·No text on this page.

·UNIVERSAL
LIBRARY
OU_184595
LIBRARY
UNIVERSAL

·No text on this page.

·(OP --5.57. --13-7-71--3.000.
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
S821
VBAM
Accession No. P.G SA
Call No.
Author
विद्याखदत
Title
मुद्राराक्षसा -1915.
This book should be returned on or before the date last marked below.

·No text on this page.

·Bombay Sanskrit Series No. XXVII.
MUDRÂRÂKSHASA
BY
VISAKHADATTA,
WITH THE COMMENTARY OF DHUNDHIRAJA.
EDITED
With Critical and Explanatory Notes
BY
KASHINATH TRIMBAK TELANG, M.A., LL. B., C.I.E.
Sometiine Senior Dakshina Fellow, Elphinston College;
Judge, IIigh Court, Bombay.
Fifth Edition.--1,000 COPIES.
REVISED BY
Professor V. S. GHÂTE, M. A.
DECCAN COLLEGE, POONA.
Hoodi emio.no Library
OSMAN wil..
PUBLISHED
No................
BY
TUKÂRÂM JÁVAJI,
PROPRIETOR OF THE “ NIRNAYA-SAGAR" PRESS.
Bombay.
1915.
Price One Rupee and Fourteen Annas.

·Published by Tukaram Javaji and Printed by Ramchandra Yesu Shedge,
at the Nirnaya-sagar Press, 23, Kolbhat Lane,
BOMBAY

·PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION. on p. 54, भास्करदत्त In this edition, the text has been materially revised, especially as the edition of the play by Prof. Hillebrandt has been consulted throughout, and all the new readings found therein have been given in the footnotes, marked as H. In several places, the reading in the text of the last edition has been abandoned in favour of another reading decidedly better. Thus for instance takes the place of Ty, as the former is more in conformity with age and fatlaga. So also on p. 91, the specch of Chandanadâsa which was prose in form in all the previous editions, has been here put in a metrical form. (See Verse 21 beginning with aluna 377 Ut etc.). On p. 94, the second speech of Chandanadása has been retained in the same form as before, but its conjectural metrical form has been given in the footnote. The same is the case with p. 297, where also the speech of Chandanaclása beginning with lari la etc. though retañed in the text, in the prose form, has its conjectural metrical form given in the footnote. On p. 215, the verse amor faeit etc. put in the month of Kshapanaka is evidently defective from the metrical point of view, but the new reading given in the footnote i. e. the insertion of the word alle after the words gætt and asajūt, makes it alright. These, illustrations are enough to give the reader an idea of the textual alterations made in the edition. The additions and alterations in the notes, very few indeed, have been indicated by rectangular brackets [ ]. V. S. G.

·CRITICAL NOTICE. ( FIRST EDITION. ) OG The present edition of the Mudrârâkshasa is based upon nine different copies, eight of which are manuscript copies, and one printed. These seem to fall roughly into two groups, the one containing those denoted by the letters A., P., M., R.! and K., and the other those denoted by the letters B., E., N., G. The text yielded by the former group is that which has been generally followed in this edition, and that is the text which appears to have been the one received as the best by the commentator Dhundhirâja. Dhundhirâja, however, himself notices various readings in some places (vide e. g., pp. 67-68), and as his commentary was written early in the beginning of the last century, his authority is, of course, by no means conclusive on such questions. The text followed in this edition, therefore, has not been accepted primarily on his authority, but as being the text which was worthy of acceptance upon other grounds also. It will be noticed, from the account of the various MSS. which is given in the sequel that that text is based upon MSS., one of which comes from Banâres, another from Poona, another from Kolhâpur and the remaining two from Southern India. These South Indian MSS., it may be remarked in passing, always deserve looking into, and often yield very good readings. It is necessary, however, in this place to draw attention to one circumstance which touches all the MSS. which have been used for this edition. None of them agrees completely with the Sarasvatikanthâbharana, and the Das'arûpa, in the passages which those two works quote from the Mudrârâkshasa. Thus comparing the quotation in the Das'arûpa, at p. 120, with the same passage as read by our MSS., ( see p. 36 below), we find very considerable divergences between the former and every one of the copies we have used. It is not necessary to set them out here in full, but the reader can easily make the comparison for himself. The Das'arûpa contains only one actual quotation from the Mudrârâ- ·CRITICAL NOTICE. 5 kshasa, the Sarasvatîkaņthâbharaṇa contains two.* The first is the stanza at p. 98 infra, which runs as follows in the very useful edition of the Sarasvatîkanthâbharaṇa recently published by Mr. A. Borooah. (See p. 165). It is, however, to be noted that this is not here mentioned as being taken from the Mudrârâkshasa, nor is the second passage referred to further on. उपरि घनं घनपटलं दूरे दयिता किमेतदापतितम् । हिमवति दिव्यौषधयः कोपाविष्टः फणी शिरसि ॥ The second is the second stanza at p. 167 infra which is quoted at P. 292 of the Sarasvatikanthâbharaṇa. It is not necessary to do more than indicate the various readings which our MSS. do not contain, viz., जृम्भणैः for जृम्भितैः and अतिताम्रा for अभिताम्रा. Now it is remarkable, that in all the cases here noted, the readings which occur in the Das'arûpa and the Sarasvatikanthâbharana should not be found in any one of our MSS. And the circumstance is not only a remarkable one, it is calculated to create an uneasy suspicion in one's mind that we have not before us materials quite satisfactory for settling our text. other hand, however, we have to remember, that some of the discrepancies which we meet with may be due merely to mistakes or defects in the copies of the Das'arûpa and Sarasvatîkanthâbharana themselves.f It is also to be borne in mind, that these discrepancies are of no great moment in themselves, as they do not affect the meaning, although, of course, in one sense every variation, however unimportant in itself, is of importance upon the question-what was the text as it left the hands of the author. It may be further pointed out, that even as regards other works, which are quoted in the Das'arûpa and Sarasvatikanthâbharana, we meet occasionally with various readings in the passages quoted, of which we find no trace in many of the manuscripts available to us. A few references to such passages are given in the note. $ * See Introduction infra on these passages. of We have also to take account of the fact that, in all probability, some at least of these quotations were not verified before they were written down by the authors of the Das'arúpa and the Sarasvatîkanthâbharana, but were merely written down from memory. See our remarks on this subject below ( P. 28 ) and also the next note. # Cf. Das'akumâracharita, p. 1, with Sarasvatîkanthâbharaṇa, p.114; Málatîmâdhava, pp. 166, 307, 365, with Sarasvatikaạthâbharaṇa pp. 115,311,340 respectively, and pp. 49, ·6 MUDRÂRÂKSHASA. We now proceed to enumerate the copies of the Mudrârâkshasa which have been used for this edition. The first is that marked A. it is complete, and includes the text and the commentary of Dhundhirâja here published. It is throughly legible and correct. It belongs to Mr. Â pâ Shâstri Khâdilkar, and was very kindly lent to me by that venerable scholar. From the concluding sentences, it appears that the text and commentary were originally copied in the Vis'ves'varanagarî, or Banâres in the S'aka year 1653, in the month of Âs’vin, by sqemaya. It is the copy which generally speaking, has been exclusively relied upon for the text of the commentary, and its text of the play itself is that which the commentator had before him, and which has also been mainly adopted in this edition.* There is one circumstance which deserves to be noted here in connection with this MS. It consists of two distinct parts, apparently copied by two different hands. The first of these two parts goes down to arry PITTUIH 13 (sic.)., and then there is a considerable space left blank on that page and on the next page of the same leaf. The words quoted will be found at p. 168 infra. The second part of the MS. does not start from that point. It begins with अपि च आस्वादितद्विरदशोणितशोणशोभामिति- Tai gera, and then goes on to the end of the work. The words last quoted will be found at p. 99 infra. The two fragments of the play now decribed are, it may be added, written on paper of different sizes, and the date above given,-viz. S'aka 1653,-is, of course, found at the end of the second fragment. (See further, p. 11 infra). The second MS. used for the purposes of this edition is that marked P. This MS. forms part of a volume bound in the European style, and containing two plays in MS., the Mudrârâkshasa and the Mâlatîmâdhava. This volume, I am informed, is one of a series of volumes containing manuscript copies of various works made several years ago at Jejurî, and now in the possession of Mr. Âpârâo Vaidya of Poona. It was procured for me by my friend 165, with Das'arûpa, pp. 95, 149 respectively. Note that the passage cited from the Mâlatîmâdhava at p. 113 of the Sarasvatikan thâbharana is again cited at p. 292 with a variation in one word, and that the same passage is cited at Das'a. rûpa, p. 149, with a variation in another word. * I regret that owing to inadvertence the readings of this group of MSS. have sometimes got into the foot-notes instead of being taken as the text.

·CRITICAL NOTICE. 7 Rao Bahadur Gajanan Krishna Bhâțavadekar, now in the service of the Baroda State. The MS. is by no means accurately, though it is most clearly and legibly, written. There are sundry mistakes to be met with from time to time, but they are nearly always easy of correction. The MS., for instance, often writes इ for यि. The Sanskrit equivalent of the Prâkrit passages is given in considerable portions of the play, but not throughout, and it follows the Prâkțit passages themselves in the middle of the text. In the latter portion of the play, viz. from the fifth Act onwards, the Prâkſit mostly, remains without the Sanskrit translation. The original from which the copy was made, in all probability, contained both the text and commentary, as before the final stanza, and after the words yra इदमस्तु, इत्थमत्रातिगम्भीर शुभोदर्कचाणक्यनयसंविधानेन चन्द्रगुप्तसाचिव्यपदलाभपरितुष्टो महामात्यो राक्षस इत्याशास्ते ॥ भरतवाक्यम् ॥ and then follows वाराहीम् and so forth, as in our text. The words set out here are not to be found in our copies of the commentary. They may, perhaps, belong, and probably dlo belong, to some other commentator than Dhundhirâja ; but they are plainly no part of Vis'âkhadatta's text, and they must very likely have got into the text in the copy now under description from the copy from which it was prepared. The MIS. bears no date, but is comparatively very modern-looking, probably not even so much as fifty years old. It states at the end the FUTETI as 1350, which is, no doubt, a note of the copyist made for calculating his own remuneration. (See further, p. 11 infru.). we read The next copy to be mentioned is a MS. written on palmyra leaves which is denoted by the letter M. It was a MS. procured for me by my friend, Mr. V. N. Narasimiengar of Bangalore, who has always been most useful both to Professor Bhândârkar and myself, in procuring for us copies of Sanskrit texts from Southern India. This MS. and the next are both written in the Telugu characters, which I am unable to read, and I had therefore to resort to the services of readers to help me in the matter. The MS. appears to be, on the whole, very correctly written. It contains no double letters, apparently such letters being denoted by the corresponding single letters with a dot over the previous letter in many cases. (Cf. Burnell's Indian Palæography, p. 13; Pandit's Malavikâgnimitra, pp., IX., X.). The confusion of eq and 27 seems ·8 MUDRÂRÂKSHASA. to be a pretty common phenomenon in these southern MSS., and in the two I have used there seems to have been some confusion also between क and T. The MS. bears no date. The next MS. consulted is the one marked R. It was kindly sent to me from the India Office Library through Dr. F. Kielhorn by Dr. R. Rost, when he heard that I was preparing this edition for the Bombay Sanskrit Series. The same remarks apply to this MS. as to the last one here described. There is also, apparently, some confusion in this MS. in the last scene, where the speeches are in some disorder. As a general rule, these southern MSS. are always worthy of careful attention, and the MSS. I have used for this edition belong to the same group as the copy from which the commentator took his text. I cannot say how old R and M are. The next MS. is one marked K. It comes from the collection of MSS. belonging to the Government of Bombay and deposited in Elphinstone College. This MS., however, is only a copy recently made for Government, and contains the text only down to the end of the first Act. The rest of the MS. contains a copy merely of the commentary of Dhundhirâja. So much for the group of MSS. on which the text adopted in this edition is mainly based. The next group contains one printed copy, B., namely, the edition of this play published at Calcutta with a commentary, by Professor Târânâth Tarkavâchaspati. That edition has been assumed to be a fair representative of the Bengal text of our play. It contains now and then some various readings, but in sundry places the text of the play as there given, is very unsatisfactory. Two other editions have been printed at Calcutta, one was published many years ago without either vari. ous readings or exegetical notes, and another with some various readings and the commentary. of Dhundhikâja. This last, however, was never completed, as far as I have been able to ascertain, and the portion printed goes down to a little beyond the middle of the second Act. I have not deemed it necessary to compare the readings of those editions with the text here adopted, save to a very small extent indeed. The next copy in this group is the one marked E. It belongs to the collection of MSS. deposited in the Library of Deccan College, Poona. It is a very indifferently written MS. It contains numerous mistakes, as may be seen even on an examination of the readings from it, which are contained in our foot-notes. It is bound up in one volume with a MS. of the Uttararâmacharita. On the last page of the Mudrārakshasa we read संवत १७०४ समये(?)

·CRITICAL NOTICE 9 THERE Agt i sigut;-which would make the date of the MS. to be 1648 A. C., if the Vikrama era is to be understood to be the era intended. The MS., it is believed, comes from Guzerâth. The next copy is N. This is a MS. belonging to a Shâstrî o Nâgpur, in the Central Provinces. I was not able to see it myself, but my very obliging friend, Mr. Hari Mâdhava Pandit, was so kind as to undertake the arduous work of collating the MS. for me, and it was thus I obtained the various readings which are mentioned in the foot-notes. The MS. bears no date on the face of it, but Mr. Paņạit thinks that it may be about a hundred years old. Mr. Pandit also compared another MS, which belonged to the Library of the Râjân of Nagpur. But after he had compared the first few pages, he found that MS. to be so hopelessly incorrect that he had to abandon the work of collation as a thing which could not lead to any useful result. Wherever any readings of both these MSS. are given, they are distinguished thus; the Shâstri's MS. is called N. S., and the Râjâ's N. R., Mr. Pandit informs me that both these MSS. are believed to have been copied at Benares. The last MS. to be mentioned is the one described in the footnotes as G. It is a MS. coming from the Province of Guzerâth and was lent me by Râo Bahâdur Shankar Pândurang Pandit to whom it belongs. It is unfortunately incomplete, pages being wanting both at the beginning and at the end, and it is also very incorrectly written. It extends from Siddharthaka's speech AEH &c, in the first Act at P. 88 to Chanakya's speech in the last Act at p. 315, 17 &c. The MS. is, however, pretty old—its age being between two and three hundred years. It will be perceived from the above description of the materials used for this edition, tlfit those materials are drawn from nearly all the different Provinces of India. We have Bengal, Southern India, the Central Provinecs, Guzerâth, Mahârâshtra, and Benâres all represented in the collectiðn of copies which have been consulted for this edition. Since the Text was sent to the Press, I have had a MS. lent me by my friend, Mr. Kashinath Pândurang Parab, which seems to be traceable to Tryambakes'var, near Nâsik. It is a copy recently made. The date सीमाधाविमिते गतेब्दनिकरक्षज्यारुहस्था- यिनो भैमीनायकवत्सरे शुचिदले मासो नभस्यस्य च (?) is probably that of the original MS. from which this was copied. It has not been collated throughout for the purposes of the present edition, but on a comparison of a sufficient number of pages and passages, it appears to agree very nearly with our MS. P. And it is worthy of ·10 MUDRARAKSHASA. note that the two agree even in that interpolation from the commentary which has been noticed in the description of P. I have also recently examined another MS., one in that collection of volumes which has been referred to by Prof. Bhânạårkar in his Mâlatîmadhava (Preface, p. ii.), that bears no date (see Málatîmâdhava, I. c.), and agrees also generally with our MS. P., including the interpolation referred to. The last MS. to be named here is one belonging to Alvar,* which I have not been able to exainine myself. Prof. Peterson, however, has been good enough to compare about thirty pages of my text with that MS., and he tells me that he did not find any variants worthy of note, while he found the MS. agreeing generally with our MS. A. Dr. Bühler was kind enough to draw my attention to the MS. of the play existing in the Jesalmîr Bhânđâr. But at the date of writing this notice, I have not been able to obtain cither the copy itself or any collations from it. In order to avoid the appearance of too many figures above the lines of the text, the various readings on each line have been generally grouped together under one figure in the foot-notes, and as they are printed in due order, it is hoped that there will not be much difficulty in assigning each variant to its proper original in the text. A semi-colou generally separates variants not connected with one another. Aº before a letter indicates that the foregoing portion of the word has been omitted to save space. Variants even when purely the result of error, are inentioned in the footnotes, but generally only in those cases where there were other real variants appearing in other copies; so that the erroneous variant would show which of the two gerfuine variants was intended to be written. ( THIRD EDITION. ) This edition is merely a reprint of the first edition. Changes in orthography, punctuation and type have, however, been made according to the system followed up in the Nirnaya-sagara publications. K. P. P. * But see P. 35 infru. I have collated cousiderable portions of the Commentary.

·+ INTRODUCTION. FIRST EDITION.) The Mudrârâ kshasa is, in sundry respects, a very unique work in Sanskrit literature. Its plot is not a pure invention, but on the other hand, it is not derived from the usual store-house of legends on which Sanskrit authors have generally drawn for their materials. It has no female among its prominent alrumatis personce, and the business of the play, accordingly, is diplomacy and politics to the entire exclusion of love. There is, in truth, but one female character, with one little child, introduced into the play, and these are Chandanadâsa's wife and son, who come in at the beginning of the last Act. But even their appearance introduces no passages suggestive of tenderness or the purely domestic virtues, but only of sacrifice-a stern sense of duty. The style is appropriate to the nature of the subject; it does not lay much claim to sweetness or beauty, but is always business-like and often vigorous. In the delineation of character, likewise, the virtues and vices which are depicted are more those of the sterner sort, not so much those connected with the tender affections. Thus, to take first the most prominent character in the play, Châņakya is represented as a clear-headed, self-confident, intriguing, hard politician, with the ultimate end of his ambition thoroughly well-determined, and directing all his clear-headedness and intrigue to the accomplishment of that end. Râkshasa, on the other hand, is represented as a brave soldier, but a blundering and somewhat soft-natured politician, * whose faithfulness to his original masters prompts him to wreak vengeance for their destruction on Chandragupta and Chânakya who were their destroyers, but who has ultimately to abandon the self-imposed task, being foiled by the arts of his adversary. The proximate motive of the abandonment, however, is the duty of repaying favours received by himf when he was engaged in his attempts at vengeance as above stated. Thus the two rivals are both placed before us, so to say, almost exclusively in their official chara- * Cf. pp. 75, 76 with pp. 119-21; pp. 85-6, 103 with pp. 123 ( where the snakes are mentioned, though Virâdhagupta is brought in for his subhâshita, p.121),188, 204-5, 243-6; pp. 102-3 with pp. 141, 260; and see Act VI. passin, + p. 292 et seq ·12 MUDRÂRÂKSHASA cters. The nearest we get to any other aspect of their character is in the long soliloquy of Râkshasa in the sixth Act-after the great aim of his life had been finally abandoned in despair. Take, again, the other pair of rivals, who are brought into sharp contrast before us. Chandragupta is represented as a sovereign of dignity and strength of character, coupled with a proper respect for the minister, whose ability and diplomatic skill be had seen good reason to trust. In Malayaketu, on the other hand, we find a prince whose confidence and distrust are alike misplaced, who is thoughtless, suspicious, wanting in dignity, and almost child-like, not to say childish.* In the minor characters, we see tke principle of faithfuluess to one's lord, adhered to through good report and evil reportper fas et per nefas. In the more prominent ones, the same principle still prevails, and the course of conduct to which it leads is certainly quite Machiavellian. And all this is brought out in a plot put together with singular skill, and inferior in that respect only to the plot of the Mřichchhakatika, among Sanskrit dramas. The name of the author of the play is Vis’âkhadatta, or as some of our copies read it, Vis'âkhadeva. And all the really trustworthy information we have about him is that contained in the Introduction to this drama, which is the only one of his productions that is at present known. We learn from that Introduction that Vis'âkhadatta was the son of Prithu and grandson of Vates'varadatta-a Sâmanta or subordinate chief. But I have failed in my endeavours to discover anything touching either Prithu or Vates'vara. Professor Wilson, indeed, put forward a suggestion that Přithu might be identical with the “Chouhan chief of Ajmir, Prithu Raj.”+ But, as he has himself pointed out, the name Vates' varadatta presents a difficulty in the way of this identification. And I own that it seems to me quite impossible to accept an identification for which there is no positive reason whatever except the similarity of name, while against it there is the circumstance noted above, and also this, quantum valeat, that while our Pțithu is specially designated as “ bearing the title Mahârâj,” the "Prithu of Ajmir," is generally known as Pțithurâi or Prithuraj only. Professor Wil- * Cf. pp. 150, 152, 165, 170, 184, 309, with pp. 197, 200, 209, 226-8, and generally Act III., with act V. + Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., P. 128. I Ibid uote, and p. 154 note.

·INTRODUCTION. 18 son albo niggests that our author was probably not a native of Southern India,* and he bases this suggestion on the simile which occurs at p. 129 infra, viz. pearls spotless like snow.t A similar idea occurred to me, with reference to the last stanza of our play on noticing in General Cunning Reports on the Archæological Survey of India how freque temples and remains connected with the Vardha Avatara are be met with in Northern India. I But both circumstances apruer to me to be capable of such obvious explanations, on other* hypotheses, that even this little bit of inferentially derived knowledge regarding Vis'âkbadatta must be treated as still in need of corroboration. Regarding the date of the work, our information hitherto has been, I am afraid, almost equally scanty and equally unsatisfactory. Professor Wilson, relying upon two passages in the drama, deducted the conclusion, that it was composed in the 11th or 12th century of the Christian era, "when the Pathan princes were pressing upon the Hindu sovereignties.”S One of these passages is that in which reference is made to the Mlechchhas, a name which Professor Wilson understands to refer to the Muhammadans. The second passage is the stanza at the beginning of the fifth Act, on which Professor Wilson observes as follows:-" This metaphorical style is not natural to the compositions of the period to which the drama belongs; the Hindus were, perhaps, beginning to borrow it from their neighbours." || The opinion thus propounded by Professor Wilson has, as usual in such cases, been not only accepted by subsequent inquirers, but has itself been made the basis, to a greater or less extent, of further speculation. Thus, in the Reports of the Atchæological Survey of India, a change in the course of the river S'ona being the subject of enquiry, it is stated to have occurred“shortly before or at the period of the great Muhammadan invasions, when the author of the Mudrårakshasa flourished."$ Now this might have been a thoroughly legitimate * Ibid, p. 182, note. + Our text has not kept this reading, which occurs only in two of our eight MSS. Soo the references given in our note on the passage, but seo, too, inter alia Burgess's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. I., pp. 7, 22, 28; Vol. IV., p. 15; Vol. V., pp. 90-62. and see p. 21. in from 8 Hindu Theatre, II, p. 251, note. Ibid, p. 128. || Ibid, p. 218. $ Son Ounningham's Arch. Surv., Vol. VIIT., p. 22, and Journal As. Soc. of Beng., Vol. XIV., p. 140; C7. aloo Indian Astiquary, Vol. II, p. 145, and Vol. VI, p. 114, note of Schwanbeok. 2 ·14 MUDRÂRÂKSHASA conclusion, if the dates of the Mudrârâkshasa and of the "great Muhammadan invasions” had been satisfactorily proved to synchronise. But, as we shall presently proceed to show, such is by no means the case. And, therefore, one feels a certain amount of regret that owing to this expression of opinion by Professor Wilsonowing to this which is a very common form of manifestation of that scientific manliness and straightforwardness on the part of scholars, of which Professor Max Müller desires a wider extension, * -our Archæological Surveyor felt himself relieved from the necessity of making an independent investigation of the date at which the change in the course of the S'ona took place. If such an independent investigation had been made, we might have got results that would either have necessitated a reconsideration of the date suggested for the Mudrârâkshasa, or would have corroborated that date by testimony which would have sufficed to countervail the effect of the objections that may now be certainly urged against it with some force. For, first, what is the ground for assuming the Mlechchhas to mean the Mussulmans? It cannot be contended for an instant that the name is specifically confined to the Mussulmans at every period of Sanskrit literature.f And, therefore, in deciding whether it is applied to them in any particular casc, we must be guided by collateral circumstances. I can see no such collateral circumstances here, and Professor Wilson and Mr. Beglar are both alike silent about any such circumstances. On the other hand, Malayaketu himself is called a Mlechchha. Neither his name, nor that of his uncle Vairochaka, nor that of his father Parvataka --which, be it remembered, is sometimes paraphrased by Sailes'- vara or Parvates'vara-shows any mark of Muhammadan origin. * India: What it can teach us, p. 283. I quite agree with Professor Mux Müller that the "manliness” he wishes for is in many cases desirable. All I wish to suggest is, that that virtue has a leaning to the side of vice, which requires to be guarded against; and compare on this Mr. Furgusson's remarks at J. R. A. S., (N. S.), Vol. VI., p. 273. + See inter alia Cunningham's Arch. Surv., Vol. II., p. 70. Borooah's English-Sanskrit Dictionary, Vol. III., pp. 41, 53, 82 (Introd.) and particularly Elphinstone's India, by Cowell, p. 289, with which compare Kathâsaritsagara, Taranga XIX., St. 108. See, too, Max Müller, India: What it can teaches us,p. 282, and Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., p. 274; also a note towards the end of this Introduction. # Vide p. 274 infra. S. See pp. 107, 134, 255, 273 infra, and cf. inter alia, J. A. S. B. Vol. 43, p. 104, and J. B. B. R, A. S., Vol. X., p. 368.

·INTRODUCTION. 15 Nor is the reference to the offering of funeral libations* to the deceased father calculated to lull all suspicion about the correctness of the theory, which identifies the Mlechchhas of the Mudrârakshasa with the Mussulmans. Of course, in these remarks, I entirely lay out of consideration a possible view, that although the word Mlechchha in the earlier portion of the play does not stand for the Mussulmans, it does signify the Mussulmans in the last stanza of the play. † That would be a theory itself standing in need of confirmation and verification; and without such confirmation or verification, it is one which has really no fair claim to acceptance. Therefore it seems to me manifest, that the first link in Professor Wilson's chain of reasoning is an excessively weak one. But let us concede, for the sake of argument, that that link is not a weak one; that, in other words, the Mlechchhas alluded to in the Mudrârâkshasa-or rather in its last stanza are identical with the Mussulmans. How does that justify the inference that the Mudrârâkshasa belongs to the 11th or 12th century of the Christian era ? The expression म्लेच्छैरुद्विज्य- Arat, would to my mind, indicate not so much a permanent establishment of sovereignty or any continuous oppression, as a more or less constant series of annoyances and harassments; and the * P. 192: It hardly needs saying that Mlechchha is equivalent to the Greek “Barbarian," meaning literally, “one who speaks barbarously.” It may, of course, be objected to the argument based on the names Malayaketu and so forth, that the name Meghanâda, or Meghâksha, or Meghakhya, ( as to which see Ind. Int., Vol. II., p. 145 ), does not betray a Persian origin, although it is expressly stated to be the name of a Pârasika king. This is quite true, and it may be, that though Muhammadans are intended to be denoted by the names Malayaketu, &c., the names used aro Sanskritised in order to be made appropriate to a Sanskrit drama. This may be, but the two cases are distinct in that, firstly, in the one case we know specifically from other evidence who the Parasîkas are, while we do not similarly know who are referred to by the Mlechchhas; secondly, Mlechchha is a connotative name, while Parasîka is not; and, thirdly, no further inference is sought to be based here on the identification of Parasîkas and Persians, while the identification of Mlechchhas and Mussulmans is made by Pro. fessor Wilson and others the basis of a whole chronological superstructure. See further on this subject Kern's Brihatsamhita, Preface, p. 32, note, with which cf. Fergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 28. + In the Kirtikaumudi ( Circa 1250 A. C. ) the Mlechchhas mentioned at II. 58 are stated by the learn. ed editor, Professor Kathavate, to be the Muhammadans (See Notes, p. 34) and from the Indian Antiquary, Vol. IV., p. 364, we find that in Târânâth's history of Buddhism the name Mlechchbas is understood to refer to tho Muhammadans. See further on this subject J. A, S. B., Vol. IX., p. 949.

·16 MUDRÂRÂKSHASA. reference to the earth as having taken refuge from such annoyances and harassments with the power and strength of Vishnu in the guise of the then reigning prince, would seem rather to point to some warlike proceedings, in which the Hindus appeared to greater advantage than in the invasions of Muhammad of Ghazni, and the later Muhammadan invaders of India. On such previous proceedings history may, perhaps, be said to give forth at present a somewhat uncertain sound, but still it is assuredly not altogether silent. For a whole century, beginning from 711 A. C. and coming down to 812 A.C., there are traces of such annoyances as we have spoken of above, and the late Colonel Meadows Taylor says,* that "early Muhammadan enterprises against the Hindus, with the exception of that of Kassim (Circa 711 A. C.) were unsuccessful, and that they were found more united and more powerful and warlike than the people of the West over whom the Muhammadans had triumphed.” Or turning to an original Muhammadan history, mentioned and epitomised in Sir Henry Elliott's elaborate work,t we read that "in the days of Tamim, the Mussulmans retired from several parts of India, and left some of their positions, nor have they up to the present time advanced as far as in days gone by.” The force of this statement, on the point now under consideration, will be understood by remembering that the Tamîm referred to in it was the successor of a Mussulman governor of Sindh, named Junaid, who is stated, in the same historical chronicle, to have “sent his officers,” among other places, to Barus, which is understood to mean Broach; to have “sent a force against Uzain” or ( Ujjayivî) and "against the country of Mâliba" (said to be Malva or Malabar); and to have "conquered all Bailmân and Jurz,” which last is identified with Guzarâtb.I Now Junaid's achievements belong to about the second quarter of the eighth century after Christ, and therefore, it seems to me at least as tenable a position as Professor Wilson's to hold, that the allusion in the Mudrârâkshasa to the * See the Student's Manual of the History of India, p. 77. Compare Elphinstone's India, by Cowell, p. 312, and notes there. + See Elliott's History of India as told by its own Historians, by Professor Dowson, Vol. I., pp. 125-6, and Cf. Burgess's Arch. Sury. Report, Vol. II.: p. 71, and Fergusson's Indian Architecture, pp. 24, 729. See also Dowson's Elliott, Vol. I., pp. 116, 390, and pp. 414 et seq. # But see Yule's Cathay, Vol. I, p. clxxxvi. Cf. generally J. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. XIV. pp. 30-2; J. A. S. B., Vol. VI. p. 71, Vol. X. p. 189, Vol. XXX. p. 1138, and Fergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 729.

·INTRODUCTION. 17 preservation of India against the harassments of the Mlechchha Mussulmans points to its composition in that century. It is not necessary to examine at any length the other argument which is suggested by Professor Wilson. Our note on the passage in question* (see P. 220 infra) will afford ample ground for considering that argument as being very far from satisfactory. And, therefore, we must now proceed to inquire whether there are any other materials available for forming an opinion on the question of the age when our author flourished. But before we do 80, it is desirable to consider another point on which also Professor Wilson bases a chronological inference, though without deducing a date more definite than “ one subsequent to the disappearance of the Bauddhas in India.”+ That point is that the antiquity of the play cannot be very great in consequence of its reference to the Jaina Kshapanaka Jîvasiddhi. Professor Wilson's first argument in support of this point is based merely on the “introduction of the Jainas” into the play which, by itself, he considers to be a inark of modernness. One can only understand this argument when one remembers that Professor Wilson's estimate of the age of the Jaina system was a very low one. But in view of the facts and arguments bearing on this topic that are now available, ſ it scems to me impossible to accept Professor Wilson's premises, and the particular argument we are here dealing with must, therefore, fall to the ground. His second argument is based on what he considers to be the misapplication of the word Kshapanakaa word which, Professor Wilson says, means not a Jaina, but a Bauddha only. Its application in the play to one who is plainly intended to be taken as a Jaina, not a Bauddha,|| involves, Professor Wilson thinks, a confusion of terms “ which is characteristic of a period * Cf. also Hindu Theatre, Vol. 1., p. 88, and Das'akumâracharita, p. 164 (Calc. ed.) This work is attributed to the 6th century. See India: What it can teach us, p. 314; Inulian Antiquary. Vol. III., p. 82; and Burnell's Aindra Grammer, p, 73. + Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., p. 159, note. This is a point on which something will have to be said in later portion of this Introduction. # Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., p. 215. $ See Indian Antiquary, Vol. II., p. 193; Vol. VI., p. 15. Barth, Religions of India, p. 150. I See our Anugitâ in the Sacred Books of the East, p. 225, and Barth, Religions of India, p, 151; J. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. XII., p. 64; Burgess's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. V., p. 43. | M. Barth is wrong in supposing him to be meant for a “Buddhistic character,' p. 134.

·18 MUDRÂRÂKSHASA. subsequent to the disappearance of the Bauddhas in India." Now, in the first place, I do not know on what authority the word Kshapazaka is limited to the narrow meaning stated by Professor Wilson. In the Panchatantra, which may be supposed to be earlier than the "period” to which Professor Wilson refers, the name is certainly applied to the Jainas.* And so is it in Govindânanda's commentary on the S'ârîraka Bhâshya, and in the Prabodhachandrodaya, t which though, perhaps, belonging to somewhere about that “period,” I still very clearly distinguish the Bauddhas from the Jainas. I confess I have a suspicion that Professor Wilson was himself probably confounding Kshapaņaka and S'ramanaka. This latter word is, undoubtedly, employed very frequently to signify the Bauddhas. Thus, in the Mſichchhakatika, the ascetic who is there certainly meant to be taken as a Bauddha is called either S'ramanaka or Bhikshug and never, be it added in passing, Kshapanaka. But although the word S'ramanaka is most usually employed to signify Buddhists, even that word is not strictly con- * See Tantra V., and Cf. Indian Antiquary, Vol. II., p. 194; also Wilson's Essays, Vol. II., pp. 20, (where Professor Wilson traces a similar confusion in the Panchatantra) 51, 76. The truth seems to be that the two sects are too much interlaced one with another for any such conclusion being based on these circumstances. In addition to what is said in the text, we have to remember, that S'råvaka, for instance, which Professor Wilson takes as referring to Jainas only (see Hindu Theatre, pp. 215-21), is also applied to Bauddhas. See inter alia Beal's Fa-Hian, pp. 9-47, Cunningham's Bharhut Stûpa, p. 110. Other similar words, besides Arhat and Jina, mentioned in the text, are Thera and Bhadanta (or, in its Prâkrit forms Bhayanta or Bhante), which occur frequently in the Inscriptions on the Amaravati Stûpa and in our Western India Cave Inscriptions. Cf. on all this J. R. A. S. Vol. XVI. $. 361; Vol. XVII., p. 117 (N. S. ); Vol. 11., p. 140; Burgess's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. IV., pp 92, 112; Beal's Fa-Hian, p. 5; Cave Temple Inscriptions by Dr. Burgess and Pandit Bhagvânlål, pp. 7, 11, 87, 76, and many other places; Burgess's Amravati Stapa, pp. 41, 54. See also Bșihatsamhitâ, ch. LI., st. 20-21, with which cf. Burnell's S. Indian Paleography, pp. 12 (1), 47 (n), Bhârhut Stúpa, p. 83; Journal Ceylon Asiatic Society (1845) p. 24, (1847) p. 19, (1856-8) p. 247; Indian Antiquary, Vol. XI., p. 29. Roth's Hemachapdra, p. 58. See Sankara Bhashya (Bib., Ind. ed.), p. 591 and p. 497. Harshacharita, p. 16; Ânandagiri's S'ankaravijaya, p. 153 et seq., Aufrecht's Halâyudha. p. 38. (The entry in the Index is erroneous). Hindu Theatre Vol. I, p. 56, and Das'akumâracharita with commentary (ed. by Messrs. Godbole and Parab), p. 189. Ditto (Bomb. Class. ) p. 54 and note thereon. #See as to this Cunningham's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. IX., p. 108. and also cf J. B. B. R. A, S. Vol. III., p. 312. 8 See pp. 98, 238-9. and Hindu Theatre, Vol. I., p. 56. 4 pp. 55.8 ·INTRODUCTION. 19 66 fined to this sense.* Thus in the Kadamba copperplates deciphered by me some years ago, it is unmistakably applied to Jaina ascetics.f But further, assuming the "confusion" alleged by Professor Wilson to be proved, I still do not know from what materials we can draw the inference that that "confusion” is characteristic of the period, referred to by him. Other words, •which have undoubtedly been specifically appropriated by Jainism, may be found used in Bå. ddhistic works-Arhat, $ for instance, or Jina. S And the doctrines of the Jainas and Buddhists are in so many respects identical that in the eyes of Brâhmaņas, the "confusion” may well have taken place, even when both the heretical sects were living side by side in the country. The truth is, that there is nothing in this confusion," even if it was a proved fact, from which any such chronological inference could be drawn as has been drawn by professor Wilson. The position of the Jaina Jîvasiddhi in our play, however, is to be noticed as indicating the tolerant spirit of the times. Although as belonging to a heretical sect, the sight of him is supposed to be inauspicious, || he is still admitted into the confidence of ministers of State. Chânakya, the Brâhmana minister, introduces him to Rakshasa; $ and Râkshasa, also a Brâhmaņa minister, becomes so close a friend of his, as to speak of his heart itself having been taken possession of by the enemy, when he finds that Jivasiddhi is like the others, merely a tool of Chanakya. On the other hand, the questionable purposes for which Jîvasiddhi, in his character of Jaina ascetic, is actually employed, may find their parallels in the stories of Devasmitâ in the Kathâsaritsagara and of Nitambavatî in the Das'akumâracharita,tt where Bauddha * See Indian Antiquary, Vol. IX. p. 122; Vol. X., p. 143. See, too, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, p. 796 and Sankara's Bhâshya thereon, with which compare Beal's Fa-Hian, p. 5; J. R.,A. S., Vol. XVI., p. 230 et seq., Vol. IX. (N. S.), p. 169; Dowson's Elliott, Vol. I., p. 506. + See J. B. B. R. A, S., Vol. XII., p. 321. See J. R. A. S. (N. S.), Vol. IV., p. 310. S. Någânanda, p. 1; Cf. Barth, Indian Religions, p. 142; Kielhorn's Report on Sanskrit MSS., p. 34. Fergusson's Architecture, p. 233. I See Barth's Religions of India, p. 147. P. 212. $ P. 71. * P. 258. tt See Kathåsaritsagara, Taranga XIII., st. 68 et seq. and Das'akumaracharita, p. 121, (Calc. ed.) These stories may, perhaps, be taken as indicating the same antagonism to these “ heretical sects" which is shown in the superstition regarding the sight of them being inauspicious, &c. Of. also Indian Antiquary, Vol. VII., p. 201; Beal's Fa-Hian, p. 169; Varahamihira's Brihatsamhitâ ch. 78, st. 9, and Weber's History of Indian Literature, p. 281 (n.)

·20 MUDRÅRÅKSHASA. female ascetios are represented as taking an active part in even more indefensible proceedings. And now let us turn to the materials we have for forming an opinion on the age of our drama. First, then, under this head, we have to deal with the quotations from it which, as already pointed out, are to be found in the Das’arûpa and the Sarasvatîkaņķhâbharana. The former work alludes to the Mudrârâkshasa by name in three different places,* in one of them setting out in full an extract from it for purposes of illustration, in another giving a general reference to certain of the characters in the play, and in the third -though the genuineness of this passage is not, apparently, above suspicion t-pointing to the Bșihatkathân as the source from which the main plot of the play is derived. The Sarasvatîkaņthâbharaṇa does not mention the Mudrârâkshasa by name at all; but one of the passages which it has in common with that work must be taken to be a quotation from it, though the other need not be so regarded necessarily, as the quotation in the Sarasvatîkanthâbharana is a Sanskrit stanza, while the original in the Mudrârâkshasa is a Prâkrit stanza, which, in its last line, differs from the other. I Still laying aside the passages upon which doubts may thus be raised, we have a clear residue of one passage in the Sarasvatîkaņthâbharaṇa, and two in the Das'arûpa, which must be taken to be derived from the Mudrârâkshasa. The dates of these two works, therefore, afford us a fairly satisfactory terminus ad quem for the date of our play. Now those dates have been generally accepted, since the publication of Dr. Fitzedward Hall's Das'arûpa and Vâsa vadattâ, to fall in about the 10th or 11th century of the Christian era, the Sarasvatî. kanțhâbharaṇa being attributed to king Bhoja himself, and the Das'arûpa being thought to be probably the work of an author who flourished in the time of Munja; the uncle of Bhoja. S We have not succeeded, since Dr. Hall's suggestions were made, in gathering much further or other material for a decision of the point, and * See pp. 59. 105, 120. + See Dr. Hall's Preface, p. 36; Cf. Và savadattá, p. 55. See the references given at p. 4 Supra. $ See the Das'arûpa Preface, pp. 2, 3, 4; and Vasavadattâ Preface, pp. 8, 9, 11, 21, 50; and Cf. Prof. Bhandarkar'a Preface to the Malatimadhava, P. X.; Indian Antiquary, Vol. XI., p. 236; Vol. VI., p. 51; Vol. I., p. 251; Weber's Indian Literature, p. 201 note; Bühler's Vikramankacharita Introd. p. 23; Eggeling's Ganaratnamahodadhi, pp. VI., 1, 2.

·INTRODUCTION. therefore, if we accept Dr. Hall's opinion as a basis, it seems to follow that the Mudrârâkshasa was probably composed at the latest about the century prior to the 11th century A. D. This argument, it must never be forgotten, only yields & terminus ad quem for the date of our play. And this terminus would fit in with the hypothetical conclusion which has been indicated above as derivable from the last stanza of the play. very well On that last stanza there is another remark germane to this branch of our subject, which may now be made. One of our MSS. --the one marked E-reads starraraat, instead of waga: in the last line of that stanza. Another—that marked N-reads rang- Hf. It is not quite impossible that the difference between E and N is due only to miscopying, and that in both MSS. one name only was intended-whether that name be Rantivarmâ or Avantivarmâ. As to the former, Rantivarmâ, I am unable to find any trace of that name anywhere. But we find two kings, named Avantivarma, mentioned in the documents accessible to us. One king of that name is the famous Avantivarma of Kas'mîr.* But that province is too far off from the provinces to which the two MSS. in question belong, and too little connected with them, to justify us in identifying the Avantivarmâ mentioned in one of them with this king of Kas'mîr. We know, however, of another Avantivarmâ, who was the father of the Maukhari king Grahavarmâ, the husband of the sister of Harshavardhana of Kanoj.t He must have been a king of Western Magadha or Behar, and, if our author was an inhabitant of that part of the country, it is not impossible that this playa was written by him in the reign of Avantivarmâ, and so his name came to be substituted for Chandragupta in the stanza referred to. If this identification is correct, as Avantivarmâ's date may probably be taken to be somewhere about the seventh century A. D., that would also be the date of Vis'âkhadatta. And as the Maukhari princes may possibly have joined their neigh- *See Rajatarangini, Chap. V., and Bübler's Tour in Kâs'mir, J. B. B. R. A.S, (Special No.), p. 74. + Cunningham's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol, XV., p. 164, Vol. I., pp. 73-78; and see Harghacharita, p. 108. Another Avantivarma, apparently, is mentioned at J. A. S. B. Vol. XXX., p. 321, but nothing has been ascertained about his date, do. A king Avanti is mentioned at Gaparatnamahodadhi, p. 123, ·22 MUDRÂRÂKSHASA. bours, the later Guptas, in their wars with the white Huns,* it is again not impossible that the Mlechchhas referred to in the last stanza of our play were these white Huns, whose inroads are supposed by General Cunningham to have occurred in the fifth and sixth centuries A. D. All this, however, is only possible at present; further light on the subject must be awaited, before we can come to any safe conclusion upon it. There is one other line of inquiry which may be worth pursuing, as it may lead to some result bearing upon the age of the Mudrârâkshasa. The scene of the play is laid for the most part in the city of Pâţaliputra, or Kusumpura, as it is also called. + Now it may be argued, I think, with some ground of reason, that the geography of our play must have been based not upon the state of things which existed in the time of Chandragupta, and which probably there were no materials for ascertaining at the date of the play, but upon the state of things which actually existed at the time when the play was itself composed. I And more especially may this argument be accepted in the case of those indications of geographical facts which are yielded only in an incidental way by passages in the drama designed for an entirely different purpose. Now, if we put together these geographical indications, we find that the Pâtaliputra, where the scene of the play is laid, was to the south of a river named the S'ona, S and that the king's palace in that city overlooked the River Ganges. T I think we may also safely assume that this Pâtaliputra was an existing city at the time of the composition of the play. This last proposition follows almost as a logical consequence, if we are right in the * See Cunningham's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. III., p. 135; also Harshacharita, p. 116; and Cf. Mr. Fergusson's S'aka Samvat and Gupta Eras, and J. A. S. B., Vol. IX., p. 849, about the white Huns and their invasions of India. + Cf. as to these names, &c., Dr. Hall's Vâsavadattâ, Preface p. 35; Cunning. ham's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. XIV., p. 1, et seq; Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. XVII., p. 49; see also Beal's Fa-Hian, p. 70; Kern's Bșihatsamhità, Preface pp. 37-40; J. R. A. S. (N. S.)., Vol VI., pp. 227-228; Burgess's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. V., p. 43. In some places, Kusumapura is distinguished from Pataliputra, and is identified with the Modern Fulvari. But in our play they are treated as interchangeable names, see pp. 187, 196, 198, 203. Cf. Cunning. ham's Arch. Surv. Report Vol. VIII., p. 22. $ see pp. 211-14; Patanjali in the Mahâbhâshya, mentions, Pataliputra as being on the S'ona; see Indian Antiquary Vol. I., p. 301; Cunningham's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. VIII., pp. 6, 11, 8; see too, Indian Antiquary, Vol. V., pp. 331-4. T See p. 154 infra.

·INTRODUCTION. 23 argument which has been above set forth touching the value of the geographical date in our play. Now we may, I think, take it to be historically demonstrated, that Pâtaliputra is the Indian name of the city, which is familiar in the classical accounts of this country under the name of Palibothra,* which was visited by the Chinese traveller Fa-Hian (who travelled in India and Central Asia between the years 399 and 414 A. D.) as the capital of Magadha, and is described by the other famous Chinese traveller, Hiouen-Tsang, as being a ruined city, south of the Ganges the foundations of which still covered, in his time, an extent of 70 li, though it had then been long deserted. † Hiouen-Tsang's journey commenced about 629 A. D., and extended down to 646 A. D. Therefore, we have Pâtaliputra still in existence till about the middle of the seventh century. But one century later we come to another Chinese account of India; and speaking of the year 756 A. D, that account gives us the following item of information:—“At the close of the year Kan-yuen"-this is said to be about 756 A. D.- "the bank of the river Ho-lung gave way, and disappeared."I The scholar who has translated this Chinese account tentatively suggests that Ho-lung may stand for the Ganges, and General Cunningham and Mr. Beglar more confidently maintain the same view. S Mr. Beglar, then, arguing upon the basis that Ho-lung does signify the Ganges, proceeds to state some very fair grounds for holding that the event recorded in the extract above quoted is the destruction of the city of Pâtaliputra by the falling-in of the banks of the Ganges. I If this conclusion is correct, then our previous argument shows that, the Mudrârâkshasa must have been composed about the first half * See Wilson's Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., p. 136; and compare Beals Fa-Hian, p. 103, and note there; J. B. B. R, A. S., Vol. III, Part II., p. 153; J. R. A. S., Vol. XVII, p, 126. Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., P, 131. At p. 50 of the Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., may be seen a strange superstition regarding Pataliputra. +See Elphinstone's History of India, by Cowell, p. 292; and Cf. the authorities referred to in the last preceding note. Sce Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal Vol. VI, p. 71 § Cunningham's Arch 'Surv. Report, Vol. VIII, p. 12; see also Vol. XI, p. 156. 1 Lassen (see Indian Antiquary, Vol: II., p. 196) says: "the ancient capital, Pâtaliputra, had long ceased to exist at the time to which, I think, the reign of Kalkin must be referred," that is to say, according to him, 1522 A. D. I do not know exactly what this alludes to. But it looks as if the meaning merely was that Pataliputra had ceased to be occupied as the seat of royalty long before 1522. If so, the passage can have no bearing on the question discussed in the text.

·MUDRÅRAKSHASA of the eighth century of the Christian era. I am bound, however, to point out, that besides the doubtful character of the evidence we have bere set out, we must recollect that in the recent republication of the account of Ma-Twan-Lin, the passage above adduced is very differently rendered. Instead of what is quoted above, we read there as follows:-"Towards the end of the Khien-yuen period ( 668 ), China having lost the country of Holong, the kings of India ceased from that time to come to court."* These two renderings are entirely different from one another, and it is impossible for us to decide between them. We must, therefore, leave the question to be determined by those who are conversant with the subject. It is enough for us here to add, that while on the one hand the modern Pâtna does not date back to any period further removed from us than the time of Shir Shah, who indeed, appears to have founded the modern fortress and town, t we have no mention of Pâtaliputra in any work of ascertained date subsequent to the time of Hiouen-Tsang. # And it would be remarkable, that Ma-Twan-Lin's own account should contain nothing about a city which is referred to both by Fa-Hian and by Hiouen- Tsang For obvious reasons, it is not possible for me to go into the various geographical discussions regarding the change of the course of the S'ona and the actual site of Pataliputra, which have been going on from the time of Major Rennell to our own day. Nor is it necessary for our present purpose that I should do so. Suffice it to say, that in all these discussions, as we have indicated above, the date of the Mudrârâkshasa-instead of being treated as a point for investigation, has been assumed, in accordance with the opinion of Professor Wilson, to fall in about the eleventh century of the Christian era. There is however nothing, as far as I am able to judge, in the points made in that discussion, either to render such an assumption necessary, or even to indicate that it is a legitimate The date of the play may be placed even five or six centuries earlier than the point at which professor Wilson placed it, without in any way running counter to any fact, established in the discusone. * See Indian Antiquary. Vol. XI, p. 19, and Of. Yulo's Cathay, Vol I., p. lxxxi. + See Cunningham's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. VIII., p. 14. * Bub leo as to this and generally the note on this point in our note on the date of S'ankaracharya' in the Indian Antiquary. 8 Soe p. 144 oupra.

·INTRODUCTION 23 present sion under reference. And, therefore, it is unnecessary to labour the point any further for our purposes. I need only remark, that while General Cunningham places the site of Pataliputra between the ancient beds of the river Ganges and the S'ona, the passages above referred to as probably indicating that the city must have been situated to the south of the S'ona fmilitate against his view. If the indications furnished by our play are to be accepted, the city must have been situated near the confluence of the two rivers, and not between them, but along the southern banks of both rivers. It will have been perceived, that the considerations which have been so far dwelt upon, point to the seventh or eighth century A.D. as the probable date of our drama. One other circumstance looking the same way may now be adverted to. In the seventh Act we have a remarkable stanza, in which the conduct of Chandanadasa, in sacrificing his life for his friend Råkhasa, is stated to have transcended the nobility even of the Buddhas. It seems to me that that allusion to Buddhism belongs to a period long prior to the decay and ultimate disappearance of Buddhism from India. Of the other works, which, as stated in our note on this passage, contain similar references to Buddhism, the Naganandall may probably be taken to belong to about the middle of the seventh century A. D., and the Malatîmâdhava to the end of that century. The Kâdambarî, in which passages leading to a similar conclusion also occur, likewise belongs to the same period. T Now, in Fa- Hian's time—that is to say, about the beginning of the fifth century * Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. VIII., p. 6. † See pp. 211 and 214. I take the passage at p. 211 to signify that the army of Malayaketu had to cross the S'ona before reaching Påtaliputra, while the passage at p. 214 shows that that army had to go from north to south. At the same time, it is possible, that the meaning of the former passage may be simply, that the elephants of Malayaketu are to enjoy themselves in the S'oņa, after Malayaketu shall have obtained possession of the city. This is possible, but I do not think it is the true meaning of the passage. # P. 304 infra. & Cf. on this Wilson's Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., 4; Elphinstone's History of India, by Cowell, p. 296 note; also S. P. Pandit's Malavikågnimitra, Preface, p. 35 et. seq. || I am aware that in the Introduction to Mr. Palmer Boyd's translation of this play, it is assinged to about the 12th century. But it seems to be by the same author as the Ratnávali, and the assertion in the text is based on that assumption. T See p. 209; And Cf. further Harshacharita, pp. 211-2; and also Mágha, Canto XX, st. 81; Brihatsambitá, ch. LX., st. 19; and Elphinstone's lndia, by Cowell, p. 298. 3 ·28 MUDRÁRAKSHASA. A.D. according to Mr. Beal, "Buddhism in India had arrived at a stage of development that foreshadowed its approaching decline and overthrow."* In the time of Hiouen-Tsang—that is to say, between 629-645—it was, however, still far from being decayed, though it "appears to have fallen very far below the point at which it stood in Fa-Hian's time; to have been equal in power with Brahminism only where it was supported by powerful kings, and to have been generally accepted as the one religion of the country only in Kâs'mir and the Upper Punjab,in the Magadha and in Guzarât.”+ In this condition of things, it was still quite possible, that one who was not himself a Buddhist—and Vis'åkhadatta plainly was not one-should refer to Buddhism in the complimentary terms we find in the passage under disscussion. But such a reference is not likely to have been made at any time very far removed from the period of which we are now speaking. For in the eighth and ninth centuries "Buddhism had become so corrupt, that it no longer attracted the people, and when it lost the favour of kings, it had no power to stand against the opposition of the priests." From these facts alone we may, I think, safely conclude that a work which refers to Buddhism in the way ours does probably dates from a time prior to the ninth century A. D. Some support to this conclusion might be drawn from the circumstance, which is alluded to on this point by the same authority as that from which * Introduction, p. Ixi., and cf. pp. 107-147. + See Rhys Davids' Manual of Buddhism, p. 245; and Barth's Religions of India, p. 132. On the vicissitudes of the fortunes of Buddhism in India, see also inter alia Beal's Fa- Hian, p. 53; J. R. A. S. (N. S.), Vol. III., p. 165; Burgess's Arch. Surv. Report Vol. II., p. 10; Vol. IV. p. 60; Vol. V., pp. 16, 22; Burnell's South Indian Paleography, p. 114 note; Fergusson's Indian Architecture, pp. 21-25; and Barth's Indian Religions, p. 134. * The argument here is not at all inconsistent with the view expressed by me at Indian Antiquary, Vol. IX., p. 46; a view to which I still adhere, and which, I find, has been expressed by other scholars also, cf. inter alia Barth's Religions of India, p. 133; Max Müller's India: What it can teach us, pp. 280-307; Indian Antiquary, Vol. VII., pp. 2 and 198; 8e8, too, Burnell's South Indian Paleography, pp. 104, 111; Fergusson's Indian Architectare, p. 23; Journ. Bomb. Br. Roy. Ag. Soc., Vol. XII., p. 315. There is, however, an obvious difference between mere tolerance by a king-which may have been due, to some extent, to motives of policy-or even support in common with other systems and a positive compliment by an ordinary author. And the gist of the argument in the text lies in this difference. § Davids' Buddhism, p. 246--a passage which shows that the expressions used by Mr. Pandit at the place referred to in a previous note are too strong for the actual facts of the case. Cf. also Cunnigham's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. VII., p. 198; Indian Antiquary Vol. XI., p. 116; Barth's Religions of India, p. 132.

·INTRODUCTION. we have made the last two extracts quoted above, * namely, Mr. Rhys Davids' Manual of Buddhism. That circumstance is the alleged persecution of the Buddhists under the instigation of Kumârila Bhatta and Sankaracharya.f But this still requires corroboration, and it opens up a question which is too wide to be fully discussed on the present occasion. Looking back at the various lines of investigation which have now been pointed out it seems to me that they all run pretty closely towards the conciusion that our drama belongs to somewhere about the early part of the eighth century A. D. I am not aware of any thing in the evidence, external or internal, bearing upon this subject, with which that conclusion stands in conflict. And this being so, I think, we may accept that conclusion, always remembering, of course, that the reasons by which it is supported are not such as to silence all possible suspicion. One interesting question relating to our drama arises upon the stanza gripura, &c, which occurs at P. 135 enfra, and which is also to be found in the Nîtis'ataka of Bhartrihari. The next stanaza after that, beginning with a store, is also to be found in some copies of Bhartrihari's S'atakas.Ş As, however, the genuineness of this latter as forming a part of Bhartạibari's work may be fairly doubted,ll it is not necessary to discuss the question except as it is raised by the first stanza. Now, in the first place, it is remarkable that that stanza is quoted in the Das'arûpåvaloka nominally as from the Bhartriharis'ataka, but in reality in the form which is plainly more appropriate to its context in the Mudrarakshasa. I In the Bhartriharis'ataka the words cafia in the last line must be impossible to understand. In the Mudråråksbasa they are perfectly intelligible, and actually occur in four of our MSS. * See p. 284. + I must state, however, notwithstanding what is said, for instance, by Mr. Beal (Fa-Hian, 137) or by M. Barth (p. 135-6), that I have myself no faith in the traditions about these persecutions. As to S'apkarachârya's supposed share in them, I expressed this opinion as far back as 1876, see Indian Antiquary, Vol. V., p. 290. And as we learn from that great philosopher's work that, in his time, there was no universal sovereign, no Sårvabhaumråjå in India (see Bhashya on Vedant Sûtras, Bibl, Ind. ed., p. 314), it becomes certainly still more doubtful than it is on the other evidence, whether any such persecution es is alleged ever took place. Cf. on this point Barth's Religions of India, pp. 184.6 See our Bhartribari, p. 7 (Nitis'ataka). $ Ibid, p. 31 (Nitis'ataka). See Preface to Bhartrihari, p. XX. See p. 62.

·28 MUDRÂRÂKSHASA. The probability seems to be, that the author of the Das'arūpå valoka quoted the stanza from memory,* and in doing so, quoted the reading of his copy of the Mudrårå kshasa, wrongly attributing it to the Bhartriharis'ataka. Upon the question which arises with reference to these identical stanzas occurring in different and independent works, I have nothing to add to the remarks which I have elsewhere made, and which are already in print.† In the particular case which we have here to deal with, I can see no alternative other than the theory of plagiarism on the one hand, and what may be called the Subhâshita theory on the other. The former is not & probable one, especially in such a case as this. The latter therefore, is the only one that we can adopt. The names of the various peoples mentioned in the Mudrârakshasa deserve a few words in this Introduction. Those names are as follows:-S'aka, Yavana, Kirâta, Kamboja, Pârasika, Bâblîka, (which all occur in the second Act ), Khas'a, Magadha, Gândhara, Chîna, Hûna, Kaulûta, (which occur in the fifth Act), and Mlechchha on which some remarks have already been made. It is unnecessary, in this place, to into any elaborate examination of all that has been said with respect to these various names. I will indicate only in a general way what these names are commonly understood to signify, and give references in the notes to the principal sources of information. The S'akas appear to have been a tribe inhabiting the countries on the north-west frontier of India.--"between the Indus and the sea." They are spoken of by the classical writers under the name Sacæ, and have been thought go * Cf. on the observations in West and Bühler's Digest of Hindu Law, p. 528 (20d ed.); Mr. Mandlik (Hindu Law, pp. 368, 389.) disputes the suggestion there made about Mitra Mis'ra quoting from memory as being without "authority." The suggestion seems to me, however, to be a very probable one as a general observation. Cf. J. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. X., 370; and Eggeling's Ganaratnamahodadbi, pp. 33, 182, where the quotation from the Kirâta and the Vepisambara were probably made from memory. † See our Bhartřihari Preface, p. 21, and the Tractate on the Ramayana there referred to. I See Hall's Våsavadatta, Preface, p. 15. § See also as to Mlechchhas, J. B. B. R. A. S. Vol., VI p. 114, and extra number for 1877, p. lxxxii; Max Müller, India; What it can teach us, pp. 282 299; Cunnigham's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. II., p. 70; Burgess's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. II., p. 26; Brihatsamhitå, Chap. XVI., st. 35, (where they are described as dwellers in caves, &c.). Professor Kern renders the word by"barbarians," at J. R. A. S., (N. S.), Vol. V., p. 285.

·INTRODUCTION, generally to be identical with Scythians.* They give their name to the royal dynasty from which the Marathi word S'aka, meaning era, is derived. This particular signification of the word is based upon an error, f but the era current in this part of the country, and known as the S'aka era, which commences with 78 A. D., is so called from the "S'aka kings."The Yavanas have not been very satisfactorily identified. The questions which arise regarding the various references to them were elaborately discussed by Dr. Râjendralâl Mitra some years ago. The name seems to have been applied at various times, to various tribes. Professor Wilson thinks that the Yavanas of Malayaketu's army may have been Greeks. The Yavanas, however, are also mentioned in the Mudrarâkshasa, 1 as having formed part of the invading army which followed Chandragupta and Chanakya to Pâtaliputra. But I do not find, that in the classical accounts of the invasion which are collected by Professor Wilson,ll any mention is made of Greek soldiers. Yet such mention might fairly be expected, if the Yavanas of the Mudrârâkshasa were really identical with the Greeks. The Yavanas referred to in our play were probably some of the frontier tribes inhabiting Afghanisthan and neighbouring districts. The * See inter alia Prinsep's Essays, by Thomas, Vol. I., p. 125; Indian Antiquary, Vol. IV., pp. 166, 167, 244; Vol. VI., p. 337; J. R. A. S., (N. S.), Vol. V., p. 59; Burgess's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. II., p. 26; Vol. III., p. 55; Vol. IV., pp. 97, 101, 104, 114; J. R. A. S., Vol. XVI., p. 247. + See J. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. X., p. xliii. ; Mr. Fergusson (S'aka and other eras, p. 9; Indian Architecture, p. 27), thinks that Kanishka founded this era, other scholars have attributed the foundation to Nahapâna; see Professor Bhâņdārkar's paper in the Transaction of the Orientalist's Congress in London. p. 318. The legend about S'alivahana, how. ever, prevails in the Punjab, see Indian Antiquary, Vol XI., p. 289, and also, apparently in Java; Fergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 640. See Indian Antiquary, Vol. lII., p. 305; see also J. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. VIII., p. 281; Cuon. ingham's Arch. Surv. Reports, Vol. XII., p. 130; Fergusson's S'aka and other eras, pp. 7, 10; Bșihatsamhita, Chap. VIII., st. 20-21; Max Müller, India: What it can teach us, pp. 282, 292, 297, 801 & See J. A. S. B., Vol. XLIII., and contra Indian Antiquary, Vol. IV., pp. 170, 244; see also Indian Antiquary, Vol. V., p. 275; Vol. X., p. 197, (where it seems to be stated that a people dwelling near Siam are called by this name in Hiouen-Tsang), Vol. VI. p. 114; and J. R. A. 8. (N. S.) Vol. IV., p. 442; Burgess's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. IV., pp. 34-38, 90-5, 114; Fergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 142, pote. T P. 124 infra. || Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., p. 147. Chandragupta, indeed, appears to have been hostile to the Greeks, see J. B. B. R. A. 8. Vol. III., pp. 163-164; Vol. XV., pp. 274-5; see, too, Cunningham's Bhilsa Topes, p. 87 and author. itios there cited.

·30 MUDRÅRÅKSHASA. Kirktas are another of these savage tribes, which are stated by Mr. A. Barooah to have been inhabitants of the hilly tracts just below the Himalaya, near Kumaon and Nepal. In the great duel which forms the subject of the Kirâtârjuniya, and which took place, be it remembered, on the heights of the Himalaya, Arjuna's opponent was a Kirâta from whom the great epic takes its name.* The Kâmbojast and the Pârasîkas are both mentioned under those names in Kalidasa's Raghuvams'a as tribes inhabiting the outlying districts on the north-western frontier. The Pârasikas are doubtless the people inhabiting Persia and the adjoining regions. Horses from their country are also mentioned under the name Vanayudes'ya in the Raghuvams'a.f The Bahlîkas are easily indentified as the dwellers in the district of Bactria or Balkh, where a Buddist Vihara has been discovered. So much for the invading army of Chandragupta, which in the classical accounts is described as containing vagabonds,ll and robbers, and banditti. This, doubtless, may be an exaggeration, as Professor Wilson was inclined to suppose. But it seems probable from the habitat of the peoples mentioned, if we have correctly fixed it, that they were outlying uncivilized peoples, whom Chandragupta and Chanakya formed into an army for the purpose of helping in their work of revenge. The elements stated to constitute the army which followed Malayaketu and Râkshasa are of the same description. The Khas'as appear to be identical•with the tribes still dwelling in the Khas'ia$ and Garo Hills in the north-eastern parts of Bengal. The real name of the tribe seems to be Khas'a and so our text & See * See further Indian Antiquary, Vol. III., pp. 178-9; Vol. VI, pp. 133, 349 n; Vol. X., p. 321. + See Raghuvams'a, Canto IV., st. 60-69. For the Kâmbojas, see also Indian Antiquary, Vol. IV., p. 244; Vol. V., p. 275; Vol. X., p. 272; they and Yavanas are decribed as you in the Gañaratnamahodadhi, p. 157, (Eggeling's ed.). #Raghuvams'a, Canto V. st. 73. See further on this and other names Visavadattâ, Hall's Preface, p. 82; Aufrecht's Halayudha, p. 47. Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., p. 114. J. R. A. S., (N. S.), Vol. IX., p. 169 and Vol XVII., (0.S., ) p. 112. || Hindu Theatre, Vol. II, pp. 133, 149. An explanation of tbis statement in the classical writers is suggested by General Cunningham in his Bhilsa Topes, p. 89. $ Bardoah's Dictionary, Vol. IIL, Do 44; see, too, Bhilsa Topes, p. 94; and Bșihatsambita, Chap. LXIX., st. 26; and J. A. 8. B., Vol. XVI., p. 1237, (Mr. Brian Hodgeon's paper.).

·INTRODUCTION. 31 ought to have read it, following the MSS. A. and P.* The next name is Magadha. If our text is on this point correct, and all our MSS. read the name as Magadha, the reference is probably to the discontented inhabitants of Magadha, who still followed Rakshasa, repudiating all connexion with Chandragupta as a usurper. I own, however, that I have a suspicion, though it is nothing more, that Magadha is not the correct reading, but that it should be Magara. If our identification of the Khas'as is right, this rectification is strongly suggested by the fact that the Magara tribe inhabits the Himalayan tracts near Kumaon in the neighbourhood of the Khas'as. According to Mr. Carleylle, the Goorklas of Nepal originally belonged to the twin tribes, Magaras and Khas'as. It must be admitted, however, that the emendation here is a mere suggestion, which cannot be accepted at present in the face of the evidence of our MSS. of the Mudrârâkshasa. I may add, that the language of the Magaras has formed the subject of an essay by Mr. Beams in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. The Gândhâras who come next are undoubtedly the people settled about the modern Peshậwar.Ş That part of the country is referred to in the Chhậndogya Upanishad,ſ and it is well known that many Buddhistical remains of ancient days have been found at Ali Masjid and other places on the borders of Afghanisthan.|| The Chinas are the next people who claim attention. Mr. Barooah identifies with the Chinese the Chinas mentioned in the Mahâbhârata. The Chinas of our text are probably not to be distinguished from the Chinas mentioned in the great epic. But Professor Max Müller * See further as to the Khas'as, Indian Antiquary, Vol. X., p. 386; and J. B. B. R. A. S. Vol. III., p. 156; and as to some of their customs, Indian Antiquary, Vol. VII., pp. 164, 205. + Cunningham's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. XII., pp. 126-30; Vol. III., p. 116; see also Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., p. 337; and cf. Fergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 301. Journ. R. A. S., (N. S.), Vol. IV. See Indian Antiquary, Vol. I., p. 22; Cunningham's Geography, pp. 15, 47, et seq; Elliott's Bibliographical Index, Part I., p. 30; J. R. A. S. Vol. XVII., pp. 114-5. See p. 459 ( Bibl. Ind. ed.); see also Max Müller's India: What it can teach us, p. 360; Beal's Fa.Hian, p. 30. Indian Antiquary, Vol. I., p. 21; Fergussop's Indian Architecture, pp. 59. 72. || See inter alia Fergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 169, et seq.; Indian Antiquary Vol. VIII., p. 227; J. R. A. S., (N. S.), Vol. XIII., p. 183; Vol. XIV. p. 319. One of the famous edicts of As'oka is in those parts, which formed, accord. ing to those edicts themselves, the western limit of As'oka's kingdom; see Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., p. 275; cf. also Elliott's Index, part I., p. 102.

·32 MUDRÂRÂKSHASA doubts whether in the Mahabharata the name Chinas really does stand for the Chinese.* However whether they are to be identified with the Chinese or not, they would seem to belong to some where about the north-eastern quarter of India, whether on this side of the Himalaya mountain or the further side. The Hûnas come next and these are probably to be identified with the White Huns,f whose inroads into India are said to have occurred in the fifth and sixth centuries A. D. They are mentioned in Kâlidâsa, and an expedition against them is stated in the Harshacharitat to have been entrusted to Rajyavardhana, the elder brother of Harshavardhana, by his father who is himself also described as one fordert. Kaulûta appears in our play as the description of one of the confederates of Malayaketu. Professor Wilson says that the part of the country called Kulûta is not known. Since his time, however, some evidence on the subject has become accessible. Kulûta is alluded to in the Kâdambarî, and in Varâbamihira, and is mentioned by Hiouen-Tsang, appearently, as lying on the way from Jalandar to Mathurâ and Thânes'var. || The modern name of the district is, according to Mr. Barooah, Kulu., $ and its precise position is indicated in the map which forms the frontispiece to General Cunnigham's Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. I. Malaya, if our reading here is correct, is the only southern locality alluded to in our play. It is near the southernmost extremity of the Western Ghâts.** Kas'mîr is the province which still goes under the same name and Saindhava, doubtless, means belonging * Barooah's Dictionary, Vol. III., p. 114; see, too, Weber's History of Indian Literature, p. 243; Yule's Cathay, Vol. I., p. xxxiv.; and Kern's Bșihatsambitâ in J. R. A. S., (N. S.), Vol. V. p. 73 (st. 61); and contra Max Müller, India: What it can teach us, p. 13; faith is mentioned inter alia by Kalidasa and Dandi. + See as to the Hûnas, Raghuvams'a, IV., 68; J.R.A.S., VOL II, p. 283; Vol. V., (N. 8.), p. 73; Cunningham's Geography of Ancient India, p. 7; Fergusson's S'aka and other Eras, p. 21; and Indian Architecture, pp. 39, 726, and note at p. XX. supra. As to their early history, see J. R. A. S. (N. S.), Vol X., p. 285. #P. 116. & See p. 101. 1 Chap. XIV., st. 29; J. R. A. S. Vol. XVII., p. 119. || Cunningham's Geography of Ancient India, pp. 142-564; and Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. XIV., p. 129; see also Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., p. 339; J. A. S. B. Vol. XVII. p. 23. . $ See Dictionary, Vol. III., p. 41-56. ** See Raghuvams'a, Canto IV., st. 61; Canto V., st. 64. See, however, as to Malaya Indian Antiquary Vol. XIV p. 105, and as to Malaya and generally Ibid. P 320.

·INTRODUCTION. 38 to Sindh, * as Professor Wilson has pointed out. A review of all these names shows, that except the name Malaya, they one and all belong to the northern parts, and most to the northern frontier of India. There is just one other point, touching the general character of our play, on which a few words might fairly be said in this intro. duction. It is plain that the sympathy of the reader is expected for Châņakya and his party, while it is equally plain that the policy of Chânakya is not remarkable for high morality. From the most ordinary deception and personation, up to forgery and nurder, evey device is resorted to that could be of service in the achieve. ment of the end which Chânakya had determined for himself. On the other side, too, there is no lack of highly objectionable and immoral proceedings. It must be admitted that this indicates a very low state of public morality, and the formal works on politics which exist certainly do not disclose anything better.† With reference to the criticisms which might be, and have been, based on these facts, however, there are one or two circumstances to be taken into account. In the first place, although this is no excuse, it may be said to be an extenuation, that the questionable proceedings referred to are all taken in furtherance of what is in it. self a very proper end. Châņakya's ambition is to make his protégé, Chadragupta, firm upon his throne, and to bring back Râkshaga See Cunningham's Geography, p. 6; with regard to most of the names discussed, the following may also be consulted; As'oka's Edicts, Bribatsamhitâ, Chaps. 9 to 11, 14, 16 to 18, and 32; Manu, Chap. X., st. 44; Cunningham's Ancient Geography, Harshacharita, P. 43; Patanjali's Mahâbhâshya, IV., I. 4, pp. 60-5, (Banâras Ed.), Wilson's Vishnu Purana, cited in our Anugitâ, p. 222; Kathâsaritsagara, Taranga 19, and Muir's Sanskțit Texts, Vol. I., p. 480, et seq. + Châņakya is one of our great authorities on all matters of politice. Cf. inter alia Kamandaki's Nitisara (Bibl. Ind. Ed.), p. I, and preface of Dr. R. Mitra, p. 3; Das'akumaracharita, p. 145, (Calc. Ed.), p. 13 (Bombay Sanskrit Series), Panchatantra, Introductory Verses, and Kadambari, p. 109; Chandakaus'ika, p.3; see further J. R. A. S. (N. S.), Vol. IX., p. 177; J. A. S. B. Vol. XXXIV., p. 23, (where he is represented as tampering with the currency of his timo), and Vol. LII., Part I., p. 267. (Sed quære as to some of the things there said.) # In the paper of Mr. Thomas at J. A. 8. B. Vol. XXXIV., p. 68, there is a suggestion (and the same suggestion had been made before by General Cunningham) that the Nandas were Buddhists, and Chanakya was the prime mover in a Brahmanical movement for the expulsion of the Buddhist sovereigns. There is, how- ·34 MUDRÂRÅKSHASA to the seryice of the king whe properly represented those old masters of his to whom Rakshasa's loyalty still remained quite firm. If the end could ever be regarded as justifying the means, it might be so regarded in this case. And, secondly, it must not be forgotten, that the games of diplomacy and politics have always been games of more or less doubtful morality. When we hear of one great politician of modern days declaring another to be a great statesman, because, as I believe he expressed it, the latter lied so cleverly, we cannot say that the world has risen to any very perceptibly higher moral plane in the times of Metternich and Napoleon, than in those of Chânakya and Rakshasa. Nor are suppression of important passages in despatches for the purposes of publication, or wars undertaken on unjustifiable and really selfish pretexts, calculated to convince one, that even in Europe in the nineteenth century the transaction of political affairs has been purged of the taint of immorality, however different, and I may even add, comparatively innocent, may be the outward manifestations of that taint. A few words only need to be added regarding the commentary published in this volume. The author of it is Dhundhirâja, son of Lakshmana, of the family of Vyâsa. The exordium and the conclusion of his commentary save one the necessity of any toilsome inquiry as to his age. He says that his commentary was written in the year 1635, at the request of one Tryambakâdhvarî, who was patronised by the Bhonsle Râjâ of Cholamandala and surrounding districts, named Sarabhajî, the brother of S'âhajî. The copy of the commentary used by us explains 1635 to be 1635 of the S'alivâhana era. And we are enabled to remove all doubt on that point by the statement, that it was in the time of Sarabhají Bhonsle that the commentary was wrinter For this Sarabhajî the brother of S'âbajî, is doubtless identi ith the Sarfojî, the brother of S'âbajî, whom we see mentioned the geneological tree of the Maratha dynasty of Tanjore, gives by Mr. Sewell in his Sketch of the Dynasties of Southern India. Sarfojî is there ever, no indication of this view in our play, and it stands in need of further corroboration as a historical theory. The indication y bich General Cunningham bad suggested (J. A. 8. B. Vol. X,, P. 166), is based on a mistake, which has. been pointed out at P. 27 Supra ·ABBREVIATIONS, EDITIONS, &C. 375 Sâhitya Darpana, Calcutta, 1869. Transactions of the Orientalists Sahitya Parichaya, by Nîlamaņi Congress in London. Mukarji. Calcutta, 1880-83. Transactions of do. Compilation, by S'aka, Samvat and Gupta Eras, by Trübner. Fergusson. Uņâdi Sûtras, by Aufrecht. S'âkuntala, by Monier Williams. Useful Tables, by Prinsep, in Tho- Samson Agonistes, by J. P. Hugh mas's Edition of Prinsep's lings, Bombay, 1861. Essays, Vol. II. S'ânkara Bhashya, (Bibliotheca Uttararâmacharita, Calcutta, 1870. Indica). Vâchaspatya, Dictionary of Pro- S'ankaravijaya, by Ânandagiri, fessor Târânath. (Bibliotheca Indica). Vâsavadattâ, (Bibliotheca Indica). S'ankaravijaya, by Mâdhavâcha Ventsamhâra. Calcutta, 1868. rya, Bombay. Viddhas'âlabhâñjikâ. Calcutta, Sânkhyakârikâ in Sânkhyatatt 1873. vakaumudi. Calcutta, 1871. Vikramânkacharita,(Bombay Sans. Sanskrit Texts, by J. Muir. krit Classics). Sarasvatîkaņķhâbharaṇa, by Baro- Vikramorvas'i, (Bombay Sanskrit oab, Calcutta. Classics ). Sarvadars'anasangraha. Calcutta, Viracharita, edited by Trithen. 1871. Vishņupurâņa, by Wilson, edited Siddhânta Kaumudi, 2 Vols., by by Dr. F. E. Hall. Professor Târânâth. Calcatta, Yajnavalkya Mitâksharâ, Bombay. 1863. The abbreviations used in this South Indian Palæography, by Volume will be easily understood Burnell, 2nd Edition. from the full names here given.

·No text on this page.

·An Alphabetical Index of the Verses occurring in the Mudrârâkshasa. *** In the following Index, the first number refers to the Act and the second, to the Verse. ... III., ... ... 11., IN., ... अक्षीणभक्तिः क्षीणे II., 22 | उपलशकलमेत- अत्थाहिमुहे सूरे IV., 19 उवरि घणं घण- अत्युच्छ्रिते मन्त्रिणि IV., 13 | उल्लङ्घयन्मम अदिसअगुरुएण VI., 3 एकगुणा तिथी अन्तःशरीरपरिशोष-... VI., 13 एतानि तानि तव अपामुद्दृत्तानां 8 ऐश्वर्यादनपेत- अप्राज्ञेन च कातरेण... I., 15 कन्या तस्य वधाय अम्भोधीनां तमाल- III., 24 कन्यां तीव्रविष- अलहन्ताणं पणमामि V., 2 कमलाणं मणहराणं अश्वैः सार्द्धमजस्र VII., 15 कर्णेनेव विषाङ्गनैक- अस्माभिरमुमेवार्थ II., 20 कामं नन्दमिव आकरः सर्वशास्त्राणां ... VII., 7 कार्योपक्षेपमादौ आकाशं काशपुष्प- III., 20 किं शेषस्य भरव्यथा आणंतीए गुणेसु V., 9 किं गच्छामि तपोवनं... आनन्दहेतुमपि 6 किमौषधपथातिगैः आरुह्यारूढकोप III., 27 कुले लज्जायां च आर्यायैव मम III., 33 कृतागाः कौटिल्यो आलिङ्गन्तु गृहीतधूप-... III., 2 केनोत्तुङ्गशिखा- आविर्भूतानुरागाः IV., 21 कौटिल्यः कुटिलमतिः आ शैलेन्द्राच्छिलान्त III., 19 कौटिल्यधीरज्जु- आस्वादितद्विरद- I., 8 कौमुदी कुमुदानन्दे II., 8 कौलूतश्चित्रवर्मा इह विरचयन्साध्वीं III., 6 क्रूरग्रहः स केतु- उच्छिन्नाश्रयकातरेव ... VI., 5क्षताङ्गानां तीक्ष्णैः उत्तुङ्गास्तुङ्गकूलं IV., 16 गम्भीरगर्जितरवाः उसिक्तः कुसचिव III., 12 गुणवत्युपायनिलये उद्यच्छता धुरमका IV., 6 गुरुभिः कल्पनाक्लेशै- III., 15 I., 22 I., 10 IV., 20 V., 16 I., 14 II., 16 V., 21 I., 19 II., 15 9 3 II., 18 V., 24 VI., 16 V., 4 III., 11 VII., 6 I., 2 9 I., 20 I., 6 VI., 12 IV., 17 I., II., 7 11. IV., .. इष्टात्मजः सपदि ... 5 ... VII., ·2 ... 7 VI., ... V., 10 IV., 9 ... गधेराबद्धचक्र III., 28 | पादस्याविर्भवन्ती- I., 2 गौडीनां लोध्रधूली V., 23 पादाने दृशमवधाय V., 13 चन्द्रगुप्तस्य विक्रेतु- V., 17 पितॄन्पुत्राः पुत्रा- VI., 17 चाणक्कम्मि अकरुणे I., 21 पुरिसस्स जीविदव्वं I., 18 चाणक्यतश्चलित- III., 31 पृथिव्यां किं दग्धा II., चीयते बालिशस्यापि... I., 3 पौरैरङ्गुलिभिनवेन्दु VI., 10 छग्गुणसंजोअदिढा 4 प्रत्यग्रोन्मेषजिह्मा III., 21 जअदि जलदणीलो VI., 1 प्रमृगञ्छोतृणां VI., 14 जह इच्छह लक्खिदव्वे VII., 1 प्रस्थातव्यं पुरस्ता- V., 11 जगतः किं न विजितं VII., 13 प्राकारं परितः II., 13 जाणन्ति तन्तजुत्तिं II., 1 प्रारभ्यते न खलु II., 17 तीक्ष्णादुद्विजते मृदौ... III., 5 फलयोगमवाप्य VII., 10 त्यजत्यप्रियवत्प्राणा I., 25 बाल एव हि लोके VII., 12 त्वय्युत्कृष्टबले IV., 15 बुद्धिजलणिज्झरेहि V., 1 दुष्कालेऽपि कला VII., 5 भक्त्या नन्दकुला- दूले पच्चासत्ती 4 भर्तुस्तथा कलुषितां III., II., 21 भयं तावत्सेव्यादभि-... V, 12 देवस्य येन पृथिवी IV., 11 भूषणाद्युपभोगेन III., 23 देवे गते दिव- VI., 7 भृत्यत्वे परिभाव- V., 20 द्रव्यं जिगीषुमधिगम्य VII., 14 भृत्या भद्रभटादयः VII., 9 धन्या केयं स्थिता I., 1 भेतव्यं नृपतेस्ततः III., 14 धूतैरन्वीयमानाः III., 10 | मद्भूत्यैः किल सोऽपि... III., 13 न तावनिर्वीर्यैः II., 10 मम विमृशतः कार्या-... IV., नन्दकुलकालभुजगी I., 9 | मित्रं ममेदमिति नन्दस्नेहगुणाः स्पृशन्ति VII., 16 मित्राणि शत्रुत्व- V., नन्दैवियुक्तमनपेक्षित III., 18 मुद्रा तस्य कराङ्गुलि V., 15 नायं निस्त्रिंशकालः VI.. 20 मुहुर्लक्ष्योद्भेदा V., 3 निस्त्रिंशोऽयं सजल-... VI., 18 | मोत्तुण आमिसाई VII., नृपोपकृष्टः सचिवा- IV., 14 मौर्यस्तेजसि सर्व- II., 23 नेदं विस्मृतभक्तिना ... II., 5 मौर्योऽसौ खामिपुत्रः... V., 19 पणमह जमस्स चलणे I., 17 यत्रेषा मेघनीला II., 14 पतिं त्यक्त्वा देवं VI., 6 | यदि च शकटो नीत VI., 19 परार्थानुष्ठाने III., 4 | येन खामिकुलं 4 पाऊण निरवसेसं II., 11 | ये याताः किमपि I., 26 दृष्ट्वा मौर्यमिव ... ... 2 V., 7 8 . ... 3 VII., ...

·3 VI., N.. III., IN., 8 IN., ... यो नन्दमौर्यनृपयोः यो नष्टानपि बीज- राअणिओओ महिओ राक्षसेन समं मैत्री राज्ञां चूडामणीन्दु- रूपादीन्विषया- लब्धायां पुरि लेखोऽयं न ममेति वक्षस्ताडनभिन्न वहति जलमियं वामां बाहुलतां वाराहीमात्मयोने- विक्रान्तैर्नयशालिभिः... विगुणीकृतकार्मुकोऽपि विना वाहनहस्तिभ्यो विपर्यस्तं सौधं विरुद्धयो(शमिह विष्णुगुप्तं च मौर्य च... वृष्णीनामिव नीति- शनैः श्यानीभूताः शाकर्षावमुक्त- शिखां मोक्तुं बद्धा- शिबेरिव समुद्भूतं III., 17 शोचन्तोऽवनतै- I., 12 8 श्यामीकृत्याननेन्दू I., 11 IV., 1 श्रावितोऽस्मि श्रियं VI., 15 VII., 18 श्रुतं सखे श्रवण- 6 IV., 12 संरम्भोत्स्पन्दिपक्ष्म-... III., 30 1 सत्त्वभङ्गभयाद्राज्ञां III., 26 सत्त्वोत्कर्षस्य धात्रा III, 22 V., 18 स दोषः सचिवस्यैव ... III., 32 5 सद्यः क्रीडारसच्छेदं ... IV., 10 I., 4 संदावे तारेसाणं VI., 2 II., 12 समुत्खाता नन्दा I., 13 VII., 19 स हि भृशमभियुक्तो... III., 25 I., 23 साध्ये निश्चित- V., 10 VII., 11 सासणमलिहन्ताणं IV., 18 VII., 17 सुलभेष्वर्थलाभेषु I., 24 11 सुविश्रब्धैरङ्गैः III., 3 II., 3 सोत्सेधैः स्कन्धदेशैः... 7 V., 22 स्तुवन्ति श्रान्तास्याः... III., 16 4 स्मृतं स्यात्पुत्रदारस्य ... V., 14 III., 7 स्वच्छन्दमेकचर- I., 27 VI., 9 खयमाहृत्य भुजाना.... I., 16 III., 29 स्वस्मिन्परिहृतमयशः... II., 19 VI., 18 होदि पुलिसस्स वाही... VII., 2 ... VI., IV., II., ...

·No text on this page.

·No text on this page.

·No text on this page.

·No text on this page.

·No text on this page.