D Angelika Heckel application of the methods of textual criticism. Although in the present discussion the extant text will be taken as a unity, we do not intend to suppress divergences between the statements made in the text. The relationship between rasa and natya will be examined by relating the definitions of natya and abhinaya given in Chapters 1 and 8, to the treatment of rasa and bhava in Chapters 6 and 7.10 The whole of Chapter 1 is decisive for the characterization of natya and the realm in which it is placed. One of its basic characteristics is given as its connection with 35 the cycle of social festivities. According to the Natyashastra the first theatrical performance took place on the occasion of the festival of Indra's banner,11 in which the victory of Indra over the demons is celebrated. The battle is performed in such a way that it appears to be an event which is actually taking place. The demons see themselves defeated once again and attempt to obstruct the performance. This is a clue to the presence ascribed to a performance: it is not a re-presentation of something not present. In order to appease the demons, Brahma states that theatre should not present exclusively either gods or demons. The relation of natya to the sphere of ritual is indicated not only by the topos of the conflict between the gods and the demons12 but also in the sacrificial aspects implied in the manner in which the theatre-house (natyagrha) is constructed. This construction is undertaken after the first performance to prevent future performances from attacks. Thus theatrical performances are seen in the account of the Natyashastra as closely connected with the structure of existing social relations (in the sacrifice these relations come to the fore) and, implicitly, with its history. It should also be noted that an area in the theatre house is provided for the 'sudras' and that the knowledge of theatre (natyaveda) is described as 'belonging to all varnas' (sar-vavarnika)13 In connection with the significance of the festival natya attains a prominent place in the paradigms of social relations, as a consequence of which it becomes impossible to see theatre as something apart from the world, from society and from history. This is confirmed by a definition of natya in a passage in which Brahma sketches the scope of theatre in the world: The own reality of the world is called theatre, which is connected with happiness and sorrow and is combined with (various forms of) conveyance (abhinaya) like movements of limbs, etc.' (yo 'yam svabhavo lokasya sukhaduhkhasamanvitah I so angadyabhinayopeto natyam ity abhidhiyate II GOS 1,103. This definition appears also in 21,119 and slightly altered in 14,72.) The Sanskrit terms for the specific way in which theatre enters into relation with the world are anukirtana and anukarana. As it is stated in the text, "Theatre is a presentation (anukarana) of the ways of living in the world. It is supplied with different bhavas (dispositions or elements) and has its nature in the performance of different situations/ (GOS 1,112) Ghosh translates the terms with 'representation' and 'mimicry' respectively (op cit, pp. 14-15). These translations (the implications of which are not made explicit in any commentary) assimilate natya to western concepts. Here theatre is understood either as a medium for something not present (and therefore to be re-presented) in the theatre or as a copy (an imitation) of non- Numbers 17-18