54
to be cultivated in the sixth century B. C., sufficiently proves-that it could not have had any Greek origin.
Another objection is perhaps graver. Dramas are classified* by modern critics, Schlegel among others, into classical and' romantic. The Greek tragedy belongs to the classical type,, whereas the Sanskrit drama is by universal consent admitted to be romantic. Conceding for a moment the possibility of the-Greek origin, is it conceivable that the copy would be so Utterly difierent from the original? They belong to two opposite schools utterly alien to each other in construction, taste and sentiment.
A third objection appears to be more natural. In the-ordmary course of things science or art with a foreign orcgin must be expected to have some borrowed terminology-The most stnkmg example is seen in the case of Indian Astronomy The Hindus found it impossib]e to borrow < the pnnaples of Greek astronomy without the words in-. wfccn they were clothed. More than this two separate works called the Romaka and Yavana siddhantas have a distinct place assigned to them in the Indian astronomical literature, No such transference of technical terms we can discern in the case of the drama. Except the allegation that the word' ***** » a derivative from Yavana, the science of Indian dramaturgy makes use of technical terms of pure i Regarding the allegation itself, Indil et the term from the root $ ^ the
°f
as a synonym for the Greeks. It has a widest apphcatro* and perhaps an indiscriminate one.e too vague and uncertain to warrant us in drawing any sound .conclusion. The very fact that the Indian drama but the language not so stiff or obscure. He has a greater grace and melody about his verse. " •/:-'.. . • ' ' . : .; .". <