s the warp and the
verse the weft, where (as Goethe says) words become allusions, allusions
similes, and similes metaphors, the Indian drama essentially depended
upon its literary qualities, and upon the familiar sanctity of its
favourite themes for such effects as it was able to produce. Of scenic
apparatus it knew but little. The plays were usually performed in the
hall of a palace; the simple devices by which exits and entrances were
facilitated it is unnecessary to describe, and on the contrivances
employed for securing such "properties" as were required (above all, the
cars of the gods and of their emissaries),[19] it is useless to
speculate. Propriety of costume, on the other hand, seems always to have
been observed, agreeably both to the peculiarities of the Indian drama
and to the habits of the Indian people.

Actors.

The ministers of an art practised under such conditions could not but be
regarded with respect, and spared the contempt or worse, which, except
among one other great civilized people, the Greeks, has everywhere, at
one period or another, been the actor's lot. Companies of actors seem to
have been common in India at an early date, and the inductions show the
players to have been regarded as respectable members of society. In
later, if not in earlier, times individual actors enjoyed a widespread
reputation--"all the world" is acquainted with the talents of
Kalaha-Kandala.[20] The managers or directors, as already stated, were
usually gifted and highly-cultured Brahmans. Female parts were in
general, though not invariably, represented by females. One would like
to know whether such was the case in a piece[21] where--after the
fashion of more than one Western play--a crafty minister passes off his
daughter as a boy, on which assumption she is all but married to a
person of her own sex.

Summary.

The Indian drama would, if only for purposes of comparison, be
invaluable to the student of this branch of literature. But from the
point of view of purely literary excellence it holds its own against all
except the very foremost dramas of the world. It is, indeed, a mere
phrase to call K[=a]lid[=a]sa the Indian Shakespeare--a title which,
moreover, if intended as anything more than a synonym for poetic
pre-eminence, might fairly be disputed in favour of Babhav[=u]ti; while
it would be absolutely misleading to place a dramatic literature, which,
like the Indian, is the mere quintessence of the cu