A Comparative Study between Aristotle (The Poetics) and Bharatamuni (Nātyaśāstra): The Foundations of Western and Eastern Aesthetics

Aristotle’s Poetics and Bharatamuni’s Nātyaśāstra have marked the beginning of the comparative analysis of both western and eastern aesthetics. Poetics has coined the western though of dramatic theory and practice, whereas Nātyaśāstra is prominent to understand eastern aesthetics. The Poetics is the main literary contribution done by Aristotle towards aesthetics. In Poetics, he has stressed mainly on epic, poetry, comedy and tragedy. Aristotle’s main objective was to define art. The book is included a preliminary discourse on tragedy, comedy, epic and poetry along with definitions and rules for its construction.

Nātyaśāstra is a text on performing arts composed by the sage Bharatamuni. The text consists 36 chapters and around 6000 verses can be found on performing arts. Dramatic composition, body movements, structure of a play and genres of acting, are some of the subjects covered by the Nātyaśāstra. Therefore, by analyzing both Poetics and Nātyaśāstra, it is possible to get a comparative understanding on both eastern and western aesthetics.

Aristotle has written on both tragedy and comedy. However, he has given more attention to discuss about tragedy. The comedy part was missing to the western world. Bharathamuni does not make discrimination in drama by dividing it into two; tragedy and comedy. It might be influenced through the holistic approach of India, which considers everything as a whole.

Both Aristotle and Bharatamuni emphasize about ‘imitation’. Both of them have mentioned that the drama is a mode of imitation. The task of the drama is to represent the reality. Bharatamuni stressed that, ‘the drama as I have devised, is mimicry of actions and conducts of people, which is rich in various emotions and which depicts different situations’ (Ghosh, 1967, p. 15). It is in a way similar to what Aristotle has explained. Aristotle brings in imitation to explain poetry and drama. He mainly concerns about the actions of the men.

Bharatamuni’s main emphasis is on the ‘sentiment’. Rasotpatti is much more important to him than actions for Aristotle. He has stated that ‘the drama will thus be instructive to all, through actions and states (bhāva) depicted in it, and through sentiments, arising out of it’ (Ghosh, 1967, p. 113).  Therefore, Bharatamuni is not only referring imitation to the imitation of actions but also for the imitation of sentiments. It should be mentioned that although Aristotle does not mainly emphasize on sentiments, he has also paid his attention to the internal actions of men, which can be defined as the actions within the heart or the soul. According to him, internal actions (emotions, passions, feelings) find their expression or their representation in art. For him, that is the imitation of reality.

Both Aristotle and Bharatamuni have described the emotive effects that are emphasized through drama. However, the way that they have emphasized those emotive effects are different.  Aristotle stressed on the emotive effect of ‘catharsis’. It means purgation or purification. Catharsis is an emotional effect that takes place only after we felt pity and fear. Therefore, Aristotle’s emphasize on catharsis is limited to the context of tragedy. Bharatamuni’s rasa (rasānubhuti) theory is also a concept like catharsis which can be supportive to get a relief from the repressed emotions. Rasa means cleansing the soul. There are eight in number; erotic (Śrungāra), comic (Hāsya), heroic (Vīra), marvelous (Adbhūt), furious (Raudra), pathetic (Karunā), odious (Bhībatsya) and terrible (Bhayānaka).

Aristotle has written about a ‘pleasure of imitation’. That means, a pleasure is transmitted to the audience through fear and pity. Bharatamuni has stated that,

‘The drama as I have devised, is mimicry of actions and conducts of people, which is rich in various emotions and which depicts different situations. This will relate to actions of men; good, bad and indifferent, and will give courage, amusement and happiness as well as counsel to them all’ (Ghosh, 1967, p. 15).

Above-mentioned quotation shows that Bharatamuni also speaks about the ‘pleasure of imitation’. The significant thing in this quotation is that Bharatamuni has mentioned the word ‘counsel’ that can be related to the term ‘Catharsis’. In a way, imitation of such rasa and action would counsel the people in the audience and give them a relief.

Both Aristotle and Bharatamuni have emphasized about the characterization. Aristotle defines the characterization for both tragedy and comedy. As it has mentioned by Aristotle, the main character should have several characteristics. The character should be good in the sense that if the character makes fortune from misery, then it would not be the preference of the audience. The character should be consistent. To illustrate, if the character is a soldier, then it is improbable to be scared of blood. And if the character behaves foolishly all the time and all of a sudden becomes wise would not be realistic. For that Aristotle says that the character should be consistently inconsistent. If unrealistic incident happens in the drama, then it should be explained within the content itself. Otherwise the audience gets confused.

Bharathamuni also introduces the types of characters that can be used when creating a drama. He has categorized both male and female characters by using three types; superior (uttama), middle (madyama) and inferior (adhama). Superior character would be ‘a man who has controlled his sense, is wise, skilled in various arts and crafts, honest, expert in enjoyment, brings consolation to the poor, is versed in different śāstras, grave, liberal, patient and munificent’ (Ghosh, 1967, p. 527). The Madhya character should be considered as ‘a man who is an expert in dealing with people, well-versed in books on arts and crafts as well as in śāstras, has wisdom and sweetness’ (Ghosh, 1967, p. 527). However, the inferior character is considered as a person who is harsh in words and a person who has less intelligence. Irascible, violent, low-spirited, treacherous, haughty in words, ungrateful and expert in offending are some characteristics of such a person.

For Bharatamuni, dramatic action is a part of the character of the hero. The success of that heroic character would be measured by his achievement of the four goals of human life in Hindu philosophy. They are called as ‘purușārtha’ which can be defined as an object of human pursuit. The term has been used to define four proper aims of human life.  They are Dharma (righteousness/ moral values), Artha (economic values, prosperity), Kāma (psychological values, pleasure) and Mokșa (spiritual values, liberation). However, Aristotle defines a hero (tragic hero) who is the main character of a tragedy. The intention of a tragic hero was to evoke sad emotions (pity and fear).

As such, both Aristotle and Bharatamuni have emphasized the types of the characters and the qualities that those characters should be performed. Although these characteristics seem to be different, by analyzing them it can be seen that they have some similarities also. Both of them agree that the heroic character should be good, virtuous and noble.

There is one point that both Aristotle and Bharatamuni agrees. According to Aristotle, when women characters are valour and deceitful, then it is inappropriate for a woman’s character. Bharathamuni also mentions about how a woman is being disqualified for being heroines. According to him, women who have the following characteristics should not be made heroines. He says the women who are ‘smiling on wrong occasions, having violent gaits and efforts, persistent anger, being always haughty and unreserved and unruly’ should not be made as heroines. However, both approaches seem to be a disparagement of women.

According to Aristotle, in the case of the theatre of the Greeks, there are several parts of tragedy. They are the plot, character, thought, diction, melody and spectacle. Plot is the organization of the incidents whereas the character is defined as the moral character of the agents. The character is revealed when they make choices. Thought is about the spoken reasoning of the characters which is a way of explaining the story background. Diction is about the quality of speech. Melody reveals through the chorus (music and drama). Spectacle is defined as the visual apparatus of the play (the set, costumes, make-up).according to Aristotle; the power of the tragedy is that it can be felt without representation and the actors. But, it was different in the Indian theatre. For Bharatamuni, along with gestures and postures (āṅgika), words (vācika), decoration (which is related to the term spectacle in Aristotelian description) is the central thing in drama. He says that the proper decoration could give drama its characteristic formation.

Both Aristotle and Bharatamuni have introduced various laws that would be effective when creating a good drama. There are several differences between Aristotle and Bharatamuni.

 Aristotelian views

- Emphasize more on tragedy+ comedy

- Concerns about ‘action’

- Imitation as a representation of Reality

- Decoration/spectacle has given less priority

- Dramatics/ theatrics as a part of other arts

Bharatamuni’s Views

- Holistic approach towards drama (do not divide drama into tragedy and comedy)

-Concerns about ‘sentiments’

-Imitation as a representation of human conduct

-More priority has given to the decoration/ spectacle

-Describe other arts as a part of theatrics

However, there are similar points that can be derived from both The Poetics of Aristotle and Nātyaśāstra of Bharatamuni.

-Both emphasize on drama

-Discussion on ‘imitation’

-Emotive effects of drama

-Pleasure of imitation

-Characterization

-Types of characters

-Views on the characters of women

-Parts of a tragedy/ drama

Some criticizes both approaches because both have introduced several laws to arts and aesthetics. There arises a doubt whether a field like aesthetics can be followed through rules because it is purely a subjective experience. However, in my point of view, those rules should not be taken as rules, but as suggestions that can be used in arts and aesthetics (Certain codes of conduct). It is not actually a requirement. But a good aesthetic performance can be created by following them. In conclusion, it can be stated that both Aristotle (From the west) and Bharatamuni (From the east) had done a great contribution towards the development of art and aesthetics.

References

Aristotle. (1997). Poetics. (M. Heath, Trans.) London, United Kingdom: Penguin Classics.

Aristotle. (2015). The Poetics of Aristotle. (S. H. Butcher, Trans.) California: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Aristotle. The Rhetoric and the Poetics of Aristotle (1 ed.). (W. R. Roberts, I. Bywater, & E. P. Corbett, Trans.) Modern Library.

Ghosh, M. (1967). The Natyasastra: A Treatise on Ancient Indian Dramaturgy and Histrionics Ascribed to Bharata-Muni (Volume 1, Chapters 1-27). India: Granthalaya Private Limited.

Nagar, R. S. (2005). Natyasastra of Bharatamuni (4 ed.). India: Parimal Publications.