1. Ancient Greek And Indian Theatre Asha Saxsena Parimala

Barcode

: 2040100048856

Title - Ancient Greek And Indian Theatre

Author - Dr.Asha Saxens

Language - multilingual

Pages - 176

Publication Year - 1997

Barcode EAN.UCC-13

Ancient Greek

and

Indian Theatre

Dr. Asha Saxena

The

Ancient

Indian

theatre

is

represented

by

Bharata's

Nātyaśāstra

giving

its

name

Nātyagrha

or

Nātya-maṇḍapa

or

Prakāśagrha.

The

present

treatise

is

confined

to

the

ancient

period

from

structural

point

of

view

of

theatre

of

both

India

and

Greek

Drama.

This

consists

of

seven

chapters

divided

into

two

parts.

First

part

is

related

to

Indian

theatre

and

the

other

to

Greek

theatre.

The

first

chapter

is

introductory.

The

second

chapter

deals

with

the

characteristics

of

theatre.

In

the

third

chapter

the

stage

has

been

defined

according

to

Bharata

Muni

and

other

ancient

scholars.

In

the

fourth

chapter

main

ingredients

of

Sanskrit

stage

are

discussed

in

detail

and

compared

with

that

of

Greek

theatre.

Fifth

and

Sixth

chapter

deal

with

the

Greek

theatre,

and

its

comparison

with

Sanskrit

stage

in

detail.

The

last

chapter

concludes

the

comparison

between

the

stage

and

theatre

of

India

and

Greece

in

ancient

times.

Rs.

250

ANCIENT GREEK

AND

INDIAN THEATRE

Dr. Asha Saxena

Dept. of Sanskrit

Raja Balwant Singh College

Agra

PARIMAL PUBLICATIONS

DELHI

Published

by

PARIMAL

PUBLICATIONS

27/28,

SHAKTI

NAGAR

DELHI

110007

(India)

Phone:

7127209

©

author

First

Edition

1997

ISBN

:

81-7110-145-X

PRICE

Rs.

250

Laser

typesetting

and

Printing

Himanshu

Laser

System,

46,

Sanskrit

Nagar,

Rohini

Sect.

14,

Delhi

110085,

Phone

:

7862183

To

the

memory

of

my

mother

Late

Smt.

Darshan

Devi

Saxena

WHO

WAS

A

GREAT

SOURCE

OF

INSPIRATION

FOR

ME

PREFACE

In ancient times, Dramas and plays were a source of pleasure and entertainment for the people in both India and Greek society. Alongwith the other sorts of entertainment, they did have a link with religious feelings.

In ancient times the Drama and plays were staged in the open places in both the lands. Gradually it was realised to create particular place where plays might be staged.

The topic of my research is “A Comparative Study of Ancient Greek and Sanskrit Stage.” Late Prof. R.S. Tripathi suggested this topic. I worked under the guidance of Prof. Dr. P. Anand Shastri of Aligarh Muslim University.

In my present research work, I have discussed ancient Greek and Sanskrit stage. The term stage has been taken in the sense of theatre, English word derived from Greek word ‘Theatron’ meaning ‘a place for seeing’. In Sanskrit Nāṭyaśāstra stage is represented by the words Nāṭya-gṛha or Nāṭya-maṇḍapa or Prakāśagṛha. My research is confined to the ancient period of structural point of view of stage of both India and Greek Drama.

This thesis consists of seven chapters divided into two parts-first is related to India Nāṭyagṛha and the other to Greek theatre.

The first chapter is introductory of structural particulars The second chapter deals with the characteristics of theatre. In the third chapter the stage has been defined according to Bharata Muni and other ancient scholars. In the fourth chapter main ingredients of Sanskrit stage are discussed in detail and compared with the Greek theatre.

Fifth and Sixth chapter deals with the Greek theatre and its comparison with Sanskrit stage in detail.

The last chapter concludes the comparison between the stage and theatre of India and Greek in ancient times. In my opinion, it can be asserted that some sort of influence had its way through

the early cultural intercourse of both the peoples.

I acknowledge my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof.

Dr. P. Anand Shastri who took great interest and affectionate

care.

I wish to extend my gratitude for encouraging me in my

research to my mother, brothers, husband and Dr. D.K. Jain

obliged me by helping in the completion of this work.

Asha Saxena

Contents

Page

Preface

vii-viii

Part-I

Chapter-I Theatre, Vikṛṣṭa Theatre-its chief characteristics.

1-30

Chapter-II Caturasra Theatre-its chief characteristics.

31-48

Chapter-III Tryasra Theatre-its chief characteristics

49-58

Chapter-IV Main parts of Indian Theatre Kaksyā-Vibhāga, Raṅgaśīrṣa and Raṅgapīṭha, Mattavāranīs and Curtain in Sanskrit and Greek

59-81

Part-II

Chapter-V Ancient Greek Theatre

82-93

Chapter-VI Main parts of Greek Theatre and their comparison with Indian Theatre.

94-104

Chapter-VII Conclusion

105-109

Bibliography

110-115

Figures No.

1-27

Abbreviations

Abh. - Abhirava-bhāratī

Bh. - Bhartrihari's Vairāgyya-Śataka

B.H.U.P. - Banaras Hindu University Press

Chow. Ed. - Chaukhambha Edition

Com. - Commentary

Ed. - Edited, Edition

Kms. - Kumārasambhava

Lat. - Latin

Māl. - Mālavikāgnimitra

M.M. - Mālatī-Mādhava

Mrcch. - Mṛcchakaṭika

Sis. - Śiśupālavadha

अभि० - अभिनवभारती

CHAPTER - 1

VIKRṢṬA THEATRE

What is Theatre

It would be in the fitness of the things to shed a bit of light on theatre in general before we proceed to discuss the ancient Greek and Indian theatres in all their aspects. The word ‘Theatre’ as it exists in English, derived from the Greek word ‘Theatron’ (θεαT–ρoν) meaning a place for seeing.1 The word ‘Theatron’ is its own turn is derived, as Prof. Wilfred Grenville indicates, from the Greek Verb ‘Theaomai’, which means to see.2

It can therefore be surmised that the word ‘theatre’ or ‘theatron’ by its sheer derivation means ‘A place for the audience to see the performance in broader sense’. A theatre is a building or place furnished with seats and provided with a stage upon which plays or dramatic spectacles are performed, a playhouse. This it has come to signify a building or place so arranged that people can see and hear a performance given by others. The part of such a building where the actors and others display their performance is called the stage. This chapter deals with the theatre from the View point of the structure in which it has traditionally been presented.

Bharata describes the three types of theatre in his Nāṭyaśāstra. He says that three types of theatre have been fixed by Viśvakarmā3. These are (1) Vikrṣṭa (2) Caturasra and (3)

1. Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott– A Greek-English-Lexicon, p. 785.

2. Prof. Wilfred Granville – A dictionary of Theatrical Terms, p. 184.

3. Nāṭyaśāstra 2/7-8.

Tryasra. Further he says that these types again may be divided into Jyeṣṭha, Madhya and Avara according to their measurement. Each type may be measured in Hastadandas.1 Abhinavagupta notes two views about these types of theatre. He says that some scholars express that Vikr̥ṣṭa, Caturasra and Tryasra these very three types and Jyeṣṭha etc. are identical. In other words Vikr̥ṣṭa is Jyeṣṭha, Caturasra is Madhya and Tryasra is Avara. Others hold that each of the first be called as by virtue of its varying dimensions may Jyeṣṭha, Madhya and Avara and thus there would be nine types of theatre.2 According to Abhinavagupta these may further be divided on the basis of the measurement of Hasta and Danda; thus the types of theatre would be eighteen in all. In view of Abhinavagupta the second interpretation is correct one. He remarks that all these types would not be useful, but they are only mentioned to maintain the tradition.3

Thus the Nāṭyamandap is divided into Vikr̥ṣṭa, Caturasra and Tryasra classes with their subdivision into Jyeṣṭha, Madhyama and Avara on the basis of the measurement of Hasta and further into nine classes on the basis of the measurement of danda. Abhinava also admits of these eighteen types of theatres. At the end of II chapter he states that many types of theatres may be constructed according to the instruction given above.4

Thus the above mentioned nine classes are :

Vikr̥ṣṭajyeṣṭha - 108x64

Vikr̥ṣṭamadhyama - 64x32

Vikr̥ṣṭavara - 32x16

1. Nāṭyaśāstra 2-9.

2. एतान्येव त्रीणि ज्येष्ठादीनिति केचित्।

अन्ये तु प्रत्येकं त्रितयमिति नवैतेदत्र भेदा इत्याहुः। एतदेव युक्तम्॥ — अभि० p. 163.

3. न त्वियन्तो भेदा उपयोजिनः। एवं चाष्टादशभेदास्तावच्च्छास्त्रे दृष्टाः।

ते चाद्यत्वे यद्यप्यनुपयोगिनः तथापि च सम्प्रदायाविच्छेदार्थ निर्दिष्टाः॥

4. एतैव विधिना बहवो नाट्यमण्डपाः॥ — अभि० p. 201 — अभि० p. 164।

Caturasrajyeṣṭha - 108x108

Caturasramadhya - 64x64

Caturasra-avara - 32x32

Tryasrajyeṣṭha - 108

Tryasramadhya - 64

Tryasra-avara - 32

All these measurements given here are in accordance with the 10th verse of the text1 which explicitly states that Jyeṣṭha is 108, Madhya is 64 and Avara is 32 cubits in length which apparently means that each of the Jyeṣṭha types should begin with 108 cubits.

Notwithstanding the exceptibility of these varieties and these measurements to the scholars Abhinava and others, we come across inconsistencies on their part when we examine Bharata's statement "प्रेक्षागृहाणां सर्वेषां तस्मान्मध्यममिष्यते"1 along with the comments of these scholars.

According to Bharata, of all the theatres, those of the Madhyama playhouse is the ideal. Bharata appears to have centered his attention only on the Madhyama measurement of all the three types of playhouses.

From Śloka 30 to 85 Bharata devotes to the description of the measurement of Vikṛṣṭa type of playhouse and points it out as 64x32. This measurement is in perfect conformity with the medium size measurement of Vikrṣṭa playhouse according to the above table.

However Bharata describes the measurement of caturasra playhouse from Śloka 86 to 101 and gives its measurement as 32 Hasta on all the four sides.2

He deviates from the general measurement of medium sized caturasra playhouse of which the dimensions are supposed to be 64x64.

1. Nāṭyaśāstra 2-10.

2. समन्ततश्च कर्तव्या हस्ता द्वात्रिंशदेव तु। — नाट्यशास्त्र, पृ. २-९८।

The size of 32x32 prescribed by him relates to the ‘Avara’ measurement of the caturasra in the above table. It is here that the inconsistency exists as in the case of Vikr̥ṣṭa, Bharata’s dimensions conform to the Madhya size and in the case of Caturasra-they conform to the Avara size.

Among the modern scholars Dr. Mankad and Prof. Subba Rao have attempted to resolve this inconsistency.

According to Mankad, Vikr̥ṣṭa represents Jyeṣṭha, Caturasra Madhya and Trayasra Avara. He inferred that the two verses referred above attributed to Bharata were actually interpolations. According to Mankad verse 9 expressly states that Jyeṣṭha etc. are the Pramāṇās of Vikr̥ṣṭa etc. and verse 10 gives these measurements. A combined reading of these two verses makes it clear that Vikr̥ṣṭa has the Jyeṣṭha measurement which is 108 cubits. Therefore its varieties should begin with 108. Thus Vikr̥ṣṭa-Jyeṣṭha is 108x64, Vikr̥ṣṭamadhya 64x32, Vikr̥ṣṭ-Avara 32x16. In this way Caturasra will have madhya measurement that is its varieties will begin with 64. Thus Caturasra Jyeṣṭha 64x64, Caturasra madhya 32x32, Caturasra Avara 16x16. According to him this is the only way to harmonise these otherwise conflicting statements.

We have another version of Prof. Subba Rao by way of resolution of this inconsistency.1 He also relates the measurement of Vikr̥ṣṭa with Jyeṣṭha, that of Caturasra with Madhyama and Tryasra with Avara. Again he has also admitted of the beginning of measurement respectively as 108, 64 and 32 Hastas.

Besides he has also asserted that all the nine varieties of maṇḍapas given in the list are not practically serviceable. Only three of them are worthy of use and thus there too only the Caturasra maṇḍapa with the size 32x32 is appropriate while the remaining two are impracticable. The reason being that if the

1. A Critical Survey of the Ancient Indian Theatre in accordance with the second chapter of the Bharata.

—Nāṭyaśāstra by Prof. D. Subba Rao. p. 445.

Caturasra mandapa is erected with the size 108x108, it would be almost double the size of Vikrsta (108x64). The size 108x108 for Caturasra mandapa is the largest and not practicable. Similarly the Caturasra mandapa 64x64 is also double the size of medium type of Vikrsta mandapa which is 64x32. So that two are impractical. Hence the only appropriate mandapa in the Caturasra group is of the size of 32x32 and Bharata has given a description of this very type. As observed earlier the Caturasra mandapa is the medium one. The measurement of medium mandapa runs 64 hasta and thus the mandapa of 64x64 and the other of 32x32 are the measurements respectively for Jyesṭha and Madhyama of Caturasra. Subba Rao is of the view that it is for this reason that Bharata has made description of 32x32 hasta for the medium mandapa of Caturasra.

Therefore the Vikrsta sized mandapa is Jyesṭha, Caturasra is Madhyama and Tryasra is Avara. This opinion has been established by both the scholars. They seem to have based their conclusion on the following verse:

कनीयस्तु स्मृतं त्र्यसं, चतुरसं तु मध्यमम्।

ज्येष्ठं विकृष्टं विद्वेयं नाट्यवेदप्रयोक्तृभिः॥

In the light of this verse, the playhouses cease to have nine classes; and have only three because the Vikrsta mandapa is renamed as Jyesṭha, Caturasra as Madhyama and Tryasra as Avara.

Now the point is whether the question of inconsistency raised by Dr. Manakad and Prof. Subba Rao and the explanations provided by them are authentic.

The facts mentioned in this context make it clear that sole ground of controversy raised by these two scholars is the following statement of Bharata:

प्रेक्षागृहाणां सर्वेषां तस्मान्मध्यममभिष्यते।

According to this verse the Madhyama mandapa is considered to be the best. That is why the construction of medium mandapa of the Vikrsta type was described in detail. Likewise the construction of only one type of Caturasra

Mandapa was described in detail in verses 86 to 101. Bharata quoted its size as 32x32. Like the Vikr̥ṣṭa Maṇḍapa the medium of the Caturasra maṇḍapa too has been considered ideal and described in detail. This has led these two scholars to establish the Caturasra as the medium maṇḍapa. But this conclusion does not appear to be convincing. This is the Avara maṇḍapa of Caturasra and can not be accepted as the medium one.

Now the question arises that while describing the medium Maṇḍapa of Vikr̥ṣṭa, why Bharata went on to describe the Avara maṇḍapa of Caturasra. The possible reason appears that while making a specific description of Vikr̥ṣṭa Madhyama maṇḍapa measuring 64x32. In the very next verse he has specifically prohibited the construction of a larger sized Maṇḍapa.1

According to this instruction a Maṇḍapa larger than 64x32 Hasta should not be constructed. The Caturasra Madhyama maṇḍapa of 64x64 is just the double size of Vikr̥ṣṭa Madhyama maṇḍapa which measures 64x32 and in that case the dramatic performance will be off the focus. It is quite likely that for this reason Bharata ignored the Madhyama maṇḍapa of Caturasra measuring 64x64 and described the one of 32x32 Hasta.

Now the next point is that Bharata wrote : प्रमाणमेषां निर्दिष्टं हस्तडण्डसमाश्रयम्।

Explaining Hasta and Danda as separate measuring rods. Abhinavagupta classified the playhouse into eighteen types-nine based on Hasta and nine on Danda.2

According to Bharata four Hastas make one danda.3 This was pointed out while describing the units of measurement. This proves that Hasta and Danda are two different terms of measurement. But no where in Nāṭyaśāstra do we find a mention of the Danda measurement while Bharata himself

1. अतः उद्धृत्‍‌ न कर्तव्यः कर्तृभिरनाट्यमण्डपः। यस्मादव्यक्तभावं हि तत्र नाट्यं क्रोेदिति ॥ — नाट्यशास्त्र 2-21

2. Abh. p. 173, B.H.U.P., Varanasi.

3. चतुर्हस्तो भवेदडण्डी। — नाट्यशास्त्र 2-19

defined Hasta and Danda as two separate measuring rods, he did

not at all take into account in his Nātyaśāstra the Danda

measurement and focused his sole attention on the Hasta

measurement. This significant fact has been completely ignored

by Abhinava, while classifying the Mandapa into eighteen

types. It is only the modern scholars like Prof. Subba Rao, P.K.

Acharya and Dr. Mankad etc. who have raised this issue.

Prof. Subba Rao does not accept the theory of Hasta and

Danda as two separate units. He interprets Bharata's Hasta

Danda as ‘Hāth Bhar kā Danda’ and puts further, P.K.

Acharya's Dictionary in evidence for this interpretation.1 In this

Dictionary Hasta-Danda has been defined as a length of 18

inches i.e. one Hasta.2 On this basis Prof. Subba Rao has

admitted only nine types of playhouses.

Dr. Mankad view is that one Hasta is 1 – but one Danda is

6’. Dr. Mankad's statement is that "if we take2 the measurement

in dandas, Vikr̥ṣṭamadhya will have a range of 48x48 sq. dandas

i.e. 288x288’ which will give a floor area of 82,944 sq.ft. This

area can accommodate about 20,000 persons. Further, the largest

type admitted in theory is Vikr̥ṣṭa Jyeṣṭha, which will have a

Range of 54x54. If we take Hasta measurement this will mean

81’x81’ = 6,561 sq.ft. accommodating 1,500 persons, but if we

take danda measurement it will mean a Range of

324’x324=1,06,976 sq.ft. which would accommodate about

25,000 persons, which is impossible."3

Thus Subba Rao while interpreting Hasta-danda as one unit,

failed to explain why Bharata defined Hasta and Danda as two

separate units. On the other hand, Dr. Mankad while accepting

the theory of ‘danda’ and ‘Hasta’ being two separate units,

failed to explain why Bharata ignored the ‘Danda’ unit. There

the problem stands as such.

1. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture – P. K. Acharya p. 13.

2. Ibid p. 13.

3. Ancient Indian Theatre – Dr. Mankad p. 14.

Kumbha has used the term 27 Danda in place of 108 Hastas.1 This leads us a step forwards the direction of solution of the problem. Following the theory of Kumbha, if we accept the measuring term Danda in place of Hasta, the stage (Theatre) would not be oversized, which falls in line with Bharata's theory too and also provides an explanation for Bharata's silence about the Danda measurement.

Now 108 Hasta will convert into 27 Danda, 64 Hasta into 16 Danda and 32 Hasta into 8 Danda. On this basis the mention of Hasta measurement can co-exist with that of Danda measurement. With this conclusion the fear of the Nāṭ yamandapa being four times larger and hence unpractical is also eliminated. And there remains no contradiction in the theory of Bharata and its interpretation by Abhinava. So this conclusion appears to be more appropriate.

Before commencing the construction of the Playhouse, according to Bharata, it is essential that first the soil should be examined. After this the theatre construction should be started according to the measurement of Vāstu with good feeling. According to Abhinavagupta2 the word Vāstu is the implication of measure and acceptance of the ground. That is to say that how much length and width should be taken and from which type of ground? Then Bharata states that the soil must be in level, constant, hard and black or white. According to Abhinava, others hold that white and black soil should be mixed to construct the Nāṭya-Mandapa.3 Then it should be cleared of all rubbish like bones, skeletons, nails, skulls, grass, stones and such other things and whole field must be ploughed. Having purified the ground that way, the measurement be advised.

Here Bharata refers to the suspicious constellation under which the theatrical work has to be commenced. The three

1. चतुर्हस्तो भवेदण्डो नाट्यवेश्मगतो सदा।

तत्र स्यात्नाकिना वेश्म सप्तविंशतिदण्डकम्॥ — भरतकोश-कुंभ, p. 869.

2. वास्तुविधि। ग्रहणं प्रमाणं चेत्युपलक्ष्यमाणरूपेण प्रारभेत।

3. अन्ये तु व्यामिश्रितत्वमाहुः। — उपरिवत्, p. 174।

uttarās, namely, uttarāṣāḍhā, uttarāphālgunı, uttarābhādrapadā

and other stars Mrgaśīrṣa, Viśākhā, Revati, Hasta, Tiṣya and

Anurādhā are the auspicious constellations for constructing the

Nāṭyamaṇḍapa. Then the Pusya constellation ground must be

measured with a white string. This measuring thread should be

made of Karpāsa, Valkala or Mūñja by those who have

experienced. It must have no joints. Wise people should made

such thread as can not be broken. If the thread is broken in the

middle, the death of the King is definite and if broken at one

third part of the thread, a political disorder of national order

would take place in the country. If broken at the fourth part, the

destruction of the chief builder is said to come across. Even at

the fall of the measuring thread some sort of loss was quite sure.

Handling of the measuring thread should always be rendered

with great care.

Abhinava remarks that the measuring string should not be

prepared with leather.1 This statement of Abhinava seemingly

indicates that leather is not considered auspicious for theatrical

performance. Other reason of this forbidding might be the fact

that leather's colour is not white and Bharata specifically

mentioned that the white thread should be used.

To Abhinavagupta the word ‘Nitya’ used by Bharata while

discussing the handling of Sūtra, means unbroken or continued

without any joint. In other words he accepted this word as an

adjective of the Sūtra and not as an adverb. Hence the Sūtra

must be unjointedly in tact in all measurings including all sorts

of columns to be further mentioned in the treatise.2

Bharata further states that at a favourable moment of an

auspicious day occurring an auspicious ‘Tithi’3 and having

satisfied the Brāhmaṇa Punyāha recited, only the measuring

1. चर्मकृतं मानसूत्रं न कार्य्यमिति च तात्पर्य्यम्। — अभिनवभारती, पृ० ९७४ ।

2. नित्यमिति। न केवलमत्र प्रथमपरिग्रहे यावदन्यभाविस्थम्भविनिवेशाय भूबhभाग-

मानग्रहणादावित्यर्थः। अभिनवभारती, पृ० १७६।

3. The signification of ‘tithi’ is nanda etc. in view of Abhinavagupta. Ibid.

p. 176.

string be spread handling with care and calm.

The Rectangular (Vikr̥ṭa) Theatre

Bharata has used the three different words for rectangular theatre, as Vikr̥ṭa,1Viprakr̥ṭa2 and Prakr̥ṭa.3 Abhinavagupta, however, has given different etymologies of these three words.

According to him the etymological meaning of the word Vikr̥ṭa is as follows. The Vikr̥ṭa should be long (Dīrgha) on the basis of divisions (Vibhāga) not equal in all directions.

विभागेन कृत्स्ने दीर्घो न तु चतसृषु दिक्षु साम्येन ।4

He has further given the etymology of theViprakr̥ṭa:

प्रकर्ष: प्रकृष्ट तदतिक्रान्तो विप्रकृष्ट:5

Prakr̥ṭa is explained by Abhinavagupta as:

प्रकृष्टत्वादिविस्तीर्णत्वादव्यक्तं गच्छेत्।

तथा प्रगतं कृत्स्नं करणं दैर्ध्यं यस्स तस्य भाव: ॥6

It indicates that Abhinava is explaining the dimensions of that type of theatre which is larger in length than the width. Obviously it can not be square in shape and has essentially to be rectangular. Bharata called it by different names as Vikr̥ṭa, Viprakr̥ṭa and Prakr̥ṭa in the same sense.

It is to be noted that Śāradātanaya has accepted the Vr�tta (or circular) theatre in place of Vikr̥ṭa.7

1. Nāṭyaśāstra 2-8,13,14,12-20. 13-24 Vol. 1. Baroda Ed.

2. Ibid 2-22.

3. Ibid 2-23.

4. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 163., B. H. U. P., Varanasi

5. Ibid p. 170

6. Ibid p. 172

7. Bhāvaprakāśanam p. 430; 10-168 Agra Prakashan.

'Vr�tta' is defined by Śāradātanaya thus

परमण्डपिकै: सद्धि: पौरजानपदै: सह ।।

राज्ञ: सङ्गीतकं यत्र वृत्ताख्यो रङ्गमण्डप:।

Further Bharata lays down that a plot of 64 Hastas in length

and 32 Hastas in breadth should be measured with a white

thread.1 This should be equally bifurcated into two and the back

part again be halved into two. The Rangaśīrṣa should be

fashioned in the frontal half of this last portion. In the rear part

Nepathyagr̥ha should be located.2

Abhinavagupta has tried to clarify this layout and according

to him it is a Rectangular theatre building 64 cubits in length

and 32 cubits in breadth. It should be divided into two equal

divisions, the front and the rear, 32x32 cubits each. Then the

rear half should be again divided into two equal parts and 16x32

cubits each. The front part is again divided into two equal parts.

Of these two parts, the one behind is the Rangaśīrṣa 8x32

cubits.3 Rangaśīrṣa called the inner place where the characters

come from the Green-room.4 See Fig. 12

The front part is the Rangapīṭha. It is the main part of

theatre.5 See Fig12.

The Nepthyagr̥ga should be fashioned in the back part

16x32 cubits. Abhinavagupta mentioned two views about the

measurement of Rangapīṭha. According to one view, it was 16

cubits in breadth and 8 cubits in length. Other holds it was 8

cubits in breadth and 16 cubits in length.6 See Fig. 12

Demerit of Jyeṣṭha and Avara size of Vikṛṣṭa

As Bharata puts it theatre-stage should not be erected larger

than 64x32, because in that case the dramatic performance

would become inexpressive.7

1. Nāṭyaśāstra 2-37 B. H. U. P. , Varanasi.

2. Ibid 2-38-39

3. Abhinavagupta − Abhinavabhāratī p. 177 B. H. U. P. Varanasi

4. Ibid p. 177

5. Ibid p. 177

6. Ibid p. 178

7. Nāṭyaśāstra 2-21.

Abhinavagupta explains the meaning of every term, stated

by Bharata in his annotation. According to him the ‘ऊर्ध्व’

conveys the meaning that the size should not be larger or smaller

than the standard one.1 That is, with this Madhyama mandapa

being available, no other mandapa can deliver the good. The

word ‘कर्तृभि’ means that the erectors need not waste their labour

because in a mandapa of larger or smaller size the Nāṭya2,

would be inexpressive.

Discussing these shortcomings Bharata further states that on

a stage of Jyeṣṭha size of Vikr̥ṣṭa mandapa, the actors will have

to adopt high-pitched tone which will be disagreeable to the

audience nearer the stage because of its disproportionate volume

and disagreeable to the further audience because of its

inaudibility. Thus the voice should be discordant to entire

audience. Similarly in the Avara mandapa the sound would

suffer from congestion and have no space to expand and would

result in a discordantness.3

Abhinavagupta also analyses the sound system in a Jyeṣṭha

mandapa on similar lines. He emphasizes that the sound before

reaching the farther audience would become very low and would

be inaudible to them. Tracing its reason in ‘अनिस्सारणधर्मत्व’ he

suggests that the principle of reflection of sound which produces

echo will fail on this stage.

In the Avara mandapa the dialogues spoken in high tones

will be subject to ‘अनिस्सारणधर्मत्व’, that is they will lose their

melody and thus become discordant.4

Recounting the demerits further Bharata states that with the

mandapa being very larger or very small, the several occular

postures of the actors will become inexpressive and will not be

noticed by the audience.5

1. ऊर्ध्वंभिति — प्रमाणस्याधिक्यं न्यूनातिरेकाभ्यामिति मन्तव्यम्। —अभिनवभारती, p. 170

2. नाट्यमिति — सकलावान्तरभेदप्रभेदे दर्शयितुम्।

3. Nāṭyaśāstra 2-22.

4. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 171.

5. Nāṭyaśāstra 2-23.

Abhinavagupta also established that dialogues, songs and music all will lose their expression and the entire dramatic performance will thus lose its appeal. He also explains every term stated by Bharata that facial expressions like tears, sweat etc. and costume crown, turban etc. as also physical postures of the actors-all will be invisible to the audience because of the large expanse of the mandapa.1

On the other hand if the mandapa is very small inexpressiveness of other type related to nearness will develope.2 So in either case-over-large and over-small mandapa—the problem of inexpressiveness exists and so the Madhyama mandapa stands out to be ideal one.

Naturally therefore, Bharata discards both the Jyesṭha as well as the Avara mandapa and establishes the ideal characters of the Madhyama one. He states that Madhyama mandapa contains the best audio-visual arrangement for dialogues, songs, dances and facial and bodily postures of the actors.3

Further Bharata states that Jyesṭha-sized mandapa is specially meant for Gods. Madhyama sized for Kings and Avara sized for the rest of the people.4 Commenting on this text of Bharata and further internal evidence-Abhinavagupta states that the Jyesṭha Mandapa is meant for performance of Dima and like then wherein the Devas and Asuras stand as Antagonists to each other. The madhyama one is meant for plays like Nāṭaka in which Kings are the heroes while the Avara one is meant for plays like Bhāṇa and Prahasana in which the ordinary men and women are characters.5

Describing the construction of Madhyama-Vikr̥ṣṭa, Bharata

1. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 172-173.

2. ततः कनीयस्त्वादेतो परा द्वितीयामव्यकतां ब्रजेत्। — अभिनवभारती, पृ० १७२।

3. Nāṭyaśāstra 2-24.

4. Ibid 2-11.

5. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 167-168.

states the I shall describe the characteristics of that mandapa

which is for human beings.1 Reasoning that Devas can create

buildings and gardons etc. by their imaginative powers, but all

works of human being have to be done only by the men of their

efforts. Therefore man should not rival with the Nātya-Mandapa

erected by Devas.2 Hence the subsequent details are applicable

to the stages meant for the mortals.

Merits of Vikr̥ṣṭa Jyeṣṭha

Abhinava opines that for the Rupakas like the Dima the

mandapa measuring 108 hastas in the most desirable as the

performance demands much longer space owing to the

abundance of musical instruments on the stroke of which the

characters make their heroic movements.3 Naturally only the

Jyeṣṭha Mandapa can serve this purpose. As on a congested

stage, the audience can not get a full and clear view of the

performance. It is for this reason that Abhinavagupta laid his

emphasis on the type of Jyeṣṭha Mandapa.

The Vikr̥ṣṭa stage is considered as the most useful for the

purpose of ‘पादगतप्रचार’ as ‘पञ्चपदी’ a kind of ‘गतिप्रचार’ can be

repeated again and again on a Vikr̥ṣṭa mandapa4 and if the space

is meagre, it would jeopardize the ‘गतिप्रचार’.

The Measurement of Theatre

About the mode of measurement Bharata speaks of two

units and quotes:

“Pramāṇam Eṣām nirdiṣṭam hastadaṇḍaśamasrayam” and

further gives a table of measurement as follows:

1. Nāṭyaśāstra 2-26 Baroda Edition.

2. Ibid 2-25, 26

3. यत्र देवासुप्राया एवं नायकप्रतिनायकास्तत्र डिमादावारभटीप्रधाने विततर्हप्रीठोपयोगात्, भाण्डवाद्यप्रधानत्वाच्च परिक्रमणादेरुच्चतरदीर्घतरदीर्घतापरिग्रहादियोगाच्च व्यक्तभावस्या-सम्भवाद्योत्तरशस्तहस्तो मण्डप इत्यर्थः। — अभिनवभारती p. 165

4. विकृष्ट्यां च भूयोभूयः पञ्चपदी। विशेषमप्याह रद्ने विकृष्ट इति। — अभिनवभारती, पृ. 1032

"Eight Anus make one rajas (Cardust), eight rajas make one bala (Hairend), eight like as make one yūka (louse), eight yūkas make one yava (Barley), eight yavas make one angula, twenty four angulas make one Hasta and four hastas make one danda. Thus table of measurement substantial tallies with the one given in Vrahat Samhitā.1

According to Abhinavagupta the famous Anu 'परिमाण' is anu.2 Nātyaśāstra also accepts 'अणु' as the smallest measurement but in Vṛahat Samhitā it is the 'परमाणु'.3

Anu is defined by another commentator of Bharata's Nātya-Śāstra, Madhusudan as sixty times the particle of dust visible in the rising of the sun.

The aṅgula measure is practically the same in almost all Sanskrit works such as the Architecturals and others.

The Foundation of Nāṭyamaṇḍapa

The foundation (Sthāpana) of a Nātya-maṇḍapa would be laid on the auspicious star and with the players on all sorts of musical instruments like Kettle-drums, Conch and Mṛdaṅga etc. On this occasion all the badomens like hyprocrates, hermits with saffron coloured garments and handicapped persons should be eased out from that place.4

Procedure for offerings in the foundation laying ceremony

Offerings consisting of different varieties of foodstuffs, scents, flowers and fruit should be made to all the ten directions at night, observing the rule of offering white foodstuffs to the east, blue to the south, yellow to the west and red on the north5,

1. परमाणुरजो बालाग्रलिक्षयैकं ययोजकुलं चेति।

अष्टगुणानि यथोत्तरमझुलमेकं भवति संख्या। -वृहसंहिता (द्वितीयो भाग: ) पृ० ६८०।

2. अणु: प्रसिद्धोऽपुपरिमाण:1 - अभिनवभारती, पृ० १६६।

3. जलान्तरगते भानौ यत्सूक्ष्मं दृश्यते रज:।

तस्य षष्टितमो भाग: परमाणु: स उच्यते। -पृ० १६७।

4. Nāṭyaśāstra 2- 40-41 B. H. U. P. , Varanasi

5. Ibid 2-42-43.

with the chanting of hymns to the respective gods and the Brahmanas be offered food prepared with milk and ghee.1

Abhinavagupta emphasises that there should be absolutely no departure from the prescribed procedure of offerings to different directions. Therefore the procedure of offerings has been elaborately described. The term ‘यागशी’ indicates that offerings of red colour should be made in the ‘आग्नेय कोणे’ (because its guardian god-Fire is of red colour).2

Bharata goes on to relate that at the occasion of foundation Ghee3 and Pāyasam4 should be offered to Brāhmanas and Madhuparka5 to the King. The builders or the performers should be offered cooked rice alongwith jagrg.

In this way the foundation should be laid by the wise men during the auspicious part of a happy Tithi under asterism Mūla.6

Raising of walls

The foundation thus having been laid the walls should be raised.

Erection of Pillars

The walls having been constructed columns should be raised on an auspicious Tithi and Karana7 which are under a good

1. Nātyaśāstra 2-44.

2. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 179, B. H. U. P , Varanasi.

3. Manmohan Ghosa has explained the following term :

Ghee - According to Manmohan Ghos - “Ghee is clarified butter.”

4. Pāyasa– Rice cooked in milk with sugar. It is a kind of rice-porridge.

5. Madhuparka- A mixture of honey, a respectful offering prescribed to be made in Vedic times, to an honourable person and this custom still lingers in ceremonies like marriage. Its ingredients are five: Curd (dadhi), Ghee (Sarpis) Water (Jala), honey (Ksaudra) and white sugar (sita).

— Natyasāstra, Ed. Manmohan Ghos p. 24.

6. Nātyaśāstra 2-46 B. H. U. P , Varanasi.

7. Manmohan Ghos has given a explantion of Karana according to Sūrya-Siddhānta as follows:

asterism such a Rohiṇī or Śravaṇa.

The pillars should be constructed early in the morning when

the sun has just arisen, by an accomplished Acārya who has

fasted for three nights.1

Abhinava lays down that erection of pillars should be taken

up after going through the procedure of measurements, laying of

foundation and raising of walls. He interprets the term 'स्थापन' as

‘उच्च्र्रायणम्’ (raising).2

Procedure of religious service at the time of raising

Pillars

According to Bharata the Brahmana column should be the

first to be raised and offering of Ghee well mixed with mustard,

should be made at this time. While erecting this pillar the entire

procedure of service should be gone through with white colour

articles and Pāyasam should be served to the Brāhmaṇas.

The Kṣatriya column should be raised. The Vaiśya column

should be raised in the north-western direction of the theatre and

all offerings should be made in yellow colour and rice with

Ghee should be served to Brāhmanas.

The Śūdra column should be raised in the north-eastern

direction. While erecting this pillar, entire procedure of service

should be gone through with blue coloured articles and Kṛsāra

should be distributed among the Brāhmaṇas.3

Karaṇa- Half of the lunar day (Tithi) they are eleven in number viz. 1.

Vava. 2. Vālava. 3. Kaulava. 4. Taitila. 5. Gara. 6 vanja. 7. Virte. 8.

Śakuni. 9. Cuterspada. 10. Nāga and 11. Kintughna and off these the

first seven and counted from the second half of the fourteenth day of the

Kṛṣṇa-pakṣa. They occur eight times in a month. The remaining

Karanas occur in the remaining duration of Tithis and appear only once

in a month. page 24 Footnote Nātyaśāstra Ed. M. M. Ghosh

1. Nātyaśāstra 2-48-49 B. H. U. P. , Varanasi.

2. एवं मानविधिं स्थापनविधिं भित्तिकर्मविधिं च कृत्वा स्तम्भविधि: कार्य इति दर्शयति

स्थापनमुच्च्र्रायणम् । — अभिनवभारती , पृ० १८० ।

3. Dr. Manmohan Ghosh clarifies in the footnote that the prescription of

colours indicates the characteristics of different castes, as follows :

Further Bharata states that in the base of Brāhmaṇa column referred to above, which is associated with white garments, flowers and chandan, gold used in ear-rings should be deposited. Copper below the Kṣatriya column, silver under the Vaiśya and iron in the base of Śūdra column should be deposited. Gold, however, may be deposited below the bases of all types of columns.1

The erection of the pillars should be done with loud recitals of the auspicious and purificative hymns alongwith shouting Jaya. The pillars to be erected are to be decorated with flowers and garlands. The pillars be raised after fully satisfying Brāhmiṇs with abundant gifts of Jewels, cows and garments etc.2

Faults in the erection of the Pillars and their consequences

The pillars should be so raised that they are firmly fixed and neither shake nor bend, nor they rotate. These defects have generally been pointed out in the process of erection of pillars.3

In this commentary, Abhinavagupta interprets ‘अचल’ as without movement which means that it should not budge from its position, ‘अकम्प्यम’ as ‘motionless’ and ‘अवैलीतम’ as incapable of being disfigured.4

Bharata further writes that if the pillar moves, drought will be the result, if it bends it will present a fear of death and if it Vibrates, terror from enemies is to be expected. Therefore the pillar should be auspiciously erected, keeping it free from the

1. White– Symbol of purity and learning, associated with the Brāhmiṇs.

2. Red– Symbol of energy and strength, associated with Kṣatriyas.

3. Yellow– Symbol of wealth (Gold), associated with the Vaiśyas.

4. Blue– Symbol of non-Āryan origin associated with the Śūdras.

p. 25 Footnote in Nātyaśāstra Ed. by M. M. Ghos.

1. Nātyaśāstra 2-54-56 B. H. U. P. , Varanasi.

2. Ibid 2-57-58 B. H. U. P. , Varanasi.

3. Ibid 2-59 B. H. U. P. , Varanasi.

4. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 182 B. H. U. P. , Varanasi.

above mentioned defects.1

At the time of erection of holy Brāhmaṇa stambha, gifts of

cows should be given when the other pillars are raised, the

builders should be fed. This food should be purified with recitals

of hymns and then served by wise Nāṭya-acārya. The Purohita

and the King should be fed with honey mixed pudding and the

remaining workers should be fed with mixed salt Kṛsara i.e. the

preparation of rice and pulses.2

Thus going through all the prescribed procedure, having

everything and everybody purified, chanting the appropriate

hymns with all the musical instruments of play, the pillars

should be erected.3

The hymns should address the pillars as ‘Oh Pillar, as

Sumeru mountain is firm and Himalaya strong, you too be like

wise firm and strong and help the King in his conquests.4

In the same manner, with solemn observance of the

procedures, the pillars, the doors, the walls and the green-room

should be constructed by men well versed in the art of

architecture.5

Śāradātanaya on types of theatre

Śāradātanaya defines a theatre as a place where the audience

derive pleasure through gestures of actors as also through songs,

instrumental music and dance. He says that the palace of a King

should have three kinds of theatre.6

1. Nāṭyaśāstra 2-60-61 B. H. U. P. , Varanasi.

2. Ibid. 2-62-64

3. Ibid 2-65

4. Ibid. 2-66.

5. Ibid 2-67.

6. यत्र रज्यन्ति भावेन (गानवादननतने:) ।

सभ्या: सभापति सखा: स देशो रञ्जमण्डप:॥

चतुश्रत्र्यश्रवृत्तभेदात्सौद्यि त्रिधा भवेत्। (६७)

— भावप्रकाशनम्, सं० मदन मोहन अग्रवाल, पृ० ४३०।

i) Vritta

ii) Caturasra and

iii) Tryasra

1. The theatre in which all the assembled citizens sing in a chorus with the King, is called the Vritta theatre.

2. The theatre in which courtiers, ministers, merchants, military, generals, princes and friends ring in a chorus with the King is called the Caturasra theatre.

3. The theatre in which the sacrificial priests, other priests, preceptors, members of the King's harem and the Chief queen sing in a chorus with the King is called Tryasra theatre.1

The musical setting in a Tryasra theatre should be of the Mārga Style2 , and in Caturasra it should be a bend of the ‘Mārga’ and ‘Deśī’ styles.3

In a Vritta theatre dance should be conducted to the mixed styles of Mārga and Deśī music.4

It is obviously Śāradātanaya’s classification is based on the natural musical settings.

Mattavāranī

Laying down the procedure for the construction of Mattavāranī, Bharata says that it should be constructed on the flanks of the Raṅgapīṭha.5 It should have four pillars and its size should keep proportion to the size of the Raṅgapīṭha.6

Bharata’s version with regard to the situation of Mattavāranī is quite confusing. Abhinavagupta has, in his annotation analyzed every term of Bharata and has attempted to

1. डॉ० मदन मोहन अग्रवाल— भावप्रकाशनम्, श्लोक सं० 68, 69, 70, p. 430-31 ।

2. मार्गप्रक्रियया कार्य संगीते नृश्रमंण्टपे। Ibid. p. 431।

3. चतुरसे मार्गदेशमितसङ्गीतकं भवेत्। — Ibid.

4. मित्रे तु चित्रं संयोज्यं वृत्ताख्ये रङ्गमण्डपे।। — Ibid.

5. रङ्गपीठस्य पायौ तु कर्तव्या मत्तवारणी। — नाट्यशास्त्र, 2-67।

6. चतुःस्तम्भसमायुक्ता रङ्गपीठप्रमाṇतः। — Ibid. 2-68।

clarify the exact situation of Mattavāranī. He refers to the word

‘पाश्र्व’ in the singular number occurring in the original verse of

Bharata and points out that Bharata has been silent about the

particular side of Rangapīṭha-right or left, where the

Mattavāranī is to be constructed. But subsequently in verse 65,

Bharata uses the term ‘तयोस्तुल्यम्’ wherein ‘तयो’ signifies ‘two’

Abhinavagupta feels that in this stage, through the use of ‘तयो’,

Bharata seems to be suggesting that Mattavāranī is to be

constructed on each of the left and right sides of the Rangapīṭ

ha.1

1. पाश्र्व इति। विशेषानुवादनतयोस्तुल्यम् इति च, द्विवचनाल्लिङ्गाद्विनोद्रयोः पाश्र्वयोरिति

लभ्यते। — अभिनवभारती, p. 183.

According to Bharata the Mattavāranī should be constructed

with four pillars.2 But he does not spell out the exact location of

the pillars. No indication in this regard is available in Bharata’s

verse. However Abhinavagupta indicates that these four pillars

for the Mattavāranī should be raised outside the area covered by

the mandapa.3 This means that two pillars should be located at

the two extremes of the wall of the Rangapīṭha eight (8) hastas

horizontally away from it. The other two pillars should be

located at a distance of another 8 hastas from the former pillars.

Thus the Mattavāranī would be eight hastas square.4

2. नाट्यशास्त्र, 2-681

3. स्तम्भाश्रितवारः बहिर्मण्डपात्रिष्कासनं कृत्या ध्रियन्ते मण्डपक्षेत्राद्रहि:

— अभिनवभारती, p. 1841

4. तेन भितिच्छेदावधौ स्तम्भद्वयम्। ततोडपि बहिर्भिस्तेरैष्टहस्तान्तरस्तम्भापेक्ष्याडप्यष्टहस्तान्तरं

स्तम्भद्वयमित्येतावदित्यष्टहस्ताविस्तारा समचतुरश्रा मत्तवारणी भवति।

— अभिनवभारती, p. 1841

Some interpreters erroneously conceive of the Mattavāranī

to be of rectangular shape. They seem to confuse Mattavāranī

with Rangapīṭha, because it is Rangapīṭha which is of the

rectangular shape measuring 8 hastas x 16 hastas.5

5. आयामस्तु प्रमाणमिति ये वदन्ति तेषां मते दैर्घ्यादष्टहस्तं विस्तारात् षोडशहस्तमित्येवं

विकृष्टता रङ्गपीठस्य भवति। — अभिनवभारती, p. 1841

According to Bharata the plinth level of Mattavāranī should be 1.5 hastas. The plinth level of the Rangapīṭha1 should also be the same.2

Abhinavagupta has, in his annotation referred to a still different opinion of some other commentators about the plinth level of Mattavāranī. According to that opinion the plinth level of Mattavāranī should be kept 1.5 hastas higher than that of the Rangapīṭha. Some other scholars are of the view that the plinth level of Mattavāranī and Rangapīṭha should be only one hasta and not 1.5 hastas.3

Abhinavagupta lays down that the plinth `levels of Mattavāranī and Rangapīṭha should be exactly the same. This indicates that the Rangapīṭha is supposed to be 1.5 hastas higher from the ground level of the auditorium. This clearly means that the Mattavāranī will present no obstruction or invisibility of the Rangapīṭha and entire acting on the stage will be perfectly clear to the view.4 This concept is supported by the expression singular number 'उत्सेधेन'. Otherwise the term उत्सेधाभ्याम (referring for two) should have been used.5 Hence the explicit use of the term तयोरुत्सेधेन and not तयोरुत्सेधाभ्यां indicates beyond any shadow of doubt that the Mattavāranī and the Rangapīṭha both having the same plinth level and the Mattavāranī will not obstruct the view of Rangapīṭha and thus the entire act of scene on the Rangapīṭha will be clearly visible.

1. However some commentators have used the word Rangamandapa in place of Rangapīṭha in this context. According to them the plinth level of the Rangapīṭha, the Mattavāranī and the Rangamandap are to be equal.

2. अध्यर्धहस्तोत्सेधेन कर्तव्या मतवारणी। उत्सेधेन तयोस्तुल्यं कर्तन्यं रङ्गमण्डपम्। — नाट्यशास्त्र, 2-69।

3. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 184, B. H. U. P., Varanasi.

4. तस्या एव यावानुत्सेधस्तावात्रपीठस्य। तेन बृह्नभूभागापेक्षया सार्धहस्त प्रमाणोत्तरतं रङ्गपीठमित्युक्तं भवति। तेन मतवारण्यालोकेन नाट्यर्थं रङ्गपीठस्थस्य दुष्ट्रेक्षता। — अभिनवभारती, p. 185

5. एतच्योत्सेधेनैत्येकवचनं सूचितम्। अन्यथोत्सेधाभ्यामित्युच्येत। Ibid.

Bharata is silent on this point of the use of Mattavāranī.

However a hint about the purpose of the Mattavāranī is

available in Abhinava's commentary. In chapter I of Nāṭya-

Śāstra, it has been specified that the Mattavāranī meant for the

King and others.1

It is, therefore, not injudicious to conclude that the

expression ‘Rangamandapa’ in place of Rangapīthakam is not

appropriate as Abhinavagupta has clearly highlighted the point

that the plinth level of Mattavāranī should be the same as that of

the Rangapīṭha. If the Rangamandapa (space meant for the

audience) is given the same plinth level as that of Mattavāranī

and Rangapīṭha, the whole effectiveness and appeal of the

drama will be act at nought. This never seems to be the idea of

Bharata. Therefore the views of Bharata and Abhinavagupta

both clearly hint out that the reading ‘Rangapīṭhakam’ is the

only correct one.

Bharata further says that while constructing the

Mattavāranī, offerings of foodstuffs palatable to the devils and

of different kinds of flowers, garlands, garments, incense and

other fragrant articles should be made.2

Skilled architect should deposit iron in the base of the pillars

to be constructed for Mattavāranī and Brāhmaṇas should be fed

with rice and pulses cooked together.3

The Mattavāranī should thus be constructed with due

offerings, garments etc. to the gods.4

The text of Bharata and Abhinava commenting on the same,

this make the position of Mattavāranī clear to a great extent still

certain points remain unanswered. What exactly this word

Mattavāranī means. What exact location and size does it

occupy? Is it provides in a theatre single or on both sides? These

1. पार्श्वे स्वयमिति। राजादेष्टस्थानमित्युक्तम्। — अभिनवभारती, p. 99.

2. Nāṭyaśāstra 2-69-70.

3. Ibid. 70-71.

4. Ibid. 2-72.

24

questions have posed a problem to the scholars. Among the

modern scholars Dr. Mankad, Prof. Subba Rao and Prof. Bhanu

etc. have tried to seek answers to these questions and to

establish their own views about them, and they are discussed in

the following Chapter.

Rañgaśīrṣa and Ṣaḍḍāruka

Having laid down the procedure for construction of the

Mattavāraṇī, Bharata goes on to discuss the construction of

Rangapīṭha and Rañgaśīrṣa. He rules that the Rañgaśīrṣa should

be constructed in accordance with the science of architecture

and should be built with six wooden pieces1 and with a green-

room having two doors opening in the Rañgaśīrṣa.2

While Bharata, in the above verse vouches for the provision

of Ṣaḍḍāruka for the Rañgaśīrṣa, he does not elucidate the term

Ṣaḍḍāruka. Abhinavagupta's commentary comes to the help of

scholars here. While discussing the construction of the Rangapīṭ

ha, he first of all takes its upper portion called as Rangaśīrṣa

and clarifies the first position of Ṣaḍḍāruka saying that two

pillars should be erected each at a distance of eight hastas from

the two walls of the green-room and then two other each at a

distance of four hastas from the former pillars each towards the

side walls. One wooden beam be provided each under and over

these pillars. Thus making a total of six wooden pieces.3 See Fig

Thus the term Ṣaḍḍāruka means a structure made of six

wooden pieces. Commenting further on Ṣaḍḍāruka,

Abhinavagupta says that other interpreters present the shape of

Ṣaḍḍāruka with two pillars attached to the side walls having a

beam each below and above them and another set of two pillars

in the remaining space at equal distance from one another.4 See

Fig. 15

Abhinavagupta a gives yet another interpretation of

1. रङ्गशीर्षन्तु कर्तव्यं षड्डारुकसमन्वितम्। — नाट्यशास्त्र, 2-73।

2. कार्यं द्वारदयं चात्र नेपथ्यग्रहकस्य तु। उपरिवत्, 2-74।

3. अभिनवभारती, p. 185।

4. यत्र षड्डारुकि तत्सड्डारुकम्। — अभिनवभारती, p. 185।

Saddāruka attributed to stall other group of interpreters and using some technical terms he says that 1. Ūha 2. Pratyūha 3. Nirvyūha 4. Vyūha 5. Samyūha and 6 Samūha are the six names of wooden pieces used in Ṣaḍḍāruka.1 See Fig. 15

Ūha is that wooden piece which extends a little on either sides of the pillars. The wooden pieces (Tula) placed above the Ūha and again extending a little on either sides of them are known as Pratyūha. The wooden plank covering the space horizontally in between the Tulas is known as Nirvyūha. Again the wooden pieces fixed in vertical orders to cover the space in between Ūhas are called Vyūhas. The pillars having figures of elephants, serpents and lions engraved on them are called Samūha and the wooden plank in the base having mountains, city, groves, caves etc. engraved on it is known as Samyūha. Thus the wooden pieces having the above six technical names constitute the Ṣaḍḍāruka.2

The term Ṣaḍḍāruka has been explained by other modern scholars also. Their views are discussed in the following chapter.

Having described the various features of the Ṣaḍḍāruka, Abhinavagupta further says that Rañgaśīrṣa may have any of the three kinds of Ṣaḍā̄ruka but in every case two doors, one each to the south and the north must be provided to enable entrance and exit of the actors according to their individual moods. So Abhinavagupta lays down that the green-room should have two doors one in the north and other in the south. Both these doors should be curved like the elbow. This will take care of keeping the entrance and exit of the actors out of the view of the audience. The Rañgaśīrṣa should thus be erected to land a grace to the stage.

Bharata further lays down that black soil carefully greased

1. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 186, B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

2. Ibid.

3. रङ्गस्य शोभावये रङ्गशिरः: कार्यम्। — अभिनवभारती, p. 186.

from lumps, grass and pebbles with the help of plough be used

for filling the under plinth portion of the Rañgaśīrṣa.1

An white oxen should be harnessed to the plough while the

ploughman should not be invalid or handicapped.2 The earth

should be carried by robust and well built persons in new

baskets.

Thus the construction of the Rañgaśīrṣa should be carried

through with utmost care and attention.3

The Surface of the Rañgaśīrṣa

About the surface of the Rañgaśīrṣa Bharata opines that it

should be neither like the back of a tortoise nor like that of a fish

by perfectly plans like a mirror as that type is considered an

ideal one.4

Clarifying the terms ‘Kūrmapṛṣṭha’ and ‘Matsyapṛṣṭha’,

Abhinavagupta says that a surface sloping on all sides like the

back of a tortoise and a little raised in the centre is called

‘Kūrmapṛṣṭha’. Likewise a surface sloping on both sides like the

back of a fish and long in the centre is called ‘Matsyapṛṣṭha’.

The Rañgaśīrṣa should have neither of these types of surfaces

but a perfectly plain one like that of a mirror.5

Bharata further lays down that diamonds and stones should

be studied in the Rañgaśīrṣa by skilled craftsman. Hirā should

be placed in its eastern portion, Sphatic in western portion,

Pravāla (Moṅgā) in northern, and Vaidūrya in the southern

portions. Gold should be placed in the centre.6

1. Nātyaśāstra 2-74-75 B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

2. Ibid 2-75-76.

3. Ibid 2-77.

4. कूर्मपृष्ठं न कर्तव्यं मत्स्यपृष्ठं तथैव च।

शुद्धदर्शतलाकारं रङ्गशीर्षं प्रशस्यते ॥ — नाट्यशास्त्र 2-77-78 ।

5. कूर्मपृष्ठमिति— समन्ततो निम्नं मध्ये च वर्तुलरूपं मनदम्। तत्तादृगेव मध्ये दीर्घरूपं

मत्स्यपृष्ठम्। तदुभयं नात्र कार्यम्। — अभिनवभारती , p. 187 ।

6. Nātyaśāstra 2-78 -79.

27

Woodwork and Stage-decoration

After constructing the Rañgaśīrṣa in this manner, wood-work with varied craft incorporating the Ūha and Pratyūha ought to be taken up and the panels (of the Doors etc.) would be decorated with carvings of elephants, serpents etc.1 The doors should be decorated with perfectly beautiful statues and the Vedī with pictures and figures carved out and engraved respectively in Niryūhas and Kuhara styles.2

The ventilators3 and apertures of different shapes should be effected in various styles and the pillars be provided with beautiful beams with provision for Kapotālī-projected space as seat for pigeons. The floor could be laid artistically and embellished with pillars.

The wood-work thus finished wall decorations with various devices should be taken up. No pillar, peg4, aperture, window or corner should exit in front of a door nor there should be any two doors facing each other.5

Shape of Theatre

With regard to the shape of the theatre Bharata further lays down that it should be constructed like a mountain-cave and with Dvi-bhūmi.6

It is not clear from the above quoted verse what Bharata

1. Abhinavagupta says that some crities indulge indiscussion for the make of discussion about the meaning of the Ūha-Pratyūha.

— Abhinava-bhāratī p. 188. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

2. Nātyaśāstra 2-80-81.

3. Accoıding to Abhinavagupta the ventilators should have squared and octagonal openings and apratures circular one.

— Abhinava-bhāratī p. 188.

4. Nagdant means the peg fixed either to the upper or the lower edge of the pillars. Some people use the term ‘Gajmukh’ for Nagdant, which was fixed for hanging effigies or pictures. - Abhinava-bhāratī p.189.

5. Nātyaśāstra 2-85.

6. कार्य: शैलगुहाकारो द्विभूमिरनोऽप्यमण्डप:। - नाट्यशास्त्र, 2-85।

exactly means by the term ‘Dvi-Bhūmi’. In the light of the

opinions of various scholars, Abhinavagupta has given different

interpretations of this term in his annotations.

One such interpretation is that the theatre should be

constructed with two floors-one in the portion constructing the

Rañganīṭha and the other below it. 1 Others express the view that

another wall, its distance from the main wall corresponding with

the length of the Mattavāranī, should be constructed around the

theatre just like the space provided and goddesses, for the

devotes to take rounds.2

According to a third set of interpreters the term ‘dvi-bhūmi’

stands for two storeys of the theatre.3

Some interpreters going for a little interpolation, say that

the reading should “शैलगुहाडक़ारो” i.e. they add ‘अ’ to the term

‘दृभूमि’ and then say that the theatre should not have two floors

meaning thereby that should be constructed single storeyed. 4

Referring to his teacher’s interpretations of the term-Dvi-

bhūmi Abhinava says that Dvibhūmī means a floor successively

rising in the form of stairs from near the Rañgapīṭha and then

finally gaining the height of the Rañgapīṭha near the door.

Seating arrangement on a floor of this type will be convenient to

the audience and their view to the stage will not be obstructed.5

On examining these different interpretations of ‘Dvi-bhūmi’

theater, it appears that Abhinavagupta agrees with the view of

his teacher. This conclusion is well-borne out by further

statement of Abhinavagupta himself. Describing the seating

arrangement for the audience in a Caturasra theatre

1. द्वे भूमी रङ्गपीठस्याधस्तनोपरितनरूपेणैव केचित्।

2. मण्डपभित्तेर्बीहिनिर्गतमच्चवारणी प्रमाणेन सर्वतो द्वितीयाभित्तिनिवेशेन देवप्रासादाट्टालिका

प्रदक्षिण सदृशो द्वितीया भूमिरित्यने। —उपरिवत, p. 189 ।

3. उपरि मण्डपान्तरनिवेशनादित्यपरे। — अभिनवभारती, p. 189 ।

4. अद्विभूमिरित्यके। — अभिनवभारती, p. 189 ।

5. उपाध्यायास्तु वीप्सागर्म व्याचक्षते। द्वे द्वे भूमी यत्र निम्मात इति ततोऽप्युनतता इति क्रमेण

रङ्गपीठ निकटात्प्रभृति द्वारपर्यन्तं यावद्रङ्गपीठोत्त्सेधतुल्योत्त्सेधा भवति। एवं हि

परम्परानाच्छादन सामानिविकानाम् । — अभिनवभारती, p. 189-190 ।

Abhinavagupta says that seats should be provided to the

audience at a good distance from all the pillars, because if they

are seated very near them, their view to the stage will be

obstructed. On the other hand, the seats being away from the

pillars, the audience will have a clear and convenient view to the

stage. It is with this end in view that ‘Dvi-bhūmi’ type of floor

has been prescribed for a theater.1

Commenting on like mountain cave shape, Abhinava

remarks that it would result in the steadiness of sound.2

Dealing the question of white lotion Bharata suggests that

provision of ventilators capable of imporing light and air should

necessarily be made so that the theatre stands free from the

possible passage of strong air and causes the sound to gain

appropriate pitch and depth to such a theatre as Bharata further

says would be able to give a depth and magnitude to the voices

and sounds of the ‘Kutupas’.3

Abhinavagupta defines the term Kutupa in the light of his

own and other critics interpretations.

The group of singers, instrumental musicians and others

who have conversation among themselves is called Kutupa. In

order to justify his co-relation of the word ‘Kutup’ with singers

and musicians Abhinavagupta explains the etymology of the

word-‘Ku’ means the stage. Tup stands for beauty and grace. So

the group which lends beauty and grace to the stage is Kutupa.4

The announcers, singers and musicians are definitely the

source of grace to the stage. According to other critics ‘Kuta’

means sound and the group that is responsible for controlling the

sound arrangement on the stage is ‘Kutupa’ the sound inside the

1. बहिः: सामाजिकासनानि सर्वेभ्यो वा बहिः। अतिसामीप्ये दृश्यविघातात्। अत एवंाह

रङ्गपीठावलोकने साधुभूतमिति। अननेन द्विभूमित्वमेवानुसंहितम्।

— अभिनवभारती, p. 193.

2. शैलगुहाकारत्वं स्थिरशब्दादित्यं भवति । — अभिनवभारती, p. 190।

3. नाट्यशास्त्र, 2-86-87।

4. कृतप: सफेटकगायकवादकसमूहः। कुरण्ट्यभूमिस्तत्पति उज्ज्वलयतीति कृत्या।

— अभिनवभारती, p. 190।

theatre gains depth and strength though its movement and echo.1

Coming to the outer finishing of the walls, Bharata says that they should be carefully plastered with lime and rendered perfectly plain, bright and smooth through bubbing thereafter. Then pictures displaying men and women in their peculiar life styles should be painted and thus the builder should build a rectangular theatre. See Figure No. 12.

1. कुत शब्दं पातीत्यने। गम्भीरत्वं तत्रैव शब्दस्य भ्रमणादन्योन्यप्रतिश्रुतिकारसमारम्भ-सम्पूणाच्च। - अभिनवभारती, p. 190 ।

CHAPTER - 2

CATURASRA THEATRE

After laying down the procedure for the construction of the Vikṛṣṭha theatre, Bharata passes on to discuss the characteristics of the Caturasra theatre.

A thing discussed and analysed at one place should be correspondingly interpreted at the other place. According to this rule, Abhinavagupta says, that though with the construction of the vikṛṣṭa maṇḍapa, the caturasra maṇḍapa can also be grasped, yet I will repeat the procedure to make it clear with this and in view, Bharata says 'पुनरेख' and with the word 'पुन:' he begins to describe the characteristics of the caturasra maṇḍapa.1

Here a question arises-no mention has been made of the pillars setting and seating arrangement in the vikṛṣṭa theatre; then how can they be understood? Abhinavagupta resolves its question in his annotation on the word पुन: according to him, the characteristics related to the caturasra theatre should be correspondingly applied to the vikṛṣṭa theatre also. This means that the pillars-setting and the seating arrangement described for caturasra theatre should cover the vikṛṣṭa theatre also. Thus the characteristics of vikṛṣṭa theatre do not remain incomplete. Similarly the characteristics of the vikṛṣṭa theatre should be correspondingly applied to the caturasra theatre which seems to be the meaning of word 'पुन:'. Thus the defects of 'Atideś' and 'Anāgtapekṣaṇa' are dissolved.2

Discussing the characteristics of the Caturasra maṇḍapa, Bharata lays down that people well-versed in the dramatic-art

1. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 191. B. H. U. Press, Varanasi.

2. तथा यदस्य लक्षणमुक्तं तच्चतुरस्रेऽपि संचारिणी यमिति पुनशब्देन दर्शयति। तेनातिदेशमनागतापेक्षणाख्यं तत्र योजयति।

—Abhinava-bhāratī p. 191-192. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

should construct a square-shape theatre on an auspicious piece

of land measuring 32x32 hastas.1

The procedures, characteristics and sacred rites laid down in

the context of the vikr̥ṣṭa theatre will be strictly followed at

different stages while constructing a caturasra theatre.2

At first, the four corners of the caturasra land should be

adjusted to right angles. Thereafter the land should be divided as

per the site plan. Then a strong brick wall should be constructed

on its outer side.3

With reference to the term ‘तत्राभ्यान्तर’– Abhinavagupta raises

a question if a wall is to be constructed on the outer side, what

should be done on the inner side?4

According to Bharata on the inner side of the Nātya-

maṇḍapa, first of all, ten pillars strong enough to support the

lintel of the theatre, should be constructed by the builders on the

portion marked for the stage.5

According to Abhinavagupta, in the caturasra theatre

measuring 32x32 hastas the length and the breadth each is to be

divided into eight sections so as to have sixty four squares like

those of a chess-board6, the stage measuring 8x8 hastas i.e. in

the square shape being exactly in the centre. Thus there remains

a space of 12 Hastas to the east and west sides and of 32 Hastas

to the north and south sides of the stage. Then the Raṅgaśīrṣa

1. समनततलः कर्तव्यो हस्ता द्वात्रिंशदेव हि।

शुभभूमौनिवेशस्य नाट्यशालाविमण्डपः॥

—Nātyaśāstra 2-91-92. chow. Ed.

2. Ibid 2-92,93.

3. ‘चतुरसं समं कृत्वा सूत्रेण प्रविभज्य च’।

'वाहयत: सर्वतः कार्याभितः शिल्पष्टकादृढा'।

—Nātyaśāstra 2-93, 94.

4. Abhinava-bhāratī p 192. B. H. U. P., Varanasi.

5. दश प्रयोकृतृभिः स्तम्भाः शस्ता मण्डपाधरणे'।

Ibid 2-95 chow-adition.

6. अष्टभिर्भागैः सर्वत्र क्षेत्रं विभजेत्। येन चतुरङ्गफलकवच्चतुस्तुष्टिकोष्ठं भवति।

Abhinava-bhāratī p. 192. B. H. U. P., Varanasi.

measuring 4x32 and equipped with

'ṣaḍḍāruk' should be constructed just to the west of the stage

and successively again to the west of the Rangaśīrṣa, the green-

room measuring 8x32 hastas should be constructed.1

After construction of the stage, the Rangaśīrṣa and green-

'ṣaḍḍāruk' should be raised keeping in mind the centre position of

the stage. Of these ten pillars, four are to be raised on the four

corners of the stage and the fifth should be raised at a distance of

four hastas to the south of the 'āgneya stambh'. Likewise the sixth

pillar should be raised again at a distance of four hastas to the

south of the 'naiṛṛta stambh'. Then another two pillars should be

symmetrically erected to the north of the stage. The remaining

two pillars are to be constructed to the east of the 'āgneya' and

'īśān' pillars at a distance of four hastas. These six pillars in

addition to the four already constructed on the four corners of

the stage make the total of ten pillars.2

Thereafter Bharata writes that an auditorium of wood or

brick-work, beyond the pillars and having the shape of stair-case

should be constructed for seating the audience.3 The seats should

be set at a height of one hasta from the floor so that the stage

may be perfectly visible to the audience.4

Analysing the seating arrangement in his annotation,

Abhinavagupta writes that seats for the spectators should be

constructed well beyond the pillars.5 If they are very near the

pillars, visibility to the stage will be obstructed, and construction

of seats beyond the pillars will facilitate a clear view of the

1 Abhinava-bhāratī p. 192-193. B. H U. Press, Varanasi.

2 Ibid p 193.

3. 'स्तम्भानां बाध्रातश्रापि सोपानाकृतिपीठकम्॥'

'इष्टकादारुभिः कार्यं प्रेक्षकाणां निवेशनम्॥'

—Nāṭyaśāstra 2-95-96. chow. Ed.

4. हस्‍तप्रमाणैरुत्‍सेधैर्भूमिभाग समुत्‍सयतेः।

—Nāṭyaśāstra 2-96.

5. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 193.

acting and scenes or the stage. It is for this reason that the

system of construction of double-floor theatre (द्विभूमि नाट्यमण्डप)

has been recommended.1

Then Bharata writes that six more pillars strong enough to

support the lintel should be constructed on appropriate spots by

builders well versed in the theory of pillar construction.2

Abhinavagupta makes an attempt to spot out the position of

these six pillars. He says that two of these pillars should be

constructed at a distance of four hastas to the south of the earlier

two pillars standing in this direction of the stage. The third pillar

is to be constructed at the diagonal end to the East-South of the

earlier pillars already standing four hastas to the East of the

stage. Another set of the remaining three pillars should likewise

be symmetrically constructed to the North and North-East

direction of the stage.3

Bharata further says that another set of eight pillars should

be constructed thereafter. Beams measuring eight hastas each

should be placed on them in a way that their front portions are

jointed to one another.4

Abhinavagupta specifies the location of these eight pillars as

below: One pillar should be erected at a distance of four hastas

both from the southern wall and the pillar erected earlier to the

north of the southern wall. In the same manner another pillar

should be erected to the south of the northern wall. Then, from

the centre of the eastern wall, two pillars should be erected on

each of its sides at a distance of four hastas each. This makes

the total of eight pillars.5

1. ‘अतिसामीप्ये दृष्टिविघातात्। अत एवंाह रङ्गपीठावलोकने साधुभूतमिति। अनেন

हिभूमित्त्वमेवानुसहितम्।’

Ibid p. 193. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

2. Nātyaśāstra 2-97.

3. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 194. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

4. ‘अष्टौ स्तम्भान्नुनश्रिव तेषामुपरि कल्पयेत्।

विद्धास्यमष्टहस्तं च पीठं तेषु ततौ न्यसेत्॥’

-Nātyaśāstra 2-98. chow. Ed.

5. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 194.

35

According to Abhinavagupta the beams should be made with lotus flowers etc. engraved on their front sides.1 Thus he lays down the pattern of pillars in a caturasra mandapa. The vikr̥ṣṭa and Tryasra mandapas should also be judiciously designed on these lines. This is the view of ancient critics like Śrī Śaṅkuka etc.2

Other critics draw the interpretation from ‘स्तम्भ-पुनश्र', that these eight pillars should be erected in the green-room.3 This means there is controversy among critics on this point. Abhinavagupta is of the view that the eight pillars should be erected in the auditorium but other critics disagree with this view. They say that these pillars should be erected in the green-room. Acārya Viśveśvara interprets the word 'अन्य' as 'भट्टोद्धट'4 Abhinavagupta has produced support to his view about the arrangement of the pillars from the view of 'वातिककार'.

According to 'वातिककार' the arrangement of pillars is like this-out of the first ten pillars, two should be erected inside the green-room, four on the Raṅgapīṭha and four on the corners. This makes a total of ten pillars.5

Then out of the eight pillars, four should be fixed on the two sides of the Raṅgapīṭha i.e. in between the Raṅgapīṭha viz. the Raṅgaśīrṣa in the earlier pillars at a distance of four hastas. Out of the remaining four pillars, two should be erected to the east and another two to the west of the Raṅgpīṭha. Thus should the erection of the pillars be fashioned.6

1. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 194.

2. ‘तमेव विकृष्टे त्रिकोणेपु स्वबुद्धया योजयेदिति श्रीशङ्कुकाद्याः!’ Ibid p. 195.

3. अन्ये तु - ‘अष्टौ स्तम्भान्पुनश्र' इति नेपथ्यागृहविषयाने तानाहुः। Ibid p. 195.

4. Hindi Abhinava-bhāratī p. 352. Delhi University Publication.

5. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 195.

6. Ibid p. 195.

The remaining six pillars should be judiciously erected in

the remaining space. This is what the shāstra's means.1

However, in every case the distance between the pillar and a

wall or another pillar should be at the north of eight hastas. On

arranging pillars in this fashion the whole of the Rangapītha will

be perfectly visible. In the auditorium the rows of seats should

be made in a successively rising order like a stair-case so that

the audience may conveniently see the Rangapītha.

Abhina:ragupta says that so many opinions are available

about the arrangement of pillars but they are not being discussed

here for fear of undue expansion of this volume.2

Among the modern scholars Dr. Subba Rao and Dr. Km.

Godawari Ketkar have given their own views about the pillar-

arrangement.

Abhinavagupta now proceeds to describe the pillar

arrangement according to his teacher 'भट्टता ते उपाध्याय' who

divides the theatre into three parts.3 (1) The auditorium meant

for seating the audience, (2) Rangapītha and (3) Rangasīrṣa. All

these parts have their own pillar-arrangement. Abhinavagupta

describes that arrangement in details. While arranging the pillars

of the auditorium its width measuring 12 hastas, they should be

erected at a distance of 4 hastas each. Two pillars should be

erected at a distance of 12 hastas each from the walls having a

distance of 8 hastas in between them. Both these pillars should

be so erected that neither of them is located in front of the gate,

so that the grace of the gate is not spoiled by any pillar

obstructing the direct view inside. Thus the ten pillar should be

erected under the five beams.4 This is the fourth type of

1. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 195.

2. अन्येऽपि चेष्टविधा बहवः प्रवादा ग्रन्थविस्तरभयात्रलिखिताः।

Ibid p. 195.

3. अयं चात्र सार इत्युपाध्यायाः। इह प्रेक्षामण्डपस्य त्रिधा कल्पना कृता। अधोभूमिः,

रङ्गपीठं, रङ्गं इति।

Ibid p. 196.

4. अन्योन्यं तयोरन्तरं तथा कार्यं येन द्वारविततता न भवति। इत्येवं पञ्चतुलासु दश।

-Ibid p. 196.

arrangement of the ten pillars.

Thus after determining the location of the ten pillars in the

auditorium, in the next stage the 6 pillars should be located on

the Rangapīṭha and near about it. Abhinavagupta further

analyses their location on the lines of ‘भट्टतौत उपाध्याय’.1

In this context the arrangement has been described with the

expression ‘षडान्येन इति’. In continuation, Abhinavagupta says

‘तेषामुपरि’, which means that one pillar should be erected on the

Rangapīṭha to the North-west of the green-room. The other

pillar should be erected in the rear portion of the Rangapīṭha,

known as Rangaśīrṣa. The use of singular noun here signifies

the erection of only one pillar But the original text gives the

number of 6 pillars. Abhinavagupta resolves this contradiction

with the argument that just as ‘जात्यभिप्राय’ is expressed as s

singular expression, on the same lines singular noun has been

used to signify a pillar-group. Thus there stands a pillar in every

corner of the Rangapīṭha measuring 32 hastas. So there will be

four pillars in the four corners. Thereafter two more pillars

should be constructed making a total of six pillars. They should

have a distance of four hastas in between them.

After determining the position of ten pillars of the

auditorium and six of the Rangapīṭha. Abhinavagupta in the

next stage proceeds to determine the position of the eight pillars.

‘श्री भट्टोत’ has placed these 8 pillars on the Rangaśīrṣa.

Abhinavagupta describes their position-with the expression-

‘रंगपीठं परित’ which means ‘Ranga’. Here the term ‘रङ्ग’ signifies ‘रङ्ग

शिर:’, ‘परि’ being transitive here means ‘वर्जन’ i.e. ‘Away from’ or

‘at a distance from’. Therefore those pillars should be erected

inside the mandapa and away from the Rangapīṭha. Behind the

Rangapīṭha, there exists a covered portion of 32x12 hastas.

In this portion there exists the Rangaśīrṣa (near the Rangapīṭ

a) measuring 4x32 hastas. Two beams should be placed on this

portion. Then four pillars at a distance of 8 hastas each should

1. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 197.

be erected under each of the two beams. Thus these pillars

erécted under the beams on both the sides make a total of 8 on

the Rañgaśīrṣa. Besides cone-shaped door should be constructed

in the central space of four hastas.1

Then, again on the lines of ‘भट्टतोट’, Abhinavagupta gives

details of the seating arrangement for the spectators, away from

the 10 pillars inside the auditorium. He says that the seating

arrangement described earlier is to be followed here also. Upto

this stage we have covered the pillars arrangement on the lines

of ‘भट्टतोट’.

Interpreting the term ‘तैशामुपरि कल्पयेत’ occurring in the

original verse with relation to the 8 pillars, भट्टतोट says that the 8

pillars should be erected on the Rañgaśīrṣa situated at a higher

level than the Rangapīṭha. Thus he equates the term ‘उपरि’ with

‘higher level’ which means ‘Śīrṣa’.2 This goes to show that the

Rangapīṭha and the Rañgaśīrṣa do not have the same ground

level. This is confirmed by the versions of Bharata and

Abhinavagupta also. Abhinavagupta while interpreting the term

‘उपरि’ as the ‘higher portion’ says in the same context that in a

vikṛṣṭa theatre the Rañgaśīrṣa should have a higher ground level

than the Rangapīṭha. This version confirms the above mentioned

interpretation of भट्टतोट.

Further on भट्टतोट specifically comments ‘तत्र नियमादृष्ट स्तम्भा

न्यास्यन्ते’.3 This means that these pillars should be essentially

‘नियमात’ erected on the Rañgaśīrṣa. This makes it clear that while

the location of other pillars may be altered,there is no scope of

making any alteration in the location of these 8 pillars.

According to Abhinavagupta, the number of pillars may

even be larger in a vikṛṣṭa maṇḍap.4

1. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 198-199.

2. रङ्गपीठस्य यदुपरि शिरोरूपमित्यर्थः।

Ibid p. 199.

3. तत्र नियमादृष्टस्तम्भा न्यसन्ते। अपि तु दृढा न्यसनीया इति दर्शयति।

Ibid. p. 199.

4. Ibid. p. 197.

After discussing the pillar arrangement, Bharata further says

that skilled decorators should decorate with wooden figures, the

strong pillars erected for giving support to the beams and the

theatre as s whole.1

Then Bharata discusses the construction of the green-room

and says that the green-room should be wisely constructed and

should be provided with two identical doors opening in the

Rangapīṭha.2 See Fig. 13.

The Doors arrangement in a Caturasra maṇḍapa

Abhinavagupta has very elaborately described the pillars

scheme citing the views of a numbers of scholars. Then after

briefly describing the construction of the green-room, he now

proceeds to analyse the door-arrangement.

Bharata Muni, in Verse No. 101 lays down 'द्वारं चेकं भवेतत्र

रंगपीठ प्रवेश्नम्' this sentence (expression) hints out the existence of

one door for entrance to the Rangapīṭha. But this sentence, by

itself, stands inconsistent to the second verse of Chapter No. 13

of Bharata Muni quoted by Abhinavagupta. There he says 'ये

नेपथ्यगृहकशैव ततः कार्य प्रयत्नत:

द्वारं चैकं भवेतत्र रंगपीठ - प्रवेशने।। — Nāṭyaśāstra 2-100.

नेपय्य गृह द्वारे मया पूर्व प्रकीर्तित ते' which signifies the existence of two

doors but in verse Ni. 101, it is only one door. Abhinavagupta

has tried to resolve this inconsistency in his annotation. He has

interpreted the singular 'द्वारं' as 'जातावेकवचनम्' i.e. one type and

has inferred that there should be two doors of exactly the same

type. But the inconsistency is still not resolved. Bharata Muni in

his expression 'द्वारं चैकं भवेतत्र' has not only used the singular 'द्वार'

but has also explicitly used the word 'एकं'. So perfect

correspondence between Verse No. 101 of II Chapter and Verse

No. 2 of Chapter 13 is not established even by interpreting the

word 'द्वारं' as type oriented (जातिपरक). Then in order to bring out

a consistency between the two verses, Abhinavagupta writes that

here the word 'एकं ' has been written to signify a group. The door

1. तत्र स्तम्भा: प्रदातव्यास्तज्जौर्मण्डपधारणो।

धारणौधारणासते च शालस्त्रोभिरलंकृता:।। — Nāṭyaśāstra 2-99.

2. नेपथ्यगृहकशैव ततः कार्य प्रयत्नत:

द्वारं चैकं भवेतत्र रंगपीठ - प्रवेशने।। — Nāṭyaśāstra 2-100.

group has been prescribed with the intention of laying down a

system for the entry of the actors. The point has been further

elaborated in ‘कक्षाध्याय’ of his work. It has also been discussed

earlier that the singers and musicians are to be seated in between

the two doors of the green-room.1

Bharata only prescribes the construction of two doors in the

green-room without pointing out their exact position.

Abhinavagupta has also maintained silence on this point.

However Bharata Muni, while making the provision of two

doors in the green-room does lay down that arrangement for

seating the singers and musicians should be made in between

these two doors. This gives a clue to the position of the doors. It

appears that they are to be provided in the wall between the

Rangaśīrṣa and the green-room at equidistant distance on either

sides of the centre of the wall. It is a known fact that

arrangement of music was made on the space between these two

doors. In Chapter 34 also Bharata has provided for the seating

arrangement of musicians on the Rangaśīrṣa.2 There are some

specific views for the entry and exit of the actors through these

doors. Bharata has given the rules in Chapter 13 of his

Nāṭyaśāstra.

After making a mention of the two doors of the green-room,

Bharata proceeds on to discuss about the other doors and says

that the ‘जनप्रवेशनम’ should be made through the front door-

another door should be provided infront of the stage.

Abhinavagupta, while clarifying the position of this third

door interprets Bharata’s ‘जनप्रवेशम’ as ‘entry of the actors’ and

says that there should be a third door in the green-room through

which the actors with their wives and family may pass.3 Then

1. ये नेपथ्यगृहद्वारे मया पूर्वं प्रकीर्तिते।

तयोभाण्डस्य विन्यासो मध्ये कार्यः प्रयोक्तृभिः॥ —Nāṭyaśāstra 14-2. chow. Ed.

2. जनप्रवेशनं चान्द्राभिमुखं कार्येत।

रङ्गस्याभिमुखं कार्यं द्वारमेव तु॥ —Nāṭyaśāstra 2-101. chow. Ed.

3. जनप्रवेशनं च तृतीयद्वारेण नेपथ्यगृहस्य। येन भार्यामादाय नटपरिवारः प्रविशति।

—Abhinava-bhāratī p. 197.

there is the mention of having one more door to the east direction These doors are supposed to be for the entry of the 'Janatā',1-its not very clear whether Janatā here means the audience or the set of actors. Abhinavagupta himself raises a question on this suggestion-from which position the eastern direction is to be determined for this other door. But further on Abhinavagupta himself comes forward with answer and says that the east and other directions should be determined according to 'क्ष्यविभाग'2 which we will discuss in the 13th chapter-'क्ष्याध्याय'-the side ear-marked (reserve) for the placement of the musical instruments should be taken as the eastern direction in the theatrical context.3

Thus the theatre should have the above discussed four doors-

The above discussion reveals that the exact position of the two doors suggested by Bharata is not very clear. Abhinavagupta in his commentary, has made an attempt to define the exact position of the doors and he has been successful to a large extend in doing so. One thing is very clear both from Bharata and Abhinavagupta that there are to be two doors, one for the entry of the actors and the other for the audience.

Bharata writes in one of his verse-'जनप्रवेशनं चान्यदाभिमुख्येन कारयेत्'4 this suggest that the audience should be made to enter by the front door. Abhinavagupta has interpreted the term 'जनप्रवेशनं च तृतीयद्वारेण नेपथ्यगृहस्य'5 in his commentary as-'जनप्रवेशनं च तृतीयद्वारेण नेपथ्यगृहस्य', this means that entry of the actors should be arranged

1. अन्यतु द्वाराभिमुख्येन पूर्वस्यां दिशि, कुर्यात्। द्वारवृत्या सामाजिक जनप्रवेशायंम्।

—Abhinava-bhāratī p. 197.

2. कक्ष्यापेक्षयैव पूर्वादिदिगत्युक्तम्। Ibid 197.

3. यतो मुखं भवेद्भाण्डद्वारं नेपथ्यकस्य तु। सा मन्तव्या तु दिक् पूर्वा नाट्ययोगे विपक्षिता।

—Nātyaśāstra 13-11.B. H. U. P. Varanasi

4. Nāṭyaśāstra 2-101. chow. Edition.

5. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 197. B. H. U. P., Varanasi.

through the third door of the green-room. At the same time he

also suggests that the actors along with their women and family

should enter through that door.

Thus Abhinavagupta's commentary gives a hint that he has

interpreted Bharata's 'जनप्रशेन' as 'the entry of the actors and their

families'. Bharata suggests that the third door of the green-room

is for the entry of 'Janatā'. It is a well known fact that only the

actors remaining inside the green-room and they alone can use

this door. 'जनप्रवेशन' can never be interpreted as entry of the

audience because there is no question of the audience to pass

through the green-room. Thus Abhinavagupta's interpretation

that the third door is meant for the actors seems to be quite

appropriate.

With regard to the fourth door, Bharata suggests that it

should be opposite the stage.1 Abhinavagupta writes in his

commentary that another door should be constructed towards the

east. This door is meant for the entry of the audience.2 This

statement of Abhinavagupta gives a hint that this fourth door

through which the audience is supposed to pass should be the

main door. This is what Bharata seems to mean when he says

that the fourth door should be opposite to the stage. This

establishes that the main door in the auditorium is to exist

exactly opposite to the stage.

So the one view, according to the Abhinavagupta is that a

theatre has four doors-two in between the green-room and the

Rangaśīrṣa, third in the green-room and the fourth in the

auditorium.

Abhinavagupta has cited another view according to which

only three doors are to be provided in a theatre. Two of them are

to be provided at the stage for the movement of the actors. The

word 'च' suggests that one more door should be provided as a

passage for the audience.3 Thus the view about three-door

1. Nāṭyaśāstra 2-101. chow. Edition.

2. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 197. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

3. चकारादन्य प्रवेशार्थम्। जन-प्रवेशनं द्वारम्। -Abhinava-bhāratī p. 197.

auditorium also appears to be quite consistents.

Upto this stage Abhinavagupta has given and discussed two views about the doors in a theatre According to one view there should be three doors while according to the other there should be four. Then Abhinavagupta makes a mention of still another view according to which six doors are to be provided in a theatre.

Commenting upon the view of the other critics, prescribing six doors in a theatre. Abhinavagupta says that besides the four doors provided for the purposes discussed above, two additional doors should be provided each on the two sides for the entry of light and the consequent convenience of a clear view of the stage. Thus a six doors theatre should be constructed.1

Abhinavagupta has not spelled out in his criticism the exact position of these two doors.

Achārya Viśveśwar writes in his work that light is particularly needed on the Rangapīṭha. Therefore these two doors should be provided on the two sides where Mattavāranīs are situated. These doors will serve a double purpose-they will provide light on the Rangapīṭha and will also provided passage to the Mattavāranī.2

On the basis of the above analysis, it can be safely said that these two doors should be in both the Mattavāranīs. Abhinavagupta has also clearly said that these two doors should be in the two sides. Abhinavagupta had also clearly said in the context of the Mattavāranī that they should be constructed on the two sides of the Rangapīṭha. By providing doors in the Mattavāranī, the purpose of bringing light to the Rangapīṭha is also adequately served.

Abhinavagupta has cited three views with relation to the

1. अन्ये तु आद्यद्वारद्रयमित्यादि येन हेतुनाडन्य द्वारद्रयं पार्श्वस्थितं कुर्यादालोकसिद्ध्यर्थमिति षड्द्वारं नाट्यगृहमाचचक्षते।

-Ibid p. 200. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

2. Hindi –Abhinava-bhāratī p. 385. Delhi University Publication.

doors. Now the question to be examined is-which of the views

runs inconsonance with Abhinavagupta and Bharata. The idea of

six doors is confirmed by another verse of Bharata.1 This

establishes that Bharata is also of the view that a theatre should

have six doors.2 See Fig. 13.

After discussing the doors arrangement, Abhinavagupta

further writes that whatever else remains to be said about

Rangapitha and Rangaśīrṣa has been depicted by Bharata with

the term ‘अष्टहस्तं’.

Bharata says that keeping in view the proportion of size, the

Rangapīṭha should be constructed in a square shape measuring

8x8 hastas. It should be plane-surfaced and should be equipped

with an altar.3

The Mattavāranīs in a Caturasra Theatre

After the construction of the Rangapīṭha, Bharata proceeds

on to describe the construction of the Mattavāranī and says that

it should be constructed with four pillars on the two sides of

altar and should have its measurement as indicated earlier.4

The above cited version of Bharata means that as the

Mattavāranī is constructed 1/1/2 hastas higher in ground level

in a vikṛṣṭa theatre, likewise in caturasra theatre too it should be

constructed 1/1/2 hastas higher in ground level. Bharata has

already elaborately discussed the entire process of construction

of Mattavāranī in the context of vikṛṣṭa theatre and it should be

applied as such in the case of the caturasra theatre also.

The Altar in a Caturasra Theatre

The above two versions of Bharata describes the

1. द्वाराणि षट् चैव भवन्ति चात्र रङ्गस्य दिग्भागविनिर्दिष्टानि। —Nāṭyaśāstra 13-66.

2. चास्य।

3. ‘अष्टहस्तं तु कर्तव्यं रङ्गपीठं प्रमाणतः।

चतुरसं समतलं वेदिका समलंकृतमू।’ —Nāṭyaśāstra 2-102.

4. पूर्व-प्रमाण-निर्दिष्टा कर्तव्या मत्तवारणी।

चतुः स्तम्भसमायुक्ता वेदिकायास्तु पार्श्वतः।1 —Ibid 2-103.

construction of Rangapīṭha and Mattavāranī. Bharata has also

used the word ‘वेदिका’1 (altar). In one description he says that the

Rangapīṭa should be equipped with an altar.2 In the other

description he says that the Mattavāranīs should be constructed

to the sides of the altar.3 These descriptions indicate that the

altar also occupies an important place in the context of the

theatre.

Abhinavagupta and Bharata have also mentioned the Vedikā

in the context of the vikrsta theatre. According to them the altar

is square-shaped and different types of figures are engraved

there on.4

Now the question arises what this altar is, where and how it

is to be constructed and what purpose it is going to serve?

Bharata and Abhinavagupta both have preferred to maintain a

conspicuous silence on these points.

Abhinavagupta in his commentary over the verses dealing

with altar only writes ‘वेदिके शोभायुक्ते कार्ये’5 which means that the

vedikās should be beautifully made. But Abhinavagupta gives

absolutely no indication as to exact position of the altars in the

theatre.

In the first chapter Abhinavagupta interprets ‘वेदिका’6 as

‘रङ्गवेदिका’7. But there he does not point out where it should be

1. Nāṭyaśāstra 2-102,103. chow. Edition.

2. ‘चतुरस्रं समतलं वेदिकासमलङ्कृतम्‌।’

Ibid 2-102.

3. चतुःस्तम्भसमायुक्ता वेदिकायास्तु पार्श्वतः।

Ibid 2-103.

4. निरीहकुहरोपेतं नानाग्रंथितवेदिकम्‌।

Ibid 2-82.

नानाकृतिभिरग्रंथिता वेदिकाश्चतुरस्रिका यत्र।

Abhinava-bhāratī p. 188. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

5. वेदिके शोभायुक्ते कार्ये।

Ibid. p. 200.

6. वेदिका — Nāṭyaśāstra 1-85. chow. Edition.

7. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 97. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

constructed and whether the number of the altar will be one or

two.

Bharata's statement however indicates that the altar

certainly has a relationship with the Rangapīṭha and the

Mattavāranī. Therefore it appears to be an appropriate

conjecture that the altars should be constructed on the two sides

of the Rangapīṭha. This upholds both the descriptions of

Bharata-(I) The Rangapīṭha should be equipped with altar. This

analysis makes it clear that there should be two altars. (II) that

the Mattavāranī should be constructed to the side of altar.

Now the question is whether there is any authentic statement

to establish the number of altars at two? Bharata and

Abhinavagupta have given no indication about the number.

There is however one clue available. Abhinavagupta writes in

his commentary 'वेदिके शोभायुक्ते कार्यौ'1 'वेदिके' being 'हि वचन

signifies 'two'. Had the number of altar been only one, there

was no reason why Abhinavagupta should have used 'हि वचन

वेदिके' So this द्विवचन is an ample proof to justify the inference

that the number of altars is two and not one. There is another

description to prove that the number of altars should be two.

Bharata has explicitly stated that the Mattavāranī should be

constructed to a side of the altar. Abhinavagupta has then

explicitly propounded the view that in a vikr̥ṣṭa theatre a

Mattavāranī should be constructed on each of the two sides of

the Rangapīṭha. The number of Mattavāranīs being two, the

number of vedikās necessarily comes to be two since a

Mattavāranī is supposed to stand on the side of an altar.

The above discussion makes it amply clear that there use to

be vedikās on the two sides of the Rangapīṭha and two

Mattavāranīs were constructed again on the sides of the

Vedikās. This position of the Vedikā has been presented in

figures at a later stage in this work. See Fig. 13.

1. वेदिके शोभायुक्ते कार्यौ –Abhinava-bhāratī p. 200. B. H. U. P., Varanasi.

47

Rangasirsa in Caturasra Theatre

Bharata has made a mention of two types of Rangasirsa.

According to Bharata one type Rangasirsa is to be constructed

at a higher ground level (than the Rangapittha) and the other type

at the same level.1 After defining the two types of Rangasirsa,

Bharata further says that in a vikrsta theatre, the Rangasirsa

should be at a higher ground level and in a caturasra theatre it

should have the same level.2

However Bharata does not indicate the place in relation to

which the Rangasirsa is supposed to have higher or the same

level.

Abhinavagupta explains in his commentary that in a vikrsta

theatre the Rangasirsa should have a higher ground level and in

a caturasra theatre the same ground level as the Rangapittha.3

Elaborating the point in this context Abhinavagupta further

writes that in a vikrsta theatre three additional pillars should be

constructed.4 This discussion makes a clear distinction between

a vikrsta and a caturasra theatre.

The religious and suspicious ceremonies that are to be

performed while constructing the Rangasirsa. Bharata has

already discussed in the context of the vikrsta theatre. They are

to be applied as such in the case of a caturasra theatre also.

Their narration again would be an unnecessary repetition.

After discussing the pillar arrangement, the door

arrangement of Rangapittha, Mattavarani, Vedika

and Rangasirsa etc., Bharata concludes that the caturasra

1. समुन्नतं समं चैव रङ्गशीर्षं तु कारयेत्।

-Natyasastra 2-104. chow. Edition.

2 विकृष्टे तुन्नतं कार्य चतुरसे समं तथा। Ibid 2-104.

3. Abhinava-bharati p. 200. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

4. एतच्चेह प्रसङ्गात्सूच्यनं विकृष्टे तेनैव प्रकारेण स्तम्भत्रयमध्यिका कर्तव्या।

Ibid. 200.

theatre is to be constructed on the lines of the process laid down

above.1 See Fig. 13.

Bharata makes no mention of construction of walls, wood-

work and painting etc. in the case of the caturasra theatre

because he has already discussed all these things in detail in the

context of the vikr̥ṣa theatre. So they should be applied as such

in the case of the caturasra theatre also.

1. एवमेतेन विधिना चतुरश्रं गृहम् भवेत्।

—Nātyaśāstra 2-105. chow. Edition.

CHAPTER - 3

TRYASRA THEATRE

Having discussed in detail the process of construction of Vikr̥ṣṭa and Caturasra Theatre, Bharata proceeds on to discussed the process of the Tryasra Theatre.

With regard to the characteristic of a Tryasra theatre, Abhinavagupta points out hat they are to be understood through the application method i.e. the procedure of raising pillars and walls and of providing doors etc. in vikr̥ṣṭa and caturasra theatre should be followed as such in the case of Tryasra Theatre.1

Before discussing the characteristic of a Tryasra Theatre, let us try to know what the word ‘Tryasra’ means? Abhinavagupta traces the etymology of ‘Tryasra’. Tryasra is that which has three ‘Asri’ i.e. three angles. So Abhinavagupta’s analysis makes it clear that a Tryasra Theatre is to be triangular.2

Bharata also gives the triangular outline of a Tryasra theatre and says that the architects of the Tryasra theatre should build it in a triangular form.3

The outline of a Tryasra theatre given by Bharata and the etymology of the word Tryasra presented by Abhinavagupta make it certain that the Tryasra theatre is to be constructed in a triangular shape. The triangular shape does mean that it should be equilateral i.e. all its three sides should be equal. What the measurement of these three sides should be, Bharata gives no indication in his work.

He has laid down definite measurement for construction of

1. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 200. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

2. त्र्यश्रभिति — त्रिकोणभिते लक्षणम्। — Ibid p. 200.

3. त्र्यश्रं त्रिकोणं कर्तव्यं नाट्यवेश्म प्रयोक्तृभिः। — Nāṭyaśāstra 2-107. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

the different parts of the vikr̥ṣṭa and the caturasra theatre but he

is fully silent about the measurement of Tryasra theatre

Abhinavagupta in his commentary, has dealt with the

question of measurement of a Tryasra theatre and he clearly

says that the Tryasra theatre has close links with the vikr̥ṣṭa and

caturasra theatre and therefore this triangular theatre has the

same measurement as the vikr̥ṣṭa and the caturasra theatre.1

The triangular theatre on the lines of the vikr̥ṣṭa theatre

As Abhinavagupta says above the measurement of the

triangular theatre should be set on the basis of that of the vikr̥ṣṭa

theatre.2 Bharata prescribes the measurement of a vikr̥ṣṭa

theatre as 64x32 which means that it is a rectangular theatre. But

the Tryasra theatre is triangular and a supposed to have all its

three sides equal. So on the basis of the measurement of vikr̥ṣṭa

theatre every sides of the Tryasra theatre will measure 64

hastas. The Tryasr̥i theatre constructed on the basis of the

measurement of the vikr̥ṣṭa theatre has been figuratively

represented at a later stage in this work. See Figure 14-B.

The Triangular Theatre on the lines of the Caturasra

Theatre

Abhinavagupta has recommended the dimension of the

Tryasra theatre to be the same as of the caturcsra theatre.

According to Bharata, the dimension of caturasra theatre are

32x32.3 Because the caturasra theatre is of square shape having

all its sides equal. The Tryasra theatre is triangular and its three

sides also are equal. So on the lines of the measurement of the

caturasra theatre the Tryasra theatre will have its sides

measuring 32 hastas each. We have figuratively represented the

Tryasra theatre of 32 hastas later on in this work. See Figure 14-

A.

1. उभयानुग्रहाच्च विकृष्टचतुलुश्रमान् दृयमेव भवति।

-Abhinava-bhāratī p. 200. B. H. U. P. Varanasi

2. Ibid.

3. समन्ततश्र कर्तव्या हस्ता द्वात्रिंशदेव तु।

-Nāṭyaśāstra 2-91. B. H. U.`P. Varanasi.

Thus on the basis of the measurement recommended by

Abhinavagupta also, the Tryasra theatre are of two kinds.

Triangular Rangapitha in the centre

After lying down that the Tryasra theatre is to be triangular,

Bharata further says that it should also have a triangular

Rangapitha in the centre.

Taking hint from this statement of Bharata about the

construction of triangular Rangapitha in the centre,

Abhinavagupta says in this context that besides the Rangapitha,

the Rangasirsa and the green-room also should be constructed in

the triangular shape.

The above cited versions of Bharata and Abhinavagupta

make it amply clear that in a Tryasra theatre a triangular

Rangapitha is to be in the centre. Abhinavagupta goes a step

further to say that the Rangasirsa and the Green-room also are

to be of the triangular shape. This suggestion does not seem to

be proper. We already know with Bharata and Abhinavagupta's

statements in the context of vikrsta and caturasra theatre that

the Rangasirsa is to be situated behind the Rangapitha and the

Green-room behind the Rangasirsa. It is certainly possible to

construct a triangular Rangapitha in the centre of a triangular

theatre as Abhinavagupta suggests, but it is impossible to

construct the Rangasirsa and the Green-room also in the

triangular shape. Neither Bharata nor Abhinavagupta has given

any hint about the measurements of the Rangapitha, Rangasirsa

and the Green-room. So the exact location of all these three has

remained a puzzle. The modern scholars have dealt with this

issue and have tried to locate the Rangapitha, Rangasirsa and

the Green-room inside the Tryasra theatre according to their

own view points. We will discuss their versions later.

Bharata and Abhinavagupta are again silent about the

1. मध्ये त्रिकोणमेवास्य रङ्गपीठं तु कारयेत्।

-Nāṭyaśāstra 2-107. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

2. मध्ये च त्रिकोणमेव रङ्गपीठम्। तथैव रङ्गशिरः। नेपथ्यगृहं च।

-Abhinava-bhāratī p. 200. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

Mattavāranī in a Tryasra theatre. Bharata has stated only about Rangapīṭha and has made no mention of Rangaśīrṣa, Green-room and Mattavāranī. Abhinavagupta has written about the Rangaśīrṣa and the Green-room but he has not given any hint about their exact location. So nothing can be reliably said about the Mattavāranī in a Tryasra theatre and it is completely unknown. Whether Mattavāranī was at all constructed in a Tryasra theatre and if it all was constructed, what its measurement was? So this is also a problem to be resolved, unfortunately the modern scholars also have not touched this issue. However, one scholar Dr. C.B. Gupta has made a mention of Mattavāranī in a Tryasra theatre and has also given its measurements.1 We will discuss his views later on. See Fig. 6.

Doors in a Tryasra Theatre

A. According to Bharata— After discussing the construction of the Rangapīṭha in a Tryasra theatre Bharata takes up the door arrangement and says that the door of the Tryasra theatre should be constructed in the same corner. Before taking up the door arrangement Bharata has already written that a triangular Rangapīṭha should be constructed in the centre of the theatre. Now he says that a door should be provided in the same corner2 which means that it is to be in the central corner. Bharata further says that another door should be provided behind the Rangapīṭha.3 This version of Bharata makes the position of the second door perfectly clear but there remains a confusion about the position of the first door. Bharata is also silent about the purpose that these two doors are supposed to serve.

B. According to Abhinavagupta— Abhinavagupta in his annotation clarifies the position of the doors in a Tryasra theatre, and writes 'तैनैव कोणेनeti', this means 'वारणोगतेन' i.e. in the

1. Dr. C. B. Gupta– The Indian Theatre p. 34.

2. द्वारं तैनैव कोणेन कर्तव्यं तस्य वेश्मनः।

—Nāṭyaśāstra 2-108. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

3. द्वितीयं चैव कर्तव्यं रङ्गपीठस्य पृष्ठतः। —Ibid2-108. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

western direction.1 Abhinavagupta makes Bharata's expression 'the same corner' more clear and recommends that one door should be provided in the western direction. We know that the Green-room is located in the west and thus it is clear that one door is to be provided in the Green-room. Abhinavagupta also tries to explain the purpose of this door and says 'द्वारं जनप्रवेशनं'.2

This means that the door is meant for the entry of the audience. On the one hand Abhinavagupta says that the door is to exist in the west i.e. in the Green-room and on the other hand he says that is for the entry of the audience. These two statements seem to be inconsistent with each other, because the audience is not supposed to pass through the Green-room. It is the main door through which the audience should be made to pass. The inconsistency in Abhinavagupta's statements can be resolved only if we interpret his expression 'जनप्रवेशनं' as 'entry of the actors and their families and not the entry of the audience'.

In the context of the caturasra theatre also 'जनप्रवेशनं' has been interpreted as entry of the actors etc.3 Thus it is clear that the door in the Green-room is meant for the passage of the actors and their families.

Abhinavagupta explains the position of the second door also and says that two doors should be provided in the same corner.3 Here Abhinavagupta uses द्विवचन noun 'द्वारे'4 which means two doors. This version of Abhinavagupta may have two interpretations. The one possible interpretation is that in the term 'द्वारे'. Abhinavagupta includes the first door and the other door provided in the Rangasirṣa behind the Rangapīṭha. The other possibility is that Abhinavagupta means to recommend two

1. तेनैव कोणेनैति। वारुण्यगतेन।

– Abhinava-bhāratī p. 200. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

2. द्वारं जनप्रवेशनम्।

– Ibid p. 201.

3. जनप्रवेशनं च तृतीयद्वारेण नेपथ्यगृहस्य। येन भार्यामादाय नटपरिवार: प्रविशति।

– Ibid p 197.

3. येन तस्मिन्रेव कोणेऽद्वारे कर्तव्ये। – Ibid p. 201.

4. Ibid.

doors in the Rangaśīrṣa itself. This seems to be more reliable

interpretation because in the context of the caturasra theatre

also, Abhinavagupta stands to provide two doors in the

Rangaśīrṣa for the movement of the actors from the Green-

room.1 Therefore here also the likelihood is that Abhinavagupta

means to provide two doors in the Rangaśīrṣa. From this point

of view of Abhinavagupta, a Tryasra theatre is supposed to have

three doors. See Fig. 14.

In the context of the doors Dr. Subba Rao has stressed the

view of Bharata and has accepted the theory of only two doors,

one in the central corner of the Green-room and other in the

Rangaśīrṣa.2 His figure also indicates that he is in favour of two

doors on the lines of Bharata. See Figure 9.

Again in the context of the doors, another scholar Dr. C.B.

Gupta also recommends in his work, only two doors in a

Tryasra theatre. one behind the Rangapīṭha and the other in a

corner for the entry of the audience.3 But in the figure of a

Tryasra theatre given by him in his work, six doors have been

shown, three in between the Green-room and the Rangaśīrṣa,

two in the Mattavāranī and one main door in the Auditorium for

the entry of the audience.4 See Figure 6.

Another scholar Dr. Mankad has also given the figure of a

Tryasra theatre in his work. There he shows only one door, the

main door of the Auditorium through which the audience is

supposed to pass.5 See Fig. 3.

In the middest of these controversial views of different

scholars, the most reliable view seems to be of Abhinavagupta

1. तेन द्वारद्वयमेव रङ्गशिरसि नेपथ्यगतपात्रप्रवेशाय कर्तव्यम्।

• Abhinava-bhāratī p. 197. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

2. Dr. Subba Rao- A critical survey of the Ancient Indian Theatre in

Accordance with the Second chapter of the Bharata – Nātyaśāstra p.

454. Dr. C. B. Gupta- The Indian Theatre p. 52.

455. Ibid. p. 52

456. D. R. Mankad- Ancient Indian Theatre p. 12.

who propounds the theory of three doors.

The Wall and the Pillar Arrangement

After discussing the door arrangement Bharata takes up the wall and pillar arrangement and says that whatever has been laid down in this context in the case of a caturasra theatre should be applied as such by the architects in a Tryasra theatre also.1 The skilled workers should thus build the theatre according to the procedure mentioned earlier.2

So Bharata's statement makes it clear that after discussing the wall and pillar arrangement in detail in the case of a Caturasra theatre, he considered it unnecessary and useless to repeat it again.

The Triangular theatre and the Auditorium

Bharata and Abhinavagupta both have left untouched the point as to what type of Auditorium should be constructed in a Tryasra theatre and what its measurement should be? Both of them have clearly pointed out the measurement of the Auditorium in a Caturasra and Vikrsta theatre. But they are completely silent about the Auditorium in a Tryasra theatre.

Among the modern scholars Dr. P.K. Acharya has expressed his view about the Auditorium that it should be triangular.3 A figure of the Auditorium as suggested by Dr. Achārya is shown in a figure appended in his work.

Orchestra in a Tryasra Theatre

Bharata and Abhinavagupta have also not indicated the seating arrangement in a Tryasra theatre for the singers and musicians. Abhinavagupta has stated in the context of Vikrsta theatre that two doors should be provided in between the Rangaśīrṣa and the Green-room and the musicians should be

1. विधिर्यत्रतुरसस्य भित्तिस्तम्भसमाश्रयः। स तु सर्वः प्रयोकव्यस्र्रश्यापि प्रयोकृभिः॥ -Nātyaśāstra 2-109.

2. एवमेतेन विधिना कार्यो नाट्यगृहा बुधैः। -Nātyaśāstra 2-110.

3. D. R. Mankad– Ancient Indian Theatre p. 25.

seated in the space between the two doors.1

So it can be inferred to an extent that Abhinavagupta has

recommended the provision of two doors behind the Rangapitha

(in between the Rangaśīrṣa and the Green-room) keeping in

mind the place of musicians and singers in the Tryasra theatre

also. Nothing can be said as to the extent of authenticity of this

inference because no pointed reference from Bharata or

Abhinavagupta is available in this regard.

We have covered upto this stage the construction of a

Tryasra theatre on the lines of prescribed by Bharata and

Abhinavagupta. Now here onward we will discuss the views of

the modern scholars about the Tryasra theatre.

Among the modern scholars Dr. Subba Rao has incorporated

in his article a figure of the Tryasra theatre according to which

he suggests the measurement of the Tryasra theatre as 32 hastas.

This measurement has been divided in three parts-16 hastas for

the Auditorium, 8 hastas for the Rangaśīrṣa and 8 hastas for the

Green-room. Prof. Subba Rao has not shown the Rangaśīrṣa and

Rangapīṭha separately because he takes them as one. He has

bisected the top corner by drawing a central line through the

theatre right up to the Green-room. The Rangaśīrṣa has been

curved out in the centre. This sketch given by Prof. Subba Rao

indicates that he agrees with Abhinavagupta's view that the

Rangapīṭha, the Rangaśīrṣa and the Green-room should be

constructed in the triangular shape.2 Had he differed with

Abhinavagupta, he would have certainly noted in his article that

Abhinavagupta's view advocating triangular shape for the

Rangaśīrṣa and the Green-room is not appropriate, as he has

done here and there whenever he differs from Abhinavagupta's

views. Thus the views of Subba Rao indicate that the Rangapīṭ

ha and Green-room should also have triangular shape. The pillar

arrangement given by Dr. Rao is shown in a figure appended to

1. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 186. B. H. U. P. Varanasi.

2. Prof. D. Subba-Rao- A Critical Survey of te Ancient Indian Theatre in

accordance with the Second Chapter of The Bharata Nāṭyaśāstra p. 453.

this work. See Figure 9.

In the figure of a Tryasra theatre presented by Dr. Mankad,

the Rangapīṭha and the Green-room have been shown having

triangular shape but not the Rangaśīrṣa.1

Achārya Viśweshar has given in his work the figure of a

Tryasra theatre as represented by Manmohan Ghosa and there

he has reproduced the position of the theatre he has shown only

the Green-room in the triangular shape.2 So according to his

views also the Rangaśīrṣa and the Rangapīṭha are two have not

triangular shapes.

Achārya Viśweshwar has specifically written in his work

that Rangapīṭha, Rangaśīrṣa and the Green-room-all three

together can not be constructed in a triangular shape. In addition

he has said that the Tryasra theatre may have two more

positions which he has represented through figures. In them

Rangapīṭha, the Rangaśīrṣa and the Green-room-all the three

have triangular shape. He also writes that quite possible, either

of these positions may correspond to the views of

Abhinavagupta.3

Description of a Tryasra theatre given by Dr. C.B. Gupta in

his book is as follows: “The Tryasra theatre is in the form of an

equilateral triangle. It is divided into eight parts on each side and

from each dividing point lines are drawn parallel to those on the

side of the equilateral triangle. Thus 64 triangles are formed. In

four triangles in the middle the Rangapīṭha is constructed.

Behind the Rangapīṭha is placed the Rangaśīrṣa in five triangles

(or 13 triangles in the absence of walls) and the Nepathyagrha in

15 triangles. Each of the Mattavāranīs is constructed in eight

triangles. The remaining triangles are reserved for the audience.

This is illustrated in the diagram of the Tryasra type. But no

1. D. R. Mankad– Ancient Indian Theatre p. 12.

2. आचार्य विश्वेश्वर — हिन्दी अभिनवभारती p. 293. Delhi University, Delhi.

3. Ibid. p. 287-288

exact measurement of this type of theatre is available in the Nāṭya-Śāstra or Abhinava-bhāratī."1

On the basis of the discussions given by Bharata and Abhinavagupta and the modern scholars, it seems appropriate to assert that if a triangular Rangapīṭha is constructed in the centre of the Tryasra theatre, it would not be possible to construct thereafter the Rangaśīrṣa and the Green-room in the triangular shape. But if central line is drawn right up to the Green-room as suggested by Prof. Subba Rao and other scholars and then the space is divided for the Rangapīṭha and the Rangaśīrṣa, all the three can have triangular shape.

1. Dr. C. B. Gupta– The Indian Theatre – P.No. 34.

CHAPTER - 4

MAIN PARTS OF INDIAN THEATRE

Kakṣyāvibhāga

In chapter 14 of the Nāṭyaśāstra it has been pointed out how scenes should be presented on the stage. Various scenes are required to be arranged on the stage according to the plot. Bharata Muni has suggested several useful devices for presentation of scene on the stage so that the whole perspective may be appropriate and natural. Division of the stage is also one of such devices. This scheme of division of the stage is based on imagination as it means that the different divisions indicate different places and countries on the stage as the plot requires.

Thus the different portions on the stage are created in a way that when an actor moves from one portion to the other, it represents his movement from one place or country to the other. Bharata has clearly mentioned in a verse that movements within the circumference of the stage indicate its different portions. When an actor has to represent his movement to another place he should do so either by taking a turn or moving to another portion under the scheme of the division of the stage.1 Bharata takes into consideration three portion-Interior, exterior and central.2 The distance from one portion to the other is represented to the other by the manner of movement of the actors. If a distant place is to be represented, the actor should move or a long duration and for a short distance he should move for a short duration. Out of these the portion adjacent to the green-room is the 'interior'. The portion adjacent to the Rangapīṭha is the 'exterior' and the portion in between these

1. कक्षाविभागो निर्देश्यो रङ्गपीठ परिक्रमात्। परिक्रमेण रङ्गस्य ध्यान्या कक्ष्या भवेदिह॥

—Nātyaśāstra 14-3, Chaukhambha Prakashan.

2. Nāṭyaśāstra 14-8.

two is the central division. These divisions exist on both sides of

the stage and served as wings from outside, they were used for

side movement and also for setting the different scene. Pointing

out the utility of the stage divisions, Bharata says that within its

circumference all such provinces, cities, forests, mountains etc.

are included as need be shown in the scene.1 According to the

scene of stage-divisions, the actors entering the stage, first are

called ‘आभ्यान्तर' and those entering subsequently are called ‘वाह्य’.2

After entry of the actors on the stage, the other divisions are

indicated by one or many rounds of the actors as per the needs.3

Besides, Bharata has also pointed out the arrangement of

movements of actors in these different portions of the stage. He

has also pointed out that the places and regions of human and

divine characters are also shown in this scheme of stage-

divisions.

Dr. Mankad and Dr. C.B. Gupta have propounded a theory

in their books that the Mattavāranīs were used for dividing the

stage. On the basis of the above discussion it seems to be

justifiable conclusion that the division of the stage was

imaginary and according to the requirements of the plot the

different portions should have been used for representing

different scene on the stage and this was called ‘Kakṣyā-

vibhāga' (divisions of the stage).

Some Modern Scholars write on Rangaśīrṣa and

Rangapīṭha

We have already discussed the position of the Rangapīṭha

and the Rangaśīrṣa on the basis of the views of Bharata and

Abhinavagupta. But the views of Dr. Subba Rao and Dr. Ghosa

among the modern critics are different from those of Bharata

and Abhinavagupta about Rangaśīrṣa and Rangapīṭha.

1. Nāṭyaśāstra 14-4,5,6 chow. Publication.

2. पूर्व प्रविष्टा ये रङ्कं जैयासतेभ्यनतरा बुधैः।

पश्चात्प्रविष्टा विज्ञेया कक्ष्या-भागे तु वाह्यातः॥ Ibid 14-9.

3. तयोद्रापि प्रविशतोः कक्षामन्या विनिदिशेत्।

परिक्रमेण रङ्कस्य त्वन्या कक्ष्या विधीयते॥ —Nāṭyaśāstra 14-15.

Dr. Manmohan Ghosa has in his edition of Nāṭyaśāstra and

his article both, emphasized that the Rangapīṭha and the

Rangasīrṣa were not two separate portions in the theatre, rather

they are synonymous and stand for the same place because they

have not been mentioned as two separate places in the original

text of the Nāṭyaśāstra. To substantiate this view, Achārya

Viśweshwar has produced the arguments of Dr. Ghosa.1

1. In the first chapter of Nāṭyaśāstra, it is mentioned that

Brahmā guarded over the different portions of the theatre.

The arrangement discussed there contains a reference to

Rangapīṭha at least twice but there is no mention of the

Rangapīṭha.

2. In the second chapter, there are two verses pointing out the

different portions of the theatre and referring to the

Rangasīrṣa, but making no mention of the Rangapīṭha.

This gives an idea that the portion referred to as Ranganīt

ha in the Ist chapter is the same as that referred to as

Rangasīrṣa in the second chapter.

3. In verses No. 72, 73 and 75 in the second chapter again

make a mention of only the Rangasīrṣa and not of the

Rangapīṭha. This term Rangasīrṣa has occured in the

context of the vikṛṣṭa maṇḍapa. Besides ‘रंगशीर्ष प्रशस्यते’ is the interpolation found in certain

editions. This can lead to the conclusion that during the

ancient period the readers of the Nāṭyaśāstra considered

Rangapīṭha and Rangasīrṣa as synonymous.

4. In the context of the construction of the Tryasra theatre

again only Rangapīṭha has been mentioned and there is no

mention of Rangasīrṣa.

5. In the context of the construction of the catusrṣa theatre the

term Rangapīṭha has been specifically referred to four

times while the term Rangasīrṣa occurs only once that one

mention of Rangapīṭha is also replaced as Rangasīrṣa in

1. आचार्य विश्वेश्वर - हिन्दी अभिनवभारती पृ० २९०-२९१.

some editions. This also proves that Rangapīṭha and the Rangaśīrṣa represent the same place. So Dr. Ghosa draws the conclusion that the Rangapīṭha and Rangaśīrṣa are not two separate portions, rather they are two different names of the same place.

The View of Dr. Subba Rao

Dr. Subba Rao also does not take Rangapīṭha and Rangaśīrṣa for separate portions. According to him ‘पीठ’ is the base of Ranga and ‘शीर्ष’ is the top or upper surface of the Ranga-Ranga being the stage

In his article Dr. Mankad has commented upon the views of Dr. Ghosa and Dr. Rao both. Taking support of some other original verses he has tried to establish that the position of Rangapīṭha and Rangaśīrṣa being separate is acceptable both to Bharata and Abhinavagupta. He has quoted a verse from chapter second, which has the meaning that in a vikr̥ṣṭa theatre the Rangaśīrṣa should have a higher level while in a catursra theatre it should have the same level. Now the question is higher than or some to which level? The only answer to this question is Rangapīṭha. Abhinavagupta has also hinted out this point in his criticism. Then Dr. Mankad has quoted another verse to prove specific and separate mention has been made both of Rangaśīrṣa and Rangapīṭha. On this basis Dr. Mankad has repudiated the theory of Dr. Ghosa and Dr. Rao on the support of Abhinava-

1. Dr. Subba Rao- A Critical Survey of the Ancient Indian theatre in accordance with the second chapter of the Bharata Nāṭyaśāstra.

2. Dr. D. R Mankad- Ancient Indian Theatre p. 42-43.

3. समुन्नतं समं चैव रङ्गशीर्षं तु कारयेत्।

4. Dr. D. R. Mankad- Ancient Indian Theatre. p. 43.

5. समुन्नतमिति रंगपीठापेक्षया।

6. Nāṭyaśāstra2-71.

7. D. R. Mankad- Ancient Indian Theatre p. 43.

bharati and quoting some portions there from he has established

the separate existence of Rangapīṭha and Rangaśīrṣa.

Comments of Prof. Raghavan on the views of Dr. Ghosa

In his article Dr. Raghavan also has given his comments on

the views of Dr. Ghosa.1 There he has tried to establish separate

existence of Rangaśīrṣa and Rangapīṭha mainly on the basis of

different quotation from Abhinava-bharati. According to

Abhinavā-bharati, as he puts it, there is specific mention of

separate position of Rangapīṭha and Rangaśīrṣa and Dr.

Raghavan has also quoted the relevant portions to support his

point of view.2

Thus Dr. Ghosa and Rao have propounded the theory of

Rangapīṭha and Rangaśīrṣa being one and the same. While Dr.

Mankad and Dr. Raghavan have repudiated this theory. Achārya

Viśveshwar, Dr. C.B. Gupta and some other scholars too take

Rangaśīrṣa and Rangapīṭha as two different portions of the

theatre.

According to the above discussion a group of scholars

consider Rangapīṭha and Rangaśīrṣa as separate while another

group consider it as one. On the basis of analysis presented by

Dr. Mankad, Dr. Raghavan and others and also on the basis of

the position of Rangapīṭha and Rangaśīrṣa prescribed by

Bharata and Abhinavagupta which we have already discussed in

the last chapter. It seems justified to conclude that the Rangapīṭ

ha and the Rangaśīrṣa are two separate portions of the theatre.

This separate position of Rangapīṭha and Rangaśīrṣa is also

acceptable to Abhinavagupta and Bharata as is evident from

their discussions. The Rangapīṭha is the main and the front

portion of the stage meant for the actors to play their roles and

the Rangaśīrṣa is the back portion of the stage behind the

Rangapīṭha meant for the singers and musicians to sit and relax.

Thus is clear that both have separate uses.

1 आचार्य विशेश्वर — हिन्दी अभिनवभारती पृ० २९५.

2. Ibid p. 295.

Dr. Mankad has in his article also established that there is some dissimilarity between the figures given by Dr. Ghosa and Dr. Rao.1 In the figure of the theatre presented by Dr. Ghosa, 3/4 portion is shown as the auditorium and the remaining 1/4 is allotted to the stage and the green-room. See Fig. 11. Dr. Mankad has expressed dissent on this plan of Dr. Ghosa. He writes that though this plan may be appropriate from the stand point of distribution of space and also from architectural point of view but from practical point of view, half of the stage of the theatre should be given to the auditorium and the other half to the stage and green-room etc.2

Bharata and Abhinavagupta also have pointed out that the total space of 64x32 hastas should be equally divided in two parts and the rear portion should again be sub-divided into two. The green-room should be provided in the western portion and the Raṅgaśīrṣa in the adjoining half portion. Similarly, giving the dimensions of every portion, Abhinavagupta has also clearly established that half of the space should be utilized for the auditorium and the other half for Raṅgapīṭha, Raṅgaśīrṣa and green-room. Therefore Dr. Manmohan Ghosa's division of 3/4 portion for the auditorium and 1/4 for the stage does not appear to be appropriate since this theory is not acceptable to Bharata and Abhinavagupta also.

The only dissimilarity to be found in the figure of the theatre presented by Dr. Rao in his article is that he has shown the entire portion of 32x16 hastas as Raṅgaśīrṣa. He has also divided the entire space of the theatre into three portions-half for the auditorium and the other half sub-divided into two for the green-room and the Raṅgaśīrṣa. See Fig. 8.

Mattavāranī

Although we have elaborately discussed the position of Mattavāranī according to the views of Abhinavagupta and Bharata, yet numerous questions do rise about the word

1. D. R. Mankad– Ancient Indian Theatre p. 44.

2. Ibid. p. 45.

65

Mattavāranī-what does this word mean, what is the size of

Mattavāranī, where is its location and what its number? Several

modern scholars have given a thought to these questions and

have tried to trace authentic answers. However it can not be said

to what extend there conclusions are reliable.

Meaning of the word Mattavāranī

In the original ‘Nātyaśāstra’ and also in its commentary

‘Abhinava-bhāratī’, every where the word is used as

Mattavāranī. Away from these works no where is the word

Mattavāranī available in dictionaries or literature. Of course, we

do find the word ‘Mattavāraṇa’ (मतवारण). In the ‘बृहत्कोष’ entitled

‘शब्द-कल्पद्रुम’, there is a reference ‘मत्वारयतीति मतवारणः’

Etymologically the word ‘मतवारण’ has been interpreted as

‘प्रसादवोथीना वरणः.’1

V.S. Apte, in his dictionary, translates ‘Mattavāraṇa’ as

‘Veranda’.2 In ‘जातकत्’ of the great poet ‘सुबन्धु’ the word ‘मतवरण’

has again been used in the expression ‘मतवरण्योववण्डकेप’. In the

‘समरांगणसूत्रधार’ also we have the word ‘मतवारणः’3 and again the

word is used as such in ‘Mahābhārata’4, but there ‘मतवारण’ does

not for Veranda. Dr. A.B. Keith has used the word Veranda for

Mattavāranī while making a mention of the theatre in his book.5

But Abhinavagupta and Bharata have produced no Etymology of

Mattavāranī nor have they given any hint about its meaning. So

it is difficult to say what they meant by this word.

In the light of the above discussion Veranda seems to be

giving the correct meaning of the word Mattavāranī. The

description of Mattavāranī given by Abhinavagupta also seems

to give its meaning as Veranda.

1. आचार्य विशेषेश्वर - हिन्दी अभिनवभारती p. 313.

2. Vaman Shivram Apte- The Student’s Sanskrit-English-Dictionary p.

4. समराङ्गणसूत्रधार-राजगृह अध्याय 30/9

5. महाभारत-द्रोणपर्व 111/27।

6. A. B. Keith- The Sanskrit Drama p. 359.

66

The views of Prof. Subba Rao on Mattavāranī

The description of Mattavāranī given by Prof. Rao in his article is absolutely his original approach. Prof. Rao has interpreted Mattavāranī with the expression 'मत्ताना वारणानां श्रेणि मत्तवारणी'1.

According to him the front wall of the Rangapīṭha raised to the side of the '1' hastas higher level should have figures of intoxicated elephants. This row of intoxicated elephants cut in the plaster, is Mattavāranī. This is what Prof. Rao means.

In support of his view, he argues that the correct reading of the term 'चतुस्तम्भसमायुक्ता' in Bharata's verse should be 'चतुस्तम्भ-समायुक्ता' i.e. 'भ' is to be replaced by 'ब'. The word 'स्तम्भ' means the pillar for the purpose tiding the elephants. He also interprets 'पार्श्व' not as 'side' but as 'front'. So according to him a row of intoxicated elephants along with four 'स्तम्भ' will be engraved in plaster only in one part of the Rangapīṭhā namely the front wall and this carries the name of Mattavāranī.2 This is entirely a new interpretation of Prof. S. Rao and on the basis of this he has also given a picture of Mattavāranī. See fig. 10.

The Views of Prof. Bhanu on Mattavāranī

Āchārya Viśveśvara has cited the views of Prof. Bhanu. According to Prof.3 Bhanu, Mattavāranī is that which 'obstructs the excite'.3 He says that some times on witnessing an excessively sentimental scene in the theatre, some people among the audience get over-excited and they attempted to get closer to the actors in a stage of grate excitement. If such people get an access to the stage, the staging of the play will have to be terminated there and then. Therefore it is necessary to provide a low wall or enclosure so as to prevent access of such excited people to the stage. Because of this barrier, the impatient and

1. Dr. Subba Rao- A critical survey of the Ancient Indian Theatre in accordance with the second chapter of the Bharata Nāṭyaśāstra. p. 448.

2. Ibid.

3. आचार्य विश्वेश्वर - हिन्दी अभिनवभारती p. 317.

excited people are prevented and thus that barrier is called

Mattavāranī.

Dr. Manmohan Ghosa has also given a hint of Mattavāranī

in a footnote in his book.1 He has interpreted the word

Mattavāranī on the basis of dictionaries and other books. He

says that the word ‘मत्तवारण’ means ‘A turret or small room on the

top of a large building’, ‘a veranda’, ‘a pavilion’.2 Side by side

he has also hinted that it is not very clear what Abhinavagupta

meant by Mattavāranī. Dr. Ghosa has specified about

Mattavāranī that according to Abhinavagupta it can be taken to

be a side-room.

So Dr. Ghosa’s version also makes it clear that the

Mattavāranī was either a side room or a veranda. Ācārya

Viśveśvara has produced some pictures of Mattavāranī prepared

by Dr. Manmohan Ghosa. A look at them indicates that the

Mattavāranī was situated inside the stage (Rangamandapa) and

not outside it. We are producing in this work the figure of

Mattavāranī showing therein its position on the lines of Dr.

Ghosa.3 See Fig. 11.

Dr. Mankad writes in his book about Mattavāranī that two

Mattavāranī’s measuring 8x8 hastas should be constructed on

both the sides of the Rangapīṭha. Dr. Mankad has only

supported the views of Abhinavagupta about Mattavāranī.4

Commenting on Prof. Subba Rao’s interpretation of

Mattavāranī. Dr. Mankad writes that the etymology of

Mattavāranī given by Prof. Rao (मत्त = with rut and वारण =

elephant) seems to be quite reasonable. But his interpretation is

liable to two objectives-one the use of the term ‘चतुस्तम्भसमायुक्त’

and the other, the use of the term ‘पार्श्व:’, arguing on this point

Dr. Mankad writes that four posts are superfluous in the case of

a carved row of elephants. On the other hand the word ‘पार्श्व’

means ‘side’ and ‘not front’ as Prof. Rao interprets. After the

1. Dr. Manmohan Ghosa– Nāṭyaśāstra p. 27.

2. Ibid p. 27.

3. आचार्यं विश्वेश्वर — हिन्दी अभिनवभारतीं p. 321.

4. D. R. Mankad– Ancient Indian Theatre p. 16.

above mentioned criticism he has specifically noted that he agrees with the views of Abhinavagupta.1

With regard to use of Mattavāranī Dr. Mankad categorically writes, ‘Exact use of the Mattavāranī is not known’.2 He writes that Mattavāranī was a special portion of the Rangapīṭha specifying the use of Mattavāranī, Dr. Mankad writes that it was used as ‘Kaksyās’. He takes the position of Mattavāranī inside the Rangamandapa.3 See Fig. 1, 2.

Ācārya Viśveśvara has interpreted this word as a Veranda and he has also written that the situation of veranda is always adjacent to the main building but outside it. Therefore the provision of two Mattavāranīs each on both the sides of Rangapīṭha means that the Mattavāranī will be adjacent to, but outside of the Rangapīṭha.

Use of the Mattavāranī

Only a few scholars have thrown light on the purpose behind the construction of the Mattavāranī. According to Prof. Bhanu it was meant for preventing access of excited people to the stage. Although his view is also logical but it does not correspond to the views of Abhinavagupta because any barrier in front of the audience will obstruct their views to the stage and they will feel inconvenience.

Dr. Mankad writes and also Dr. C.B. Gupta very specifically says that the Mattavāranīs were used as ‘Kaksyās’.

Dr. A.B. Keith throws light on the location of Mattavāranī in the theatre and writes that it appears that the Mattavāranī was used by the spectators also.4

Abhinavagupta hints out in the first chapter about Mattavāranī and says that it was a suitable place for the king and other members of the royal family.5

1. D. R. Mankad– Ancient Indian Theatre p. 16.

2. Ibid p. 12.

3. Ibid p. 35.

4. A. B. Keith– The Sanskrit Drama p. 359.

5. पाश्र्वे स्वयमिति। राजादिसतत्स्थानमित्युक्तम्। — Abhinava-bhāratī p. 99.

On the basis of the above cited analysis and also inconsideration of Abhinavagupta’s view, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Mattavāranī was used for seating the chief guest. Abhinavagupta’s statement that it was for the use of king only supports this surmise. Dr. Keith is also not irrelevant when he states it was for the use of spectators. Only the words ‘very important’ are writing in his statement.

Curtain in Sanskrit and Greek

The word Yavanikā or Javanikā has been used from the beginning in Sanskrit literature. First of all the word Javanikā occurs in Harivamśa in the sense of a curtain.1

Bharata in his Nāṭyaśāstra has referred to the word Yavanikā thrice.2 He has also used the Paṭa in the sense of Yavanikā.3

The other words for the curtain like Pratisīrā4, Tīraśkarinī5, Paṭi or Apaṭī6 are found in the Sanskrit lexicons and literature.

Amarasimha has mentioned the word Javanikā, Pratisīrā and Tiraskarini for curtain.

Kṣīrasvāmī explains the word Javanikā as ‘Javante asyām’.7

Another commentator of Amarakośa Lingayasūrin derive

1. तानि रत्नोष क्लृप्तानि रसानुपग्रहाणि च।

रेजुर्जवनिका श्रैष: सप्तक्षा इव खेई नगा:॥

— Harivamśa 74.10.

2. एतानि तु बहिर्गतान्तर्यवनिका गतै:।

विधाट्य वै यवनिकां नृत्यपाठ्यकृतानि तु॥

—Nāṭyaśāstra V-11.12. Baroda Edition.

3. Ibid XII 3. Baroda Edition.

4. Amarakośa

5. Kms. 1-14, Mal. II-1. Amarakośa.

6. Com. Amarapadparjāata by Mallinātha, Adyar Edition.

— March. p. 154. Bareilly Edition.

7. ‘जवन्ति अस्यां जवनिका’

— Com. on Amarkośa 2/6/120.

the word Javanikā from the root ‘Jun’ in the sense to move.1

Mallinatha has accepted Yavanikā, Apatī and Kandpatta as synonyms in his commentary of Amarapadapārijāta and also mentioned Desī word ‘teracīra’ in the same sense.2

In Padacandrikā, commentary of Amarakośa Javanikā derive from ‘Ju’ in the sense of speed or movement. He has also given the etymology of Yavanikā.3

Another commentator of Amarakośa Raghunath Chakraborty has mentioned the word Yavanikā as a form of Vyavadhāyaka Pata. He has also referred to Yamanikā, it may be derived from ‘Yamudne’.4

Jāyana has given the definition of Yavanikā and also mentioned its kinds in Bharata-kośa.5

The word Javanikā occurs in Bhathari’s Vairāgya Śataka.6 ‘Yavanikā’ or ‘Javanikā’ also occurs in Śiśupālavadha7, Nātyasarvasvadīpikā8 and Bhāgavata-Purāna9 in the sense of curtain.

1. जवते प्रतिसरति- जवनिका = जुङतौ

– Amarakośa Vol. 1. p. 400. Adyar Edition.

2. तेरचीर - Com. Amarapadapārijāta on Amarakośa, Adyar Edition.

3. "जु: सौत्रो धातु:" जवन्यत्र इति जवनिका। यमनिका- अन्तस्यादि: पर्वगपंचममध्ये च। यमयति उपरमयति इति यमनिका। "दृष्टेरुपरतिरनया" वा 'यवनिका'।

• Com. Padachandrikā by Sarvānanda on Amarakośa p. 466.

4. 'यमनिका' - यमु अदने - यमनिकादति काचत्।

• Com. Trikandachintāmani on Amarakośa p. 381. Calcutta Edtion.

5. अष्टरलिकृता यामास्तदनेन तु विस्तृताः।

पुरो यवनिकाश्चित्रा सूची विज्ञानभद्रिभिः।

तिरसस्ततोऽधिकां वा सूर्यंथावाधं यथारुचि।। - Bharata-kośa p. 514.

6. Bh. 3-114. p. 53.

7. Siś. IV- 54.

8. ततो यवनिका तत्र कर्तव्या शास्त्रनिश्चिता।

• Nātyasarvadīpikā folio 24. quoted by G. H. Tarlekar in studies in the Nātyaśāstra.

9. Bhāgvata-Purāna 1/8/19.

Śāradātanaya has mentioned the word Yavanikāntra in Bhāvaprakāśana.1

The colour and form of Yavanikā (Curtain)

The commentator on Amarkośa Raghunath Chakraborty has thrown some light upon the form of the curtain in his commentary ‘Trikāṇdacintāmaṇī and for this purpose, he has quoted a verse from Śivasvāmin's epic 'kapphiṇābhyudaya2 which gives an impression that the curtains were made of multi-coloured cloth. The cloth should have generally been black or blue and it should be having golden stripes. The Peacock feather and clouds with lightning given an indication of the colours of the curtains. The poet has hinted in his work that as the Peacock feathers are blue and have golden circular patches on them, the curtains should also be having the same colour-combination. This idea is further confirmed by the suggestion of clouds with lightning. The poet has especially used the word ‘Kokanata’ for the Peacock which is an indicator of the functions of an actor. Along side it also confirms that curtains were used in the theatre.

Śrī Ballabhadeva also in his commentary on ‘Śiśupāl-Vadha’ has propounded his theory about the colour of the curtains. According to him the curtains were generally white.3

G.H. Tarlekar has in his work relied upon the views of S.M. Tagore and has related the colours of the curtains to the sentiments represented. According to Tagore the colours of the

1. Bhāvaprakāśanam p. 244. Baroda Edition.

2. बहति कोकनटे रुचिरं चिरं ललितचन्द्रकताण्डवमण्डनम्। स्मुटमिवाम्बुमुचो रुचि तडि-ज्जवनिकावनिकान्तिकदा तदा॥

3. जवनिका अपि प्रायेण धवला भवन्ति

– Com. Sandehaviśoṣadhi on Śiśupālavadha.

curtains were matched with the sentiments.

Bhavabhūti has used the word ‘Citrajavanakā’ in his Mālatī-Mādhava. This word also makes it clear that the curtains were multi-coloured.

Dr. Keith in his ‘Sanskrit Drama’ lays down that ‘The colour of the curtain is given in some authorities as necessarily in harmony with the dominant sentiment of the play, in accordance with the classification of sentiments already given, but others permit the use of red in every instance.’

Kālidāsa has used 'तिरस्करिणी' in his 'कुमारसम्भव'

The description given in that verse indicates that the colour of curtains should have been black or blue. Because the poet has metaphorically represented the clouds as curtain. According to the poet clouds, all of a sudden appear to provide a curtain on the door of the Himalaya cave to hide the secret of the Fairies. This means that the clouds cause darkness inside the cave. This description certainly confirms that the colours of curtains should be either black or blue.

Ray Govindachandra in his work has referred to an old description of a theatre available in 'जैन रायपसेणिय सुत्त'.

1. कार्यां यवनिका तत्र नीरस्म्रा सूक्ष्मवाससा, धार्या सुरुपनारीभ्यां तत्त्रपात्रप्रवेशने। शुभवर्णा व शृङ्गारे वीरा प्रशस्यते, भूमवर्णा च करुणे कर्तव्या कोपनाद्रुते। हस्त्रे विचित्रा कवकव्या नीलवर्णा भयानके, वीभत्सके भूमला स्याद्रौद्रे रक्ता प्रशस्यते। अद्भुते कृष्णवर्णा स्यादेताचीनसंमतम, अरुणपि सा सर्वत्र कार्य यवनिका बुधैः॥ -quoted by G.H. Tarlekar in Studies in the Natyasastra p. 204.

2. MM. 106. Nirmay Sagar Press.

3. A. Berriedale Keith– The Sanskrit Drama in its origin Development theory and practice. p. 359.

4. KMS. 1-14.

5. डॉ० राय गोविन्दचन्द्र– भरत नाट्यशास्त्र में नाट्यशालाओं के रूप, p. 41

73

According to that description coloured curtains were provided at the stage. These curtains had small bells hanging at there lower boarder and gave tinkling sound when the curtains were drawn.

The above cited views about the curtains reveal that the curtains were generally multi-coloured. This view is further confirmed by the curtains used in the modern theatre because even today coloured curtains are mostly used.

In Bharata-Kośa the measurement of curtain is also spelled out. According to it the length of curtain should be 8 hastas and the breadth 5 or 6 hastas.1 Except this description, the measurement of the curtain has not been dealt with anywhere else.

The position of curtain on the stage

Although the position or place of curtain on the stage is quite confusing, scholars have tried to clarify it. Bharata has made no mention of the curtain while discussing the theatre in the second chapter of his Nāṭyaśāstra. But in fifth chapter he has referred to the curtain while discussing the preliminaries of the dramatic performance among which he lays down that songs, music, dance and dialogues are carried through inside and outside the curtain. There is also an indication of raising the curtain for dances and dialogues.2 Abhinavagupta has located the curtain in between the Rangapīṭha and the Rangasīrṣa.3 This position of the curtain is confirmed through Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra also, because Bharata has recommended the seats of the singers and musicians at the Rangasīrṣa.4 Keith has also supported this very position of the curtain.5 All these views make it clear that the position of curtain was in between the

1. Bharata-Kośa p. 796.

2. Nāṭyaśāstra V-11.12. Baroda Edition.

3. तत्र यवनिका रङ्गपीठतच्छरसोमध्ये।

– Abhinava-bhāratī p. 506. Kashi Edition.

4. Nāṭyaśāstra IV Vol. 34 Chapt. p. 449.

5. A. Berriedale Keith— The Sanskrit Drama p. 359.

Rañgaśīrṣa and Raṅgapīṭha. This position is further supported by so many scholar's versions available elsewhere.

In the beginning of the fifth act of Kālidāsa's Abhijñānośākuntalam the king and the clown (विदूषक) are shown seated together and listening to a song sing by Hamsapādikā.1

The stage direction given at this stage is 'आकाशे गीयते'. This means the song is being sung by a person who is not on the stage. The seating place for singers and musicians determined by Bharata further makes it clear that the song is sung behind the curtain. This now leaves us in no doubt that the Yavanikā was situated in between the Rañgaśīrṣa and the Raṅgapīṭha. In 'मालविकाग्निमित्र' also loud sounds are heard from the green-room i.e. from behind the curtain and there too the above determined position of the curtain is confirmed.

In chapter twelfth of his Nāṭyaśāstra Bharata hints to the drawing of the curtain as the actors enter the stage on the singing of the 'धुवागान'.2

This goes to show that the curtain's position was at the door of the green-room, where the actors used to do their make-up?

Dr. Keith states that "behind the curtain are the actors, quarters (Nepathyaagrha) or tiring rooms. Here are performed the sounds necessary to represent uproar and confusion which cannot be represented on the stage, here also are uttered the voices of gods and other persons whose presence on the stage are impossible or undesirable."3

Such a description is available in the Encyclopeadia also.4

1. अभिज्ञानशाकुन्तलम्

Fifth Act p. 72. Kālidāsa Grahanthāvali. Chaukhambha Edition.

2. धुवायां संप्रयुक्तायां पटे चैवापकर्षिते।

—Nāṭyaśāstra 12-3. Baroda Edition.

3. A. B. Keith– The Sanskrit Drama, p. 387.

4. The tiring-room (Nepathya) was immediately behind the curtain. When characters came on the stage in a dignified manner, the two halves of the curtain were drawn aside by attendants. Encyclopeadia of Religion and Ethics. Vol. IV.

The position of the curtain should be before the Green-room from where the dancers and the actors etc. enter the stage. A description is available. In the second act of the ‘Mṛcchakaṭika’ Saṁvāhaka hurriedly enters the stage before the curtain is drawn.1 a Similar thing subsequently happens in the same act when ‘Karnpūraka’ also enters without the curtain being drawn.2

A reference suggesting that the curtain used to be located before the green-room is also available in ‘The Oxford Companion to the Theatre’.3 The aforesaid evidence makes it certain that there was a curtain before the door of the green-room which was drawn to enable the actors to enter the stage to play their roles.

In his criticism of Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra, Abhinava has pointed out the existence of two doors in the green-room.4 This means that there was a curtain at each of the two doors.

Ray Govind Chandra also mentions in his work that there used to be curtains at both the doors of the green-room.5 In the above description there is a reference to the curtains being drawn by two young women at the time of entry of the actors. This reference further bears evidence to the existence of curtains at both the doors of the green-room.

Dr. Raghavan has in his article quoted a reference from 'संगीतचूडामणि' about the curtains on the stage. According to that

1. प्रविश्य अपटीक्षेपेण संभ्रान्तः संवाहकः।

—Mrcch. II act p. 154. Bareilly publiction.

2. ततः प्रविशति अपटीक्षेपेण प्रहृष्टो विकटोज्ज्वलवेशः कर्णपूरकः!

—Ibid p. 180.

3. At the back of the stage was the curtain which separated it from the dressing rooms of the artists. Behind the curtain, were performed various noises off, sound of tumult, & c. voices of Gods which could not suitably be represented on the stage. p. 385. The Oxford Companion to the Theatre.

4. नेपथ्यगृहद्वारयोर्मध्ये।

—Com. Abhinava-bhāratī p. 449. Baroda Edition.

5. डा० राय गोविन्द चन्द्र — भरत-नाट्यशास्त्र में नाट्यशालाओं के रूप, p. 20.

the number of curtains were three.1

This gives an impression that there used to be an additional curtain on the stage also just before the audience. But the encyclopeadia contains a contradictory version that ‘The stage was open to the audience in front’.2 But this does not appear to be correct.

That there used to be a curtain on the stage in front of the audience is confirmed by a description available in ‘मालविकाग्निमित्र’.

The play is being enacted. The king is eager to see Mālavikā. The curtain has not yet been drawn. The king himself says that his eyes are thirsty to see Mālavikā standing behind the curtain and the anxious eyes are eager to draw the curtain.3 Here the king is spectator and Mālavikā is a dancer. This description justifies our conclusion that a curtain did exist at the stage in front of the audience as we find in the modern theatre too.

However, there is a controversy about the number of curtains. There is no authentic version available as to the exact number of curtains. In ‘Bharata-Kośa’ the number of curtain is hinted out to be three or even more.4

According to this description this conclusion seems to be justified that the number of curtains were more than three-one in between the Rangasīrṣa and the Rangapīṭha, two on the doors of

1. The verses say that there should be a thick and beautiful curtain in front. Behind it, there should be two very thin and beautiful curtains looking just like thin mist. The first curtain is the front ‘drop’ which is removed as soon as the show begins. Behind the mist-like curtain, the dancers perform the dance called lāsya.

p. 16. Article- theatre Architecture in Ancient India by Dr.V. Raghavan.

2. Encyclopeadia of Religion and Ethica. Vol. IV.

3. नेपथ्यपरिगतायााश्रुकुद्दर्शनसमुत्सकं तस्या:।

संहर्तुमधीरतया व्यवस्थितमिव मे तिरस्करणींम्॥

— Mrch. II act —1. p. 258.

4. Bharata-Kośa p. 514.

the green-room and one at the stage in front of the audience.

In the context of the curtains it is also essential to consider whether the curtain is the contribution of the Indian theatre itself or that of the Greek theatre. This has been a point of debate among the Indian and western scholars.

Among the scholars who do not believe in any Greek influence on Indian theatre. Dr. Keith in his ‘Sanskrit Drama’ has referred to the views of a number of scholars. According to him the word primarily is an adjective meaning Ionian, the Greeks with whom India first came into contact. But it was not confined to what was Greek in the strick sense of the word; it applies to anything connected with the Hellenized Persian Empire, Egypt, Syria, Bactria, and it therefore can not be rigidly limited to what is Greek. As applied to the curtain it is an adjective, and describes doubtless the material of the curtain (Paṭī, apatī) as foreign, possibly, as Levi suggests, Persian tapestry brought to India by Greek ships and merchants. The word Yavanikā has no special application to the curtain of the theatre, as would be the case, if it were borrowed as a detail of stage arrangement from. Greece. Nor in fact was there any curtain in the case of Greek drama, so far as is known, from which it could be borrowed; Windisch’s contention merely was that the curtain was called Greek because it took the place of the painted scenery at the back of the Greek stage.,1

In the same way Acharya Baldeva Upadhyaya also says that since the number of spectators was huge, the stage was erected at a higher plinth for their convenience and acting was done in the open. So there was no question of any curtain at the stage. When there was no curtain at the stage in the Greek thea.re. There stood no question for the Indian to immitate the practice.

Dr. Hemendra Nath Dass Gupta has also given a similar argument. Several other scholars also do not accept the curtain to be associated with the Greek influence. Prof. Bholanath Sharma goes to the extent of asserting that the word Yavanikā

1. A. B. Keith– The Sanskrit Drama p. 60-61.

indicates the cloth of the curtain. This cloth dd not exist on the

stage of the Greek-theatre and it is difficult to find out how such

an idea cropped up in the minds of these thinkers.1

Dr. C.B. Gupta has referred to the views of Dr. Keith.2

According to Keith, a few Greek women functioned as body-

guards of the kings. It is a farfetched notion to say on that basis

that the word Yavanikā has been derived from Greece.

Dr. Mankad has supported the views of Dr. S.K. De with

regard to Yavanikā. Dr. De considers ‘Yamanikā’ as more

appropriate word in place of Yavanikā. The word Yamanikā

carries the meaning ‘a covering or a curtain’.3

The above cited views of scholars produce an evidence to

the fact that the word Yavanikā was not drawn from the Greek

theatre to the Indian theatre. This is the own contribution of the

Indians themselves. However, it is difficult to assess the level of

authenticity of this conclusion.

Monier William translates Javanikā or Yavanikā as curtain.

Side by side he has also indicated that the word draws its origin

from Greece.4 However, he gives no basis for such an

assumption. This version at least gives an idea that Yavanikā is

somehow or the other definitely connected with Greece. The

views of Mr. Weber, another supporter of Greek influence on

Indian theatre, are available in the Encyclopaedia.5 He interprets

Yavanikā as Greek-cloth. According to him perhaps this word

indicates the cloth prepared by the Greeks.

The view that Yavanikā has nothing to do with the Greek

stage because there existed no curtain in the Greek theatre seems

to be misleading.

1. Bholanath Sharma– Nātyaśāstra p. 54. Kanpur Publication.

2. C. B. Gupta– Indian theatre p. 54.

3. D. R. Mankad– Ancient Indian Theatre, p. 21.

4. Javanikā (For Yavanikā? Borrowed from the Greek)

Monier Willium– A Sanskrit English Dictionary, p. 416.

5. Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. IV.

The Greek and the Roman theatres did have curtains and

solid evidence to this fact is available. The Roman theatre is not

different from the Greek. Curtain was certainly used on the

Roman stage and it was known by the name of 'Aulaeum'.1

"Aulaeum was lowered at the beginning of the play, instead of

being drawn up as with us, and it was not raised again until the

end."2 Besides this there also used to be another curtain known

as 'Sparium' which served the purpose of Drop-scene.

The Latin Dictionary equates Aulaeum with the Greek word

'Aulaea'. In the same Latin Dictionary Aulaeum is also

explained as 'An Embroidered Stuff', 'a curtain'. Again in the

Latin Dictionary the word Siparium is explained, besides as

'curtain', as a 'screen over the judges' seats to keep off the

sun.'3

There are a number of evidences to prove that the Roman

theatre had curtains. A reference to the curtain exists in the work

entitled as 'Theatre' three thousand years of Drama. According

to this work the Roman theatre had curtains which were let

down when the play started and raised up when the action was

done.4

A reference to those curtains were used in the beginning and

the end of play5 in Greece also occurs in the work titled as 'The

Theatre through the ages.'

This 'Latin term' 'Aulaeum' is borrowed from the Greek.6

In the Greek-drama we have references to representation of

Gods and Goddesses seated in their chariots in the heaven. Such

1. Oskar Seyffert– Dictionary of Classical Antiquities p. 33

2. Ibid. p. 33.

3. Lewis and Short– A Latin Dictionary Freund's Latin Dictionary, p.

5. Sheldon Cheney– "The Theatre" three thousand years of Drama, Acting

and stagecraft p. 99-100.

5. James Clever– 'The theatre through the ages,' p. 27.

6. Donaldson– 'Theatre of the Greek', p. 323.

an arrangement was done on the stage on both the sides of the

curtain behind the wall. Aeschylus also made such an

arrangement.1

In Greek also the curtain has been referred to as ‘Aulaea’.

‘The Greek-English-Lexicon’ interprets Aulaea as ‘curtain’

especially is used in the theatre.2

Then in the ‘Greek Theatre Production’, we find the Greek

term ‘Parapetasma’ for the curtain.3 Side by side, there is also a

mention that skin was used for the curtain. In ‘Greek-English-

Lexicon’, ‘Parapetasma’ carries the meaning of curtain in the

context of the theatre.

In the light of the above quoted evidence, it does not appear

to be irrelevant to say that Yavanikā has certainly been

associated with the Greek theatre. Both the Greek and the

Roman theatres made use of the curtain and the Latin term

Aulaeum, Siparium were used and in Greek the curtain was

known as Aulaea and sometimes Parapetasma.

The word ‘Aulaeum’ gives an idea that it has the same meaning

as the Sanskrit word ‘अवलम्ब’. The word अवलम्ब means

‘to hang’ and curtains do hang. Kālidāsa has used the word

‘लम्बमान’ in the sense of ‘hanging’. Again the word ‘प्रतिसीरा’ used

for the curtain in Sanskrit dictionary seems to stand parallel to

the Greek term ‘Parapetasma’, because प्रति is the prefix and सरति

is the verb. Likewise ‘Pra’ is also a prefix.

Similarity

The position of the curtain in the Indian theatre as specified

by Abhinavagupta is the same as it is in the Greek theatre. In the

Greek theatre, the curtain was hung in between logeion and

proscenium while according to Abhinavagupta its location was

between the Raṅgapīṭha and the Raṅgasīrṣa.

1. Donaldson- ‘Theatre of the Greek’, p. 322.

2. Greek-English-Lexicon, p. 276.

3. T. B. L. Webster- Greek Theatre Production, p. 20.

81

Difference

Taking in account the views of others the only difference between the position of the curtains in the Greek and Indian theatres appears to be that in the case of the Indian theatre, there is also a curtain on the stage just in front of the audience and it is drawn when the actors enter the stage while in the Greek theatre the curtain just provided a back-ground.

The aforesaid discussion proves that there existed a curtain in Greek theatre and thus the argument of those scholars who assert that the curtain is a known existence in Greek theatre is negative but it can not positively lead beyond to doubts the conclusion that Yavanikā of Indian theatre is the result of Greek influence.

CHAPTER - 5

THE ANCIENT GREEK THEATRE

Greek theatre has a long history. There is no authentic evidence as to what kind of a stage used to be. ‘Thespis’ might have been performed while winning the first Greek tragic contest in 534 B.C. with the beginning of classical period in Greek literature when the theatre took its formed shape.

In the fifth century B.C. dramatic performance used to be presented in Athens, only on two annual occasions, both of which marked religious festivals. The more important festival, however, was the so-called Greater or City Dionysia, which was celebrated annually in March or April in honour of God, Dionysus. This occasion was devoted to the presentation of tragedies and some comedies were also produced. Large audience attended the festival to see the various performances. So these festivals took place of a theatre where the Aesyclus, Sophocles and Euripides staged their plays.

As the rainfall was scarce in Greece. The early theatre was commenced to be without any roof. This fact led to the concept of an open-theatre.

Open-air Theatre

Vern O. Kundsen, and Cyril M. Harris have given an example of open-air theatre.1 The same view about the open-air theatre is available in ‘The Reader’s Encyclopaedia of World Drama’.2 According to that the earliest theatres probably consisted of no more than the concave slope of a hill rising above a level area, or orchestra, where the chorus danced and sang. There might have been seats, perhaps temporary, but the raised stage might not have appeared until the great age of

1. Vern O. Kundsen, Cyril M. Harris- Acoustical Designing in Architecture, p. 61.

2. Gassner & Quinn- The Reader’s Encyclopeadia of World drama, p. 372.

drama had passed.

According to Vern O. Kundsen and Cyril M. Harris-‘The

first Greek theatre was little more than a marked out place in a

hollow at the base of a hill side. The spectators stood on the hill-

side and watched the action, usually dancing, which took place

on the cleared space or stage. Later this marked out space

developed into a circular area called the orchestra, with banks of

benches extending about two thirds of the way around it. A

skene or platform behind the orchestra, a later addition, was

originally only a place for utility, rest and recreation of the

actors, all action occurred on the circular orchestra. The skene

developed into the Logeion, which was gradually deepened and

elevated to form the type of stage developed in Roman Theatre.1

The above cited views about the open-air theatre, it seems

clear that in the earlier period the theatres of the Greek were

quite open above and dramas were acted in day time, under the

sky.

John William Donaldson writes in his work that later this

period, the building was commenced in the year 500 B.C. In the

earlier days of the drama the theatre was of wood, but an

incident having occurred at the representation of some plays of

Aeschylus and Pratinas, the stone theatre was commenced in its

stead.2

According to the ancient Greek authorities, earliest and

ancient theatre of Dionysus at Athens was originally made of

wood. This structure was later replaced by the one of stone,

which still exists, though it has been reconstructed. See Fig. 21.

A reference is available in the Encyclopedia of Britannica

that ‘the first permanent stone-theatre in the world, the theatre of

1. Vern O. Kundsen, Cyril M. Harris- Acoustical Designing in

Architecture, p. 61.

2. John William Donaldson– Theatre of the Greeks, p. 138.

Dionysus, was built in Athens on the South slope of the

Acropolis by the politician Lycurgus in about 330 B.C.'1

So as it seems, great changes occurred in the fifth century

when the plays were presented in the theatre of Dionysus

situated on the slope of Acropolis.

The Greek theatre consisted of three main parts—

(1) The Orchestra

(2) The stage-building

(3) And the Auditorium.

1. Orchestra - (ΌρχηστΡα)

In Greek theatre, the circle in which the chorus danced, was

called the Orchestra which literally means “the dancing place”,

deriving from the Greek verb Όρχεσθαι' 'to dance'.2

In 'The New Theatre Handbook' a reference is available

about the Orchestra to the fact that it was, at first, the only

performing area, the stage being added only when the actors

became distinct from the chorus.3

Dictionary of Classificial Antiquities made a description

about it. According to that 'the Orchestra was considerably

below the level of the stage and was connected with it by means

of steps, by which the chorus ascended on the rare occasions

when the action of the play involved their presence on the stage.

But as a general rule, the chorus remained in the Orchestra, at a

lower level than the stage.'4

T.B.L. Webster has given the dimension of the Orchestra.

According to him, it was more than half of the 60 ft. diameter

circle of the Orchestra.5

1. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 18.15th Edition p. 240-241.

2. Whitney J. Oates and Eugene O’ Neill, JR.

The Complete Greek Drama, p. XVI.

3. Bernard Sobel– The New Theatre Handbook, p. 520.

4. Oskar Seyffert– Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, p. 625.

5. T. B. L. Webster- Greek Theatre Production, p. 5.

H.C. Baldry writes about its dimension that it was about 60

ft. across.1

According to Frank M. Whiting an Orchestra-circle used to

be about 90 feet in diameter.2

Phyllis Hartnoll has also given the dimension of the

Orchestra of Athens theatres-Epidaurus and Megalopolis.

According to him, the Orchestra was always a full circle, the

diameter of which was in Athens 64 feet.3

Peter D. Arnott has given an example about the theatre of

Dionysus. He says "In the theatre of Dionysus the Orchestra was

even made water tight to allow it to be flooded and used for

battles between miniature ships."4

Peter D. Arnott has also written that the chorus was for the

most part, confined to the Orchestra where there was room for

the complicated dances. He also writes 'the proper home for the

chorus was the Orchestra; though they occasionally appeared in

other parts of the theatre, they were never there for long.'5 See

Fig. 27.

On the basis of the above discussion it can be safely asserted

that orchestra is the main part of the Greek theatre. It was a

circular space in the Greek theatre on which the chorus

performed their dances. This space was between the spectators

and the raised stage. No definite claim can be asserted about its

dimension in the absence of any authentic evidence, as it stands

today. See Fig. 16.

Thymele (Altar) (θυμελ–η)

In the centre of the Orchestra was an altar of Dionysus,

called the Thymele in the Greek theatre. On this the choral

1. H. C. Baldry– The Greek Tragic Theatre, p. 40.

2. Frank M. Whiting– An Introduction to the Theatre, p. 177.

3. Phyllis Hartnoll– The Oxford Companion to the Theatre, p. 337

4. Peter D. Arnott– An Introduction to the Greek Theatre, p. 36.

5. Ibid p. 36,37.

dances had been held in the area round the altar. This will be discussed in this work at a later stage.

Parodoi - (παραδoι)

The passage ways on either side (between the skene and auditorium) were called in Greek -Parodoi ‘παραδοι’ and in Latin-Parodi; and were the spectator’s main access to the Auditorium before the plays began. These Parodi, were used not only by the spectators for entering and leaving the theatre, but also for the entrances and exits of actors and the chorus.

H.C. Baldry writes in his work-“the actors come and go by the Parodoi at the sides of the dancing circle, and seem free to move anywhere between the skene and the front row of the audience as the action demands”.1

The term ‘παροδοσ’ (Parodos) interprets in the ‘Greek-English-Lexicon’ as-‘first entrance of a chorus in the Orchestra, which was made from the side wings’ or ‘side entrance on the stage’.2

Peter D. Arnott writes about it as follows "the space between either end and the scene-building was known as the ‘Parodos’”.3

Thus it is clear that the chorus entered the Orchestra by means of Parodoi provided on both the sides of the stage and these Praodoi gave also access to the audience who came in by the Orchestra. See Fig. 16.

2. Skene or Scene-building (σκηνη)

After discussing the first main part of Greek theatre-Orchestra. We come to the second main part skene or stage-building. Now the question is what was the need of skene and when it was realized? We find an answer to this in the work of

1. H. C. Baldry- The Greek Tragic Theatre, p44.

2. Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott- A Greek-English-Lexicon, p. 1341.

3. Peter D. Arnott- An Introduction to the Greek-Theatre, p. 34.

87

Peter D. Arnott.

According to Peter D. Arnott the actors-Chorus division created the need for any place where the actors could change their costumes. Probably this need was filled by a simple booth or tent erected at the boundary of the Orchestra.

So it is clear that a tent or hut was erected at the edge of the Orchestra for actors to change their costume. Further a question is faced as to what was the shape and size of this skene?

The Greek term ‘skene’ used for this tent, stands for Latin ‘Scaena’, whence comes our word ‘Scene’.

The term ‘σκηνη’ is interpreted in the Greek-English-lexicon as a ‘tent or booth’, and ‘stage-building as background for plays’.

G.M.A. Richter interprets the ‘Skene’ as a ‘Stage’. John William Donaldson’s view also is the same as above.

A reference is also available in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. According to that ‘the stage (Skene) was at that time not a raised platform but a low wooden barrier closing the back of the Orchestra, behind which the actors and chorus went for changes of mask and costume.’

Thus it is clear that the skene was a wooden structure. Probably in the last quarter of the fifth century, this temporary structure was replaced, in turn, by a permanent stone-building. See Fig. 16.

H.C. Baldry has given its dimension. According to him ‘it would be over a hundred feet long, but probably it was not more than twelve feet deep’. He also writes ancient writers on the

1. Peter D. Arnott– An Introduction to the Greek Theatre, p. 33.

2. Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott– A Greek-English-Lexicon, p. 1608.

3. G. M. A. Richter– A Handbook of Greek Art, p. 36.

4. John William Donaldson– Theatre of the Greeks, p. 140.

5. Encyclopaedia Britannica, p240.

6. H.C. Baldry– The Greek Tragic Theatre, p. 41.

Greek theatre assume that it had a stage some ten or twelve feet high'.

T.B.L. Webster writes in his work 'In the Periclean theatre, the total depth of the stage-building is at most 12 ft.'.1

On the basis of the above evidences, it can be assumed that the depth of the stage might have been 12 feet.

At the later period, stage come to have two divisions. According to John William Donaldson— 'the stage was cut breadth-wise into two divisions. The one in front, called λογɛιov, was a narrow parallelogram projecting into the orchestra. This was generally the station of the actors when speaking, and therefore, was constructed of wood, the better to reverberate the voice'.2 The Greek λογɛιov was called Pulpitum in Latin.

'The part of the platform behind the λογɛιov was called the Πρoσκηνιov, and was built of stone, in order to support the heavy scenery and decorations, which were there placed. The Proscenium was backed and flanked by lofty buildings of stone-work, representing externally a palace-like mansion and containing within with-drawing-rooms for the actors, and receptacles for the stage-machinery'.3

Further John William Donaldson writes about the dimension of Logeion and Proscenium. According to him the stage consisted of a parallelogram extending from side to side of the theatre, and having but little depth in comparison with this width. This was called the Logeum, or in Latin, Pulpitum and the middle of it was the usual place for the speaking persons. Behind this central part it went inwards in quadrangular form, but still with less depth than breadth. The space thus enclosed was called the Proscenium.4

1. T. B. L. Webster– Greek Theatre Production, p. 9

2. John William Donaldson– Theatre of the Greeks, p. 141.

3. Ibid p. 141.

4. John William Donaldson– Theatre of the Greeks, p. 320.

The Greek-English-Lexicon shows the word Logeion (^oyeiov) as 'Speaking place' in the theatre'.1 And Encyclopaedia Britannica also corroborates it which mentions also the word 'Proskenion' from which 'Proscenium' is derived.2

Thus we may conclude that in the earlier period, only the skene was constructed, where the chorus and actors changed their costumes. Thereafter at a later stage, the stage was divided into two parts. The first one was Logeion, where actors speak and the second portion was called Proscenium which represented the scenery and decorations and where the stage-machinery were placed. See Fig. 16.

It has also been mentioned in Encyclopaedia Britannica that Logeum stood 10 or 12 feet above the Orchestra and was supported by a row of columns.3

According to Oskar Seyffert the height of Proscenium was ten or twelve feet.4

So it is clear that the actors used two levels of the stage at a height of ten or twelve feet from the Orchestra and its depth was less than the breadth.

According to the Oskar Seyffert, skene was only the decorated wall at the back of the stage, and the same name was, however, given to the stage-building.

From the above discussion it is amply clear that in the ancient period skene was a back wall, which was decorated and a later stage it was developed into the stage-building. Thereafter the stage was cut into two divisions. Logeion is the front side of the stage and Proscenium is the back portion of the Logeion. A reference is made about the stage that the Logeion is slightly

1. Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott- A Greek-English-Lexicon, p. 1055.

2. Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 30.

3. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 18. P.No.745.

4. Oskar Seyffert- Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, p. 623.

90

raised than Proscenium.

Phyllis Hartnoll indicates the advantage of low and high stage. A high stage's advantage is that the actors and chorus mingle much too freely and low stage is probably descending into the Orchestra by steps.

Paraskenia - (Projecting Wings) (Παρασκευήν)

Perhaps at either end of the stage were two projecting wings, called in Greek ‘Paraskenia’. Evidently these were made of wood and at a later stage of stone. See Fig. 16.

In the Greek-English-Lexicon ‘παρασκευήν’ interprets as ‘pitch one's tent beside’.

Doors

The stage had three doors which served as additional entrances and exits for the actors.

Phyllis Hartnoll writes ‘skene provided at least three entrances to the stage and orchestra, two others were given by passages between the Paraskenia and the Auditorium-passages which were used also by the audience.’

T.B.L. Webster writes his view about the doors that the New stage-building with wide central door and two narrow side-doors was completed by 425. He further writes that the side doors were used occasionally. It is therefore, a concluded fact that there were usually three doors to the stage which gave access to the Orchestra.

Stage-Machinery

Lighting effects were naturally, impossible to be produced in an open-air theatres. To overcome this difficulty mechanical devices were came to be used in permanent stone-building in the

1. Phyllis Hartnoll– The Oxford Companion to the Theatre, p. 337.

2. Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott.– A Greek-English-Lexicon, p1324.

3. Phyllis Hartnoll– The Oxford Companion to the Theatre, p. 337.

4. T. B. L. Webster– Greek Theatre Production, p. 9,10.

5th Century B.C. Three major devices namely-the Ekkyklema, the PeriaktoS and the Mechane, were invented in that period.

1. Ekkyklema - (Εκκυκλεμα)

As interior scenes were practically impossible to represent a mechanical device, called the Ekkyklema was developed. It was a square or round-shaped rolling platform which was pulled out through the stage-door in the middle of the skene to reveal to the audience, the results of events going on inside the house. The purpose was to show the happenings inside the house by bringing the interior out before the eyes of the spectators.

T.B.L. Webster writes that ‘wheeled platform 10 ft. wide by 6 ft. deep could have been used in the practicable door’.1

2. Perioaktoi (Περιακτοι)

The second device was the Periaktoi. It was a prism-shaped unit with different scenes or decorations pointed on its three faces each of which could be revolved on its axis for changing the scene of the stage.

3. Mechane: ( Μηχανη)

The third device commonly used, was the Mechane. This was like a crane or derrick used primarily for raising and lowering the Gods and heroes.

Another device was the Hemikyklion, a semi-circular object of canvas depicting a distant city. Stropheion-a revolving machine used to show heroes in heaven or battles at sea, was yet another machine.

Theologeion- (θ εολογ−ειον)

A high platform above the Logeion or flat roof of the skene, where Gods made their appearance in the Greek theatre was called the Theologeion (θ εολογ−ειον).

Peter D. Arnott has taken the Theologeion as the third acting area. According to him-‘A third acting area was the roof of the scene-building. This provided, an upper storey which could

1. T. B. L. Webster- Greek Theatre Production, p. 9.

conveniently represent the heaven, in which Gods and Goddesses appeared.'1

Curtain-(αὐλαία) Aulaea-

Curtain was used in the Greek theatre T.B.L. Webster writes that the vase-painting gives us a picture of the fifth-century curtain in Athens. It used to be located by the side of the stage to isolate the area in which the comic persons danced.2 It has already been discussed in the preceding chapter. See Fig. 25.

3. Auditorium

Third main part of Greek theatre was Auditorium. The Auditorium was exceedingly spacious and shaped semi-circular with tiers of seats rising one above the other.

The existence of pretty big theatres with capacity to seat as many as 17,000 persons have been referred to in 'The Complete Greek Drama' which given a description of Dionysus Theatre located in Athens at the slope of Acropolis.3 See Fig. 21.

Peter D. Arnott has mentioned in his work that the theatre at Epidauros held an audience of 14,000 in ancient times.4 Encyclopaedia Britannica also mentions that 10,000 to 20,000 people could be accommodated in the Auditorium.5 See Fig. 20.

A reference about the Auditorium is available in 'The American Peoples Encyclopaedia'. According to that 'In the Auditorium were more than 100 rows in the centre of the theatre at Athens-divided vertically and in many cases horizontally also, by passages for the sake of access. The lowest row of seats at Athens was of. marble and was reserved for persons of

1. Peter D. Arnott- An Introduction to the Greek Theatre p. 37.

2. T. B. L. Webster- Greek Theatre Production, p. 20.

3. Whitney J. Oates and Eugene O' Neill, J.R.- The Complete Greek Drama, p. XVI.

4. Peter D. Arnott- An Introduction to the Greek Theatre p. 34.

5. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol.18. 15th Edition. p. 220.

distinction, chiefly the priests, the rest of ordinary stone, about 27,500 people could be accommodated.1

A reference of Dionysus Theatre occurs in ‘A Handbook of Greek Art’. According to that ‘Behind the orchestra rose the Auditorium in shape a little more than a semi-circle. It was divided by an ambulatory (diazoma) into two storeys and by radiating stairways into wedge-shaped sectors (Kerkides), twelve in the lower storey, and about twice that number in the upper. All the seats were of stone’.2

Gisela M.A. Richter has given also the dimension of the Auditorium’s seats. ‘The width of each seat was 2 feet 5 1/4 inches, the height varied from 13 inches in the lower storey to 17 inches in the upper’.3

Whitney J. Oates and Eugene O’Neill have mentioned of Diamona which divided the lower and the upper parts of the theatre’.4

On the basis of the above cited views it can be safely concluded that the Auditorium was semi-circular in shape and the seats were arranged in stair-form. The Auditorium was divided by Diazoma into the upper and lower parts. The arranged seats were separated by passages in sections, which were called Kerkis. These Kerkis ran from the top tier to the bottom and also from side to side, allowing the audience to assemble and disperse with ease. See Fig. 16.

1. The American Peoples Encyclopaedia, p. 745. Vol8.

2. Gisela M.A. Richter– A Handbook of Greek Art, p. 36.

3. Gisela M.A.Richter– A Handbook of Greek Art, p. 36.

4. Whitney J. Oates and Eugene O’ Neill– The Complete Greek Drama, p. XVI.

CHAPTER - 6

STAGE-MACHINERY

1. Periaktoi- (περιακτοι)

As stated in the bygone chapter, Greek theatre used some mechanical devices. There was a permanent appliance by which scenery could be changed and it was known by the name ‘Periaktoi’. There is, however, no evidence that it was known in the great age of Athenian drama. It probably belonged to a later period. Periaktoi are constructed of three flats put together to form a wooden triangular prism standing on their ends and revolving in sockets. Each of their three sides were painted to indicate different localities, each could be revolved on its axis. A twist given to either marked a change of place, the change of one Periactus meant a change of locality within the same region, while the alteration of both meant a complete change of district.

A reference to the Periaktoi is made in the ‘Dictionary of Classical Antiquities’. In this book according to Pollux and Vitruvius-“The Periaktos to the right of the audience represented views in the immediate neighbourhood of the city where the scene of the action is laid. The Periakto to the left represented a more distant country. In correspondence with this, the entrance to the right of the audience was reserved for actors coming from the immediate neighbourhood; while that of the left was for those who came from a distance”.1

Greek-English-Lexicon interprets ‘περιακτοι’ (Periaktoi) as a “machines for changing the scene on the stage”.2

There are a number of evidences to prove that the Greek and Roman theatres had used Periaktoi.3

1. Oskar Seyffert- Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, p. 626.

2. Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott- A Greek-English-Lexicon, p. 1368.

3. A. Oscar G. Brocket- The Theatre an introduction, p. 60.

95

A reference to the Periaktoi is made in the ‘Greek Theatre Production’. According to that “the Periaktoi were triangular in section and each had therefore three different fronts which could be shown to the audience but no revolving platform. They were used to indicate, change of place but also in connection with the thunder and lightning and to announce the appearance of a God”.1

The Word Theatre Encyclopaedia quotes that ‘Periaktos movable scenic device used on the Roman theatre from about 79 B.C.’2 and according to the ‘Oxford Companion to the Theatre’ Periaktoi were made of wood.3

Thus it is clear that the mechanical devices Periaktoi were used in the Greek and Roman theatres for changing the scene of the stage. See Fig. 17.

2. Ekkyklema- (ἐκκύκλημα)

Another stage device used in the ancient Greek and Roman theatre was known as the Ekkyklema, ‘something rolled out’. The ‘Greek-English-Lexicon interprets the term ‘ἐκκύκλημα’, as ‘theatrical machine, used to display an interior’.4

In ‘The New Theatre Handbook’ Ekkyklema is explained as-a semi-circular revolving platform, the purpose of which was to provide an interior scene.5

According to Pollux quoted by Prof. Gilbert Norwood in the footnotes of his work ‘the Ekkyklema is a lofty stand raised upon timbers and carrying a chair’.6

B. Bernard Sobel– The New Theatre Handbook, p. 533.

C. Gilbert Norwood– Greek Tragedy, p 63.

D. Encyclopaedia of Britannica, Vol.18 p. 220.

1 T. B. L. Webster– Greek Theatre Production p. 27.

2. Thames and Hudson– Encyclopaedia of World Theatre, p. 212.

3. Phyllis Hartnoll– The Oxford Companion to the Theatre, p. 491.

4. Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott– A Greek-English-Lexicon, p.. 511

5. Bernard Sobel– The New Theatre Handbook, p. 270.

6. Gilbert Norwood– Greek Tragedy, p. 67.

96

'Illustrated Encyclopaedia of World Theatre' interprets the Ekkyklema as a stage-cart in the Greek theatre.1 As to the purpose of the Ekkyklema, although exactly unknown yet scholars have tried to explain. In a dramatic performance sometimes it might be difficult to represent the death on the stage which the situation essentially demanded. This was conceived to be conveyed to the audience by showing the dead body. What exactly happened inside could not be practically shown before the eyes of the spectators. In such cases, the death was reported through a messenger and the body revealed on a platform pushed out through the skene-doors.

Now the question arises what was the shape of the Ekkyklema? We find a reference in this context in 'Encyclopaedia of Britannica'. According to that these wheeled platforms were usually round, although recent archaeological evidence suggests that some may have been square.2

Thus we can conclude that Ekkyklema was a square or round shaped wheeled platform and was pulled out, through the stage-door in the middle of the skene, to reveal to the audience the results of events inside the house. See Fig. 18.

Prof. Peter D. Arnott also writes that fifth century dramatists used it frequently. He has quoted many examples of its use, as in the Ajax of Sophocles, Acharnian of Aristophanes.3 Prof. Gilbert gives an example from Agamemnon of Aeschylus in his work.4

3. Mechane - (μηχaνή)

Another mechanical device was the Mechane. This was like a crane by which actors descended or ascended. There is no clear evidence when it was first used. It came into use probably

1. Thames and Hudson- Illustrated Encyclopaedia of world Theatre, p. 15.

2. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol.17. p. 531.

3. Peter D. Arnott- An Introduction to the Greek Theatre, p. 42,43.

4. Gilbert Norwood- Greek Tragedy, p. 66.

in the early tragedy and comedy in the fifth century. Prof. John

William Donaldson writes in his work that it was much used

even by Aeschylus. He also quotes an example.1

Prof. Gilbert Norwood writes about the Machane in his

work: “Machane was a crane from which cords were attached to

the actor’s body; a stage-hand hauled the actors up or down by a

winch”.2

In the ‘Greek-English-Lexicon’ the word Mechane

interprets as “Theatrical Machine by which Gods etc. were made

to appear in the air”.3

Oscar G. Brockett4, Peter D. Arnott5, and others wrote about

it that is was a general observation that when a tragic plot

become too complicated, to resolve its difficult dramatic

situations, all dramatists had to introduce a ‘Latin phrase

“deusex machina” (God from the machine) to express it.

Donaldson writes that the Machine (Crane) by mean of

which Gods were to appear aloft in air, or men to ascend

towards heaven, was attached above behind the walls on either

side of the screen, and thus withdrawn from the eye of the

spectator.6

It suggests that the device was used to show actors as

climbing up to the heaven and down to the earth, acting as Gods

and Goddesses sitting in their chariot or otherwise. So it is clear

that the machine by means of which these characters may

1. “In Prometheus he not only introduces oceanus riding on a griffin

through the air, but also the whole chorus of the oceanides, consisting of

fifteen person at least in a winged chariot.”

• quoted by John William Donaldson, Theatre of the Greeks, p.322.

2. Gilbert Norwood– Greek Tragedy, p. 65.

3. Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott– A Greek-English Lexicon p.

5. Oscar G. Brockett– The Theatre an introduction, p. 60.

6. Peter D. Arnott– An Introduction to the Greek Theatre, p. 43.

7. John William Donaldson– Theatre of the Greeks, p. 322.

descend to the orchestra-level or be lifted up from the orchestra

to the roof of the stage house, was called machane. See Fig 19.

Thus, it seems appropriate to assert that these mechanical

devices were used by the fifth century dramatists Euripidies,

Aeschylus and Aristophanes.

In this context of mechanical devices a reference is available

in the Encyclopaedia of Britannica which points out that

machines were added in the Hellenistic period, by which time

the theatre had almost completely lost its religious base. Among

these machines was the Hemikyklion, a semi-circle of canvas

depicting a distant city and a stropheion, a revolving machine,

used to show heroes in heaven or battles at sea. 1

Comparison

Difference

As stated before these mechanical devices were used in the

Greek theatre to represent such scenes which could not be

practically shown to the spectators in their realistic from on the

stage. For example, the descent or ascent of a God. But there is

no evidence that such Mechanical devices were used in the

Indian theatre. It is possible that, according to the requirement of

the plot, the different portions of the Indian stage were used for

representing different scenes, e g. to show the abode of Yakṣa or

Kubera on the ‘Kailāśa Parvata’ and of Apsaras on the ‘Hemkūt

Parvata’, so for this purpose divisions of the stage could have

been made. This division of the stage was called ‘Kakṣyā-

Vibhāga’. It was imaginary in nature and generally the different

portions indicated the various places and countries on the stage

as the plot require. These different portions were divided in a

way that when an actor moved from one portion to the other, it

represented his movement from one place or country to the

other.

1. Encyclopaedia of Britannica, Vol. 17. P.531.

99

Thus we see that there is a great difference between the ancient Greek and Indian theatres in representing the scene on the stage. In the Greek theatre mechanical devices were used for the presentation of the scenes on the stage while Indian theatre made no use of such mechanical devices. Though Bharata and Abhinavagupta have suggested a device for presentation of scene on the stage, called ‘Kakṣyā-vibhāga’.

When a character was to be shown descending from a ‘Vimāna’ or a chariot in any scene in a Sanskrit drama, the current act of the drama was ended and in the beginning of the next act that actor was shown descending or ascending as the case might be as in the sixth and seventh act of the ‘Abhijñāna-Śākuntalem’.1

Similarity

In the Sanskrit dramas scenes of battles, murder etc. were not to be shown on the stage. So such incidents were to be announced through the actor’s conversation. As-In the fifth act of ‘Uttara-Rāmcharitam’2 war between Love and Chandraketu, was announced by the statement of Vidyādhara and his spouse. This technique is called Viṣkambhaka. Similarly in Greek theatre also such happenings were only reported and not shown as in the Ajax of Sophocles.

Thymele (Altar) (θυμελ–η)

This is the name given to a surface on which sacrifice is offered. But n the Greek theatre altar has its own significance and importance. It stands in the centre of the orchestra in a Greek theatre and is called the Thymele.

The word ‘Thymele’ is explained in the ‘New Theatre Handbook’ as an ‘Altar erected in the centre of the Orchestra of the ancient Greek theatre, in honour of Dionysus,3 and in the

1. Dr. Nirupan Vidyalankar– Abhijñanaśākuntalam, p. 258, 260. Sahitya Bhandar Meerut. 4th Ed. 74.

2. Shri Janardan Shastri Pande– Uttararāmcharit, p. 452.

3. Bernard Sobel– The New Theatre Handbook, p. 676.

Greek-English-Lexicon’ as ‘the Altar of Dionysus which stood in the orchestra of the theatre’.1

The ‘World Theatre Encyclopaedia’ has used the Latin term-Lat. ‘altaara’ for altar, which means a raised fire place, place for worship and sacrifice.2 In this work a reference is available about the Thymele-“In the Greek theatre the altar (Thymele), sacred to Dionysus, stood in the middle of the orchestra or dancing area, subsequently at the periphery. The Greek drama preceded a sacrifice, indicating the religious nature of the performance”.3

As in the Greek-English-Lexicon quoted before, ‘Dictionary of Classical Antiquities’ also explained this word ‘the altar of Dionysus which stood in the centre of the orchestra in the Greek-theatre’.4

John William Donaldson had thrown some light upon the position and purpose of the Thymele. According to him-‘In front of the Orchestra, over against the middle of the stage, stood an altar-like elevation with steps, and rising as high as the stage, called the Thymele. On this the chorus grouped itself when not singing, but participating in the action. The choragus on such occasions placed himself on the floor of the Thymele, the better to see what was passing on the stage, and to speak with persons there present’.5

Again he writes about the position of the Thymele. According to him, ‘the Thymele lay exactly in the centre of the whole building’.6

Augustus William Schlegel writes about the height of the

1. Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott– A Greek-English-Lexicon, p. 809.

2. Thames and Hudson– Encyclopaedia of World Theatre, p. 14.

3. Ibid.

4. Oskar Seyffert– Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, p. 636.

5. John William Donaldson– Theatre of the Greeks, p. 323.

6. Ibid p. 323.

altar. According to him an altar used to be as high as the stage.1

Peter D. Arnott has also propounded his views about the

altar as he states "The most important feature of many plays in

an altar around which characters sit in supplication, or to which

they fly for protection. This was probably not the central altar in

the orchestra, which was the cult-altar of Dionysus and

associated with the religious side of the festival.2

Here he has relied upon the views of ancient authority in his

work. According to him-‘One ancient authority states that the

stage ‘property’ altar was a permanent fixture before the central

door of the skene’.3

The above cited views about the Thymele reveal that in the

centre of the orchestra was an altar for Dionysus, called the

Thymele in the Greek theatre. On this the choral dances used to

be held in the area round the altar. The above discussion also

makes it amply clear that the altar should be as high as the stage.

So it can be safely said that altar and stage should have the same

level. See Fig. 27.

Donaldson writing about the shape of the altar says-"In the

middle of this open flat stood a small platform, square and

slightly elevated called, (θuμελn) which saved both, as an altar

for the sacrifices, that preceded the exhibition and as the central

point, to which the choral movements were all referred’.4

From the above cited views of the different scholars it is

established beyond doubts that a square shape altar was

constructed in the middle of the orchestra, in honour of

Dionysus in the ancient Greek theatre as high as the stage. See

Fig. 16.

1. Augustus William Schlegel– Dramatic Art & Literature, p. 58.

2. Peter D.Arnott– An Introduction to the Greek Theatre p. 41.

3. Ibid p. 41.

4. John William Donaldson– Theatre of the Greeks, p. 140.

Peter D. Arnott1 and John William Donaldson2 have mentioned in their work that the Thymele sometimes was made to represent a tomb As in Persians and Choephoroi of Aeschylus tombs have been represented by the stage-altar.

Comparison

Difference

The first difference between the position of the altar by the term ‘Thymele’ in the Greek theatre and ‘Vedi̇kā’ in the Indian theatre is that the former was erected in the centre of the orchestra while the later was constructed on either sides of the Rangapīṭha.

The second difference is that of its number-one in Greek theatre while two in the Indian theatre.

Similarity

The shape of the altar in the Indian theatre, as specified by Bharata and Abhinavagupta, is similar to that of the Greek theatre, both being square.

In both the cases the height of the altar was at par with the stage.

Theologeion (θεολογ-ειον)

There used to be some complicated stage-machinery called Theologeion in the upper storey of the Greek-theatre to show the appearance of the Gods.

Theologeion is interpreted in the ‘Greek-English-Lexicon’ as- “A place above the stage where Gods appeared”.3 Similarly ‘World-theatre-Encyclopaedia’ interprets the Theologeion as the ‘Stage of the Gods’.4

1. Peter D.Arnott– An Introduction to the Greek Theatre, p. 41.

2. John William Donaldson– Theatre of the Greeks, p. 140.

3. Henry George Liddell & Robert scott– A Greek-English-Lexicon, p. 790.

4. Thames and Hudson– Encyclopaedia of World Theatre, p. 268.

H.C. Baldry has given Pollux's view about the Theologeion as-"above the skene-a place from which Gods speak".1 H.C. Baldry argues that from some of the plays of Aeschylus and Euripides clears that such a higher level was required and it was provided by the flat roof of the wooden structure itself, presumably reached by stairs inside the building in the fifth century.2

John William Donaldson propounded his views about the Theologeion in his work. According to him 'there was θεολογεion, a platform surrounded and concealed by clouds, where Gods or heroes to be seen passing through the void of the sky'.3

The word Theologeion is also explained in 'The New Theatre Handbook' as in the Greek-theatre, a platform above the Logeion where actors usually appeared; the Theologion was used by actors portraying Gods.4

J.P. Mahaffy interprets the Theologeion as the 'God's stage'. He also writes about it that it seems, this machinery had been hidden by a large curtain hung from above.5

T.B.L. Webster has given an example for using the Theologeion. He called it the "High platform". He writes-'This high platform may also have been used by the chorus of the Prometheus Vinctus during their first scene when they enter in a winged car or cars; this is perhaps the least unsatisfactory of the many interpretations that have been given; the only certainty is that the chorus do not, when they enter, take their normal place in the orchestra; they only appear there after the departure of

1. H. C. Baldry- The Greek Tragic Theatre p. 42.

2. Ibid p. 42.

3. John William Donaldson- Theatre of the Greeks, p. 143.

4. Bernard Sobel- The New Theatre Handbook, p. 671-672.

5. J.P. Mahaffy- Greek Classical Literature, Vol.I, Part II (Dramatic poets) p. 18.

104

Okeanos'.1

Thereafter he has given another example that this may be the same high platform as is used by the Watchman in the Agamenon.2

After determining the position of Theologeion according the views of different scholars. We now look into its the purpose it was meant for? And as T.B.L. Webster states the chief advantage was, that the actors could be seen and heard better on this high stage.3

In view of aforesaid comments it can be reasonably concluded that a platform above the Logeion or flat roof of the skene, where Gods made their appearance in the Greek theatre, was called Theologeion, its main purpose was that the actors could be seen and heard easily.

Though the Indian theatre also had been double storeyed, (द्विभूमि) there was no such type of platform.

1. T.B.L. Webster– Greek Theatre Production p. 12.

2. Ibid. p. 12.

3. Ibid. p. 21.

CHAPTER - 7

Conclusion

The discussions in the foregoing pages lead us to point out clearly many points of parity and disparity between the Greek and Indian Theatres-which may directly be put down as follows:

Similarities:

1. The Source of Origin

The source of origin of both these theaters was religion. In India the theatre originated in the form of festivals and rituals undergone on the occasion of religious festival of 'इन्द्रध्वज'1 celebrated to hale the victory of god ‘Indra’ on Asuras, as is indicated by Bharata in his Nātyaśāstra.2

In Greece also the theatre has as it origin the religious festival of Dionysus, used to be celebrated annually in the month of March or April in honour of the God Dionysus.

2. Open-air theatre

The dramas were staged in the open place in both Greece and India in the ancient time.

In the earlier period the Greek theatres were quite open above and dramas were acted in day time, under the sky.

Similarly in India also the plays were acted in the open places as Bharata indicated in his work.3

3. Stage

Stage was divided into two parts, in Greek and Indian

1. Babulal Shukla Shastri has mentioned in his work that ‘Indradhavja’ festival was celebrated in 'भाद्रपद शुक्ल-द्वादशी' in honour of the victory of 'Indra'. p. 15 Nātyaśāstra - Chokhambha Edition.

2. Nātyaśāstra 1- 53-54. Chokhambha Edition.

3. अथ बाह्यप्रयोगे तु प्रेक्षागृहविवर्जिते ।

विदिक्स्वपि भवेदृङ् कदाचिद्रुद्ररङ्गया ॥

-Nātvaśustra. 14-63. Chokhambha Edition.

theatres. At the later period Greek stage come to have two divisions. The first part of the Greek stage was called Logeion, where actors speak. The second and back portion of the Greek stage was proscenium, which representing the scenery and where the stage-machinery were placed.

The Indian stage also was divided into two portions-Rangapīṭha and Rangasīrṣa. The Rangapīṭha was the main and the front portion meant for the actors to play their roles while the Rangaśīrṣa the back portion was utilised by the singers and musicians to sit and relax

4. Projecting-Wings

In both the theatres two projecting wings were constructed at position is common to both. In Greek theatre these were called ‘Paraskenia’ and were constructed on either end of the stage. Similarly in Indian theatre also the projecting wings, called as Mattavāranis, were erected on both the sides of the stage.

5. Altar

Another similarity is found in the shape of the Vedikā (altar)-in the Indian theatre and the ‘Thymela’ in the Greek theatre, both shaped as square and having the same level as those of the stage. See Fig. 13, 16.

6. Curtain

The position of the curtain in the Indian theatre as specified by Abhinavagupta is the same as it is in the Greek theatre. Abhinavagupta has located the curtain in between the Rangapīṭha and the Rangaśīrṣa.1 In the Greek theatre also the curtain was hung between the Logeion and Proscenium.2

7. Auditorium

The auditorium was constructed in the stair-form in both the Greek and Indian theatres. In Indian theatre, as Bharata

1. Abhinava-bhāratī, p. 506. B.H.U.P. Varanasi.

2. John William Donaldson- Theatre of the Greeks p. 145.

indicates, the auditorium was constructed of wood or bricks and

had the shape of a stair-case, was to be occupied by the

audience. The seats were arranged successively at a height of

one hasta from the floor so that the stage might be perfectly

visible to the audience.

In the Greek theatre also the auditorium was constructed in

the same fashion and all the seats of the auditorium were placed

in rows which themselves were arranged in manner that each

back ro ἦ stood higher to its frontal one. The seats were made of

wood or stone in Greek as well as in Indian theatre.

Dissimilarities

Beyond these similarities many dissimilarities also are

perceptible in matter of their construction.

In Greek theatre, the altar called thymele, was erected in the

middle of the centre, stipulated for orchestra or dancing place

while in case of Indian theatre the altars, called Vedikā, were

constructed on both the sides of Rangapīṭha.

The second difference is that of the number of the altars. In

Greek theatre there was only one while in Indian theatre two

altars used to be erected.

Then there is another dissimilarity which pertains to the

curtain. In Indian theatre, there was only one curtain on the stage

just in front of the audience and used to be drawn when the

actors entered the stage while in the Greek theatre the curtain

served as back-ground.

Then we come across yet other dissimilarity existing in the

form of the shapes of the auditorium in both the cases. The

Greek auditurium was in semi=-circular in shape and was

divided into two portions by means of Diazoma-upper and lower

part, while the Indian auditorium was in square-form in the

Vikṛṣṭa, rectangular in caturasra and triangular in the Trysara

theatre.

The Greek theatre had developed some mechanical devices

to represent such scenes as could not be practically shown to the

spectators in their realistic form while Indian theatre made no

use of such mechanical devices.

There was still another dissimilarity with regard to use or non-use of mechanical devices.

The controversial point as to whether Indian theatre was influenced in any way by the Greek theatre or not.

The scholars who accept the theory of Greek influence on Indian theatre, like Weber; Levy and other scholars who has given the interpretation in favour of Greek influence. They have taken a point of Yavanikā to prove the Greek influence on Indian theatre.

Other scholars who do not believe in any Greek influence on Indian theatre; Dr. Keith, Dr. Pischel, Dr. Windish, Prof. Baldev Upadhyay, Dr. Hemendra Nath Dass Gupta, have given the interpretations against Greek influence.

In support of the above Greek influence we got some recent matter on this topic in ‘The Hindustan Times’ daily. Prof. M.L. Varad Pande writes in his article that a Greek-play was staged in Alexander’s Military Camp on the bank of the Jhelum. He also points out that now scholars have actually found out, which play was enacted in the Alexander’s Military Camp in Punjab in the year 326 B.C., was ‘Agen’.

Prof. M.L. Varad Pande has also given a photograph of an Amphi-theatre with a pronounced Graeco-Roman influence excavated at Nāgārjunakonda in Andhra Pradesh.1

Mr. R.K. Yajnik has quoted that Dr. Bloch unearthed an ancient theatrical stage in a cave in Ramagarh and proved it to be 2,300 years old.2 Prof. Amulya Charan Bidyabhūshan has mentioned the full details about the Sitabengara cave in Ramagarh in his article.3

1. M.L. Varad-Pande– Greek Theatre in Ancient India in ‘The Hindustan Times’ p. 5, dated 11th October, 1981.

2. R.K. Yajnik– The Indian Theatre, p. 14. Foot-note.

3. Amulya Charan Bidyābhūṣan– The Dance Theatre at Ramagarh. This article is in The Theatre of the Hindus by H.H. Wilson. p. 219-224.

In seems that no specific factor is available in the context of Greek influence but it can be safely asserted that some sort of Greek influence found its place in the Indian theatre because the photographs and monuments of Greek theatre of 4th or 5the Century B.C. are available, while no such ancient photographs of Indian theatre exist and the similarities, dissimilarities previously discussed herein are difficult to be asserted for otherwise.

110

Bibliography

1. Acharya, P.K.— ‘A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture’. Bhāratīya Publishing House, H.O. B-9/45, Pilkhana, Sonarpur, Varanasi. 1979.

2. Ed. Āchārya, Viśweśvar— ‘Hindi Abhinava-bhāratī’. Hindi Dept., University of Delhi, Delhi, First Edition- 1960.

3. Ed. Agrawal, Madan Mohan— ‘Bhāvaprakāśanam of Śāradātanaya’. Agra Publication, Sadabad, Radhakrishana General Store- 1978.

4. Amarakośa-Com. Amarapadavṛtti of Liṅgayasūrin and the com. Amarapadapārijāta of Mallinatha’. The Adyar Library and Reasearch Centre, Adyar, Madras-20. 1971.

5. Amara-Kosha— With the annotation of Raghunatha Chakrabartty’. P.M. Soor & Co. Crown Press, 2, Goabagan Street, Calcutta.

6. Amara-Kosha— With the commentary of Kṣīrasvāmin’. Law Printing Press, 449, Shanwar Peth, Poona. 1913.

7. Amara-Kosha— With the commentary of Maheśvara’. Government Central Book Depot, Bombay. 1890.

8. Amara-Kosha — Com. Padacandrikā’. Sanskrit College, Calcutta. 1978. Calcutta Sanskrit College Research Series No.-CXXVI.

9. Apte, Vaman Shivram— ‘The Student’s Sanskrit-English Dictionary’. Motilal Banarasidass, Bangalow Road, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi-7. 1979.

10. Arnott, Peter D.— ‘An Introduction to the Greek Theatre’. Macmillan & Co. Ltd., New York, St. Martin Press. 1962.

11. Baldry, H.C.— ‘The Greek Tragic Theatre’. Chatto & Windus Ltd. 40, William IV Street, London WC2. 1971.

12. Bhandare, M.S.— ‘The Śiśupālavadha of Māgha’. Messrs

Gopal Narayan & Co., Booksellers & Publishers. Kalbadevi Road, Bombay. 1932.

13. Brockett, Oscar G.- ‘Theatre an Introduction’. New York, Holt, Richart and Winston. 1964.

14. Cheney, Sheldon- ‘The Theatre, three thousand years of Drama, Acting and Stage-craft’. Longmans, Green & Co., New York. 1952.

15. Cleaver, James- ‘The Theatre through the Ages’. London, George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd. Sydney Toronto Bombay Stockholm. 1946.

16. Dasgupta, S.N. and De, S.K.- ‘A History of Sanskrit Literature, Classical Period’. Vol. I. University of Calcutta. 1977.

17. Donaldson, John William- ‘The Theatre of the Greeks’. Gilbart & Rivington Printers, St. John’s Square, Fifth Edition-MDCCCXLIV.

18. Encyclopædia Britannica- (A New Survey of Universal Knowledge). Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., William Benton, Publisher. 1966.

19. Gassner, John and Quinn- ‘The Reader's Encyclopaedia of World Drama’. New York, Thomas Y. Crowell. 1969.

20. Ed. Ghosh, Manmohan- The Nātyaśāstra, Granthalaya, Pvt. Ltd., 4/3 B Bankim Chatterjee Street, Calcutta-12. Second Edition. 1967.

21. Granville, Wilfred- ‘A Dictionary of Theatrical Terms’. Andra Dentsch Ltd., 12, Tayer Street, Manchester Square, London W 1. 1952.

22. Gupta, C.B.- ‘Indian Theatre’. Motilal Banarsidass, Banaras. 1954.

23. Gupta, Hemendra Nath Das- ‘The Indian Stage’. Vol. I. M.K. Das Gupta, 124/5B, Russa Road, Kalighat, Calcutta. 1944.

24. Hartnoll, Phyllis- ‘The Oxford Companion to the

Theatre'. London, Oxford University Press, New York. Third Edition. 1967.

25. Ed. Hasting, James- ‘Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics'. T & T Clark, 38 George Street, New York. Third Impression-1954.

26. Ed. Hoshing, Jagannatha Shastri- ‘Vairāgya Śataka’ of Bhartrihari'. Vidyabhawan Sanskrit Granthmala. 1961.

27. Ed. J. Meine Franklin & Others- ‘The American Peoples Encyclopaedia'. The Spencer Press Inc., Chicago. 1955.

28. Kale, M.R.- ‘Mālatī-Mādhava of Bhavabhūti’. Delhi Motilal Banarsidass. 1967.

29. Kavi, M. Ramakrishna- ‘Bharatakosa'. The T.T. Devasthanam Press, Tirupati. 1951.

30. Ed. Kavi M. Ramakrishna- ‘Nātyasāstra of Bharatamuni'. Oriental Institute, Baroda. Vol. I, II, III, IV. Second Edition. 1956.

31. Ed. Nagar, R.S.- ‘Nātyasāstra of Bharatmuni' with the Commentary of Abhinava-bhāratī (4 vols.) by Abhinavaguptācārya. Parimal Publications, Delhi.

32. Keith, A. Berriedale- ‘The Sanskrit Drama'. Oxford University Press. 1970.

33. Knudsen, Vern O and Harris, Cyril M.- ‘Aconstical Designing in Architecture'. N.R. Wiley. 1950.

34. Lewis, Charlton T. & Short Charls- ‘A Latin Dictionary'. Oxford University Press, Ely House, London W 1. 1966.

35. Liddell, Henry George & Scott, Robert- ‘A Greek-English-Lexicon'. Oxford University Press, Ely House, London. W.1. New (ninth) Edition. 1966.

36. Mahaffy, J.P.-‘A History of Classical Greek Literature'. Vol. I, Part II. (The Dramatic Poëts). London, Macmillan & Co. Ltd. 1903.

37. Mankad, D.R.- ‘Ancient Indian Theatre'. Charotar Book Stall, Station Road, Tulsi Sadan, Anand (W. Rly.) Second

Edition-1960.

38. Norwood, Gilbert- ‘Greek Tragedy’. Methuen & Co. Ltd., 36, Essex Street, W.C. London. 1920.

39. Ed. Oates J. Whitney & JR. O’Neill Eugene- ‘The Complete Greek Drama’ Vol. I. Randson House, New York. 1938.

40. Ed. Pande, Srijanardan- ‘Uttara-rāmacarita of Bhavabhūti’. Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi. 1977.

41. Ed. Panda, Acharya Sridhar Prasad- ‘Mṛcchakaṭika of Śūdraka’. Student Store, Biharipur, Bareilly. First Edition. 1972.

42. Panta, Mohan Deva- ‘Mālavikāgnimitra of Kālidāsa’. Delhi, Motilal Banarasidass. Third Edition. 1968.

43. Rangacharya, Adya- ‘Introduction to Bharata's Nāṭya-śāstra. Popular Prakashan, 35 C, Tardeo Road, Bombay-34, WB. 1966.

44. Ray, Govinda Chandra- ‘Bharata Nātyaśāstramem Nāṭya Śālāon ke Rūpa (Hindi)’.Kashi Press, Varanasi. 1958.

45. Richter, Gisela M.A.— ‘Handbook of Greek Art’. Phaidon Press, London. 1959.

46. Ridgeway, W.— ‘The Drana and Dramatic Dunces of Non-European Races, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1915.

47. Ed. Śāstri Mahāmahopādhyāya T. Gaṇapati- ‘Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra’ by King Bhojadeva. Gaekwad's Oriental Seres No. XXV. Vol. I. 1924.

48. Ed. Shastri, Sukla Babual- Nātyaśāstra of Bharat Muni. Chaukhambha Sanskri Sansthan, P.O. Chaukhambha, P.B. No. 139, Jalan Eawan K. 37/116, Gopal Mandir Lane, Varanasi. 1978.

49. Schlegel, Augustus Villiam- ‘Dramatic Art and Literature’. William Clowes and Sons, Stanford Street and Charing Cross, London.1811.

50. Seyffert, Oskar- ‘A Dictionary of Classical Antiquities’. The Meridian Library, Published by Meridian Books, New York. Second Edition. 1957.

51. Sharma, Bholanath- ‘Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni’. Sahitya Niketan, Kanpur. Second Edition. 1960.

52. Ed. Shastri, Gangadhar- ‘Kumārasambhava of Kālidāsa’. Haridass Sanskrit Granthamala. Second Edition. 1953.

53. Shastri Madhusudan- ‘Nātyaśāstra of Bharatmuni with Commentary Abhinava-bhāratī by Abhinavaguptācārya. Banaras Hindu University Press, Varanasi-5. 1971.

54. Ed. Sobel, Bernard- ‘The New Theatre Handbook and Digest of Plays’. Crown Publishers Inc., New York. 1959.

55. Ed. Sukthankar, V.S. and Balvalkar, S.K.- ‘The Mahābhārata-Droṇaparvan’. Vol. 8,9. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona. 1933.

56. Tarlekar, G.H.- ‘Studies in the Nātyaśāstra’. Motilal Banarasidas, Bungalow Road, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi-7 First Edition. 1975.

57. Thames and Hudson- ‘Illustrated Encyclopaedia of World Theatre’. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London. 1977.

58. ‘The Harivaṃśa’- The Khila or Supplement to the Mahābhārata’. Vol. V. The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona. 1976.

59. ‘The New Encyclopaedia Britannica’-Macropaedia Inc., William Benton, Publisher, 1943-1973. 15th Edition. 1977.

60. Vyāsa, Veda- ‘Bhāgavata Purāṇa A Linguistic Study’ Thibrugrah, Ashutosh Sharma Vishwas. 1968.

61. Vidyalankar, Nirupama and Dr. Pandey, Baburam- ‘Abhijñanaśākuntalam of Kālidāsa’. Sahitya Bhandar, Subhash Bazar, Meerut. Fourth Edition. Sept. 1974.

62. Webster, T.B.L.- ‘Greek Theatre Production’. Methuen & Co. Ltd. 36, Essex Street, Strand, London WC2, First

Published in 1956.

64. Whiting, M. Frank– ‘An Introduction to the Theatre’. Harper & Brothers, New York. 1954.

65. Williams, Monier-Monier Sir– ‘A Sanskrit-English-Dictionary’. Motilal Banarasidass, Bungalow Road, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi-7. First Edition Published by Oxford University Press. 1899.

66. Wilson, H.H., Raghavan, V. Pisharoti, K.R. Vidyābhūṣan, Amulya Charan– ‘The Theatre of the Hindus’. Sushil Gupta (India) Limited, Calcutta-12. 1955.

67. Yajnik, R.K.– ‘The Indian Theatre’. George Allen & Unwin Ltd., Museum Street, London. 1933.

Articles

1. A Critical Survey of the Ancient Indian Theatre in accordance with the Second Chapter of the Bharata Nātyaśāstra. By D. Subba Rao. In the ‘Nātyaśāstra’. Vol. I. Baroda Edition.

2. Greek Theatre in Ancient India by M.L. Varad Pande, in ‘The Hindustan Times’ Dated 11th Oct., 1981.

3. Theatre Architecture in Ancient India by Dr. V. Raghavan. In the Theatre of the Hindus.

4. The Dance Theatre at Ramgarh by Amulya Charan Bidyābhūṣan in the Theatre of the Hindus.

Fig. No. 1. According to Dr. D R Mankad- It is a Rectangular Theatre. Its measurement given by him are shown in this figure.

M = Mattavāraṇī

Fig. 1

Fig. No. 2. According to Dr. D.R. Mankad— It is a Square

Theatre and its measurement given by him are

shown in this figure.

R.P. = Raṅgapīṭha

M = Mattavāranī

Fig. 2

Fig. No. 3. According to Dr. D R. Mankad- It is a Rectangular Theatre and its measurement given by him are shown in this figure.

R.S. = Rangaśīrṭa

R.P. = Raṅgapīṭha

N = Napathyagrha

Fig. 3

Fig. No. 4. According to Dr. C.B. Gupta— It is a Vikṛṣṭa Natyagrha. Its measurement and Directions are shown in this figure.

Fig. 4

64x32 Cubits

NEPATHYA GRHA

16x32

RANGASIRSA

8x32

MATTAVARANI

8x8

RANGAPITHA

8x16

MATTAVARANI

8x8

RANGAMANDALA

32x32

S

W

E

N

= DOORS

SCALE=3/4 Cubits

Fig. No. 5. According to Dr. C.B. Gupta- It is a Caturasra Natyagrha. Its measurement and Directions, Pillars and Doors are shown in this figure.

Fig. 5

O = PILLARA

= DOORS

SCALE 1" = 8 CUBITAS

SCALE 1" = 2½ FEET

Fig. No. 6. According to Dr. C.B Gupta— It is a Tryasra Natyagr̥ha and its measurement and Directions, Pillars and Doors are shown in this figure.

Fig. 6

each side 32 Cubits

Scale= 1" = CUBITS

DOORS

Scale = 1" = 8 CUBITS

Fig. No 7. According to Prof D Subba Rao- It is the

Plan of Rectangular Theatre

Fig. 7

चतुःषष्टिकरान्‌क्त्वा

वत्‍‌र°

द्विधाभूतान्

द्विधाभूतस्य तस्य तु

पुनस्तत पृष्ठतो यो भवेद्भाग

भाग

प्रेक्षागृह

Auditorium

विभाग :

रङ्गशीर्ष

Stage.

नेपथ्यगृह

Green Room

विभाग :

समरर्धविभागेन

रङ्गशीर्ष प्रकल्पयेत्

पश्चिमे च विभागेऽथ

नेपथ्यगृहमिष्यते

32 Ft

NORTH

32 H

16 H

16 H

64 H

SOUTH

WEST

Fig. No. 8. According to Prof. D. Subba Rao- It is the Plan of Squares Theatre. 4 main pillar and 24 other pillars, as pointed out by Bharata and Abhinavagupta are shown by him in this figure.

Fig. 8

Plan of Square Theater

B = ब्राह्मण स्तंभ:

S = शूद्र स्तंभ:

K = क्षत्रिय स्तंभ:

V = वैश्य स्तंभ:

1/94 To 10/94

1/97 To 6/97

1/98 To 8/98

तदुपरि तत: कार्या रूपपीठोपरि स्थिता।1

दश प्रयोक्तॄभि स्तंभ: शाका मण्डपधारणे॥

कडन्यानन्तरे चैव पुन: स्तंभारन्यातिदिशाम॥

अष्टौ स्तंभानतिरिक्तौ तेऽप्यमुपरि कल्पयेत्॥

Fig. No. 9. According to Prof. D. Subba Rao- It is the

Plan of Triangular Theatre. 4 main pillar and 24

other pillars, and Doors are also shown by him

in this figure.

D1= First Door

D2= Second Door

FIG. 9

कोण २

मध्य कोण

कोण 1

पार्श्व कोण

कोण 3,

पार्श्व कोण

Fig. No. 10. According to Prof. D. Subba Rao- Position of Mattavāranī are shown in this figure.

Fig. 10

24'0

45'0

1/2 DITAL

PILLASTER

Fig. No. 11. According to Prof Man Mohan Ghoṣ- This figure shows three tyhpes of theatre, in this figure.

A - shows Vikṛṣṭa Maṇḍapa.

B - shows Caturasra Maṇḍapa.

C - shows Tryasra Maṇḍapa.

Fig. 11

श्री डा. मनमोहन घोषके मतानुसार

त्रिविध मण्डपके चित्र

विकृष्ट-मण्डप ६४×३२ हाथ

चतुरस्र-मण्डप ३२×३२ हाथ

नेपथ्यगृह १६×८ हाथ

म.वा. त×त म.वा. त×त

रङ्गपीठ १६×८हाथ

रङ्ग-मण्डप

(प्रेक्षकावेश)

४८×३२

हाथ

नेपथ्यगृह ३२×८ हाथ

म.वा. त×त रङ्ग पीठ१६× ८ हाथ म.वा. त×त

रङ्ग मण्डप

(प्रेक्षकावेश)

३२×२०

हाथ

A

B

C

Fig. No. 12. According to the measurement of Bharata and

Abhinavagupta- This figure shows the Vikṛṣṭa

Theatre

K = Kṣatriyas Stambha

V = Vaiśya Stambha

B = Brāhmaṇa

S = Śūdra Stambha

D = Door

Fig. 12

32 Hastas

DOOR

NEPATHYAGṚHA

16x32

DOOR

RAṄGAŚĪRṢA

8x32

MATTA VĀRṄĪ

8x8

RAṄGAPĪṬHA

8x16

MATTA VĀRṄĪ

8x8

AUDITORIUM

32x32

Door

64 Hastas

Fig. No. 13. According to the measurement of Bharata and

Abhinavagupta- This figure shows the

Caturasra Theatre.

M = Mattavāraṇī

D = Door

□⃝△ = Pillars

Fig. 13

32 HASTAS

N E P A T H Y A G E H A

8 H

D

8x32

R A Ñ G A P I T H A

4 H

4x32

V E D I K Ā

R A Ṅ G A P Ī T H A

8 H

6xL

8x8

8x8

8x4

32 HASTAB

A U D I T O R I U M

12 H

12x32

A. This figure shows the Trayara Theatre on the lines of Caturasra Theatre and its measurement 32 Hastas.

B. This figure shows the Tryasra Theatre on the lines of Vikṛṣṭa Theatre its measurement 64 Hastas.

N = Nepathyagrha.

R.S = Raṅgaśīrṣa.

RP = Raṅgapīṭha

M = Mattavāranī

H = Hasta

D = Door

K = Kṣtriya Stambha

V = Vaiśya Stambha

B = Brāhmaṇa Stambha

S = Śūdra Stambha.

Fig. 14

AUDITORIUM

32 Hastas

AUDITORIUM

64 Hastas

Fig. No. 15. According to the view of Abhinavagupta– This figure shows the three positions of Ṣaḍḍāruka.

Fig. 15

रज्जुशीर्ष पर 'घडदारुक' की तीन स्थितियाँ

रज्जुशीर्ष में घडदारुक की प्रथम स्थिति

रज्जुशीर्ष में घडदारुक की द्वितीय स्थिति

रज्जुशीर्ष में घडदारुक की तृतीय स्थिति

Fig. No. 16. This figure shows the Ancient Greek Theatre and shape of their parts.

Fig. 16

ATRE

ANCIENT GREEK THEATHRE

Fig. No. 17. This figure shows the stage-machinery known as 'Perisktoi' in the Ancient Greek Theatres.

Fig. 17

Fig. No. 18. This figure shows the stage-machinery known as 'Eccyclema' (A rolling platform) in the Ancient Greek Theatre.

Fig. 18

Fig. No. 19 This figure shows the stage-machinery known as 'Mechane' (like a Crane) in the Ancient Greek Theatre.

Fig. 19

Fig. 20

The Theatre of epidauros,

Before reconstruction

Fig. 21

The Theatre of dionysus in athens: Veiw from the auditorium

Fig. 22

Two views of the Theatre of Sicyon, showing layout of stage buildings

Fig. 23

Earliest stone foundations, showing slots for wooden posts

Fig. 24

Throne of the high priest

Fig. 25

Vase-Painting

Fig. 26

Auditorium with gangways

Fig. 27

Orchestra with central altar base

PARIMAL PUBLICATIONS

A HOUSE OF INDOLOGICAL BOOKS

27/28, SHAKTI NAGAR, DELHI 110007