Details of the Sign System In Indian Performing Arts

Natyasastra

The Natyasastra is the earliest sources of reference to an alphabet of hand gestures practiced in Indian theatre and dance, and as such becomes an important document for the study of the gesture-languages practiced in Kerala. A word or two about the Natyasastra is in order here before delving into the reference to gestures in it.

It is generally believed that the work was composed during the period between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D. It is the most comprehensive work of its kind to survive anywhere in the ancient world. It is a veritable encyclopedia of knowledge concerning Sanskrit drama and theatre covering such topics as the origin of theatre, aesthetics, theatre architecture, acting, costuming, makeup, properties, dance, music, play construction, poetic composition, grammar, composition of theatre companies, audiences, dramatic competitions, the actor community, and ritual observances, to name the more important. It exerted a profound influence over the formation and structure of successive theatre genres throughout the Indian subcontinent and continues to be regarded as the “bible” for all those students and scholars in India seeking to connect contemporary theatre practices with their ancient past.

As I have said elsewhere, our understanding of the musical system of ancient India is based almost entirely on the NS. Most forms of Indian dance are said to derive their languages of gestures, steps, poses, and movement patterns from the NS. By comparing the rules of play construction outlined therein with the works of several generations of playwrights, scholars have built a considerable body of dramatic criticism. In attempting to interpret the various aspects of the NS, a whole body of theoretical texts has come down to us from ancient times. And debate over the meaning of certain important words and phrases still occupies the attention of scholars throughout the world. (1990,35)

Given its wide canvas, discussion of gesture-language is bound to play a part in the work, even if only a small part. Chapter IX is primarily concerned with the subject, although comments about gesture as it relates to other matters are peppered throughout the whole text. I will come to them in a moment, but first let me focus on Chapter IX.

Like other parts of the work, the Chapter is set in Sanskrit slokas, or verses, two hundred and ten to be exact. The organization of the chapter establishes a pattern which was to be imitated in later works in which gestures are discussed. The Hastalakshanadipika is no exception. First the author makes brief preliminary remarks followed by a list of the gestures about to be discussed. Next he takes each hand gesture and briefly explains how it is to be executed. This is followed by a list of the meanings that are associated with it. Distinction is made between gestures made with one hand (asamyuta-hasta) and those executed with two hands (samyuta-hasta). This simple pattern is found in a succession of later texts, with minor modifications here and there.

The author of the Natyasastra also identifies a number of gestures as dance-hands (nrtta-hasta), seemingly separating those which are used for acting purposes (ie. in natya) from those that are confined to use in pure dance (nrtta). He even physically isolates discussion of the nrtta-hastas by verses 153 to 173 concerning general rules for use of hand gestures and various manner and occasion of their usage.

In my opinion, verses 153 through 156 are particularly significant for they clear the way for the development and evolution of all later gesture systems which arose in India and I quote Ghosh’s translation of them in full:

153. In acting, hand [gestures] should be selected for their form, movement, significance and class according to the personal judgement [of the actor].
154. There is no gesture (lit. hand) that cannot be used in indicating [some] idea. I have profusely described whatever forms (lit. gestures) are usually seen [to be associated with different ideas].
155. There are besides other popular gestures (lit. hand) connected with other ideas, and they also are to be freely used along with the movements inspired by the Sentiments and the States.
156. These gestures should be used by males as well as females with proper regard to place, occasion, the play undertaken and a suitability of their meaning. (1967, 188)

Perhaps Verse 153 is the more significant of the verses for it seems to grant license to the actor (and/or teacher of acting) to choose the appropriate hand-gesture to suit the need. This permits considerable latitude to the actor and could certainly be interpreted to justify the multiplicity of gestures systems that have developed on the subcontinent since ancient times, as well as the idiosyncratic use of gestures within prevailing sign systems today. Verse 154 paves the way for incorporating other gesture meanings into a new system or new gesture meanings into existing systems. The author also admits that he has only identified meanings with which he is familiar in this day and time. He has not frozen his system into a fixed, unchangable entity from which there can be no deviation. Verse 155 recognizes the existence of gestures other than those which are conventionalized (ie. stylized) and paves the way for incorporating into performance those gestures which are used in daily life, when appropriate within the context of that performance. And Verse 156 does not confine the use of gesture to men alone but condones their use by women, as well. In verses 153, 155 and 156 the overall guiding principal seems to be that “when appropriate” a gesture may be incorporated into a performance.

In short, Bharata authorized considerable flexibility and freedom to the individual artist. Today there are many who practice the performing arts in India, as well as those who criticize it, who would not be so generous and who would prefer to ossify and petrify systems of performance rather than permitting them to grow and change, claiming that one or the other teacher or system is superior to the others. Bharata does not seem to have shared that view.

The gesture-language outlined in Chapter IX is part of an elaborate and integrated system of acting (abhinaya) articulated by Bharata in Chapter VIII where he clearly indicates that the whole is made up of four constituent parts:

This Histrionic Representation (ie. abhinaya) is known to be fourfold: Gestures (angika), Words (vacika), Dresses and Make-up (aharya) and the sattva (ie. sentiments). (1967, 151)

In this chapter the term “gestures” (angika) seems to mean more than merely hand-gestures which we sometimes take it to be in the West. It is every part of bodily expression except those mentioned above, i.e. words, costume/makeup and sentiments. It is the expression of the eyes, face, head, whole torso, and the limbs, including the hands. In the teaching of acting in the West, until recently, teachers generally took a somewhat narrower view of gesture and focused more on the hands as a means of physical and psychological expression than the whole body or its constituent parts.

As though to give added weight to “gestures” (angika) Bharata devotes four other chapters to the subject besides the chapter on hand gestures discussed above. He distinguishes major limbs as the head, hands, breasts, sides, waist, and feet. The minor limbs are those of the face – the eyes, eyebrows, nose, lower lip, and chin.

In another chapter precise bodily movements are prescribed to correspond to emotional states. Positions of the breast, side, stomach, waist, thigh, shank, and feet are categorized and discussed at length.

The specific poses and physical reactions of actors to various situations are referred to as cari. Thirty-two cari are identified; approximately half of them are referred to as earthly and the remaining are called aerial. Precise stances are also identified and designated as appropriate for specific situations. The wielding of weapons, such as the shield and bow, are encompassed within the discussion of the poses. In a separate chapter, the Natyasastra describes the movements which are to accompany the poses. Most of these movements refer to fighting in personal combat.

Chapter thirteen discusses at some length the gaits which are appropriate for various characters, depending on their sex, rank, age, and temperament. It provides
a particularly vivid example of the gait appropriate for a blind man or one walking as though in darkness. It says, “The actor’s feet glide over the ground and hands
grope for the way” (Ghosh 1967, 225). From this description it would appear that this movement was firmly rooted in reality. The extent to which physical movements were conventionalized cannot be determined from the text. Different eye, head, face, and hand movements are designated for each of the five senses. Provisions are also made for the actors to show three broad categories of
reactions to the object of a situation – favorable, unfavorable, or indifferent. Other conventional patterns of movement are discussed with reference to the working
around (parikramana), traversing from one locale to another. The stage directions of extant texts provide numerous examples that suggest that acting was highly
conventionalized and yet had a firm basis in reality. (Richmond, Swann, Zarrilli 1990, 41-42)

Janaki (1991) has given us some selected examples of the gestures (angika) incorporated into Kalidasa’s famous play, Abhijnanasakuntala, aided by ancient commentators on the text. In doing so, she has indicated some of the specific hand gestures that are to be used for various physical actions illustrated with graphic drawings of the gestures appropriate at various moments in the action (43-45). The elaborate use of gestures in Sanskrit plays is borne out by Damodara Gupta’s 9th century AD text, Kuttanimatha, in which he describes how Harsa’ Ratnavali was acted by courtesans (ie. an all female cast) before a prince named Samarabhata in the city of Kasi (modern day Varanasi). The practice is also echoed in Kallinatha’s commentary on Sangeeta Ratnakara, a 15th century AD text dealing with dramaturgy, in which a benedictory verse from Kalidasa’s Vikramorvasiya is described in great detail in terms of the tala, svara, and mudra used for executing each word. M.P. Nayar (1987) has discussed these points with reference to prevailing practices in Kerala.

Bharata has even provided illustrations of the incorporation of specific hand gestures at given moments in the rituals (for example in Chapter V, verses #75-77 “And afterwards he (ie the Director) should respectfully bow to Brahma (lit. Pitamaha) with Lalita gesture…” (Ghosh 1967, 85-86) And again in the same chapter verses #123-125 “After assuming the Avahittha Sthana (posture), and placing the left hand [first] with its palm downwards on the navel and holding the Jarjara loosely on his [other] palm, the Director should go five steps, with his left hand showing the Pallava gesture; and while going he should cover one Tala at each step and move his limbs gracefully.” (92)

With such a propensity for detail, characterized in Indian dramaturigal texts and subsequent work of scholars, it is easy to loose sight of the “integrated” character of the system of acting common in ancient times. Bharata provides the thread which holds the whole system together. His elaborate system of aesthetics. As I have said in Indian Theatre: Traditions of Performance (1990):

The Natyasastra outlines a theory of theatre performance that is an original contribution to the field of aesthetics and a major distinguishing feature that separates Indian theatre from all other forms of world theatre. Initially, it was applied to theatre performance, and subsequently it was borrowed and applied to dramatic literature and expanded to include other forms of Sanskrit literature and other performing arts, as well. Although seemingly simple in its basic outline, it is deceptively so, for critics from a very early date up to the present age have wrestled with the precise meaning of the major terms of the theory and the import of their application.

The theory of rasa, or sentiment, attempts to explain how a spectator perceives the performance of a play. This can only be accomplished when he or she interprets what is seen, as well as what is heard and responds to both stimuli as one composite whole. The Natyasastra emphasizes that a performance may best be understood in its proper context by those who are learned, wise, skilled in the arts, and sensitive…. It appears to have been designed for the elite few rather than for the masses. At one point in the text, the aesthetic experience is equated with that of tasting and eating fine foods. Indeed, some scholars have translated rasa as “taste.” Let us examine this analogy for a moment.

In France, haute cuisine is regarded as a high point of cultural experience, engaged in by experts. The permutation and combination of delicately flavored dishes sensitively presented in an appropriate atmosphere is said to delight expert palates, gently leading them through a gastronomical garden of delights to the ultimate conclusion of a meal. The experience is tantamount to a state of exaltation. There are two separate aspects of this aesthetic journey which are intertwined and yet may be viewed separately – the meal itself and the context in which it is served.

On the one hand, dishes are chosen to complement and contrast with each other, each dish is prepared with the correct ingredients, combined with care by an expert chef, and presented in a manner which is appealing and conventional. On the other hand, major contributing factors to the total experience are the environment, mood of the participant, time, and place. All these conspire to influence the outcome of the gastronomical event.

The meal is savored by a connoisseur who recognizes the difference between haute cuisine prepared by an expert chef, served in a quiet dining room of a four star restaurant on a quiet summer evening with friends, and meat and potatoes dished up by a hurried cook in a steamy kitchen on a Saturday night.

If we equate the theatre experience described in the Natyasastra to that of an expert dining on haute cuisine, we may more easily follow the basic aspect of the theory. The spectators are like the connoisseurs of cooked food (called bhaktas, literally the “devotees” of god) and the performers may be equated both with the chef and the meal.

The actors, musicians, dancers, playwrights, and other functionaries are all expected to prepare and train themselves according to the rules and conventions, for the moment when they will offer their lavish feast for the spectators to savor. Like the priests who officiate at the temple sacrifices, the performers are obliged to perform with seriousness and care so that they do not cause the evil eye to be cast on the whole affair, spoiling and polluting the proceedings and causing the judicious to find fault. In this respect, the theatre event was no ordinary event but a special occasion. It was expected that it would be executed on a very high plane, in a similar vein to a religious sacrifice. (80-81)

Gesture then, according to the most authoritative text of ancient Indian performance, played a significant and integrated role in the theatre and dance. Along with the aesthetic theory, it may be said that the development of gesture systems in India can also be taken to be India’s original contribution to world theatre, setting it apart from all other systems. The proliferation of gesture systems in other parts of Southeast Asia and East Asia owes its inspiration to the model established and which continues to be widely practiced in India.

Abhinayadarpana

Among other ancient texts of dramaturgy which deal with gesture and gesture language, the Abhinayadarpana of Nandikesvara occupies almost as significant a place as the Natyasastra. Ghosh (1957) contends that the work was in existence by the beginning of the thirteenth century and perhaps a few centuries earlier.(38) The Abhinayadarpana is composed in 324 verses, 171 of which are devoted to the listing of gestures. Because its aim is far more limited than that of the Natyasastra, the author has confined himself to a specific range of topics, some of which I have selected to outline below.

The opening verse is worth quoting because it is sometimes performed as part of programs of dance and dance-drama:

We bow to the satvika Siva whose angika is the world, vacika is the entire language, and whose aharya is the moon and the stars. (Ghosh 1957, 39)

Verses 2 through 10 concern the evolution of dance/drama from the gods to man, following much of the evolutionary path outlined in the Natyasastra. Having once established credibility for the work as being of divine origin, Nandikesvara then establishes the distinctions among natya, nrtta, and nrtya – drama, pure dance and dance with a story line, in verses 11-16. Although somewhat arbitrary, the categories are still very pertinent to the distinction between forms of performance which are still practiced in India today. Even within a form, the three categories may be detected as the performers articulate their work. But more of that when we deal with kutiyattam.

The next few passages of verse concern the composition of the audience and the arrangement of the performance. As in the Natyasastra the performance was meant to be witnessed by qualified experts. It does not seem to have been devised for the masses. The performance was to take place on a stage (ranga) with musicians flanking the performer – cymbals to the right, drummers to the right and left and a vocalist and the drone instrumentalist sitting behind. This frontal juxtaposition of the performance has characterized most dance, dance-drama and theatrical performances in India to the present day. Indeed, in Kerala the arrangement of the musicians for kutiyattam, kathakali, tullul and krsnanattam performances flank the performers to their right and behind as they face the spectators.

The Abhinayadarpanam is regarded primarily as a text for dancers, particularly female dancers, principally because it devotes a number of its verses (23-36) to identifying the needed refinements of female dancers. Even the introductory benediction before a program of performance identifies her responsibilities.

Perhaps the most frequently quoted passage of the text is verses 36-37 simply because it acts as a sort of summary of the principles of how the performer integrates his/her work into a whole entity focusing on the end result:

Where the hand goes, eyes also should go there.
Where the eyes go mind also should go there.
Where the mind goes there the State (bhava) should follow
And where there is the State, there the Sentiment (rasa) arises. (Ghosh, 46)

We will come back to this passage in due course, particularly since it concerns the place and significance of gesture in the action.

As Bharata has done in greater detail Nandikesvara articulates the four parts of acting (abhinaya) and provides a brief summary, principally of matters concerning the gestures (angika).

Beginning with verse 87, he lists all of the gestures and then takes them one at a time and identifies the meanings that are to be associated with them. His list is similar but not identical with that of Bharata. This need not concern us here. The important thing to remember is that he follows almost precisely the basic formula for presenting the list – a description of individual gestures, how to form them, and lists of meanings associated with them.

A unique feature of Nandikesvara’s work is subsequent lists of gestures appropriate for other purposes. For example, verses 204-215 lists hands appropriate for deities, verses 216-225 lists gesture appropriate to ten avataras of Visnu, verses 226-244 lists miscellaneous hands, verses 244-249 lists, “the thirteen hands [which]…are fit to be used in nrtta.” (Ghosh, 66), and verses 250-258 lists gestures appropriate for representing the planets. Beginning with verse 259 through to the end of the text, Nandikesvara deals with physical movements, postures, gaits, and so forth, often mentioning the purpose for performing each of these actions.

The Abhinayadarpana confirms and sustains the tradition begun by the Natyasastra adding its famous, almost formulaic, verses concerning the interconnection between hand, eye, facial expression, and meaning (ie. ) assuring its place in the pantheon of important and vital texts to generations of theatre artists who have used both ancient works as guides and a basis for claiming authority for generations of performing artists.

Miscellaneous Texts

Doubtlessly, there are other important ancient works articulating conventional gesture systems. Sarngadeva’s Sangitaratnakara of c. 1247 AD. edited by Tarlekar (19 ) is one of them. It describes 67 hand gestures, dividing them into single, combined, and 30 pure dance hands. There is also Subhankara’s Hastamuktavali dated between the 13th and 16th centuries AD. edited by Neog (1991). It lists 30 single, 14 combined and 27 pure dance hands. This latter work is confined exclusively to the presentation of gestures of the hand and in this it is like the Hastalakshanadipika of Kerala. Tarlekar says of the Sangitaratnakara that it follows the tradition of the Natyasastra and Abhinayadarpana in the gestures listed. Neog (1959) has conveniently contrasted the alphabet of each of the gestures in the Hastamuktavali with those in the Natyasastra, Abhinayadarpana, Sangitaratnakara and kathakali practice making it possible, at this level at least, to better understand the contrasts and comparisons among the basic alphabets.

Balaramabharatam

Emerging out of Kerala traditions is a work in which gesture-language is dealt with in great detail – Karttika Tirunal Ramavarman’s Balaramabharatam, edited by V.S. Sharma (1982). Written in Kerala in the mid-18th century by a famous poet/king who is also the author of several Kathakali Attakatha, the work concerns a great many subjects pertaining to music and dance, including discussion of tala and raga, musical instruments, bhava and rasa, physical movements appropriate for dancers, and so forth. The second part of Chapter 2 deals particularly with hand gestures (hastas) in 632 verses! As with the Natyasastra and Abhinayadarpana Tirunal provides a brief preamble in four verses, followed by a list of all the hastas and then takes each hasta and lists the meanings associated with it. Unlike his ancient predecessors, however, Tirunal provides somewhat greater detail for the individual meanings for which the gesture is used. For example, among the uses of pataka, which he indicates has the greatest number of meanings associated with it, verse #15 says it is used “in removing of dirt from the body with the hands dipping in water and in the showing of a cubit or two-hand lengths.” In other words, his descriptions are somewhat more graphic than the terse one-word descriptions found in works of his more famous predecessors.

Perhaps the most important verse indicating his understanding of the connection between gestures and bhava and rasa is verse #4 in which he observes, “The rasabhava of hand gestures brighten up through the eyes. To the eyes it is the mind that is important. Mind is responsible for the bhava.” Tirunal puts the famous verse quoted from Abhinayadarpana above in a new way, indicating that there are rasabhava for the hand gestures, rather than seeing them as disconnected from emotional expression. This keen observation exists in the actual practice of the Kutiyattam, and even more so in the Kathakali artists of Kerala today.

But first, based on the fact that Tirunal was the author of a few plays still performed in the Kathakali repertory, it would be natural to conclude that he articulates the vocabulary of gestures used by kathakali artists in his work. Nampoothiry in his critique of Balaramabharatam (1983) drawns this conclusion. He says, “Karthi Kathirunal Maharaja wrote the Balaramabharatam as a manual for these art-forms (ie. kathakali and bharatanatyam) which he encouraged in his time.” (322) With reference to the gesture language Nampoothiry proposes that the king took materials from the Hastalakshanakipika, the Natyasastra and Abhinayadarpana in order to express his ideas (190-191). Such a bold statement is not born out by a comparison of the texts, however. Indeed, little seems to have been borrowed from the Hastalakshanakipika. In a comparison of the signs listed in both texts and their meanings it is clear that Tirunal has not drawn much, if anything from the Hastalakshanakipika. The author seems to owe more to the Natyasastra and the Abhinayadarpana from which he appears to have borrowed the specific list of hastas and some, but certainly not all, of their meanings. Indeed, it would not be possible today to construct a Kathakali performance based on the hastas listed in this book, nor would it be possible to do the same for the other performing arts of Kerala, except perhaps for the bharatanatyam, although the subject of gesture language in this major classical art form is beyond the scope of this investigation. Perhaps in Tirunal’s day the gesture system of kathakali differed from what it is today and thus it would have been possible to reconstruct a performance from his text. But this is only my unsubstantiated conjecture. More than likely, I believe Tirunal’s text was not meant to be used as a guide for kathakali but was more appropriate for the classical bharatanatyam dancers of Kerala. In their useful work entitled, Mohiniyattam (1983), Venu and Paniker have made note of a few of the contrasts and comparisons between the gestures in the Balaramabharatam and the Hastalaksanadipika (171-200). However, it is not their conclusion that the gestures used in mohiniyattam were derived from Balaramabharatam either. They too, like many others after them, have cited Hastalaksanakipika as the source for this form of Kerala classical dance.

In short, it is curious and perhaps will remain a mystery, as to why Tirunal did not incorporate the Hastalakshanakipika into his work, particularly because of his knowledge, familiarity and interest in the budding art of kathakali. Given the epic scope of Tirunal’s work, he may have incorporated other materials that may be traced to kathakali, but that too is beyond the scope of the present study.

The above was first published in Kutiyattam: Sanskrit Theater of India (CD-ROM). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2002.