa.m
Ka.msa.m ghaatayanti pratyaksa.m Bali.m bandhayanti'
(iii. 1. 26). Here Keith argues that these were
pantomimists: "The obvious view, that of

30. Indische Studien, II. 38.
31. D.I, 6 fn.1.
32. Keith, p.32

P.203

Weber, that we have a reference to a pantomimic
killing and binding, seems irresistible" (p.33). The
only doubt according to him is whether the
'Sobhanikas used words (p.34). Anyway he leaves the
question open whether the reference is to `actors'
in the proper sense. Whatever the real sense of the
term may be, the fact is clear that the Paali word
`Sobhanaka' also refers to the same, or at least a
similar, class of performers. Once this
identification is regarded as plausible the word
`Sobhanaka.m' in the Diigha passage must be taken to
mean `a troupe of 'Sobhanikas,' and, this is exactly
how Buddhaghosa seems to have understood it, for he
comments: `Sobhanagaraka.m (v. 1. Sobha.naga.m) ti
Na.taana.m abbhokira.na.m, Sobhanagaraka.m
(v.1.Sobha.nakara.m) vaa pa.tibhaana-cittan ti
vutta.m hoti.' (33) the hesitancy of the editors
regarding the reading and syntactical considerations
incline one to the view that what probably
Buddhaghosa meant to say was: `Sobha.nagan ti
Na.taana.m abbhokira.na.m Sobhanagaraka.m vaa (sci.
ti pi paa.tho), pa.tibhaana-cittan ti vutta.m hoti,'
the first word `Sobha.naga.m' occuring in the
Burmese MS. of the commentary being only the
phonetic variant of `Sobha.naka.m' found as Burmese
variant for the text. In any case, the important
fact is that Buddhaghosa was more inclined to favour
the meaning na.taana.m abbhokira.na.m; than the
sense `patibhaana-citta.m;' hence he places the
former phrase at the beginning and gives the latter
only as a possible alternative introduced by `vaa.'
As for the exact significance of `Na.taana.m
abbhokira.na.n' it seems fairly likely that what is
meant here is 'a troupe (lit. crowd, concourse) of
actors.' The verbal noun `abbhokira.na.m' is formed
from the root k.r, to scatter, with the prefixes
abhi- and ava-. Syntactically we may regard this as
equal in sense to aa-kira.na (cp. aaki.n.na,
crowded), for it is observed that the use of the
compound prefix`abhi + ava' corresponds, probably
with slightly more intensive sense, to that of 〖
(34) Hence we may conclude that the term
`Sobhanagaraka.m' or `Sobha.naka.m' of the Digha
Nikaaya alludes, as is impled in the gloss of
Buddhaghosa, to some class of Na.tas  an
interpretation that has the support of Indian
tradition as recorded by kaiya.ta in his comment on
the word `Sobhanika' of the Mahabhaa.sya(35) and,
that these Na.tas were either the same persons as
referred to by Pata~njali's `Sobhanikaa.h' or at
least were their precursors in the art.

33. Sum. I, p.84.
34. Cp. Paali abbhokaasa, open space, = aakaasa,
space; Skt. abhyavaskandana = aaskandana, attacking;
abhyavahaara = aahaara, food, etc.
35. `Ka.msaadyanukaari.naa.m Na.taanaa.m vyaakhya-
anopaadhyaaya, vide Keith, p.33, fn.ii.

P.204

We have seen that Prof, Keith's reluctance to
discuss the Buddhist evidence is based on two
presuppositions: first, to use his own words, " the
extreme dubiety of the date of the Buddhist Suttas,"
and sceond, the supposed paucity of information
contained in the Paali literature  he refers only
to Nacca, Pekkhaa and Visuukadassana  concerning
the question of dramatic origns (p.42). We hope that
the second point has been somewhat satisfatorily
answered by the foregoing discussion. Now it remains
to be seen how far the expression " extreme dubiety
of the Buddhist Suttas" is historically justified.
It is admitted on all sides that the Paali Canon en
masse is a growth of considerable duration and that
the last word is yet to be said on the question of
chronology. But this or any such consideration must
not blind us to the important fact that, so far as
the early Nikaayas and the Vinaya are concerned,
there is enough evidence to prove that in substance,
apart from their literary form, they go back to a
period considerably anterior to the third century
B.C. with certain reservations and limitations, we
may say with Winternitz " that our Paali Tipi.taka,
at least the Vinaya and Sutta Pitaka, does, on the
whole, correspond to the Maagadhii Canon of the
third century B.C." (36) This is proved by the
edicts of A'soka, particularly the Bairaat or
Bhaabhruu Edict (249 B.C.) which shows, in the
opinion of the same authority, that the Paali Canon
on the whole is pre-A'sokan (p.25) . Now this
`Maagadhii Canon' must have taken at least a century
to have evolved into the hypothetical form in which
we conceive it, and the language itself must have
closely resembled the canonical Paali. Indeed we
must not, as is usually done, unduly exaggerate this
linguistic, properly dialectical, difference
because, as Winternitz himself admits, the `Canon of
the Vibhajjavaadins', a century after the Buddha's
demise, was probably in an older form of Paali
(p.130. Furthermore, we may now accept as a
historical fact that Moggaliputta Tissa, 236 years
after the demise of the Master, convened an assembly
of monks at Patna "with the object of compiling a
Canon of texts of the true religion or the
Theravaada" (p.6) , and that the Kathaa-vatthu,
ascribed to Tissa himself who presided at the
Council, presupposes not only the texts of the
Vinaya Pi.taka and of all the Nikaayas of the Sutta
Pitaka but the other books of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka
as well. " It would be quite feasible," says
Winternitz, " to assume that the book (Kathaavatthu)
was not written until the time of the compilation of
the Canon by Tissa

36. History of Indian Literature, II, p. 5; cp. p.
608.

P.205

himself....''(pp.11, 12). These considerations would
suffice to show that B〖hler was not far wrong,
when, in the last work he published, he expressed
the opinion that the Nikaayas as we have them in the
Paali " are good evidence, certainly for the fifth,
probably for the sixth, century B.C.," a conclusion
that was endorsed by Prof. Rhys Davids who added:
"....that will probably become, more and more, the
accepted opinion. And it is this which gives to all
they tell us, either directly or by implication, of
the social, political, and religious life of India,
so great a value." (37) It is, of course, true that
these statements must necessarily be modified in the
light of later research, but no such consideration,
we believe, can invalidate the main proposition that
the early Nikaayas, at least the Diigha, Majjhima
and Sa.myutta, do, on the whole, contain "good
evidence," if not for the period of Buddha's own
activity (c. 535-485 B.C.), at leaset for that of
his very early disciples to whom must be ascribed
the creation of the original tradition embedded in
these works. As for the genuineness of the
particular passages forming the subject-matter of
our present investigation, we may without hesitation
observe that neither the Brahmajaala Sutta nor the
Gaama.ni Sa.myutta, from which we have quoted,
bettrays any evidence whatsoever, whether linguistic
or otherwise, of latness or spuriousness of
composition; on the other hand, the Na.tagaama.ni
dialogue shows every sign of being a record of an
actual event both by the tone of naturalness running
through the whole narrative and also in point of
style and method, while the Brahmajaala Sutta,
though obviously a resume of the existing
philosophical and religio-social institutions of the
time, contains material that is proved to be old by
the very obscurity of its terminology and the close
resemblance of doctrines discussed to the ideas of
the ancient Upani.sads.(38)
Now to sum up:We hope we have succeeded in prov-
ing that the evidence afforded by the Niikaayas is
of considerable importance for the problem of the
evolution of drama in India, particularly for the
history of the key-word Na.ta and also of
'Sobhanika, and, that the available evidence would
take back its origin to at least the third or fourth
century B.C., if they do not conclusively prove that
there were dramatic spectacles of some kind probably
comedy in nuce, in the time of the Buddha himself.
This conclusion is supported by the further
consideration that if, as Prof.Keith himself admits,
" the Vedic ritual contained within itself the
germs of drama'

37. Dial. 1, p.xx.
38. Cp. Rhys Davids, Dial. 1.p.xxvi.

P.206

(p.23), and if, as Winternitz has shown with great
plausibility, the beginning of the Vedic literature
was nearer to 2500 or 2000 B.C. than to 1500 or 1200
B.C. as generally held (39) then it makes the belief
well-nigh impossible that, with such materials as
present in the Vedic culture, the ballad recitations
which seem to be pre-Buddhistic, as shown above, and
other tendencies reflected both in Sanskrit and
Paali literature, the drama, at least in some crude
form, could not have come into being all throughout
the course of a whole millennium. The fact that the
Na.ta of the Sa.myutta is a `comedian' shows that in
its origin the secular influence on the drama was
also considerable and that it was not evoked solely
" by the combination of epic recitations with the
dramatic moment of the K.r.s.na legend," (40) a
contention that gains strength by the fact that the
earliest dramas we possess, viz., those of
A'svagho.sa, have very little in common with the
epics or the K.r.s.na legend in point of theme and
subject-matter.

39. Calcutta Review, Nov. 1923.
40. Keith, p.45.