________________
222
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(AUGUST, 1918
pothenti digunai bhujam. We further learn that this samajja was manchâtimañcha which the commentator explains as mañchânâm upari baddha-mañcha. This word must mean, therefore, here at any rate, a stage for the purpose of a wrestling combat. It should be noted also that a stage can but occasionally serve this purpose for which alone, however, open space is always preferable. The commentator explains no doubt, samajjasmin b malla-raiza, but that meaning cannot be the only meaning for reasons just noted-a conclusion which is forced upon us from a comparison of the two instances of the Jataka referred to above. In the first of these as I have already shown sama ja cannot, of course, mean a milla-ranga for the simple reason that națas play on it.
Prof. Bhandarkar has noticed that ranga and prekshågåra are used synonymously with sama ja. I have not the least doubt that here samaja means the place where plays are enacted just like theatre' which has a double meaning. Prekshågára is the same as prekshågriha,' the construction of which is described at length by Bharata in his Natyarlstra (II, 8, etc.). In the description of samdja in the Kámasútra, as we have already seen, the word prekshanakam means a performance. From these the conclusion becomes unavoidable that samája was primarily a technical word for theatre. I do not doubt, however, that games, contests of animals, etc., were also exhibited in a samaja which practice is common even now. A stage, therefore, serves two objects, primarily, the enactment of a drama, and secondarily, the exhibition of games. These were also what sama ja used to serve in Ancient India.
But the question that arises here is : which of the above two senses would suit the samaja which a king like Asoka considers excellent ? Dr. Thomas takes it in the sense of
a celebration of games or rather contests' (JRAS., 1914, 393-4). But then, why should Asoka show a special predilection for it in one of his own religious writs? There is no evidence to prove that the celebrations of games was 'looked upon as a religious observance in his days. On the other hand there is evidence to prove that samaja in the sense of theatrical performance was really looked upon as religious. I have already referred to the tesimony of Vâtsyayana to this point. But this is not all. In the Ramayana, e. g., the theatre is pre-eminently looked upon as a sign of prosperity of a country (råshtravardhana). In the following passage it has been said, that in a kingless country utsavas and samajas which delight the actors and dancers never flourish:
Nára jake janapade prahrishtanatanartakáh.
utsavischa Samajúscha vardhante ráshtravardhanah. -Ayodhyâ, c. 67, 15. It follows, therefore, that the king patronized the theatre which was regarded no doubt as an instrument of educating the people.
In view of what is stated above, we are now in a position to understand Akoka's liking for this particular kind of ramája, and this explains why he was so eager to record his sympathy with it. It may be noticed here that if our interpretation is correct it is the first inscriptional evidence of a king supporting the stage in India. Besides this there are in record two other inscriptional evidences proving the same fact, viz.. the Nâsik Cave inscription of the 19th year of the reign of Vasisthi putra Fulumâyi and the Hâthigumcha inscription of the Emperor Khâra vela. M. Senart in editing the former inscription, took samaja in the sense of assembly.' But that word has to be interpreted in a different sense now. In 1. 5 of the Hathigumpha inscription, it has been recorded that the king, who was himself a master of music ( gandhava-veda-budho '), entertained his capital, in
1 As to the fact that samaja was sometimes celebrated on the top of a hill which was first pointed out by Prof. Bhandarkar and the which Dr. Thomas has again drawn our attention, we may cite the case of the JogimAra cave at Ramgarh Hill which according to the late Dr. Bloch was the site of a theatre flourishing there at least about the second century B. C.--Archeological Survey Report, 1903-4.
5 Epi. Ind., VIII. 61.
