·iv
PREFACE
and Prof. Dhruva, and also of the Signet Ring' a masterly
English translation of the play with a highly valuable Post
script and Introductory Note by R. S. Pandit.
It is needless to add that I shall feel my labours well 14 lid
if these pages are found useful by those for whom they are
intended ; and that any suggestions for improvement will be
gratefully received.
G. V. 1),
H. P. T. College, Nasik :
12th October, 1948.

·CONTENTS
I. THE AUTITOR
..
7
II. THE PLOT
20
III. A CRITICAL APPRECIATION
51
IV. CHARACTERS
85
V. SOURCES
102
VI. VŠĀKIIADATTA AS A DRAMATIST
108
VII. SOCIETY AS DEPICTED IN THE MUDRĀ-RĀKŞASA ..
128
NOTES
143
INDEX
171

·No text on this page.

·CHAPTER I THE AUTHOR It is quite a usual experience, painful though it be, of a student of Sanskrit literature to be confronted with insurmountable difficulties in his attenipt to gather personal information about any particular author and fix his date even by the century. The authors theinselves, for reasons of their own, are more often than not very reticent about themselves ; and most of them do nothing beyond giving their own name and that of their work, and sometimes the names of one or two of their ancestors. A few others are found to add the name of their patron or a contemporary ruling prince who very often is found to be almost impossible to identify beyond any doubt. The result of all this naturally is very tantalising to the student of Sanskrit literature, particularly when he finds nanes like Kālidāsa also tossed to and fro through a period of several centuries. Dates in Sanskrit literature form an unending problem, indeed! And Visakhadatta is not an exception to the general rule. Our knowledge about the personal account of Visakhadatta does not go much beyond what he himself has given in the prologue and the Bharatavākya of his Mudra-raksasa. But even there we are confronted with variae lectionae which go a long way to create confusion. Thus the very name of the author is ſound spelt in two different ways as Višākhadalta and Visakhadera. But this necd not detain us very long'; for we find that the names of both the father and the grandfather of our author cnd in datta, a circumstance which helps us to conclude that his name also must have a similar ending. Thus we know that the author of the Mudrā-rākşasa is Visakhadatta (a poct), son of Mahārāja Bhāskaradatta, and grandson of Sūnanta Valeśvaradatta.

·8 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA About his caste and native place we are left completely in the dark. But it may be noted that the two principal charac. ters in the play are Brāhmana by caste. Again in act VII when Cāņakya is about to touch Räkşası, the latter tolls him that he is contaminated by the touch of the Cauclälas and as such should not be touched, and the former sets aside his misapprehension by declaring that those whom he took for Cāņdālas were none but his own trusted spics, These facts together with the respect shown in the play to the Brahmanas in the prologue, and the absence of Viduşakak perhaps may be interpreted as indicating that our author, like those of the Venisarhāra and the Uttara-Rāmacarita, had a soft corner for the Bilāhmanas; and this may again be taken to suggest that Viśākhadatta himself was a Brāhmana. As for the native place of our author nothing can be said very definitely, though from the geographical knowledge displayed by him one may be justified in concluding that he was a northernor. Beyond that, however, we may not go for want of any sure grounds. "The assumption', says Dr. De, 'that the drama is a Bengal work is purely gratuitous and conjectural." Nor $211 Our author be said to hail from Kaśmīra from the way in whichi the Kāśmīra prince Puşkarāksa is referred to in the play itself. We must, therefore, Icave this question here only and pass on to the next, arising out of the reference in the Bharata vākya. Unfortunately here also we are pursued by the discomfiting variae lectionae viz. Candragupiah, Avantivarmni, Duntilanmi, and Rantivarmā, and two others which are obvious Qurtup). tions of the last one, which itself is rather suspicious. Danti.. varmā is said to be the reading of several southern MSS 2011 is, on that account, accepted as the correct racing by some scholars. Dhundirāja, a commentator, reads Candragupta and some 7 scholars follow him in this respect. Nor art: chanpions wanting for the reading Avantivarmi. Whatever be the correct reading, it is to be observed that Visakhadatta is 6 ·THE AUTHOR 9 here referring evidently to a ruling prince of his day. But it is doubtful whether the prince, thus referred to in the Bharatavākya, is also a patron. In fact there is nothing to warrant such an assumption. It is, however, obvious that fixing the reading in the Bharatavākya and then fixing the identity of the prince referred to therein would go a long way to settle the problem of the date of our author. We have already seen that there are champions for all the readings cxcept Rantivarma and its variants, which makes it impossible for us to fix the reading with certainty. It may yot bc interesting to sec how attempts have been made to identify thc various princes mentioned in the various readings and how our author is assigned variously to different centuries of the Christian era. Dhundināja, the commentator referred to above, accepts the reading Candraguptal and identifies him with king Candragupta Maurya, one of the characters in the play itself. This view, however, has been rejected on the ground that the stanza in which it occurs docs not form an integral part of the play. Such a reference may only be taken as a eulogy of some contemporary prince. Some scholars, thercfore, suggest that the reference hero is to some prince bearing the name Candragupta whom they identify as Candragupta II of the Gupta dynasty. This vicw they try to justiſy by arguing that the play shows Kusumpura in a flourishing condition and that Buddhism in the play appears to be still far from its decay and disappearance in India - conditions which obtained when la Llien was in India, but were absent when India was visited by Iliucn Tsang. Jayaswali" lends support to this view by pointing out that our play contains a covert defence of the scandalous murder of the Saka Satrap by Candragupta mentioned by Bana in his llarsacarita. According to these scho- ·10 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA. lars then Višākhadatta is a contemporary of Candragupta II of the Gupta dynasty, and must, therefore, belong to the 5th century A.D. Mr. Rangaswami Sarasvatiil on the evidence of several old and reliable Malabar MSS. of the Mudrā-räkşasa accepts Dantivarmā as the correct reading and identifies Dantivarmā as the ruler of the Pallava dynasty about 720 A.1). This identification, however, is far from being acceptable for more reasons than one, 12 the most important of them being that this king is not known to have saved the land from the tyranny of the Mlecchas, as he is described to have done in the Bharatavākya. The reading Avantivarmā is favoured by Telang inspite of the fact that he has accepted in his text the reading Candraguptah which he has done cvidently to be in conformity with the commentary of Dhundināja which he has published. - According to him the Avantivarmā mentioned here is the Maukhari prince of that name, father of Gralavarman, the husband of Räjyasri, the sister of Sri Harsa of Kanouj. This view has been accepted by Macdonell, Rapson, and Thiruva. There is, however, one more Avantivarmā known to Incologists, the one who ruled at Käsmīra from 857 to 881 A.). Jacobi13 accepts this identification and holds that the play was actually enacted before the prime minister of the Avantivarmā on the second of December, 860 A.D. But in the play itself we see Višākhadatta describing Puşkarsiksa, the prince of Kāśmīra as a mleccha (a derogatory term), which he would not have done had he really been a protégé of Avantivarmā of Kāśmīra. It would thus be seen that there are two views which appear to be equally strong : (i) that Visakhadatta flourished under Candragupta II of the Gupta dynasty (375-413 A.D.); and (ii) that Višākhadatta's patron was Anantivarmī Maukhari (579-600 A.D.). Let us now turn to other picces of «vidence ·THE AUTHOR 11 available in this connection and in their liglut try to fix iſ possible the date of Visakhadatta. In this connection three points deserve to be taken into consideration one by one. First there is the idea about the moon-eclipsc. In the prologue the Sūtradhāra declares that he is well-versed in the Jyotih-sastra and that, for aught he knows, though the wicked planet is about to swallow the Candra, yet he would be saved from the danger owing to his conjunction with Budha. The idea of the Budha-yoga having a counteracting influence on the moon-cclipse was prevalent before the days of Varahamihira who has mcrcly repudiated it in his famous Bịhatsamhita. 16 This shows that Visakhadatta must be rather earlier than Varāhamihira (C. 490 A.D.). The next point to be considered is the attitude shown by our poet towards Jainism and Buddhism. In Act VII St. 5 the deeds of the Buddhas are referred to with great respecto which shows that Buddhism was yet held in good estcein. This naturally points to a date far anterior to that of its decay alter the seventh century. Reference to the trouble of the Mlecchas in the Bharata-vākya'? is the last point that we may note here. Wilsonte identifies thc Mlecchas with the Pathan princes and assigns the play to the 11th or the 12th century. Talang," on the other hand, is inclined to identify the Mlecchas as the carly Muhomcdan invaders of India and assigns the work to the 7th century A.I). Mcdonell and Rap. son agree with him. But it is not unlikely that by Mlecchas are to be understood the Ilūnas who were a growing incnace in the Gupta period. It is even more probable that this plot suggested itself to our author on account of the identity of the names of the princes. The date problem has been attacked in yet another direction on the basis of rescmblances of ideas and phrascology between the Mudro-raksasa on the one hand and some other works in Sanskrit literature on the other. Thus it is found ·12 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUIJY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA that the second benedictory stanza of our play closely resem bles the Harivijaya, II. 55-56 of Ratnākara, a court-poct of Avantivarmā of Kasmīra. But this resenblauce only proves our author's priority over Ratnākara, since, as we have already seen above, this Avantivarmā can't be the prince referred to by him. A similar resemblance is to be noticed between Mu. Rā. IV. 10 and the Kirātārjunīya II. 47 cd. of Bhiravi who belongs to the close of the 5th century A.I), Raghuvais VII. 43 & 56 have again been adduced as parallels to Mu. Rii. V. 23 and VII. 21 respectively. But the coincidences here are: only too feeble to be of any use in settling the question of chronology for good. The same perhaps may be said abxxut the coincidence between Mu. Rā. I. 14d and the Sisupälavadhan, XVI. 84d ; for though the change of ca into ai has been declared to be introduced by Magha merely for the sake of change, it must be admitted that this may not be accepted as a very conclusive evidence for fixing the date of Visakhadatta.::11 Resemblances between our play and our play and the Micchakatika are indeed close and numerous also2; and it would not be wrong to conclude on their strength that our author had the Mịcchakatika before him when he composed the present play. But this does not help us much in fixing the date of Visiklet datta since the date of the Mycchakatika itself is as yet an open problem. There is one more case of this type. Mu. Rī. II. 17 is found to correspond to the 27th stanza or Bharat hari's Nitišataka. From this it is argued that the Aludri rākşasa is earlier than 651 A.D., the year in which Bharts. hari is said to have passed away. But even hero a dilliculty crops up owing to the presence of varia lectio vix. “ns tvam ivodvahanti” or ºnā na parityajanti". If the fornis is the genuine reading we shall have to conclude that the stanza primarily belongs to the play because of the dramatic mode of expression in which it is couched. Bharthari would in that case be the borrower and hence later than our author, ·TIIE AUTIIOR 13 But iſ the second rcading is genuine the tables would be turned just the opposite way thus proving the priority of Bliartrhari over Visakhadatta. There is also a third probability of both the authors having borrowed from some common source. The author of the Dasarūpāvalokaa" accepts the first reading as given above and attributes the stanza to BhartỊhari. This circumstance adds to our difficulty and makes the problem still more trite. In general, however, it may here be observed that any attempt to fix the date of our author on the strength of verbal resemblances between Mu. Rā. on the one hand and some other works in Sanskrit literature on the other is bound to be futile, though such resemblances may at the most be taken to indicate a probability in a certain direction. Let us now turn to the external evidence that is available for fixing the date of Visakhadatta. There are several commentaries on the Mudrā-riákşasa. But none of these is known to be carlier than about the middle of the 14th century A.D. The same is the cases with the other versions of the story of the play, both in prose as well as in verse, the carliest of these being the prose version of Ananta Pandita (first half of the 17th century A.n.). Thus we find that the evidence supplied by these is not of much value for our purposes. Among anthologies we find only two containing verses ascribed to Vistikhaditta or Vistākladeva. Vallabhadeva in his Subhāsitävali nas quoted two verses of Visakhadeva whom Mr. Peterson identified with the author of the Mudrā-rākşasa. This identification is not generally accepted, nor are the verses in question to be found in our play. Sridharadasa in his Saaduktikaminista has given two stanzase as composed by Viskliadatta. Even these are not to be traced in the Mudra- Käkisasa. But if the author of these stanzas is the same as our uthor he can be placed before 1205 A.). The carlicst work to quote from the Mudra-raksasa and refer to it by name is the Dasurüprivaloka of Dhanika (10th century A.D.), It, ·14 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA therefore, follows that Višākhadatta is much carlier than the 10th century A.D. There is, however, one more passager in the Dasarūpävaloka which has been utilised by some scholars in this connection. Thus at the end of the first chapter of the work we find the remark ‘BỊhatkathāmālam mudrārükşusum' from which it would appear that the Mudra-räkşasa is based on the BỊhatkathā. But this passage itself has been proved to be spurious and hence quite unreliable.34 We have thus far scen that Visakhadatta has been variously assigned to several centuries upto the 12th. Of these several theories, however, there are only two which have some probability about them. The theory that Visakhadatta was a contemporary of the great Gupta emperor Candragupta II has to face 'the difficulty of taking the term Mleccha in the sense of the Hūnas and of explaining the word udvojamāna satisfactorily in terms of the known facts of Candragupta's time.' The theory that Viśākhadatta flourished under Avantivarma Maukhari, on the other hand, is vitiated by the discovery made by Hillabrandt's critical edition of the Mudrā-rükşasa that the variant Avantivarmā is most probably a later cmendation." The question of Višākhadatta's date must, therefore, be regarci. ed as unsolved, though in the light of the evidence discussed so far one may be justified in placing him among the older group of dramatists who succeeded Kalidasa and flourished much before the 9th century A.D.30 Let us now pass on to discuss the scholarship of Visikliadatta. Here at the very outset it may be observed that a drama is not a work where an author may be cxpccted to parade his scholarship and learning; and yet it is but natural that some glimpses of the author's knowledge of various branches of literature and arts and also his varied experiences may be found in his work. There is, therefore, nothing unnatural in trying to gather all such glimpses from a work and try to form, on their basis, some idea about the scholarship of ·THE AUTHOR 15 The very its author. If we read the Mudrārākşasa from this point of view we shall find Viśākhadatta showing his acquaintance, (and sometimes even proficiency) not only with belles-lettres but also with scientific works and also with fine arts. Το even a causal reader is evident the mastery of Visakhadatta over the Sanskrit language and its grammar. fact that he has in his Mudrā-räkşasa used no less than scventeen mctres, 31 and quite successfully too, is enough to show that he has good acquaintance with Sanskrit prosody. Variation of style in accordance with the subject matter and the use of various figures of speech bcar ample testimony to his knowledge of Sahitya-sastra. That he must have studied dramaturgy and acquired proficiency in it can very well be seen from the way in which he has succeeded in shaping a highly interesting play out of the sordid and crude material that he could gather from his sources, historical as well as Pauranic. But that is not all. In two places at lcast he has referred to technicalities of dramaturgy, thus showing his deep interest and proficiency in that science. Thus in the sixth act of the Mudra-raksasa when Siddharthaka tells Samiddharthaka that Malayaketu has been captivated by Bhadrabhata and others the latter in wonder, asks how it could be ; for Bhadrabhata and others were known to have resorted to Malayaketu out of disaffection for Candragupta. It is here that Samiddhārthaka by way of comparison adds that the situation was just like a drama composed by an inferior playwright in which the matter in the beginning (ie, mukhasandhi) differs widely from that in the end (ic. nirvahanasandhi). The reference here to the two sandhis and also to the rule, that the matter in both these sandhis must be the same for a drama to be successful, shows clearly that Visikhadatta was very well acquainted with Nātyaśāstra. The same again is shown by the third stanza 33 of the fourth act of the Mudizraksasa where Räkşasat compares the worries of a minister like himself to those of a play- ·16 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUIRĀKĪKSASA wright ; and while doing so uscs certain technical terms of dramaturgy. In fact this stanza has been vuoted by Vägblata in his Kāvyānuśāsana as showing Visakhadala's proficiency in nāțyaśāstra. The use of the various Prakrits in this play can be taken to be indicative of Visakhadatta's acquaintanco with and mastery over the Prakrits. Through me of his characters Višākhadatta would even seem to cleclare that he is also a prākſta kavi.34 Indications are not wanting of the sound knowledge of Visakhadatta of other branches of scientific literature, The whole play is deeply saturated in a political atmosphere. The plots and the counter-plots of Rākasi and Canakyat, the bristling crowd of spies on cither side, the atmosphere charged with suspicion, trials and punishments, and the highly political discussion between Canakya and Candragupta all these show Viśäkhadatta's deep knowledge of Artlasīstra. The impresion thus gathered is further confirmed by the xulxrant use of the technical terms35 of Arthaśāstra almost at every step. There is also a direct reference to the arthasüstrakörüli in general and to the Dandanītist or Ušanas in particular. The other science in which our author seems to be proficient is the jyotih-sāstra. In the very prologue of our play we line the sūtradhāra referring to his proficiency in this science with all its sixty-four parts and declaring that there would be no m00neclipse that day since the conjunction with Buddha is sure to save the moon from the danger.37 We have already observed above that the idea about the moon-oclipse being counter-acted by the budha-yoga belongs to the Sarhitā period i.e. prior to the date of Varāhamihira. Again we are told that Jivasiddhi the kşapanaka is only a Brāhmana nane Inclusarman who is proficient not only in politics but also in culuhşaştyaga jyotiḥśāstra.38 A deeper knowledge of this science is displayed by the author in Act IV where Räkşasa requests the monk to find out an auspicious day for him to start an expedition; and ·THE AUTHOR 17 39 the latter in very technical ternis points out that the evening of that very day (it was full-moon day of Mārgaśīrşa) was very auspicious, indeed! And when Rākşasa raises an objection saying that the tithi was not quite auspicious, the monk points out that the influence of nakşatra and lagna is four and sixty-four times respectively as much as that of the tithi, so that it would not be wise on the part of Rākşasa to let such auspicious day pass off simply in view of the tithi. He also adds further that the lagna of Budha is very auspicious and that Rākşasa would derive great benefit if he goes by the auspicious influence of the moon. From all this it will be quite evident that Visakhadatta was a deep student of the jyotih- Sāstra. The other sästra which our author scems to have thoroughly mastered is the nyāya, The Mudrā-rākşasa V. 10" speaks of the five conditions which every hetu has to satisfy iſ it is to be valid, and also of the fallacics arising from the violation of one or more of these conditions. It also contains the technical term migraha ; and the fact that the nyāya terminology has been utilised by our poct for a simile to illustrate the conditions which crown a king with success or land him into disaster and defeat is enough to convince the reader of Visakhadatta's proficiency in Nyāya. Visakhadatta has also shown liis acquaintance with our mythology by referring to the tandava dance of God Siva in his nändī,41 to the idea of God Vismu waking up in the month of Kārtika? (on the ckādaśī, which on that account is called the prabodhinī ekudasī), to the story of the sakti conferred by Indra on Kanna who had preserved it really for destroying Arjuna, but had to spend it on Ghatotkaca, son of Bhima by I-Liçlimbā, 13 to the destruction of the Vrsnis, dit and to the famous story of king Sibi offering his own flesh just to save a pigeon from a falcon15 (who were in fact Agni and Indra respectively so disguised). Visakhadatta scems to be acquainted not only with the Brahmanical religion and also the pauranic M.I.- -2 ·18 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSAS:1 idea of feeding Brāhmaṇas at the time of the moon-eclipsado or some ſeastive occasions or of giving away things belonging to the deceased to Brāhmaṇas by way of obscqual gifts,!' but also with the so-called heretical systems of Buddhism and Jainism.18 Of the fine arts we find the art of painting referred to in one places in our play; and we may reasonally infer from that reference that Visakhadatta had some acquaintance with that art also. We may now bring this chapter to a close by making a brief reference to the other works ascribed to our author, Ilore it must be observed at the very outset that no other work of Viśākhadatta has come down to us in any form, though from references in other works he would possibly seem lex have composed some more works beside the Mudra raksasa. Thus we find Rāmacandra and Gujacandra quoting viven times from a work named Devīcandragupta, ascribing it to Visakha deva. This work has not as yet been unearthed; but from references and citations it would appear that it is a craina in five acts, if not more, dealing in all probability with the story of Kumāra Candragupta in the guise of a woman rescuing Dhruvadevī who had been abducted by a Saka princa. This work is again referred to by Bhoja in his Sigāraprakaisit and also by Abhinavagupta in his commentary on the Nātyaśāstra of Bharata, of course, without naming the author.' Abhisārikāvañcitaka or Abhisārikābandhitaka is yet another works -again a drama in all probability--which lias been referred to and quoted from by both Abhinavagupta as well as Bhoja. This also is ascribed to Visakhadeva. It is based on a love legend of Udayana and Padmāvatī. The former left the latter under the suspicion that she had killed his son, when disguising herself as a Sabarī and playing the role of an abhisi rikā, the latter won back the love of her tender-minded husband. It must here be observed that both these works are said to be the work of Visakhadeva (and not Visakhadatta) ·TIID AUTISOR 19 whose identity with the author of the Mudrā-rākışasa is by no means very definitely established. Prof. Dhruvawz has pointed out that the Sadukti-kamāmſta quotes two stanzas ascribing them to Visakhadatta ; and concludes that our author must have composed another drama based on the story of the Rāmāyana. Besides these there are two anuştubh verses, which in the Subhasitāvalī are ascribed to Visākhadeva whom Dr. Peterson is inclined to identify with the author of the Mudnā-rākişasa, relying on the variant reading in the prologue which would give the author's name as Visakhadeva. This identification has. however, not been generally accepted. Our author can, therefore, be said to have composed only one play to be sure, while the ascription of the other works or plays to him is rather doubtful depending as it does on the assumption of the identity of our Visakhadatta with that of the Sublāşitāvali and also with Visākliadeva referred to by Bhoja, Abhinavagupta, and others.

·CHAPTER IT THE PLOT The Prologue After the recital of the nandī suggestive of the arduous task and the limitations that Canakya has set himself and also the crooked policies involved in the whole affair, the stagemanager appears on the stage saying that he has been asked to enact the Mudrā-rākşasa, a fresh play from the pen of the poet Visakhadatta, son of Mahārāja Bhaskaradatta, and grand-son of Samanta Vallesvaradatta. Ile is quite confident of success in his undertaking since he has l_cen fortunate enough to have an appreciative audience. So he proposes to have some music; and hence turns homeward. Entering luis home he finds all the inmates there very hotly busy in grand preparations. His curiosity is rouscd and he calls his wiſe und asks her the occasion for all this. Ile is told in reply that Brāhmanas have been asked to dinner ; for it is reported that there was going to be a moon-eclipse that day. The stage manager assures his wife that the rumour was quite baseless : for from what he knows of astronomy...and that is not a little -he can see that the malicious planet is about to swallow the Candra, full as he is; but that its conjunction with Budha is sure to save the Candra from the danger. While the stagemanager is thus assuring his wife, from behind the curtain is heard the question as to who dared to attack Candra as long as he was there? The natī wonders who it was that, creature: of this mortal world that he is, had the ambition of saving the Candra against the attack of a planet. The stage-manager, in order to make the person repeat his question, repcats what lie has already said and on listening to the question recognizes ·TIIE PLOT 21 that it was Cānakya who has mistaken the whole context and understood candra-grahana in his speech to stand for an attack on Candragupta by the enemy. At this the stagc-manager leaves the stage along with his wife; and Cānakya appears on the stage repeating the same question in an angry mood. ACT I Canakya, as we have already seen, has appeared on the utage in an agry mood. Then taking his seat on a chair to which his attention is drawn by his pupil, he indulges in a monologue which makes us acquainted with his various schemes and plots and also the purpose behind them all. He begins by complaining against the publicity received among the citizens of Kusumpura by the fact that Raksasa, incensed by the destruction of the Nanda race, has formed an alliance with Malayaketu roused to anger by the assasination of his father and is preparing to launch an attack on Candragupta with a vast army. Soon, however, he regains his confidence and declares that he can check all such rumours and adds that hc, inspite of the ſulfilment of his vow, will continuc to be Candragupta's minister till Räkşasa is yoked into the service of the latter. It is with this and in view alone that he has caused the last scion of the Nanda race, Sarvārthasiddhi, to be assassinated. But instead of being disheartened thereby, Rākşasa has still continued his loyalty to his former masters and made all the greater efforts to destroy Candragupta and his party by forming an alliance with Malayakctu. It is on account of this very noble trait in his character that Cānakya desires so ardently to win over Raksasa to Candra-gupta. Various indeed are the incasures taken by Cānalya to accomplish his objcct. He has set afloat a rumour that it was Raksasa who has killed Parvataka, an ally of Candragupta (and consequently of Canakya) through a poison-maiden. To give full credence to this rumour he has scared away Malaya- ·22 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA ketu, the son of Parvataka, through Bhāgurāyana by letting him know that his father was killed by Cánakya. Spies under various disguises have been employed with a view to 2500T. tain the loyalty or otherwise of the people. Trustworthy px"I'm sons of veritable integrity and devotion have been employee as aide-de-camp of Candragupta. And last, but not the least. a dear friend versed in politics and astronomy has already been sent to form close friendship with all the ministers of the Nandas under the guise of a Kşapanaka. Thus Canakya is now quite confident that but for Candragupta's indifferences towards administrative affairs nothing is amniss on their sicke, He, at the same time, does not fail to appreciate the attitude: of indifference shown by Candragupta. While Cānakya is thus indulging in his monologue within, one of his spies (Nipunaka) in the guise of a yāmapatika is seen without singing in praise of Yama, and trying to enter into the abode of Cāņakya. At the door, however, he is stops ped by Cānakya's pupil, who takes all his talk to be only irrelevant and nonsensical. Canakya, of course, catches the inner significance of the remarks and asks him to come in. At once Canakya recognizes him to be Nipunaka and asks him to give an account of his mission. Nipunaka tells that all were deeply attached to Candramota, except three viz. (i) Jivasiddhi, a monk, who is reported have directed the poison-maiden sent by Raksasa to Parvates. vara ; (ii) Sakatadāsa, a dear friend of Raksasa ; and (iii) Candanadāsa, a very rich jeweller with wliom Raksasa has kept his wife and children before leaving the capital, Canakya knows that the first is none but his own dear friend ; and that the second is only a kāyastha, to manage whom Siddharthaka has already been directed. The third, he concludes, must be Rākşasa's dearest friend ; and asks how Nipunaka came to know that Rākşasa's family was with him. When Nipunaka in reply only produces Rākşasa's signet ring, Canakya in joy ·THE PLOT 23 says to himsell that it is not the ring but Rakşasa himself that has fallen into his hands. Al Canakya's desire Nipunaka then narrates how as he was singing his songs and displaying the yamapața at the house of Candanadūsa, a bonny child about five years old came out of an apartment and after a huc and cry was taken back per force by one woman whom he could not clearly see. In that confusion, however, a ring dropped down from the hand of the woman and rolled on to him without being noticed by her. Finding that it bore the name of Rākşasa he thought it fit to hand it over to Cānakya. Nipunaka is promised good reward for all this service and given leave to depart. The ring now sets Canakya thinking. He orders ink and paper to be brought and is thinking out the contents of his proposed letter by which Rākşasa must be captured, when a messenger comes in with Candragupta's request to be allowed to perform the obscquics of Parvatesvara and give away the latter's ornaments to Brahmanas. Canakya readily grants the request, only desiring Candragupta to give the ornaments to the worthy Brālmajas who would be sent by him aſter properly putting them to test. Immediately Cāņakya through his pupil directs three Brāhmanas, all brothers, to receive the ornaments from Candragupta and see him with the same. All this, he declares, very well forms the latter part of his proposed letter. After a little thought he fixes up the carlier part also and it pertains to the five great Mleccha princcs, great friends of Raksasa. He was about to write their names in the letter, but suddenly he changes his mind and chooses to keep the contents only vague'. Completing the letter he asks his pupil to ask Siddharthaka to get the letter written by Sakatadāsa without any address thercon and without letting him know that he was doing it for Canakya, and then see him. At this stage Chakya is quite confident that now Malayaketu is within his clutches. When Siddharthaka comes with ·24 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA the letter as directed, Cānakya appreciates thc bcautiful hand of Sakatadāsa and asks the former to seal it with the ring (of course, of Rākşasa). When that is done he further tells him that he should first scare away thc cxccutioners and take away Sakatadāsa from the place of execution to Raksasa, and receiving a reward from the latter for having rescued his friend, be in his service for some time. Then as the anemies approached Kusumapura, he is to do something which Cinakya whispers into his ear and is kept a secret at this stage. Having thus settled his future plans for the capture of Malayaketu, Cāinakya now, on behalf of Candragupta, orders Kālapāśika and Dandapāśika to banish Jivasiddhi with disgrace on the charge of having killed Parvatosvara, with a poison-maiden under the direction of Räkşasa ; and to impale Sakatadāsa, who under instructions from Raksasa again has always been encouraging people to plot against the life of Candragupta, and throw all his family into prison. Now as Cāņakya wonders whether Raksasa would be captured, Sici. dhārthaka requests that he has understood all that he wil asked to do and that he should be allowed to depart. Cuakya. thereon, hands over the letter and the signet ring to himn aand the former leaves the place. In the meanwhile the pupil returns saying that Kalapasika and Dandapāśika are doing what they are told to do. lle is then asked to bring Candanadāsa. Now this latter las his own suspicions and declares that he has directed Davandasa and others to carry away the family of Raksasa to some safer place. On knowing of his arrival, Canakya very courteously asks him to take his seat; and with great insistence compels him to do so. After preliminary cnquiries about his trade Cāņakya directly asks Candanadāsa whether the defects of Candragupta reminded the people of the good qualities of the former kings. On knowing from Candanadāsa that people are far happier under the rule of Candragupta, Cāņakya declares ·TIIE PLOT 25 that kings also sock some gratification in return, not, however, in the form of money like the former kings, but in the form of absence of affliction, which would result from an attitude not hostile to the king. Candanadāsa desires to know who has been suspected of being hostile to the king and is told in plain terms that he is the foremost among such persons, since he is sheltering Rākşasa's family in his house. When Candanadāsa pleads that the charge is baseless, Canakya teils hiin that it is not their existence in one's house so much as the concealment of that fact that constitutes a crimc. Thereon the latter tells that the family of Rākşasa was with him for some time; but that it is not there at the moment and that he is not aware of its whereabouts. IIc is thercon thrcatcnecl by Cánakya. Just at this moment a great tumult is heard outside, not once but twice ; and on enquiry, it is known that Jīvasiddhi and Sakatadāsa, who were plotting against the king, were being led to be severely punished. Canakya asks Candanadāsa to be wise enough to save himself and his family from a similar ſate by surrendering Rākşasa's family. But inspite of repeated threats Candanadāsa refuses to do so. Canakya very highly appreciates this attitude of Candanaclasa ; but pretending to be enraged he sends orders to Vijayawala to imprison Candanadāsa and his family and confiscate his property; and adds that Candragupta would order his ***i cution. Candanadāsa is, however, unmoved; for, as he Said, his fall is due to some service to a friend and not to some personal misconduct. H'ere Cainakya expresses his conviction that Räkşasa would certainly try to save Candanadāsa and would thus be in his hands. At this stage the pupil brings the news that Siddharthaka has taken away Sakataclāsa from the place of exccution. Canakya is only glad to find that Siddharthaka has made a beginning ; but outwardly pretends to be angry and directs his pupil to ask Bhāgurāyana to make the necessary arrangements. But ·26 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA he also is found to have run away. Then a word is sent to Bhadrabhata and others to catch Bhāgurāyana. But the pupil comes to know that even they have absconderl : and feels that everything was going wrong with his preceptor. But Canakya knows the facts behind these events and hence he silently wishes them all good luck, though openly he tries to appease his pupil by assuring him that even if the whok world would be arrayed against him he would not mind it so long as his brain, which helped him to uproot the Nandas, is intact. Then he remarks to himsell ‘Now I have surely caught Rākşasa like a wild elephant.' ACT II This act begins with the entrance of a spy of Riksasa under the disguise of a snake-charmer, who in the course of << versation speaks of his profession as being equal to that of a royal officer or a politician. Getting rid of a passer-boy whe had no access to Rākşasa's dwelling, he declares that Canakya and Rākşasa, consummate politicians both of them, tuve ly their policies made the Goddess of Wealth to waver. Inside we see Rākşasa scated and attended by it servant He first reproaches Lakşmi for being indiscriminate in diesert ing the Nandas for the worthless Maurya. Ile then declares his determination to take away her resort itsell ly killing Candragupta. Then he goes on to explain what steps he has taken upto now and with what end in vicw. Whik: leaving Kusumapura, he has loſt his wiſe and children behind at Candanadāsa's place just to see that the cfforts of his muti sans are not slackened at the idea that Räkşasa has deserted Kusumapura. Sakatadāsa is stationed in Kusumapura with a huge wealth for helping and encouraging the spics and partisans plotting against the life of Candragupta and getting secret information. Jīvasiddhi and others have been employed to cause a split in the enemy's camp and get his news every ·THE PLOT 27 moment. With this preparation Rākşasa is quite sure that he would be able to avenge the destruction of the Nanda kings, provided fate is not against him. Just at this moment comes the Kañcukī with a set of ornaments and a message from Malayaketu who has desired Raksasa to put them on. Rākasa, much against his will, does so only in due deference to the desire of Malayaketu ; and the Kanchukī goes away satisfied.' Then Rükjasa asks his attendant to see if any one was waiting to see him; and Icarns from him that a snake-charmer was there. Rākşasa takes this as an ill omen; and asks his man to send him away satisfied. The snakc-charmer, however, insists that at least a short poem of his be taken to Raksasa, who on reading it understands its inner significance viz. that the snakc-charmer is one of his spies who has gathered information from Kusumapura. After a little thinking he remembers that it was Virüdhagupta ; and asks his attendant to bring him in, saying that as he appears to be a good poct he would like to listen to some of his poems. As soon as Viradhagupta grccts Raksasa, the latter suddenly addresses him by his real name, but immediately realizing his mistake turns the name into Vinūdhaśmaśru. Then dis- Inissing all his attendants he asks him to take his scat. The latter also takes his scat and at the desire of the former conmencas his narration from the siege of Kusumapura by the ('namics of Candragupta and Parvatosvara. This cxcites Räksasa who, soon realizing the situation, is only filled with ricf at the remembrance of the great favour of the Nandas he had enjoyed. Virüdhagupta proceeding tells how Sarvārthasiddhi left Kusumapura by a subterrancan passage just to save his subjects from the great hardships inflicted on them by the siege', and how poor Parvatesvara was killed by the poisonmaiden directed by him (i.e. Rākşasa) to Candragupta, ·28 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA This gives a rude shock to Rakşasa ; but he soon recovers himself and asks Virādhagupta to proceed. The latter then narrates how Malayakctu in (right deserted Kusumapura, how Vairocaka, the brother of Parvateśvara, was taken into confidence and installed a king along with Candragupta, and how Canakya dcclaring that Candragupta would enter the palace of the Nandas at midnight ordered the car. penters to make suitable decorations. But Daruvarnuan was rather too hasty and had already decorated the outer porch of the palace; and Canakya on knowing this only said that he would receive a proper reward for his diligence. Cānakya declared that Candragupta's entrance would take place exactly at mid-night and at the same time divided the whole kingdom between Candragupta and Vairocaki, Rākşasa surmises that by thus dividing the kingdom Cinkya must already have arranged for the murder of Vairocaka, and at the same time has managed to wipe ofi the blame of the murder of Parvateśvara. Proceeding further, Virachagupta tells that Canakya made Vairochaka, all covered in garlands, seated on the female elephant of Candragupta, enter the palace of the Nandas. Naturally Dāruvarman mistook him for Candragupta and let the arch fall down. in the incanwhile Varvaraka, the driver of Vairocaka's elephant, tried to scize his scimitar which excited the elephant who now increased leer speed and brought her driver just in time to die under the falling arch. Dāruvarman realized his miscarriage and with an iron bar killed Vairocaka mistaking him for Candragupta, and was himself pelted to death by the angry infantry. Rak. sasa, touched to the quick by this talc, asks him about Abhayadatta, the physician; and is told how he also Wels detected by Canakya and made to drink the poisonec nucli cine himself. He is again told how Pramodaka was suspect: ed owing to his lavishness and was put to death ; and how Bibhatsaka and the rest directed to assassinate Candragupta ·THE PLOT 29 in his bod-chamber were detected by the astutc Canakya and burnt alive by setting fire to the place where they lay corcealed. Raksasa is moved to tears by this long chain of sorrowful tales and declares that Candragupta has fate on his side, indeed. Virādhagupta suggests that it is not proper that Raksasa should give up what is once undertaken ; and continuing his narration tells how Cāņakya seized Raksasa's partisans as ixing the source of all mischicf. Thus Jīvasiddhi has been banished with disgrace, on the charge that he murdered Parvatesvara with the poison-maiden under the direction of Rākşasa. This evokes from Rākşasa appreciation of Canakya's policy. Sakatadāsa's turn came next ; and he has been sentenced to be impaled on the charge that he instigated Dāruvarman and others to plot against Candragupta's life. This is a great shock to Raksasa ; but composing himself he prepares himself to listen to the calamity of a third friend ; and is told how Candanadāsa removed Rākşasa's family to some safer place and refused to surrender the same cven when Canakya asked him to do so under severe thrcats. He is, therefore, thrown into prison with all his family. Ilearing this Räkşasa remarks, 'Better say that Raksasa himself is thrown into prison with his family.' After this long chain of sorrowful events fortune secms for a while to smile on Raksasa and Sakataclāsa stands before him with Siddharthaka who is introduced to him hy the former as his rescuer. At once Räkişasa presents him the omaments from his own person. Siddharthaka, however, seals them with the ring he has received from Canakya and requests to be allowed to leave them with Rūkşasa only, as he has no acquaintance there. Ilis request is rcadily granted. In the meanwhile Sakatadāsa notices that the ring bears the name of Rākşasa who on knowing it asks Siddharthaka how he got the ring. The latter told that he got it at the door of Can- ·30 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA danadāsa on which Rākşasa remarks Right'; and explains his remark to niean that there is nothing improbable in such a ring being found at the door of a merchant like Candana. dāsa. Then at the desire of Sakatadāsa, Siddhirthaka hands over the ring to Rākşasa who in his turn hands it over to Sakatadāsa saying that he should use it in future in all his dealings. Now Siddharthaka requests that since it is impos sible for him to go back to Canakya he should bx allowed to remain in the service of Rākşasa only. This request is only too gladly granted by Rākşasa who then asks Sakatadása to look to the comfort of Siddhārthaka before they are off the stage. Virādhagupta then informs Rākşasa of the widening gull between Candragupta and Canakya since the escape of Malayalketu. This news encourages Rākşasa wlio now sends Viridha gupta to Kusumapura to ask Stavakalasa, Candragupta's lxrd, to excite Candragupta's anger and send word to him through Karabhaka. Just then a servant comes from Sakatadūsa with a set of three ornaments for sale. Rākşasa very much likes it and at once sends word to Sakatadāsa that the set should be acquired by satisfying the demand of the merchant who has brought it. The servant goes away ; and Rākşasa, left to himself, es his hope-nay certainty--that there will be a split between Candragupta and Cāņakya since both of them have now ac. complished their purpose and no longer stand in need of cach other. : לאיזואי) ACT III This act begins with the appearance of the Kancukin on the stage conveying the order of king Candragupta to decorate the upper terrace of the Sugānga palace, so that he from there might witness the city celebrating the Kaumudi festival. Somebody asks him whether the prohibition of the festival ·THIS PICT 31 was not known to the king ; but the Kañcukin refuses to give any reply adding that it is none of their concern. Then appears Candragupta with an attendant. In his soliloquy he says that kingship is indeed a source of great worry and that the goddess of wealth is indeed hard to propitiate. Then he informs the spectators that he had very reluctantly undertaken to conduct the ailairs of the state independently of Cinakya ſor a while aſter picking a quarrel witir him, according to his own desire. Reaching the Suganga palace and going up there he is enchanted with the beauty of autumn ; but is at the same time struck to find no trmce of the Kaumudi festi. val. Ile, therefore, asks the Kañcukin whether he had proclaiined his desire to the citizens, and if so, whether the people of Kusumpura don't care for his desire. The latter assures him that his desire or command would never be disobeyed in Kusumpura. It is only with great reluctance that he further informs him that the festival was prohibited by Cánakya. Candragupta thereon takes his scat and immediately sends for Canakya. Now Cānakya is seen in his abode thinking about Raksasa who, le declaros, would better ccase vying with him ; for the only point of similarity between them two is vaira. But he is sure that he can check Raksasa in no time. At this juncture the Kañcukin is seen outside the very simple abode of Cuinakya. Entering there he tells Canakya that he is invited ly the king. Canakya asks whether the king has heard of the prohilsition of the festival ; and when the Kañcukin answers in the affirmative, he in pretended anger declares that it was the mischief played by the royal officers against him. On knowing that the king was in the Suganga palace, Canakya guided by the Kanicukin goes there and greets Candragupta who also falls at his fect. When they both are properly scated Canakya asks why he was summoned ; and the latter desires to know why the festival was prohibited. Not that he wanted ·32 INTRODUCTION TO TIIE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA to find fault with him, but that he was sure that Canaky:: must have some purpose behind it; and this was what he ck sires to know. But Canakya points out that Candragupta was completely dependent on his minister in his administra tion and as such he should not cnquire into such affairs. This Touses the anger of Candragupta ; and the burds also sim verses calculated to enhance his anger. Canakya immediately sees through these verses the hand of Raksasa and remiks that he is quite vigilant himself. Candraguptat, much pleased with the bards, orders that they be given a thousand gold coins. But Canakya disallows such a giſt and Candragupta bitterly complains that kingdom to him is nothing better than fetters. Cāņakya retorts that such was the fate of those who were dependent on their ministers, and asks Candragupta to conduct the administration himself if he can. The latter ac. cepts the challenge and asks Canakya pertinently why le llei prohibited the festival. Cānakya, however, asks why it was to be performed at all; and when the king says that it was just to obey his order if for nothing else, Canakya also declares that the prohibition also was just mcant to violate the king's order and thereby prove his humility. That, however, is not the only purpose. Cānakya then asks the Kañcukin to fetcha the documents concerning Bhadrabhata and others; who have deserted Candragupta and gone over to Malayakclu. When they are brought, Canakya reads out the names of the persons thus absconded ; and Candragupta expresses his desire to know the causes of their disaffection. When the causes are told in detail, he asks why they were not checked and imprisoned ; and Cāņakya assures him that it was not for want of ability, but because that was the right course to follow. For neither anugraha nor nigraha could be adopted in their cases without causing some trouble or another. Thus under the guidance of Rākşasa and aided by Candragupta's own people Malayaketu is preparing to launch an attack against him. Time is.

·THIE PLOT 33 therefore, ripe, concludes Canakya, not for festivals, but for military exercise. That is why he has prohibited the Kaumudī festival even in contravention to the king's order. This, however, docs not satisfy Candragupta who now asks why Malayakctu was connived at while absconding from Kusumpura. Cāņakya in reply points out that there was no other go ; for if he were captured that would have proved that they have treacherously killed Parvataka ; while giving away the promised hall to him would render the murder of Parvataka a sheer trcachcry without any material advantage. But what about Rākşasa? asks Candragupta ; and Cānakya replies that staying within the capital he would have caused internal disturbances within ; and that even if he creates troubles outside, he can be very easily brought under effective control. To cap- Lure him per force was, of course, out of the question ; for in that attempt he would cause a large scale destruction of Candragupta's army or would perhaps be killed--neither of which conscquenccs is desirable. Hearing all this argumentation on the part of Camakya, Candragupta admits that it would never be possible for him to silence Cānakya by argumentation, and adds that after all he felt Rākşasa to be estccmable than him. Cáinakya in anger asks what made him think so; and Candragupta describes his achievements. But Cāņakya in an ironical tone remarks that he thought that Raksasa has uprooted Candragupta and enthroned Malayaketu instead, like him. But Candragupta now is not willing to give Canakya even that much credit and remarks that, all that was achieved by fate and not by him. And when the latter asserts that only fools believe in ſate ; the former retorts that the wisc also are far from prattling. This is more than what Canakya can bear and in rage he shouts that Candragupta was only playing with fire and courting death. Candragupta thought that Canakya was really angry ; but in a moment Canakya curbs his fcigned anger and lays more -3 ·34 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA down the ministerial sword before Candragupta saying that it was no use discussing the matter any further. Then to him. self he declares that this very plot of Räkşasa huu will utilise against him. Cānakya leaves the place in anger and Candragupta asks the Kañcukin to proclaim the dismissal of Cwakya and the assumption of regal authority by himself. Kancukin waits for a while ; and, when asked about it, says that he was thinking that Candragupta has now become a king, indeed. After he has gone Candragupta calls his attendant and desires to l shown the way to his bed-chamber as he had a bitter headache ; and while on the way he makes an open conſession that he is extremely ashamed of what has happened and wonders how the heart of people does not break assunder with shame when they really disrespect their preceptor. ACT IV Act IV begins with Karabhaka going to the dwelling of Rākşasa and asking the door-keeper to inform Räksast of his arrival. The door-keeper asks him not to be very loud because Rākşasa, suffering as he is from hcadache is not yet oui ! bed. Then we see Rākşasa in luis bed-room accompanieci Iny Sakatadāsa, in a pensive mood, thinking of the great hard ships that a minister like him is put to like a play-wright! He is just thinking about wicked Citnakya when the con keeper enters with the greeting Be Viclorious'; and while he is thinking out the remaining portion of his thought vix.. could be deceived', the door-keeper is ready with the word * Rākşasa'. This dramatic irony combined with the throbbing of the left eye forebodes evil for Rākşasa, as he takes it. llo would not, however, give up his efforts. The door-keeper announces the arrival of Karabhaka; and Räksasa imnxdiately calls him in Karabhaka enters and takes his scat as directed by Rākşasa who, however, does not remember on what mis- < ·THE PLOT 35 sion exactiy Karablıaka had been sent by him. While Raksasa is thus trying to remember the inission entrusted to Karabhaka, on the other side of the stage is seen a servant warding off the people and making room for Malayaketu who is going to see Rūkşasa since he is suffering from headache. Then appears on the stage Malayaketu accompanied by Bhāgurāyana and Kañcukin. It is ten months since his father dicd ; and he has not yet performed the obsequies in his proud conviction that he would soon be avenging his death. Now he asks the Kancukin to inform the accompanying princes that they should leave him alone, since he desires to see Rākşasa alone. Then he asks the Kāñchukin and other attendants also to leave the place. When he finds himself alonc with Bhāgurāyana, Malayaketu asks the latter what Bhadrabhata and others meant when they told him that they wanted to remmain in his services not through Raksasa but through the commander, Sikharasuna. Bhagurāyana tells him that they meant to say that Rākşasa had enmity with Canakya (and not Candragupta), so that it is not unlikely that iſ for some reason or the other Canakya is dismissed, Räkşasa may join Candragupta. In that case they would be losing Malayaketu's confidence if they have joined through Räksasa. But this risk they are not prepared to run. Malayaketui approves of this explanation and they both are about to enter the abode of Rūkşasa, when the latter remembers the mission on which Karabhaka had been sent and asks him whether he had seen Stavakalasa in Kusumapura. When Malayaketu overhcars this question put by Rakşasa to Karabhaka lie decides to wait outside and listen to the talk between them, thinking that their talk would not be quite open and frank if he is with thein, Then Raksasa asks Karabhaka whether his mission is successful and the latter answers in the affirmative. Malayaketu ·36 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA is curious to know what the mission might be, but Bhāgurayana tells him that they would be able to know it by-the-bye in the course of the talk going on inside. Now Rākşasa expresses his desire to listen to the whole account at full length and Karabhaka tells that he at the conmand of Rākşasa went to Pāļaliputra and delivered his instructions to Stavakalasa. In the meanwhile Candragupta had issued orders to celebrate the Kaumudī festival ; the people also were very eager to do so; but Cājnakya prohibited the same for reasons of his own. Stavakalaśa took this opportunity and sang songs calculated to excite Candragupta. Karabhaka recites those songs to Rākşasa who is very highly pleased thereby and feels sure that this seed of dissension would soon Dear its fruits. This remark of Rākşasa, of course, strengthens Malayaketu's suspicions and he remarks 'Evam ctat'. Then Karabhaka proceeding tells how Candragupta praised Raksasa's qualities and dismissed Cānakya. Bhägurāyana impresses on the mind of Malayaketu the dismissal of Cānakya as an intportant gesture on the part of Candragupta. Now Raksasa asks Karabhaka whether there was any other cause which roused Candragupta's anger towards Canakya. Bhāgurāyana misrepresenting this to Malayaketu said that Räksasa wants to make sure that the gulf between Candragupta and Canakya is rather too wide so that their re-union would be out of the question. Karabhaka tells that the other matter rousing Candragupta's anger was that Cāņakya allowed Malayakotu and Rākşasa to escape. Rākşasa is now quite sure that Carldragupta can very easily be conquered and says that Candragupta was now in his hands, and that soon Candanadusa would be released and would be re-united with his wife and children. Malayaketu is rather doubtful about the first remark of Rūksasa ; and Bhāgurāyana tells him that Rākşasa would not destroy Candragupta if dissociated from Cānakya Riksasa then asks where Cānakya was ; and whether he has not gone ·THE PLOT 37 to a penance-grove or taken a vow again. Karabhaka in reply tells that there was a rumour to that effect. Rākşasa then turns to Sakațadāsa and remarks that this does not appear probable ; for Cānakya would never stand an insult at the hands of one whom he himself has created a king. Malayaketu here is interested in knowing why Rākşasa is interested in Cāņakya's repairing to the penance-grove or taking a vow; and is told by Bhāgurāyana that it is evidently because Rākışasa's purpose would be served to the extent to which Cānakya will be separated from Candragupta. Now Sakatadāsa tells Rākşasa that it was but natural that Candragupta could not tolerate any violation of his orders and at the same time that Canakya did not take a vow again as he is now quite conscious of the great hardship involved in the fulfilment thereof. Rākşasa is convinced and asks Sakațadāsa to look to the comfort of Karabhaka When they are gone Rākşasa expresses his desire to see Malayaketu ; and the latter enters into his presence declaring that he himself has come to see him. After mutual greetings when they are seated Malayaketu enquires about Rakşasa's headache and the latter replies that it won't subside unless and until the former becomes an adhirāja. Malayaketu expresses his conſidence that it would take placc very soon, and desires to know how long they would be required to wait before they get an opportunity to attack the enemy. Rākşasa tells him that now there was no time to be lost and that he should at once lead an expedition against Candragupta, for a contingency has now befallen him. The contingency pertains to the minister and is a very serious one for Candragupta who is completely dependent on his minister. But Malayaketu thinks that people hate the arrogance of Canakya ; and his dismissal would please people whose loyalty to Candragupta would be all the deeper on that account. Räksasa, however, points out that what Malayaketu said applied to only such a section of ·38 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NIUDRĀRĀKSASA people as owe their rise to Candragupta. The rest of them, however, bear only a strong hatred for Candragupta as the extirpator of the Nanda race, so that they are sure to side with an enemy of Candragupta, particularly when they find him strong enough to defeat him. Has not Raksasa linsell done it? Malayaketu now wants to know wlicther there is any other contingency facing the enemy; and is told that there was no need to think about any other contingency since the one partaining to the minister is the most important, particululy for Candragupta who is so completely dependent on his minister that he won't be able to conduct the affairs of the state by him. self or even by appointing any other minister in the place of Cāņakya. Here Malayaketu feels glad that he is not so much dependent on his minister. But, Malayaketu adds, our success will be doubly ensured if Candragupta is confronted with more contingencies than one. Rākşasa, however, puts forth all the strong points on his side and assures Malayaketu that their success was absolutely certain, and that it is for him amly to desire for it. Malayaketu then declares that if that is solic would at once start the expedition; and leaves the stage along with Bhāgurāyana. Rākşasa then asks his servant to see if any astrologer was available; and he is told that a Kşapanaka was ther. But as he was badly in need of onc, he asks the servant to bring him in, but with a not inauspicious appearance. Wien the monk is brought in and had greeted Rakşası, the latter requests him to give him a day for starting an expedition. The monk gives the full-moon day as the best day from vari. ous astronomical considerations; and when Raksasa says that the tithi is not quite auspicious, the former points out that the rakyatra and the lagna are four and twenty-four times respectively as powerful as the tithi. He further advises Räksasa to start his expedition on the support of the (favourable) Candra and derive great advantage. Rākşasa, however, asks the monk ·THE PLOT 39 to consult other astrologers which he refuses to do, saying that Rākşasa himself inight do it iſ he likes; and when Rākşasa asks him whether he was enraged, he answers that it was not he, but the god of Death, that was cnraged with him. The monk then leaves the place; and Rākşasa from his attendant knows that it was sunset, looking at which Raksasa observes that as a general rule scrvants desert a master fallen from glory. PRAVESAKA IN ACT V Siddhārthaka is seen with a letter and an ornament-casket both sealed with Rākşasa's ring. The former was landed over to him by Cāņakya, as we have already seen ; and the latter, it may be remembered, is the one which Siddhārthaka himself had deposited with Rāksasa under his seal. With these he now intends to go to Kusumapura. Seeing the monk in front of him he feels that it is an ill omen, but he docs not avoid the monk since he wants to know from him whether the day is auspicious. The monk also rebukcs him by remarking that he was enquiring after the nakşatra after he had shaved himself. But Siddlārthaka tells him that if the day is not good he may even now cancel his programme for the day. Then the monk declares that in Malayaketu's camp conditions are not favourable for the time being, particularly because all movements to and from the camp are now restricted and none was allowed to go out or to come in without the mudrā of Bhāgurāyana, Siddharthaka tells the monk that he was Rākşasa's man; but the latter at once remarks that even then he won't be allowed to Icave the camp if he has not got the mudrū of Blagurāyana. But Siddharthaka requests the monk to say that he will be successful in his mission ; and the latter also does accordingly and goes away to get Bhāgurāyana's nudrā for himself.

·40 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA ACT V This act begins with Bhāgurāyana, ordering his attendant to bring to him any one that may be seeking to obtain mudrii from him. He also expresses regret that he should be required to deceive the affable Malayaketu. But he is helpless in this matter, he adds. At this stage appears on the stage Malayak tu thinking to himself about Rākşasa and his future action, and on knowing that Bhāgurāyana was ncarby giving mudrās to those who want to go out, he makes up his mind to play a joke with him. But as he is about to do so, Bhāgurāyana's attendant brings in the monk seeking mudrā. Blrāgurāyana recognizes him as ir friend of Rākşasa, Jīvasiddhi by name, and gives him the mudrā on making sure that he is not going on Raksasa's errand. The latter expresses great contempt for Raksasa and in reply to a querry from Bhāgurāyana declares, with great reluctance to all appearances, that previously Raksasa killed Parvateswara through a poison-maiden, and he had to sufler for it; for he was banished by Cānakya with clisgrace from Kusumapura as a friend of Rākşasa. This gives a rude shock to Malayaketu who upto now was under the impression that Cāņakya had killed his father. Bhāgurāyana then asks what he had to say about the rumour that Cūnakya had killed Parvateśvara to avoid giving him the promised half of the kind dom; and the latter asserts that it was all a lie. Now Bhaigurāyana is satisfied and gives the mudrā to the monk. What he has heard is now certainly more than what Malayakelu could bear; and hence moving into the presence of Bhāguryana he: declares that what he has heard has doubly deepened his sonrow. The purpose of the monk, who is only a spy of Canakya, is thus served and he goes away expressing his satisfaction at what has taken place, ·THE PLOT 41 Malayaketu now deeply affected declares that Rākşasa is really a rākşasa (a demon) in that he has proved treacherous to one who placed full confidence in him. This remark of Malayaketu roused Bhāgurāyana's apprehensions and he told the former that it was not quite wrong on the part of Rākşasa to kill Parvateśvara, who was then stronger than Candragupta himself; for, Rākişasa then wanted to install Sarvārthasiddhi on the throne. So it is better not to take him to task for the present and accept his services till the kingdom of the Nandas is obtained. Malayaketu approves of this suggestion of Bhāgurāyana ; for he thinks that the execution of a minister like Rākşasa would lead to great commotion, thus making his victory doubtful. Just at this stage Siddharthaka is brought a captive before Malayaketu in an attempt to escape from the camp with a letter, but without mudrā. When it is revealed that he was in the service of Rākşasa, Bhāgurāyana asks him why he was thus going without Mudrā. Siddhārthaka replies that the importance of his mission brooked no delay; and Bhāgurāyana desires to know what the mission is. At Malayaketu's command he also takes the letter from him and finding that it bore Rākşasa's seal, opens it kceping the seal intact. It is found that the letter is only vaguely worded, though the following points are referred to in it. (i) The addressec has kept his word by dismissing the rival of the writer (i.e. Raksasa); (ii) hc is requested to fulfil his promise to the friends of the writer and win their good-will; (iii) the addressee is reminded that some of them want the territory of the enemy and the rest desire to have his kośa and hastibala; (iv) he is also given an assurance that they will, in return, help him by destroying their resort i.e. Master ; (v) the sct of ornaments sent by the addressce is duly received and the writer also has sent some thing to accompany the letter with a request that it should be accepted by him; (vi) the oral message will be ·42 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA delivered by the bearer of the letter, the most trusted Siddharthaka. After a good flogging Siddhärthaka drops from his armi-pit a casket of ornaments which is taken by the servant to Bhai gurāyaṇa. It also bears the seal of Raksasa ; iind when it is opened before Malayakctu, it is found to contain the unitments which Malayaketu had presented to Raksasa on apore vious occasion. Malayaketu is, therefore, convinced that the letter must be addressed to Candragupta. After it good that ging again Siddharthaka agrecs to tell the whole thing to la layaketu himself, and requests to be excused in the matter. After an assurance to that cffcct from Malayaketu, Siddhar thaka tells that Räkşasa has sent him with the letter in Can. dragupta and the oral message that the kings of the Kulūtas, Malaya, and Kāsmīra desire to have Malayaketu's territory. while those of Sindhu and Pārasīka desire to liave liste phants and treasury, and that just as Cindrarupta harl von his pleasure by dismissing Cānakya, similarly now he should win the pleasure of these princes by accomplishing their desir'. This narration of Siddhārthaka is readily believeel lwy Malaya ketu who sees in it an explanation of the strong friendship which these kings had with Raksasa. Ile now Seards for Rākşasa. Rākşasa is seated in his house, full of concern at the idea that his army is mostly made up of deserters of Candragupta. But he satisfies himsell by arguing that that should cause no anxiety, for these deserters were persons who had real clisaffection for Candragupta and had accepted his own (vertures before. Raksasa then sends Priyamvadaka to tell the kings that it was now time for them to march in different directions according to the previously settled plan. Just then the door-keeper informs Rākşasa that Malayaketu desires to see him ; and Räkşasa, thinking that it would be improper on his part to go to Malayaketu without putting on ·THE PLOT 43 any ornament, sends word to Sakal adāsa to send one of the ornaments that he has bought for him. When the ornament is brought, Rākşasa puts it on and starts for the camp of Malayaketu, thinking to himself how an officer, though above all guilt, always stands in great apprehension. After mutual greetings Malayaketu tells Räkşasa that he was rather ill at case since he could not see him for a long time. On hearing from Rakşasa that he was engaged in planning the counter-move, Malayaketu expresses his desire to know the plan of counter-action ; and Rākşasa gives out his plan as settled before. But Malayaketu is struck to find that the very kings who were reported to be plotting against him were to surround him according to Rākşasa's plan. He, however, suppresses his misgivings and asks Rākşasa if any one has come from or gone to Kusumapura. But when the latter asserts that now there was no need for doing so, for in a short while they themselves will be going there, Malayaketu's misgiving is confirmed and he asks why Rākşasa has then sent Siddharthaka with a letter. Being questioned by Räkşasa, Siddhārthaka pretends to be ashamed and declares that being heavily Hogged he found it impossible to keep the secret. Raksasa, on hearing this, is only confused and asks what secret lic was referring to But when he gave no reply to this, on Malayaketu's direction Bhāgurāyana tells Rākşasa that Siddharthaka has stated that Raksasa himself has sent him with a letter and an oral message to Candragupta. Siddharthaka confesses to have done so on heavy flogging, and Rakşasa avers that it was all false and that a man when flogged may say any thing. Then is produced the letter, which also Rākşasa declares to be only an enemy's trick. But what about the ornaments, asks Malayaketu, producing the ornaments recovered from Siddharthaka. Rākşasa recognizes these ornaments and tells that he has presented them to Siddharthaka. But, Bhāgurāyana remarks, it is very improper on Räkşasa's part to give away to ·INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA Siddhārthaka the ornaments which Malayaketu had presented to him from his own person. Then Malayaketu refers to the oral message and Rākşasa says that when the letter itself is not his, it is but evident that thcre can be no oral message either. It is further brought to the notice of Räkşasa that the letter bore his seal. But he replied that it must be a counterfeit seal. Then Bhägurāyana turns to Siddharthaka and asks him who has written the letter; and under threats or being flogged again it was that Siddhārthaka rovcaled that it was written by Sakatadāsa. But Räksasa avers that a letter written by Sakatadāsa is as good as written by himselſ. Malayaketu desires to see Sakatadāsa himself in this connection ; but Bhāgurāyana suggests that the matter could be settled by comparing the hand in the letter to that of Sakatadāsa. Sakatitdāsa's writing and seal were, therefore, brought and it was found that the letter was in Sakatadāsa's hand, indeed. This confounds Rākşasa who wonders whether Skaladansar has proved faithless. Then Malayaketu points to the ornament on the person of Rākşasa and asks him whether that was one of those referred to in the letter. Looking at it more carefully, he recognizes it as belonging to his father and then asks from whom it was received. Räkşasa tells that he has bought it; but when he hears from Malayaketu that it belonged to his father, Rākşasa declares that it was also a trap set by Canakya. But Malayaketu now refuses to believe in Räkşasa's word and a little later sarcastically remarks that there was truth in Rākşasa's declaration and that the price for the ornament to be paid to Candragupta was his (Malayaketu's) very life. The evidence against Rākşasa is so overwhelming that he now thinks it better to confess to the guilt than say anything else ; and when Malayaketu addresses him as ärya, Räksasa says that he was no longer an ārya. As regards the letter and the casket of ornaments Rākşasa declares that it was only the working of fate. But Malayaketu is so much incensed ·THE PLOT 45 that he addresses Räksasa an anarya and tells him that it was all the working of avarice, and that he was treacherously handing him over to the enemy for getting his ministership, just as treacherously as he had killed the confiding Parvateśvara by a poison-maiden. Rākşasa denies this latter charge and when Malayaketu makes a reference to Kışapanaka Jivasiddhi in this connection as a witness, Rākşasa is simply astounded. Malayaketu now has not the least doubt about Rākşasa's meanness in hatching plots against him and orders the several kings, his allies, to be put to death instantaneously, and allows Raksasa to go to Candragupta, adding that he is not mean-minded like him. He also declares that he is strong enough to defeat all the enemies single-handed. At Bhāgurāyana's suggestion Malayaketu leaves the place to start his expedition against Kusumapura ; and Rākşasa, now left alone, laments that all his plans should only result in the destruction of his own friends rather than that of his enemics. What to do next?' is the most important question ; and after some thought he decides to try to relcase Candanadása from the clutches of Canakya, and leaves the place. PRAVEŠAKA IN ACT VI Siddharthaka sees his friend Samiddhārthaka and at his request tells him that Malayaketu has banished Rākşasa and killed Citravarman and others; and that Malayaketu himself is captured by Bhadrabhala and others. Then the whole of the Mleccha army has been captured by Cânakya. Samidhārthaka asks whether Canakya has again resumed his duties as Candragupta's minister. Siddharthaka, however, simply tells that even Räkşasa himself is unable to fathom the policy of Canakya. He further tells him that Rākşasa has now come to Pataliputra, as is reported by a spy, Udumbara, Siddhārthaka conjectures that he has come here for the sake of Candanadāsa who, however, according to Cãnkya's order is to be executed ·46 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA by them both under the disguise of Cuālas. Samiddharthaka resents this order, but Siddhārthaka tells him that none who wants to remain alive dare violate the order of Canakya. So they both decide to take up the garb of Candālas ; and lead Candanadāsa to the place of execution. ACT VI A man with a rope in hand tells us that he has come to the place where he has been directed by Canakya to see Raksasi. Looking about him he finds Rākşasa nearby, his face veiled and coming up towards him. He, therefore, conccals himself behind the trees there and keeps a watch on Raksasa. Rākşasa then enters voicing his charges against the Goddess of Wealth and at the same tiind adding that it is late, and not the Brāhmana, that is the real onemy of the Nanda mace: He even blames Malayaketu for being so blind and iniclis. criminate. But he would prefer to die rather than maka peace with Candragupta. Then he looks about him and enters the jīrìodyõru with a view to get some news about his friend, Candanadāsa. Mourning for a while about the sharp coultrast of his present condition with that in the past le siis on a slab of stone. While seated there he hears a sound of trunpets mixed with that of drums and conches, and infers that it was the rejoicings of the enemy at the capture of Malayakelu. The man seeing Raksasa seated there, hangs himself just in front of him in obedience to the instructions of Canakya. On seeing this Rākşasa enquires about the whole matter and in a series of qucstions and answers comes to know that the mai was hanging himself just to avoid caring the news of the death of his friend Vişnudāsa, who was going to burn himsell alive before he heard of the execution of his clear (riend, Candanadāsa. The man also tells how Candanadāsa incurred the wrath of Cāņakya by refusing to surrender the wife and children of Rākişasa, and how Canakya refused to deliver ·THE PLOT him for any amount whatever. Räkşasa in great concern wants to know that Candanadāsa is not yet executed ; and Icarns that he is to be executed just that day. Rākşasa is very deeply touched by the magnanimity of Candanadāsa and asks the man to prevent Vişnudāsa from burning himself since he would save Candanadāsa with his sword. But the man on knowing that he was Raksasa himself, tells him courteously that such an attempt on his part would only hasten Candanadāsa's execution. For since Sakațadāsa's absconding led to the execution of the executioners themscives, the executioners, whenever they notice any armed person nearby, immediately exccute the culprit just for their own lives if for nothing else. Rākşasa is here thrown into great confusion, but ultimately concludes thal he would offer himself as ransom to release his friend Candanadusa. ACT VII This act begins with one candāla appearing on the stage and declaring the deadly consequences of rājāpalliya and pointing to the case of Candanadāsa as an illustration. Then comes Candanadāsa lamenting that he shouli miet with an and befitling a thief. Ile is also grieved at the idea that even friends like Vişnudāsa should desert him at this stage; and that others who have not done so should do nothing better than look at him with tearful cyes. When they are at the place of execution, the Candāla requests Candanadäsa to bid farewell to the members of his family. Candanadāsa asks his wife to return with her son ; but with tears in her cyes she declines to do so, since he was going to the other world. Candanadāsa tries to cheer her up by saying that he is dying for a friend. But she affirins that she would follow him in his death. Ile again reminds her of her son for whom at least she must live; but she is prepared to leave her son to the care of the household deities and asks him to bow to his ·48 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA father for the last time. The son doing so asks what he should do, bereft of his father; and Candanadasa very frankly tells him, 'Stay in a place where Canakya , has no sway'. In the meanwhile the stake is erected and the Cāndālas ask Candanadāsa to be ready. At this Candanadāsa's wife raises a cry for help and Candanadāsa tries to appease her by pointing out that since he was dying for a friend and not for any personal crime she should rather smile than weep. The second Candāla now grows rather impatient and asks his fellow-brother to seize Candanadasa so that his wiſe and son would return of their own accord. As the Cāndāla is about to catch hold of him, Candanadāsa asks him to wait a bit, and cmbracing his son tells him again that he was meeting his end in a friend's cause; and the son also remarks that it was but their kula-dharma. Then the Cançłālas seize Candanadāsa and his wife begins to weep piteously and cry for help. Rākşasa hastily appears on the stage and in an assuring tone requests Candanadāsa's wife to be calm, and asks the Cāņdālas not to execute Candanadāsa. He asks them to place the culprit's garland on his own neck. Candanadāsa with tears in his eyes asks Rākşasa what he has donc; and the latter replies that he has only partially imitated his good deed. But Candanadāsa repeats his question pointing out that this action on the part of Raksasa has frustrated all his endeavours. But Rākşasa again declares that he lias acted only in sclf-interest; and asks the Candālas to inform Canakya that Raksasa is captured. The Candāla requests somebody there to take to Cânakya, the thunderbolt of the mountain of the Nanda racc, the founder of the Maurya race, the news that minister Raksasa is captured and that his policies and talent are circumscribed by the former's policy. Here Cāņakya's face is seen, his body screened bchind the ·THE PLOT 49 curtain. He asks who has achieved all the difficult tasks and when the Candāla attributes the achievements to him, he declines to take any credit to himself and plainly attributes it to the misfortune of the Nandas. Rāksasa also appreciates the magnanimity of Cāņakya here; and he also shows his appreciation of the qualities of the former as a politician. Then Cānakya tosses aside the curtain and pays homage to Rākşasa. Now comes the denouement and Canakya reveals to Rākşasa that the two Candālas were none but Siddhārthaka and Samiddhārthaka, his spies ; and that Sakatadāsa was made to write that mischievous letter without being aware that he was doing it. Every thing including the letter, the set of omaments, the monk, the man in the jīriodyāna, even Bhadrabhala and others and lastly the imprisonment of Candanadāsa-all that was nothing but a trap laid by him, reveals Cānakya, to win over Rākşasa to Candragupta. Candragupta, arriving there, bows down to Canakya who asks him to bow to Rākşasa, the premier. Candragupta does accordingly and Rākşasa also grects him in return. Then Canakya asks Rākşasa whether he really desires to save the liſe of his friend ; and tells him that iſ he really did it, he can do it only on the condition that he agrees to be the minister of Candragupta. Raksasa pleads his incompetence to wield a position so ably held by no less a person than Canakya himself. But the latter warns Raksasa that there was no other way of saving Candanadāsa's life. Rakşasa, therefore, accepts the condition. In the mcanwhile Malayaketu is brought a captive; but Canakya now points to Rākşasa who, of course, suggests that Malayaketu should be set free. Canakya thereon declares that Candragupta is pleased to restore to Malayaketu his paternal territory; and asks Bhadrabhata and others to see that he is properly rcinstated. Candanadāsa is raised to the position of sarva-nagara-śreşthin, and all prisoners are sct frce Canakya then ties his hair and asks Candragupta and M. I.

·50 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRARäksası
Räksasa what other favour they would like to have from him
and Candragupta empreses his complete satisfaction at what
has happened
, while Rälpesa only ads that the ruling bing
Candragupta might mule long

·CHAPTER III A CRITICAL APPRECIATION PROLOGUE Like every other Sanskrit play the Mudrā-rākşasa also begins with a nāndi and a prologue. According to Sanskrit canon a nändi' consists of a verse or two purporting to invoke a blessing from and offer obeisance to some deity and to suggest the main idea of the plot, of course, only indirectly. It is so called because it is believed that deities take delight in it. The nändſ of our play comprises two verses in the sragdharā metre describing the sāthya and the tāndava nștya of God Siva (vibhu and tripuravijayin) respectively and invoke his blessings. The Sathya of God śiva very well suggests the sathya (i.e. the crooked policy) of the all powerful Cāņakya. Similarly the various limitations set by Cāņakya to himself in the accomplishment of his task and also the difficulty thereof is clearly reflected in the tândava nștya of God Siva who is represented in the second stanza as performing it under various limitations caused by the local conditions. The cnd of the play also seems to be suggested by these stanzas by representing the sathya as getting the upper hand and also by the epithet tripuravijayſ as applied to God Siva. Technically prologue is the name given to the introductory portion of every Sanskrit play. According to the definition? a prologue consists of a striking conversation between the Sūtradhāra on the one hand and the națī, or the vidūsaka, or the pāripārsvaka on the other, concerning some pertinent matter but at the same time suggestive of the plot of the play to some extent. The prologue may be said to serve more ·52 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA purposes than one. Thus it introduces the author and also his play by giving their names and some more information regarding the pedigree of the author. It also rouses the interest of the spectators and captures their attention by introducing musie or by some such device and ultimately very cleverly leads on to the plot itself. Besides all this it also gives the shrewd audience an inkling of some incidents of the plot itsell. The prologue of our play will be found to be quite upto the mark in every respect. It not only supplies us with some information regarding the author and his pedigree and also the name of the play, but at the same time rouses our interest by the promise of music which, of course, is superscded by the more interesting scene of a large number of ladies very busily engaged in various preparations. The interest thus roused is sustained by the mention of the rumour about the mooneclipse in a stanzas with double onlendre which is utilized for introducing the main character on the stage, thus making the beginning of the play proper. We thus sce that the prologue in a lucid conversation rouses the interest and captivates the attention of the spectators and introduces to them the poet and his play. Brevity is another good point to be noted about the prologue of our play. It is but natural that the spectators should go impatient if the poet, forgetting the limits of a prologue, intro)- duces in it a number of impertinent and irrelevant inatters and makes it unnecessarily lengthy. In fact it is the business of every playwright to see that his prologue is short and to the point. Happily enough Viſakhadatta has shown his sense of propriety by scrupulously avoiding in his prologue the introduction of any such matter and thus making it short and sweet. Even a casual reader of thc Mudr-rākşase will hardly fail to notice the influence of the Mịcchakatika and the Cirudatta on Viśākhadatta. As in those plays so also here we sce ·A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 53 1 how the Sūtradhāra, turning homeward after music, finds preparations being made and eagerly asks what the occasion was. Visākhadatta has, however, studiously avoided the temptation to copy all the humour which Śūdraka and Bhāsa have created out of the situation. That would not only have made his prologue too lengthy but would at the same time have marred the seriousness of the atmosphere which was so absolutely, essential for the appcarance of the enraged Cānakya on the stage. According to writers on dramaturgy Prastāvanā is of five different kinds. Very often it is more difficult than otherwise to say definitely to which of these five varieties a particular prastāvanā belongs. Thus the prastāvanā of our play has been said to be of the prayogātiśaya' kind. According to others it is of the kathodghāta type because we find therein Cānakya appearing on the stage, taking his cue from the words of the Sūtradhāra. Nor are champions of avalagitaand the pravartaka? types wanting. But we may, on the authority of Viśvanátha,* put it down as belonging to the udghātyaka variety inasmuch as therein we sec Cāņakya interpreting the words of the Sūtradhāra in his own way and thus coming on the stage. The prastāvanā may also be found to be suggestive. The Sūtradhāra turning homewards finds the women-folk extremely busy in several ways. This suggests how the two ministers with all their team of spies are extremely busy with their plans and counter-plans. St. 59 where the Sūtradhāra calls his wife nītividyā may be said to suggest the dominance of political intrigue in the play : while the sixth10 stanza with its double entendre is clearly indicative of the main plot of the play in general viz. that Rākşasa allicd with Malayakctu is trying to overpower per force Candragupta now at the height of prosperity ; but that the latter's conjunction with the shrewd Cānakya foils all the plans of Rākşasa and thus Candragupta is saved.

·54 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA ACT I The Mudrā-rāksasa holds a unique position in the whole of Sanskrit dramatic literature in having a mainly political theme. It begins in an atmosphere befitting the seriousness of the plot ; and the spectator is at once taken into the very hcart of the plot when Cānakya in his monologue acquaints him with his recent achievement, his further aim, and the various mcans that he has devised for its achievement. Vīšākhadatta has very cleverly given the spectator an iclca of the situation by making Cāņakya express his cona in at the spreading of the report of the alliance of Raksasa with Malayaketu against Candragupta ; and further making him boast of his past achievement viz., the extermination of the Nandas and the establishment of Candragupta on the throne, which ultimately leads him to declare his main and immediate aim hereafter viz., the winning over of Raksasa into the service of Candragupta, particularly because he is possessed of prajìï, vikrama and bhakti together. This naturally leads Canakya to declare what measures he has taken to achieve this aim of his. On coming to know the various measures taken by Canakya, the spectator is sure to be struck with the political acuon of Cāņakya. This monologue of Cānakya is thus very important as testifying to the skill shown by Viſakhadatta in making the spectator acquainted with various circumstances, which form the back-ground of the plot of his play. Ilc has also very cleverly brought out some of the salient fcatures of the cha- Tacter of Canakya such as his political acumen, his self-confidence, his wrathful nature, and also his appreciative nature even towards his enemies. While Cānakya is thus indulging in his monologue inside his house, we see a spy standing outside at his door and sccking entrance. The conversation between the spy and Canakya's pupil is a specimen of fine humour and serves as a sort of ſoil ·A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 55 for the serious monologue that has preceded and the dialogue, concerning serious matters again, that is to follow. It is by the use of contrast and such other devices that Visakhadatta has succeeded in sustaining the interest of his spectators. Even humour, however, is not allowed to transgress its proper limits and is brought to an end by Cāņakya overhearing the conversation outside, particularly the last portion thereof, and asking the spy to enter. Here again has Viśākhadatta very cleverly shown Cāņakya's alertness and sharp memory by making him remember immediately the name of the spy and the duty that he had entrusted to him. This presents a good contrast to the character of Rākşasa as we shall see later on. Next comes the narration of various important matters by the spy. In a dramatic composition, long narration is rather unnatural ; and hence Visakhadatta has cleverly made Cānakya pass various remarks at various intervals. These remarks of Cánakya thus serve a double purpose ; for besides breaking the monotony of the narration, they reveal certain traits of Canakya's character and also his working. Thus we see how Canakya las managed his spies with such care that they do not know one another. 11 Cânakya's alertness and also his selfconfidence become evident from his remark about the kāyastha Sakatadāsa,19 But his remark when he receives Rākşasa's seal ring from his spy, clearly shows how Cāinakya can in no time look into the future and very accurately too. The last remark of Canakya, when he allows his spy to go, shows that he was far from being sentimental. It may be observed how Visakhadatta has very cleverly introduced the ring-the ring that has given its name to the play at lcast partially-very innocently and roused the interest of the spectator as to how it would be used by Cāņakya for winning over Rākşasa. This interest is further heightened when Canakya orders his pupil to bring ink and paper and declares that he would now write a letter by which Rākşasa is sure to be won over.

·56 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA The entrance of the pratīharī just at this juncture with a request from Candragupta to be allowed to perform the obsequies of Parvateśvara and give away his ornaments to Brālmaņas, and the reply given to it by Cānakya bcar ample testimony to Višākhadatta's dramatic skill and sense of economy. For this incident supplies Cānakya with material for the latter part of his letter, and he very soon hits upon the material for the earlier part also after a little thought. Shrewd as he is, Cānakya almost on the spur of the moment decides to leave the wording of his letter only vague.15 Quickness of judgment possessed by Canakya is also seen when he immediately sends his pupil with proper instructions to Siddhārthaka to get the letter written by Sakatadāsa (of course with a very plausible excuse16) and see him with it. When Siddharthaka comes with the letter in the hand of Sakalladāsa, Canakya passes an appreciative remark about the hand of Sakatadāsa, and gets it sealed with the ring of Rākişasa which he has recently secured. He also gives Siddhārthaka detailed instructions as to how he is to run away with Sakatadāsa after setting him free from the impaling station, and receiving a present from Raksasa for having saved his dear friend, serve him only for some time. Cāņakya then whispers something into the car of Siddhörthaka to tell him what he is to do when the enemy is near the capital. This is sure to rouse the curiosity of the spectator which, however, is not to be satisfied until almost the end of the drama. Before Siddharthaka leaves the stage, Cinakya sends orders through his pupil (of course, on behall of Candragupta) to banish Jīvasiddhi with disgrace for having murdered Parvataka with a poison-maiden, and to impale Sakaladāsa and imprison his relatives. The pupil goes away and Canakya is thinking whether his plan would succeed when Siddhārthaka asks permission to leave; and Canakya allows him to go after handing over to him the letter and the seal ring.17 Here we see how Siddharthaka is made to remain idle ·A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 57 on the stage for some time while Cāņakya is sending away his pupil with proper instructions. Višākhadatta is here guilty of being undramatic simply owing to his craze for the patākāsthāna of which we have in this play several instances. The importance of this order sent through his pupil by Cānakya can be realized only when we see how it is utilized to give a threat to Candanadāsa only a few minutes later. But when Canakya asks himself whether after all this Raksasa would be captured, our curiosity is roused as to how these events would be utilized by Cānakya in ſulfilling his aim. Having thus dealt with two of the three adversaries mentioned by the spy, Cānakya now turns his attention to the third and asks his pupil to fetch him. Now Candanadāsa and Cāņakya's pupil are seen on the road near the house of Canakya. In his very first remark Candanadāsa reveals his view about Cánakya (and his view is right) and also his shrewdness by appraising the situation and quickly arranging for the removal of Rākşasa's family from his abode. This scene between Cānakya and Candanadāsa is very interesting indeed, displaying as it does Cāņakya's cleverness in the art of cliciting information from others and also in the art of questioning, and his sternness, on the one hand and Candanadāsa's simplicity coupled with a staunchness of friendship and purpose, nay his extra-ordinary boldness and fearlessness in the cause of a Tricnd, on the other. In the course of conversation Candanadāsa once declares that the charge that he was hiding Rākşasa's family in his house was all baseless but later on falling a victim to Canakya's remark, says that Raksasa's family was with him sometime before. Canakya at once catches him at this and orders him forthwith to surrender the family of Räksasa. Just at this moment a noise is heard outside on the road, not once but twice; and Canakya cach time orders his pupil to see what it was all about, though he knows full well that the noise was caused by the fact that Jivasiddhi was being ·58 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA banished with disgrace and that Sakaladāsa was being lcd to the impaling station. The news brought in by the pupil is utilised by Cānakya for threatening Candanadāsa with severe punishment for being unfriendly towards Candragupta like the two offenders who were now being punished and thus inducing him to save himself and his family by surrendering the family of Rākşasa.18 This threat on the part of Cānakya, however, calls forth a boldness from Candanadāsa who in very definite terms strongly refuses to surrender Raksasa's family. At the end of this scene Cānakya tells us how this would result in the capture of Rākşasa.20 But certain matters have been introduced in this Act (e.g. the letter and the ring) and the spectator would like to know how they would be utilised by Canakya in achieving his object. This, of course, would be clear as the play advances. In this Act, however, Visakhadatta has given us the main point of the play and also the main device by which it is going to be achieved. The Act ends with pieces of news which are apparently rather disconcerting to Cāņakya, but which in fact arc the sign of Canakya's plot being on its whecls, and form the logical outcome of what has preceded. Thus we see that Act I may fall into various scenos cconomically and logically well arranged so as to give the spoctator a good idea of the main aim of Cānakya and the main device by which he would have it fulfilled. It, at the same time, brings out the salient traits of the characters of Canakya and Candanadāsa ; and by giving out certain details helps to rouse and sustain the interest of the spectator. The clement of contrast also has been properly used and no specch therein is allowed to be undramatically lengthy. The end of the Act also is highly dramatic, indeed, becausc when, on knowing from the pupil about the absconding of a large number of his people Cāņakya dramatically21 tells Rakşasa that he now can't escape from his clutches, the spectator wonders that Canalıya ·A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 59: would do further and how the absconding of all these persons would be utilised in capturing Rākşasa. ACT II Act II in many respects presents a striking parallel to Act I. The scene is laid in the house of Rākşasa and the adjoining road. A spy of Räksasa under the disguise of a snake-charmer is seen on the road, approaching the house of Räksasa. Then in a soliloquy he tells us how he is struck by the political acumen of both Cānakya as well as Rākşasa ; and declares that he would now sce Rākşasa. Inside the house just at this stage, is scen Rākşasa indulging in a soliloquy, bearing testimony to his sentimentality. It may casily be observed that whereas Rākşasa very often lapses into poetry Cānakya very rarely does so. It is just in keeping with his character that Räksasa severely upbraids Lakşmia and avows that he would soon deprive her of her very resort (by killing Candragupta).23 This naturally lcads him to state what he has done to achieve his end ; and from this statement we sce how Rākşasa also is not an ordinary politician. One, however, wonders how he is deceived into taking Jivasiddhi (a fast friend and spy of Canakya) as his best friend and spy." The reference to late in the end of his soliloquy again laps us to contrast him with Chakya who is ever full of selfconfidence. Then comes in Kañcukin bringing a giſt of ornaments to Raksasa from Malayakotu. Räkvasa, though unwilling to do So, puts them on at the request of the Kañcukin who thercon goes away satisfied. This short scene shows how Raksasa is considerate and rather soft at heart. It also shows Rūlşasa's deep devotion to his former masters - al quality which had cvoked unstinted praise from no less a person than Canakya. Then follows a section corresponding to the conversation between the spy and the pupil after Canakya's monologue in ·60 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA Act I. This section, like the corresponding section in Act I, serves to bring out the contrast between Cānakya on the one hand and Rakşasa on the other. We see here Rākşasa committing some blunders. Thus he first declares that he does not want to see the serpents' play ; 27 but that he would listen to the kāvya from the snake-charmer since he appears to be a good Prakrit poet also.28 But when actually the spy is ushered into his presence, he asks his servants to go away saying that he would divert himself with snakes.29 Again Rākşasa's inferiority to Canakya is apparent when we see him remarking that he has forgottenso that the snake-charmer was his own spy whom he had sent to gather information from Kusumapura ; and also when in the presence of his servants he calls his spy by his real name.31 It is thus clear that Räksasa, though a great politician, is yet inferior to his rival Canakya ; and more sentimental and soft-hearted than lic. Rakşasa's resourcefulness, however, is evident from the way in which he turns vrādha into Virudha-śmaśru. Corresponding to the scene containing the spy's narration in Act I we have here a scene where the snake-charmer narrates several events showing how the scveral plans devised by Rākşasa to kill Candragupta were frustrated and resulted in the destruction of several of his trusted fricnds and helpmates. Like the narration in Act I here also we find the narration of Virādhagupta interrupted by several remarks of Rākşasa, revealing several traits of his character. Thus in the very beginning when the spy begins by telling how the city was besieged, Rākşasa is at once all fury and orders his men to march.32 This only shows the sentimentality of Raksasa. On being reminded, however, that it was all a matter of the past, Rākşasa's sentimentality again breaks out into his remembrance of the special favour of the Nandas he had been enjoying 33 Rākşasa is again struck to hear that the poisonmaiden sent by him to kill Candragupta was utilised by ·A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 61 Cānakya to kill Parvateśvara and compares this incident with a similar incident in the Mahā-bhārata.31 As Virādhagupta proceeding tells how Dāruvarman had rather hastily erected the outer porch in anticipation of Cāņakya's orders and how Cānakya merely remarked that he would soon receive a good reward befitting his diligence, Rākşasa at once reads the situation and rightly remarks that the attempt of Dāruvarman must have miscarried or even resulted in something evil.35 This clearly shows that Rakşasa was possessed of a keen insight and deep intelligence. For Dāruvarman's plan, far from being successful, had actually resulted in his own death and also that of Vairocaka and Varvaraka. When Virādhagupta further tells how Canakya crowned Vairocaka along with Candragupta not only promising but also actually giving him half of the kingdom, Raksasa at once sees how before doing so Cânakya must have already planned to bring about his murder by some other means and how all this show was only meant to wipe off the ignominy arising out of the murder of Parvataka.36 On going through all this scene between Virādhagupta and Rākşasa one can't help being struck at the farreaching plots that Rākşasa had hatched and how he had tried to capture the very abode of Candragupta. This sad tale of the failure of all his plans ultimately evokes from Rākşasa again his belief in fate which only serves to show that he is inferior to Canakya and also to win our sympathies for him. This naturally leads to the second instalment of the unpalatable picco's of news viz. the banishment of Jīvasiddlii with disgrace from Kusumapura, the impalement of Sakatadāsa, and the imprisonment of Candanadāsa. The remarks of Raksasa in connection with cach one of these clearly show his appieciative nature (even as regards his cnemies),as his sense of devotion to his masters and their cause, 39 and his sincerity of friendship 40 This chain of dismal tales is now happily interrupted to the ·62 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA extreme relief of the spectator whose patience is upto now sufficiently tried ; and there is some bright news for Raksasa about the safe arrival of Sakațadāsa with Siddharthaka, his rescuer. This, of course, rouses the curiosity of the spectator who is now reminded of the instructions that Cāņakya had given to Siddhārthaka. The spectator is, therefore, naturally interested in observing how Siddharthaka proceeds. Rākşasa, on coming to know from his friend that Siddhārthaka was responsible for his rescue from the jaws of death, is highly pleased with him and bestows on him the ornaments that he had on his person at the moment. These, it may be remembered, are the very ornaments which were sent by Malayaketu to Rākşasa in the beginning of this Act. These ornaments, inno. cently introduced as they are in this Act, are very cleverly utilized by Visakhadatta later on. This incident also is in accordance with the sentimentality which, as we have already seen above, is a trait of Rākşasa's character. The cleverness oi Siddhārthaka is clear when we find him with a plausible excuse requesting Rākşasa to allow him to deposit the ornaments with him under his own scal and again readily handing over the seal ring to Raksasa, who in his turn hands it over to Sakatadāsa for using it in all future transactions. This seal is, of course, the same that is introduced in Act I. In obedience to Cāņakya's instructions, 11 Siddharthaka also requests to be admitted into Rākşasa's service since it was now impos. sible for him to go back to Kusumapura after what he has done. All this while Virādhagupta is kept idle on the stage which can be said to be a defect in Visakhadatta's workmanship After the exit of Sakatadāsa with Siddharthaka, Viradhagupta tells Rākşasa of the widening gulf between Cāņakya and Can. dragupta. Being rather encouraged by this information Rák. şasa at once asks Virādhagupta to go back to Kusumapura and instruct his spy Stavakalasa (serving Candragupta as his ·A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 63 bard) to excite Candragupta by suitable verscs and inform him accordingly through Karabhaka. Soon after Virādhagupta loaves, a man comes with ornaments and a word from Sakatadāsa that the ornaments are for sale and that he should like to know whether he should buy them for him. The dramatic importance of this incident would be clear when later on we shall sce how these very ornaments (and these are the ornaments of Parvateśvara given away by Candragupta to Viśvāvasu and his brothers in Act I) are used to show Malayaketu that Raksasa has been secretly allying himself with Candragupta and plotting against his life. 12 This Act ends with Rākşasa expressing his confidence that the two viz. Canakya and Candragupta will fall out with one another because they both have accomplished their purpose.4.3 In Act II thus we see how the mudrā is made to pass from Siddharthaka to Sakatadāsa through Räksasa ; how the ornaments are made to go from Malayaketu to Rākşasa, and from him to Siddharthaka, who deposits them with Rākşasa himsell for the time being; and also how the ornaments of Parvatcávara arc made to pass from Candragupta to Viśvāvasu and his brother in Act I and thence to Sakatadāsa for Rākşasa. This act also reveals the sentimental nature, political wisdom, tenderness of heart, staunchness of friendship, and such other qualities of Raksasa as also his blundering nature, Act II presents an exact parallel to Act I in this that while Act I reveals the plots and plans and the salient features of the character of Canakya, Act II does the same in the case of Rūksasa. Even from the point of view of construction the parallelism between these two Acts is only too evident from the beginning to the end. ACT III Garbhänka is not a very usual phenomenon in Sanskrit drama ; and the carliest writer known to have used it so far ·64 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA is Sri-harşa.14 Act III of the Mudrā-räksasa may be fittingly described as a precursor of this device. The whole of the Act is nothing but a sort of drama in which Candragupta and Cānakya play the main roles. The scene is laid in this Act for the most part in the Sugānga palace in Kusumapura and the road adjoining it. The incident in the Act apparently is the logical sequence of the plan of Rākşasa ; though, in fact, it is nothing but a strategy used by Cānakya to outwit Räkaasa. The Act begins with the appearance of the kañcukin on the stage and indulging in what is technically called ikāśabhasita.45 This is the device used by Visakhadatta to make the spectator acquainted with certain circumstances which he must know before he can follow the events in the Act. Generally this purpose is served by what is known as the interlude (pravesaka or Vişkainbhaka). But Visakhadatta has simplified matters by using only a sort of monologue instead. From this monologue we know that king Candragupta wants to see the city celebrating the kaumudi-mahotsava in obedience to his orders, but finds that the citizens are not celebrating it since it is prohibited by somebody and that too without his knowledge. Here Candragupta is introduced to the spectator declaring how it is the lot of the king to be always ill at case, to how this feeling of uneasiness waxes strong at the idea of Lakşmi bcing insatiable indeed ;47 and lastly how for him in particular the worse has come to worst since his preceptor has asked him to pick up a sham quarrel with himsell and conduct the affairs of the state by himself for some time---something which he looks upon as a grave sin.18 On a second thought, however, he feels that he has even before been independent in the administration ; for he was always free to do the right, and was checked by his preceptor only when he was going wrong," This soliloquy of Candragupta serves a double purpose by giving us some of the salient features of the character of Candragupta viz. his sentimentality, devotion to and implicit ·1 and at the same time preparing van A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 65 faith in his preceptor, and also his sensibility and humility ; for the main topic of this Act by informing us that the ensuing quarrel between Canakya and Candragupta is only sham and forms part of Cāņakya's strategy. In the scene that follows, Viſakhadatta has clearly brought out the poetic spirit of Candragupta by making him describe the autumn in three fine versesso containing very fine poetic ideas. But this has been used only as a prelude to what follows; for very soon Candragupta notices the absence of the kaumudī celebrations and comes to know from the kañcukin that the festival has been prohibited by Cānakya who is, therefore, sent for. This naturally incites the interest of the spectator who is now curious to know how Cánakya would face the situation. Višākhadatta at this stage thinks it fit to give the spectator some idea of the spirited nature of Cānakya (and the reason for the same), by shifting the scene to the house of Canakya and making the kañcukin describe Cāņakya's house and pointing out in particular to his utter self-lessness. The situation is thus charged with immense possibilities and the spectator only wonders how matters would exactly shape themselves. The scene again shifts to the Sugānga palace where after preliminary greetings and salutations the quarrel ensues as expected. There is a hot exchange of questions and answers, at the end of which ultimately Candragupta has to accept defcat..2 Candragupta thereon insults Cānakya by declaring that in his eye Rākşasa is superior to the latter as is evident from the various valourous deeds that he has done till then.53 Cänakya taunts Candragupta by referring to his own Vow which he has so admirably fulfilled ; 1 but Candragupta attributes all that to fates and again insults Canakya by M.I.-5 ·66 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA adding that he was rather too boastful to be considered learned.56 The whole scene ultimately ends in Canakya resigning his office and Candragupta ordering the kañcukin to proclaim the same to people. The whole of this scene is deeply political, bearing ample testimony to the political acumen, accuracy of judgment, right grasp of the situation, and the capacity to manage it, and after all a clear vision possessed by Cānakya. Ilc is ready with a reply to every question put to him by the king and every reply of his is so clearly logical that Candragupta could find no flaw in it. The situation is very tensc, indeed! And had the spectator not been told beforehand that it was only a sham quarrel, his interest would certainly have flagged. The subjectmatter is very abstruse and is couched in a highly scicntiſic terminology and phrasealogy. Happily enough the short questions of Candragupta at various intervals and the sharp repartee between Canakya and Candragupta go a long way to relieve the tension. But for these the whole scene would have been extremely taxing and even undramatic. Višākladatta has shown great skill in managing this scene so admirably. The spectator would certainly agree with Candragupta wlien ho declares at the end of this Act that he has an attack of headache.57 There is, however, one thing which gives him relief by rousing his interest viz., the remarks of Canakya to the effect that this split, which apparently Raksasa has caused between himself and Candragupta, would ultimately be utilizec! in bringing Rākşasa himself into trouble. The concluding remark59 of Candragupta clearly shows how devoted he was to Cānakya and how he was smarting under a sense of shame on account of the insults that he had to offer to his preceptor. These remarks only serve to remind the spectator that the quarrel that has just ended was only sham. though both Cānakya as well as Candragupta appeared to have been flared up in its course.

·A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 67 The third Act may thus be said to give us the salient features of the character of Candragupta viz., his poetical spirit, his devotion to and faith in his preceptor, Cāņakya, his sincerity and simplicity. The Act also serves to explain the depth of the working of Cāņakya's policy by making him reveal the logic behind several of the steps he has taken. But the most important purpose served by this Act is that it completely deludes Rākşasa who, misled by this strategic quarrel of Canakya with Candragupta, leads an expedition against Candragupta and in approaching Kusumapura is, in fact, approaching his own defeat. ACT IV The real skill of a dramatist lies in arranging the various incidents of his plot one after another in such a way that they should be perfectly natural in the places where they are shown to occur. He has also to see that nothing that is stated or represented on the stage is without any use of its own. The greater the number of uses to which one thing or statement is put the greater the skill of the play-wright. In the very beginning of the Act IV when Karabhaka tells the door-keeper that he wants to see Raksasa, the latter tells him that Rākşasa is suffering from head-ache and hence asks him not to speak very loudly.co Viśākhadatta's skill can be noticed when we find that the head-ache mentioned here is also used by him as an excuse for Malayaketu to pay visit to Rākşasai only to find him asking Karabhaka whether he has seen Stavakalaśa in Kusumapura. This naturally tempts Malayaketu to wait outside and overhear the conversation, 62 naturally because his ears were all the while being poisoned by Bhāgurāyana and other spies of Canakya against Raksasa. A glimpse of this poisoning is given to the spectator by Viſakhadatta by introducing Malayaketu on the stage in this Act in ·68 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA conversation with Bhagurāyaṇa and asking him to explain what Bhadrabhata and others must have meant when they stated that they wanted to serve him not through Rākşasa but through Sikharasena, the commander-in-chief.c3 Visakhadatta's stage-craft is also seen when he makes Räksasa remark that he has forgotten the exact mission on which Karabhaka was sent by him. This, it may be noticed, is not unusual in Rākşasa ; and hence docs not appear to be unnatural. But at the same time it saves Viszkhadatta a very awkward situation. While Malayaketu and Bhagurāyana are holding the attention of the spectators. Rākşasa and Karabhaka would have been required to remain idle on the stage and that would be a great flaw in the construction of the play. Visakhadatta very cleverly has made Rākişasa forget the cxact Inission of Karabhaka and then try to remember the same. Thus while Malayaketu and Bhāgurāyana are having their conversation on one side of the stage, on the other side Rākşasa is seen sitting and thinking, trying to remember what the mission of Karabhaka might be ! And Karabhaka also is keeping silent, being rather puzzled by the silence of Rākşasa, which he possibly takes as being due to his head-ache. Then follows a bifocal scene with Rākşasa and Karabhaka inside the dwelling of Rākşasai, and Malayaketu and Bhāguriyaņa just outside. Karabhaka is giving information of the incidents in Kusumapura-particularly the split between Canakya and Candragupta, and the cffects thereof; and Rākşasa is passing certain remarks at various intervals, thus showing what his future plans would be. Just at this time Malayaketu also at various intervals passes certain remarks or puts questions to Bhāgurāyana concerning the remarks of Rakşasa ; and Bhāgurāyana on his part also so explains the remarks as to convince Malayaketu that Räksasa is seriously thinking of allying himself with Candragupta and treacherously leading him (i.e. Malayaketu) to his ruin. This scene is ·A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 69 highly interesting, indeed, and serves to disclose to the spectator the working of Cānakya to some extent. Bhāgurāyana, Bhadrabhata and others have absconded at the end of Act I ; and there Cāņakya has suggestively remarked that they all may fare well on their way. The curiosity roused there is now partially satisfied here in Act IV by this bifocal scene which also helps the plot to progress. This scene is also important as giving us some idea of the character of Malayaketu who here figures as a suspicious king with little judgment of his own, easily led by others, putting confidence in wrong types of persons and showing distrust about his own faithful friends and allies like Rakşasa. There is, however, one defect in this magnificently managed scene. Sakatadāsa has entered the stage along with Rākşasa almost at the beginning of the Act. But from that time almost upto the end of this bifocal scene he has to remain idle. The main purpose for bringing him on the stage appears to be that he is to be asked to take away Karabhaka and look to his comfort and thus make room for the entrance of Malayaketu.65 The awkwardness of the situation whereby Sakatadāsa is required to keep idle on the stage so long, is sought to be redressed by making Rākışasa express his doubt about the plausibility of the rumour disclosed by Karabhaka and making Sakațadāsa pass one remark in support of the same.67 But this attempt on the part of Visakhadatta to save the situation is more artificial than natural; and Sakatadāsa's long silence on the stage has to be taken as a defect in the workmanship of Visakhadatta.68 During the bifocal scene the ears of Malayaketu are sufficiently poisoned against Rākşasa ; and in the scene that follows Malayaketu is seen putting several questions to Rākşasa only to get his prejudices confirmed. The prejudiced mind of Malayaketu can very well be perceived from his svagata remark that he, fortunately, is not dependent on his minister. The ·70 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA conversation between Rākşasa and Malayaketu is also highly political and corresponds to a similar conversation between Canakya and Candragupta in the preceding Act. But whereas that conversation is more spirited, this one appears to be rather insipid. Again in Act III though Candragupta is apparently quarrelling with Cānakya yet at hcart he is a devoted pupil of his and the spectator is made aware of this by his remarks more than once. In this scene, however, the case is just the reverse ; for though Malayaketu is apparently friendly towards Raksasa, yet at heart he is thoroughly prejudiced against him. Visakhadatta has shown great skill in this arranging the scenes in different Acts and thus bringing out some of the salient fcatures of thic characters of some of his dramatis personac. This scene ends with Rākşasa assuring Malayaketu that their success was now surero and that that was the opportunity for them to march against Candragupta, and Malayaketu leaving the stage with Bhūgurāyana declaring that he would immediately start the expedition.71 As in the last scene, so also in this, Visakhadatta has ("xposed himself to a defect by keeping Bhāguryana idle on the stage during the whole of the scene. Qucerly cnough though Bhāgurāyana has accompanied Malayaketu, he has not onc remark to make while the latter is holding conversation with Rākşasa. It is true that Visakhadatta does not give any stage direction to show that Bhāgurāyana enters into the presence of Rākşasa along with Malayaketu." But even then it would only mean that he was waiting outside for such a long time which also is not less blameworthy from the point of view of stage-craft. The last scene of this Act brings out the belief of Raksasa in the Jyotih-śāstra and affords a fine example of dramatic irony when we see how the astrologer, that Rakşasa could find, is none else than Ksapanaka-one of Cānakya's trusted spics ·A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 71 --who all the while is suggesting that Rākşasa should now join hands with Candragupta who is at the height of prosperity and that he would be benefitted only if he allies himself with him. Apparently, however, he is giving Räkşasa a muhûrta for starting his expedition and Rākşasa is raising an objection to the muhūrta suggested by him, and he again is justifying it. Rākşasa at this stage little dreams that the astrologer before him is a trusted spy of his very adversary, Cāņakya. Subconsciously, however, Rākşasa is now being dragged towards Candragupta by the force of circumstances; and we see his sub-conscious mind picking up only a corresponding aspect of the phenomenon of sunset as described by him in the concluding stanza of this Act.?? Would nākşasa have ever believed that he himself would very soon afford an illustration of the general remark he has made? But is it not only about a fortnight later that Rākişasa was forced to accept the ministership of Candragupta who was instrumental along with Cănakya in bringing about the extermination of his former masters, Nandas, whose cause he has been so bravely and faithfully cherishing till then ? Act IV is perhaps the most interesting in the whole of the Mudrā-Räkşasa. But for the two blemishes referred to above, all the scenes here have been so admirably arranged that they have a very tight grip on the mind of the spectator from the start to the finish. The plot also is made to progress very rapidly now. The first three Acts are taken up by the setting of the trap by Cānakya by various means which one and all have roused the interest and curiosity of the spectator ; and from this Act begins the unravelling of the working of those Thus now the spectator knows what mission Bhāgurāyana, Bhadrabhața and others were entrusted with as suggested by the remark of Cānakya in Act 1.74 There are yet many other points which require further elucidation which Visakhadatta would give in the Acts that follow. Like each incans.

·72 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA of the preceding Acts this Act also has brought to light some of the salient features of the character of one of the dramatis personae, Malayaketu, where in fact lies the root76 of the defeat of Rākişasa's plan. But as yet the spectator does not know how exactly this trait in Malayaketu's character would be utilized by Cāņakya for this purpose. He, therefore, is very eager now to observe what follows. It is from here that the plot is heading towards the denouement and it is from here again that the spectator naturally watches the play with wrapt attention and bated breath right upto the end. ACT V (INTERLUDE) The Mudrā-rāksasa has two interludes??...-both of them Praveśaka-at the beginning of the fifth and the sixth Acts. An Interlude is a portion of a play making the reader acquainted with some events that have already occurred (or are very soon to occur) and the knowledge of which is absolutely necessary for a clear understanding of what is to follow. Such interlude when wholly in Prakrit is called praveśaka ; but when it is in Sanskrit and Prakrit it is called Viskambhaka. The Mudrā-rākşasa has no Viskambhaka. At the end of Act IV we see how the expedition has started. The events in Act V have occurred some days after the expedition has started and when the armies of Malayaketu an: camping in the vicinity of Kusumapura. This naturally has led to some strictness as regards the entrance into and cxit from the camp. Nobody is allowed to come into and go out of the camp without having the pass-port from Bhāgurāyana. The spectator is made acquainted with these circumstances (which have developed since the end of Act IV) through the conversation between Kşapanaka and Siddharthaka, who (the latter) appears on the stage with a letter and an ornament: box, both of them bearing the seal of Räkşasa as he himself reveals it. The spectator's interest is roused when he learns 78 ·A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 73 from Siddharthaka that the letter is the one which Cânakya has got written by Sakatadāsa and sealed with Rākşasa's ring in Act I ; and that the box also is sealed with the same ring. From Siddhārthaka's remark it is again clear that he has no pass-port from Bhāgurāyana ; and that he is sure that he would be able to go to Pataliputra even without the passport on the ground that he is a trusted man of Raksasa. The spectator may also remember that in Act I Cāņakya has whispered some instructions into the ear of Siddhārthaka which he was asked to execute when the enemy approached the capital. He is, therefore, greatly interested in knowing what the instruction might be and how thereby the main aim of Canakya viz., the winning over of Rākşasa is going to be achieved. The interlude may, therefore, be said to be very important dramatically as supplying the spectator with some necessary information, and at the same time rousing his interest and helping the plot to progress. ACT V This Act is perhaps the most important in the whole of the Mudrā-Rākşasa ; for it is here that the climax is reached and the plot begins to head towards a catastrophe, which, of course, has been very cleverly managed by Visākhadatta. At the end of Act IV Rākşasa apparently is making for success and it would appear as if he would succeed in his project. The spectator, however, knows full well how this only means Räkşasa's delusion; for the very foundation of his plan viz. the estrangement of Cāņakya from Candragupta is some airy nothing. It is only an irony of fate that Raksasa, who in fact was heading towards his own doom and defeat, should be thinking otherwise. The result, therefore, is that the disillusionment, when it comes, is only too shocking for Rākşasa, so much so that he simply breaks down to the point of committing suicide, but is prevented from doing so by the thought of ·74 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA saving a faithful friend. The stage for the first section of this Act is arranged in such a way that on one side of it is seated Bhāgurāyana for giving pass-port to those who ask for it, and on the other, Malayaketu who has gone there to see Bhāgurayana but waits outside and listens to what the Kşapanaka is saying to Bhāgurāyana. Bhāgurāyana in remark tells us that he has to deceive Malayakctu at the instance of Cāņakya, though he does not like to do so ; $0 while Malayaketu gives expression to his suspicion about Rākşasasi which, as we have alrcady seen, has been created in his mind by Bhadrabhata and other spies of Canakya. The scene is thus a bifocal one. Kşapanaka is brought to Bhāgurāyana asking for the mudrā, and there ensues a conversation between them. On the other side there is Malayaketu who overhears their conversation and has his prejudice against Rākşasa deepened. Visakhadatta has shown his dramatic skill by making Malayaketu overhear the conversation between Kşapanaka and Bhāgurāyana (both of them spies of Canakya ). Bhāgurāyana asks Kşapanaka certain questions in reply to which, apparently with great reluctance, the latter discloses how he had to suffer for being a friend of Räksasa who had killed Parvateśvara with a visa-kanyā, and further adds that even at that moment Rākşasa was contemplating a similar cruel act.82 After this revelation Bhāgurāyana apparently satisfied with the innocence of Kşapanaka gives him mudra and requests him to tell the same over again to Malayaketu himself.83 But Malayaketu himself enters into their presence declaring that he has heard all the heart-rending tale. Kşapanaka thereon leaves the stage feeling happy at the idea that his work is done.84 This scene brings out effectively a defect in the character of Malayaketu which presents a good contrast to that of Bhāgurāyana. For though the latter is deceiving the former, he feels sorry that he has to do so, while ·A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 75 Malayaketu though apparently friendly to Rākşasa and his other allies, is yet harbouring a feeling of distrust for them all ! Then follows a short scene where Bhāgurāyana tries to tone down Malayaketu by showing him how Rākşasa is not to blame for the murder of Parvateśvara, for it was after all a political murder. This short scene is highly important inasmuch as it shows how Malayaketu was easily impressed one way or the other. We have already seen Malayaketu's lack of judgment in the last Act, where he is found being led by Bhāgurāyana in almost every thing. Here this trait in his character is very vividly brought out; for though he is extremely enraged against Rākşasa, yet on hearing Bhāgurāyana's argument le tones down his anger and agrees to put up with Räksasa until Candragupta is defeated and the promised kingdom is obtained This again brings out two more baser traits in Malayaketu's character viz. infidelity and selfishness. The next scene begins when a man brings Siddhārthaka who is captured while trying to escape from the camp with a letter but without a mudrā. Bhāgurāyana begins to cross (xamine him in the presence of Malayaketu who is also giving some directions to Bhāgurāyana at different intervals. Thus Visakhadatta has avoided the awkwardness keeping any character idle on the stage for a long time. Thus Malayaketu asks Bhāgurāyana to take the letter from Sidctharthaka and open it, kecping the scal intact.85 He then takes the letter and reads it himself. A few moments later Siddhārthaka, being flogged, drops down from under his arm a casket of ornaments scaled with Rākşasa's ring; and when that is brought in, Malayaketu at once remarks that it must be the accompanying present mentioned in the letter, and asks Bhāgurāyana to open it kecping the seal intact.86 Now matters grow worse, for the ornaments are those which Malayaketu had presented to Rākşasa from his own person. This convinces of ·76 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA Malayaketu that the letter was addressed to Candragupta,87 After a good flogging again Siddhārthaka reveals to Malayaketu that he was sent by Rākşasa with the letter to Candragupta. Naturally, therefore, Malayaketu now desires to hear the oral message ; and Siddharthaka gives it saying that the five mleccha kings have contracted friendship with Candragupta, that three of them desire to have his (i.c. Malayaketu's) territory and the remaining two, his elephants and treasury, and that Raksasa has requested Candragupta to please them in this respect just as he has pleased him by dismissing Cāņakya. The poisoning is now complete and Malayaketu now has a distrust not only for Räksasa but also for his five mleccha allies. 88 He thus completely scvers himself from them all only to fall an easy prey into the hands of Bhāgurāyana and others, his so-called friends and advisers. This scene not only very well displays the folly of Malayaketu, but also shows how Siddhārthaka and Bhägurāyana are very clever and shrewd and do their work quite faithfully, cven though in the heart of hearts they don't like it. That Malayaketu is an utterly senseless monarch is shown here again by the fact that he puts more faith in the words of Bhāgurayana and Siddharthaka as against Rākşasa and his other allies, so much so that he does not even think of giving them a fair chance to explain themselves if at all whatever was stated by Siddhārthaka was true. In his vanity of being a politician, he has shown himself in worse lights. In this he bcars a good contrast to Candragupta who admittedly is far supcrior to him. Here Visakhadatta has introduced Raksasa seated in his house, and worrying at the thought that his army has a vast number of Candragupta's men, and ultimately satisfying himself that they are one and all thoroughly dissatisfied with Candragupta.89 This clearly shows how man is always prone to construe facts in a light favourable to him. Räkşasa at this ·A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 77 stage naturally sends orders to the mleccha allies to march in different lines as previously settled, since Kusumapura was now near. He, however, has no idea of what is going on in the mind of Malayaketu and how the latter is harbouring a grave distrust for him and also for the allied princes. Rākşasa is too straight-forward a politician, Räkşasa's considerate nature is again shown by the fact that as soon as the pratīhārī of Malayaketu tells him that Malayaketu desires to see him, he, out of consideration for the latter, asks his servant to bring an ornament and puts it on,90 little dreaming that the same ornament was going to form a piece of evidence against him. Ironically enough what Rákşasa has done just to please Malayaketu out of good manners is only shortly to cause his displeasure and to be interpreted by him in exactly the contrary spirit. Višākhadatta by introducing such incidents in the play has very cleverly managed to rouse and sustain the interest of his spectators. The brief soliloquyºi of Rākşasa at this stage is as suggestive as that at the end of the last Act; and affords a fine example of dramatic irony when Rākşasa makes a general statement that those on high are liable to fall. The description of Malayaketu at this stage by Raksasa shows only his simplicity and unsuspecting nature which in fact has been fully exploited by his rival Canakya all through, and is enough to make him the hero of a tragedy. Rākşasa rightly observes that Malayaketu was deeply engrossed in thought, but has little idea of the storm gathering in his mind. Malayaketu is now now thoroughly prejudiced against Raksasa and his Mleccha allies and in the conversation that follows he construes every reply or remark of Rākşasa in a wrong light. Thus he construes the arrangement of the armies as given by Raksasa as only confirming the story of Siddharthaka about them.13 Similarly Rākşasa's remark that now there was no need of going or coming is also misconstried ·78 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA But by Malayaketu who significantly remarks 'vijñāyate'. at in the scene that follows Raksasa is faced with several circunstances one after another which he finds very hard to explain away and which to all appearances go to prove that Raksasa was conspiring with Candragupta against Malayaketu. Thus there is the evidence supplied by Siddhārthaka, Rākşāsa's own trusted servant, the letter, the ornament-box, the message to be delivered orally as stated in the letter, the scal, the hand of Sakatadāsa, and finally the ornament on his very person. Rākşasa tries to explain away these circumstances variously; but in vain. Malayaketu is now so thoroughly convinced of the infidelity of Rākşasa, that Rākşasa sces no other alternative but to confess to the charges and tell Malayaketu that he has become anărya.96 Malayakctu sees Rākşas's unwillingness to admit his crime97 and hence asks for an explanation about the letter and the ornament box ; and when Rākşasa says in reply that it was only the working of fate, 9 Malayaketu rebukes him for having killed his father and also for planning his own treacherous murder.99 Rākşasa denies the charge and says that Fate alone is responsible for the incident, which enrages Malayaketu who now asks why Jīvasiddhi should not be referred to in this matter. This is a revelation, shocking indeed, to Rākşasa ; for if he has captured the whole palace of Candragupta, his rival Canakya has captured his very heart. 100 The main purpose of Cāņakya's plan is served. Malayaketu is thoroughly misled and orders the kings, his mleccha allies, to be killed variously ; but turning to Raksasa, with an air of nobility, he says that he is allowing him to go; for he is not vibrambhaghāti räkşasa.101 It is indeed an irony of fate that Malayaketu, who is in fact acting treacherously all the while with Rākşasa, should himself accuse the upright minister, that Rākşasa has been all along, of being treacherous. Bhāgurāyana now suggests that the expedition should be resumed ; and Malayaketu leaves the stage with his retinue.

·A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 79 The concluding portion of this Act shows Rākşasa completely broken when he finds that all his plans have ultimately led to the destruction of his own people. He is almost ready to commit suicide, but refrains from doing so only for the sake of his friend Candanadāsa, 202 This whole scene is very magnificently managed by Viſakhadatta and reminds us of the trial scene in the Mircchakatika. Just as there several circumstances one after the other go against Cārudatta and ultimately the ornaments: like the last straw on camel's back, shatter all his hopes of proving his innocence, so also here several circumstances one after another go against Rākşasay and ultimately the ornament on his own person decides the matter against him. Like Cārudatta, Rākşasa also feels constrained to accept the guilt with the effect that he calls himself anārya, though very unwillingly. The letter, the ring, the ornament on his person--all these things quietly introduced in the first and the second Acts have now fully served their purpose and the spectators' curiosity is to that extent satisfied. A final schism is brought about between Rāksasa and Malayaketu and the Mleccha kings. But still the interest of the spectator docs not flag ; for he yet is eager to know what Raksasa would do further. Višākhadatta has managed in this way to rouse and sustain the interest of his spectators from the very beginning up to the end of this Act, and up to the end of the play also as we shall presently see. ACT VI (INTERLUDE) This is the second and perhaps the more important prave. Saka in the Mudrā-Räksasa. The end of Act V shows a complete schism between Malayaketu on the one hand and Rāksasa and thic Mleccha kings on the other. Malayaketu is at the hcight of folly and orders the five Mleccha kings, his erstwhile allies, to be put to death in different ways; but with an air of nobility he lets Rākişasa go wherever he likes and ·80% INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA boasts of his ability to fight them all together single-handed. Again in Act V we have seen Siddharthaka being captured on his way to Pāțaliputra and producing things and making statements which go against Rākşasa. But we are not told what has happened to him thercaſter. All this and scveral other important facts have been supplied by Visãakhadatta in this praveśaka. Thus from the conversation between Siddharthaka and Samiddhārthaka we come to know that Siddharthaka has just come from Malayaketu's camp to Pataliputra and that as soon as he saw Canakya, he was ordered by him to convey to Candragupta the happy news viz. that Malayaketu, completely deluded by the policy of Canakya, has killed his own allies, the five Mlecca kings, and is, on that account, deserted by his other allies for their own safety and is ultimately captured by Bhadrabhata and others; and also that the whole of the Mieccha army was attacked and overpowered by Canakya with a vast army. That Bhadrabhata and others had deserted Candragupta out of disaffection for him, and that Canakya, as a result of a quarrel, had relinquished his duties as Candragupta's minister were only two screws in Canakya's policy, unfathomed even by Rākşasa.103 This praveśaka also informs us that Rākşasa in the growing commotion has left Malayaketu's camp and has gone to Pātaliputra ; and that Cönakya who has got from his spy, Udumbara, a report to that effect has ordered Siddhārthaka and Samiddharthaka to lead Candanitdäsa to the place of execution and execute him immediately. This praveśaka thus prepares the spectator for the main topic of Act VI viz, how Rākşasa decides to surrender himself just to save his dear friend Candanadāsa from the gallows. ACT VI The scene in Act VI is laid wholly in the jūrnodyana of Kusumapura. The appearance of the puruşa (a spy of Ca- ·A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 81 nakya) on the stage and his statement, that he has been asked by Canakya to see Rākşasa at that place, rouses the interest of the spectator and he finds Räkşasa appearing on the stage. Räkşasa's soliloquy here is quite in keeping with his character as depicted upto now and also befitting the condition in which he finds himself at that time. We have to note here, however, how in this sililoquy Viśākhadatta has very cleverly shown the change that was slowly and gradually coming over Rākşasa. Inspite of his repeated failures he still is not prepared to make peace with Candragupta.101 He would rather prefer to die. But on a second thought he declares that he would rather give up his pratijñā than accept a defeat through his enemy's deceitful policy.105 Thus we see here how Rākşasa's mind is sub-consciously working and how only some pertinent circumstance was the only thing required to bring about the change in the mind of Rākşasa so eagerly desired for by Canakya. The source for such circumstance is also suggested in this soliloquy when Rākşasa declares his intention to try to get some news about his friend, Candanadísa,106 The rcmaining portion of this Act forms a scene by itself in which Visakhadatta has worked on the factor suggestively put forth in the above soliloquy. This again takes advantage of Rākşasa's sentimentality, softness of heart, and his devotion to a friend. It is after taking into consideration these traits of Raksasa's character that Cāņakya has asked the man to hang himself just in front of Rākşasa, who on seeing him is sure to be moved by the sight and make enquiries about him. This could very well be utilized to convey to Rākşasa the fact that Vişnudāsa was burning himself to death just before his friend Candanadāsa was put to death by Cānakya's hangmen. This tale of two persons attempting to give their life for avoiding to hear of their friend's ill-fated death has the additional effect of intensifying Raksasa's feelings. But the last stroke falls when Räksasa is told that Candanadāsa has M.I.6 ·82 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY or MUDRĀRĀKSASA to face this calamity because he has refused to surrender the family of Rākşasa by doing which he was given the option to save himself and his own. Raksasa's heart is now thoroughly moved by this great sacrifice that Candanadāsa has made for his sake and the sacrifice which his friends were not about to make for him. And the desired effect follows. True to his spirit, however, Raksasa proposes to sct Can. danadāsa free on the strength of his sword ;107 but even that line of resistence has been closed for him by the shrewd Cāņakya.co Very cleverly thus has Visakhadatta shown how Cāņakya's policy worked out the whole situation and how ultimately Rākşasa had no other course left open but to surrender himself which he now determines to follow."09 Act VI thus brings us quite close to the denouement and the stage scems to be set for a tragedy, but for the canons of Sanskrit dramaturgy. ACT VII This Act falls into two scenes. The first scene is brought to an end by Rākşasa surrendering himself and one of Cindalas leaving the stage along with Candanadāsa ; while the rest of the Act is covered up by the second. The scene is mainly laid at the impaling station throughout this Act. The first scene' reminds us of a similar scene in the tenth Act of the Mịcchakaţika, where Cārudatla is being led by the cândālas to the place of execution. Our author has, however, shown his dramatic sense by not imitating the scene very slavishly. Instead of prolonging the scene tediously by leading Candanadāsa through several proclamation stands like Cárudatta, Višākhadatta has cut it short by quickly bringing him to the impaling station and making him, on his way there, refer to only some relevant and important mattors such as the sacredness of mitra-kārya, 110 the indiscriminate nature of the cruel or the wicked, ill adversity being the touch stone of ·A CRITICAL APPRECIATION 83 friendship, 112 and the idea that gods help the bereft relatives of the dead. 113 In a short space, Viśākhadatta has also brought out the salient features of the character of Candanadāsa's wife and son, We see how her love for her husband finds fitting answers for each and every argument that Candanadāsa puts forth to dissuade her from her dreadful resolve. The magnanimity of Candanadāsa's character also becomes evident when he tells his wife how it was an occasion for joy rather than sorrow. He is not, however, without a human touch ; and we see him requesting the candālas to allow him some time to embrace his son.114 And when he tells his son that he was meeting his end in the cause of a friend, the son also rises to the occasion and remarks that it was but their kula-dharma.115 The whole of this scene is a magnificent piece full of pathos and bringing out in only a few strokes the important traits in the characters of Candanadāsa, his wife, and son. The effect of this portion is heightened by Rākşasa entering the stage with a toss of curtain and requesting the candālas to set Candanadāsa free, and fasten the convict's garland on This is exactly what Canakya has been aiming at from the very beginning. At this stage in only two strokes has Visakhadatta brought out the magnanimity of both Candanadāsa as well as Rākşasa by making the former ask the latter what he has done by rendering all his efforts futile, and by making the latter reply that he was only partially imitating his good deed, and thereby seeking to accomplish his own selfish cnd.117 Rākişasa's praise of Candanadāsa is only befitting his magnanimity and speaks highly of his appreciative nature. 118 In the beginning of the second scene we see Canakya showing his face and asking the candāla as to who has achieved the marvellous feat of catching Räksasa, and revealing the magnanimity of his heart by exhorting him to declare that it him.116 ·1241 84 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA was achieved not by Canakya but by the adverse fate of the Nandas. 119 This is enough to show Canakya's goodness and humility, inspite of the boast in which he is shown to have indulged more than once in the course of the play. Now follows the unravelling of the riddle part by part, and the curiosity of the spectator roused at various points previously is gradually satisfied. Thus Canakya is made to reveal to Räkşasa that one of the Candālas there was only a spy of his, Siddharthaka by name, who has been in Rākşasa's service for some time, and that Sakatadāsa was made to write that fraudulent letter without his knowing that he was doing so.12 This helps to remove the blot on Sakatadāsa's friendship in the eye of Rākşasa 121 Visakhadatta makes Canakya go even further and state all the details of his plan to catch Raksasa and also the purpose behind it.129 Räksasa is now thoroughly made aware of what is expeced of him ; and knows full well that he can't avoid it. Candragupta is now brought on the stage, pouring unstinted praise123 on Canakya and his achievement and bowing down to him. But Canakya's greatness is revealed when he asks Candragupta to bow to Rākşasa whom he calls amātya - nay zmätyamukhya, thus taking for granted that Rākşasa has accepted his proposal. It is not, however, until Canakya tells him in clear terms that Candanadāsa's life depends on Rākşasa's acceptance of Candragupta's ministership, that the latter agrees to do so.191 It is thus the love of a friend alone that persuades Rākşasa to become the minister of his former enemy, The height of the magnanimity of the two ministers is yet to be reached and the spectator also is as yet anxious to know what has happened to Malayaketu and Candanadāsa who have been referred to previously. This is done in what follows and the desire of Canakya being fully realised and his purpose served, the play comes to an end with the Bharata-vākya. Thus is a probable tragedy averted and the dictum of Bharata olxyed.

·CHAPTER IV CHARACTERS IN THE MUDRĀ-RĀKSASA If we leave out of account the Mrcchakațika, Visakhadatta's Mudrā-Rākşasa is perhaps, in the whole range of Sanskrit dramatic literature, the only play containing a large variety of characters, with this difference that whereas the characters in the former are from all walks and stations of life, those in the latter, most of them, belong to the political world. Thus in our play we have kings, ministers, spies or secret emissaries under various disguises, and royal attendants. There are some characters no doubt in it that are free from any political bias ; but they are only too few and insignificant to mar the political atmosphere of the play. The Mudrā-Rākşasa is quite unique in this respect. Let us now study the characters in the Mudrā-Rākşasa and form an estimate of Visakhadatta's skill in character-painting. Before going into the details, however, it may be observed that Visakhadatta, like Kālidāsa and other Sanskrit playwrights of note, has given us characters in twos or threes. Thus we have two ministers, Cānakya and Rākşasa ; two kings, Candragupta and Malayaketu ; two friends, Sakatadāsa and Candanadāsa, (to which may be added the name of Jīvasiddhi to make the number three); and a large number of spies or secret emissaries on either side. It is by contrasting these with one another that Višākhadatta has very often succeeded in making his characters more living as we shall presently see it. Let us now start with the ministers who form the most important class by themselves in this play. It is the plots and counter-plots of the rival ministers that form the main bulk of the Mudrā-Rākşasa. But it may be intriguing to ·86 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA observe that Visakhadatta has shown grcat skill in portraying the ministers and bestowing individuality on cither of them in various ways. Canakya is portrayed by Visakhadatta as a minister and a politician par excellence, full of self-conūdence verging on even boastfulness' which is almost shuddering, ever vigilant, quick of judgment, shrewd and inspiring awe, nay terror? He has keen intellect and sharp memory; and with a quick grasp of the situation, he has the capacity to turn almost every thing to his advantage with the least effort." Being a man of clear thinking, his acts are one and all always backed up by sound reasoning; and this adds to the force of his arguments and remarks. He is a good conversationalist and has succeeded in cliciting the required information from the mouth of Candanadāsa." lle also displays the qualities of outspokenness and self-respect which are noticed even by the Kañcukin. Even Rākşasa has high regard for his abilities as a minister and a politician. But there is one circumstance about him which inspires all about him with awe and terror rather than love. He would use any means for accomplishing his object. That is why we find almost everybody calling him deridingly batu or batuka and even durālman; and that is again why Candanadāsa so much hates him and has very bitter words to say about him. It must, however, be said to his credit that his aim is, at least so far as the Mudni- Rākşasa is concerned, not selfish ; and Visakhadatta has taken care to elevate him by depicting in a few strokes somo aspects of his private life. Thus he is shown to be utterly dis-interested, so much so that though commanding the highest respect from Candragupta as his preceptor and minister, he is living in an ordinary hut with almost no belonging of his own." However cruel and stern as a politician he is, he can yet appreciate the merits of even his enemies.20 He is, however, a firm master of his emotions to such an extent that he appears to be almost inhuman, a man without any emotions at all.21 8 ·CHARACTERS 87 This, however, does not mean that he has absolutely lo emotions. The fact is that he has all his emotions perfectly under his control as can be easily seen from the circumstance that almost all his remarks showing emotions are svagata. The general impression that we get of Canakya on reading the Mudrā-Rākşasa is that of a simple Brāhmana, easily irascible by nature, a shrewd politician employing any means to achieve his aims, but disinterested and appreciative of real merit wherever it is found. But for the relief afforded by his virtues like simplicity and appreciative nature, this mighty minister of Candragupta would have been perhaps highly detestable inspite of all his brilliance in politics, even as a cobra with a jewel on his hood. Canakya bears a good contrast to Rākşasa who, even as Canakya admits it, is endowed with prajñā, vikrama and bhakti all together.12 If Cānakya's aim is not selfish and hence perhaps nobie, Rākşasa's aim is nobler still. He is fighting the cause of his masters even after they have been exterminated by Cāņakya.13 No doubt he tries to do away with his enemy Candragupta by any means whatsover. But it must be admitted that he has not directed any of his questionable means against any other person, much less towards a friend and an ally. In all his other deeds Rākşasa gives us the impression of nobility and magnanimity hardly found in his rival. His political acumen is seen when we hear an account of the various plans devised by him to do away with Candragupta and also when we sce him inspite of the failure of all his previous plans at once making himself ready to take advantage of the reported split between Canakya and Candragupta, and giving immediate instructions to his spy in that connection. Räkşasa is more emotional and considerate. He is touched to the quick14 to see the sad plight of his spy Virādhagupta. Being highly pleased with Siddharthaka for rescuing his friend Sakatadāsa, he bestows on him ornaments on his own person. Sudden ·He puts 88 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA outburstsis on the caprices of fate in which he indulges at times also bear testimony to his emotional nature. on the ornaments 16 sent to him by Malayaketu only out of regard for the latter and also for the Kañcukin who had brought them. Similarly he is careful enough to call for an ornamenti? and put it on when he has to go and see Malayaketu. It is in this considerate and emotional nature of his that lies the rool of Cānakya's success in entrapping Raksasa. fidelity to a friend is yet another noble trait in Raksasa's character and Cāņakya has not been slow to exploit it to his advantage. We see how he identifies himself with Sakalladäsa and also Candanadāsa. He is highly grieved to think that Sakajadásahas proved faithless but never blames him severely on that account and is greatly relieved to know that Sakaladása was after all not a faithless friend. For Candanadasa he has staked his very life and has ultimately given up his own long cherished desire to avenge the destruction of his former masters and accepted the ministership of his enemy. As a politician he falls short of the height reached by Chunakya and commits blunders in various ways. Being more distracted and worried he also finds his memory failing him at times. We aro inipressed by his magnanimity and nobility right from the very beginning upto the very end of the play with the result that in spite of his ultimate failure and in spite of his defects and drawbacks as a politician our sympathies are all for him than for his rival Canakya. Rākşasa in fact is an emobodiment of some of the loftiest human virtues coupled with some minor characteristics which only make us feel that he is a man of our own flesh and blood. Next we come to the two princes Candragupta and Malayaketu. The former is a devoted and well-disciplined pupil of Cânakya for whom he has so much regard that he is simply unwilling to go against any desire of the latter or to do any thing without consulting him. In his soliloquy he clearly tells ·CHARACTERS 89 Season 2:4 us how he is much worried over the command of Cānakya to the effect that he should pick up a quarrel with him and conduct the state affairs independently for some time. He is beside himself with shame for having disrespected his preceptor at his own command and wonders how others dare actually do it.21 We have also to notice the intelligence and artistic spirit displayed by Candragupta in his soliloquy describing the worries of a king, the fickleness of Lakşmi,23 and the autumn He also shows his brilliance in the sham quarrel with his preceptor by putting him very appropriate questions. Candragupta, so far as our play goes, has little independent existence of his own ; but in whatever existence he has, he has shown himself to be a worthy disciple of Cāņakya, the consummate politician, who also has described him as a king more interested in his subjects' welfare than in their money,25 and as entirely dependent on him in the affairs of the state.26 No wonder that he expresses his full appreciation of this monarch by contrasting him with the Nandas more than oncc.27 Quite a different type of king is represented by Malayaketu. IIe is not only foolish and conceited, but even treacherous. He has absolutely no judgment of his own and is very easily led away by whatever he is told by this or that person. The worse of it is that he is very easily led to distrust even his best allies and thus bring ruin on himself with his own hands.28 He is brave and warlike and has a sense of pride which makes him abstain from performing the obsequies of his father until he avenges his death.29 His simplicity is evident from the fact that he himself goes out to see Rākşasa when he is suffering from headache and also from the fact that he sends ornaments from his own person to Rākşasa with a pressing request that he should put them on.30 Only he is too rash and thoughtless and hasty in his actions and conclusions which makes him a bad soil for a politician like Rākşasa. 31 ·pura with 90 INTRODUCTION TO TIIE STUINY OF MUIRĀKĀKSASA We may now turn to the two friends of Räkşasa - Sakatadāsa and Candanadāsa. The former is not only a friend but also an employee of Raksasa who has stationed him in Kusumalarge amount of money to help his secret workcrs. Cāņakya has rightly accused him of aiding and instigating persons to plot against Candragupta's life and sentenced him to be impalcd.33 But this Kāyastha has been very cleverly made to fit in Cāņakya's plan. A letter is got written by him without letting him know the names of the addressor and the addressce. He is a very straight-forward person, and never dreams that his rescuc by Siddharthaka was only a part of a big plan of Canakya. He does not know till the end that Siddhārthaka was only a spy of Canakya. Again when the ornaments come for sale: he cloes not care to know from whon he was buying them. He was only a kāyastha, a scribe, and not a politician. That explains all the part played by him in this play i.c. the part of unconsciously lending a helping hand not to his friend and master Rākşasa, but to his rival and cheny, Cānakya. His friendship, however, is unquestionable and crven Raksasa is unwilling to admit that he would act treacherously.** But instead of being of much help to his master and friend Rākşasa, he only proves a source of trouble to him owing to his simplicity. "A much dearer friend of Rākşasa we find in Candanadása who from the very beginning is shown to have enjoyed his highest confidence. For Räkşasa had left his family with him only before he left Kusumapura for reasons of his own. This confidence, as we see it in the play, is certainly not misplaced. Like a true friend and a shrewd merchant, Canclanadāsa before going to Canakya has made arrangements for the removal of Rākşasa's family to some safer place; and like a true friend again has he refused to surrender the same even at the risk of losing not only his wealth and family but even his life. Candanadāsa really evokcs our admiration and certainly de- ·CHARACTERS 91 serves any sacrifice on the part of Rākşasa. The real success of Canakya's plan lics in this noble trait in the character of these two friends which Canakya has rightly observed 35 and well utilised. Räkşasa also is fully aware of the worth of his friend and hence when he hears of the calamity to which he has exposed himself, he feels that the calamity has befallen not Candanadāsa but himself.36 The nobility of Candanadāsa is enhanced by Visakhadatta in the last Act by putting several remarks in his mouth. But still more important is the way in which he tries to console his wife and son ; and also the fact that he is happy at the idea of having to die for the cause of a friend..7 His shrewdness is also seen in his conversation with Canakya, who, however, proves more than a match for him. Of the secret emissaries and spies either mentioned or actually brought on the stage in the Mudrā-Rākşasa, only three deserve special consideration, viz. Siddhārthaka, Bhāgunāyana, and Jīvasiddhi all of whom have acquitted themselves quite excellently in the responsibility thrown on them by Canakya. Unfortunately Rākşasa could not get capable spies and fate also may be said to be adverse to him. But Cānakya had, it would appcar, a trained eye for men, so much so that none of his spies may be said to be a failure. The failure of Raksasa's plain is partly due to some weakness of his spies such as extravagance or unwise haste displayed by Pramodaka and Dāruvarman respectively, partly to the extreme vigilance and shrewdness of Canakya as can be seen from the way in which he quietly made Vairocaka, covered all over in garlands, enter the palace seated on the female clephant of Candragupta and also followed by the latter's feudatories, and also partly to accident such as the appearance of ants with particles of food in their mouth which again was very shrewdly interpreted by Canakya. On the whole, however, the spics on either side appear to be quite well up in their business and would readily ·92 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA answer the description of their class given by Cánakya in Act 1.39 Nipunaka and Viradhagupta, as can be seen from the account they have given of their mission, have done their work quite excellently. But Visakhadatta has not cared to develop their characters any further. The same may be said about almost all other spies except the three referred to above, which now we shall consider one by one. Siddharthaka forms a very important screw in the plan of Canakya. From the time that he is directed to get the Ictter written by Sakatadāsa in Act I till the end of the play we sce him playing an important part. It is true that he is doing every thing according to the instructions of his master, Canakya ; but we must give him due credit for the ability he has displayed in executing the orders so well. After receiving the present from Rākşasa he has shown his intelligence by putting forth a plausible excuses to be allowed to deposit the same with Rākışasa only and also for being admitted into his service. Cleverly again has he brought the ring to Sakatadāsa's notice and readily given it to Räksasa to win his full confidence. The part played by him in Act V is simply marvellous and the various replies that he has given to Malayaketu and also to Rākşasa are a sure sign of his fertile brain and resourcefulness. He has a mixed feeling for Canakya and his policy. On the one hand we see him eulogizing the nīti of Canakya,4o but on the other we also see how he is in dread for him, 11 so much so that he is prepared to do even the worst of jobs in obedience to Canakya's orders just to avoid his wrath. In Siddharthaka thus we get a fine portrait of an intelligent and dilligent servant, faithfully executing the orders of his master without questioning the goodness or otherwise of the job entrusted to him. Bhāgurāyana is another important screw in the plan of Canakya, perhaps even more important than Siddharthaka. Though we are not told whether he had received any instruc- ·CHARACTERS 93 tions from Cānakya, we can guess that he too must have received some general instructions from his master. At the end of Act I it is revealed to us that Bhāgurāyana (and also Bhadrabhata and others) have absconded ; and from Cāņakya's remark there we know that he must have gone away on some mission of Canakya himself. It is not, however, until Act IV that we get a glimpse of Bhāgurāyana's character or of his mission. There we see that he has won the confidence of Malayaketu in full so much so that he has now become his counsellor and referee almost at every step. This inust have been the natural result of the fact that it was Bhāgurāyana, to all appearance, that had helped Malayaketu to save himself from the clutches of Canakya by running away from Kusumapura. Once the confidence of Malayaketu is won, Bhāgumāyaṇa goes on poisoning his ears against Rālşasa and his other Mleccha allics. There must, indeed, have been several occasions when Bhāgurāyana did this. Visakhadatta has, however, given us only a choice fcw. Thus we see Bhāgurāyana cleverly interpreting:13 the request of Bhadrabhaſa and others to Malayaketu, and again equally cleverly conducting his talk with Kşapanaka44 and crossing Siddhārthaka when brought a captive before him for trying to run away from the camp without a pass-port.45 But the real spark of his intelligence is seen when he avoids, with a very plausible excuse, referring the letter directly to Sakatadāsato which would have certainly frustrated the whole plan, and also when he, by a plausible argumentation, convinces Malayaketu oi the advisability of pulling on with Rākişasa for some time at least. -7 Ile would not miss even the slightest opportunity of poisoning Malayakıtu's mind against Raksasa as can be seen from his remark when Raksasa declares that he had bestowed the ornaments on Siddharthaka for having rescued his friend Sakatadāsa. Bhāgurāyana is, indeed, a compeer of Siddharthaka in almost every respect, though perhaps supcrior to him in ·94 INTRODUCTION TO TILE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA intelligence and with his conscience still alive. That is why we find him expressing regret at the idea of having to deceive a trustful person like Malayaketu.19 Jīvasiddhi's qualifications have been describer by Canakya himself in the first Act." He is thus only a Brihmaņa friend of Canakya well-versed in politics and the catussastyanga jyotihśāstra, acting under the guise of a Ksapanaka as a spy of Cāņakya even before the extermination of the Nandas. lle also has carried out his responsibilities so well that cven a politician like Räkşasa is misled to look upon him as his friend. Though he is referred to in Act I by Canakya and in Act II by Räksasa, we do not see him actually on the stage until the end of the fourth Act where he has displayed his skill in the use of language and also his proficiency in the jyotih-sastra.si We see him all the while speaking in words with double entendre and besides supplying Raksasa with the muhūrta as required by him and trying to convince him of the advisability of catching that very muhūrta, he is also suggset. ing to him that he should stand to gain by allying himself with Candragupta and also conveying to him a warning that his alliance with a foreigner like Malayakotu by settings asicles Candragupta, after all his own man, would surely lead to his destruction.". The more important purpose served by him, however, is that of poisoning the ears of Malayaketu against Rākşasa by declaring to Bhăgurāyana within Malayaketu's hearing that Parvatosvara was killed by Rikşasa only and not by Cāņakya. That this was mcant to be heard by Malayaketu is clear from his own remark while leaving the stage in Act 1.53 Thus we see that Jivasiddhi also, in the limiter sexe that he has in this play, has shown a remarkable skill. But we do not hear from this Jivasiddhi any remark expressive of a sense of wonder at or admiration for or even dissatisfaction at Cāņakya's policy as we hear it from the mouths of the other spiest of Canakya that we have studied above. This is ·CHARACTERS 95 55 but quite natural in the case of Jīvasiddhi who is not a servant but a fellow student of Cāņakya. Among the minor characters we have two kañcukins, two pratīharīs, and persons like Karabhaka and Samiddhārthaka who have been portrayed only in a few bold strokes. Among these only two deserve a special mention-the wife and the son of Candanadāsa. Even these, like all other minor characters, are portrayed in a few bold strokes only. Thus Candanadāsa's wife is shown to rise to the occasion and we see how she finds a suitable argument in reply to each of the arguments put forth by her husband.5 Her love for her husband has made her not only bold but also sharp-witted. Like an ideal Aryan lady of Ancient India she wants to immolate herself before she is compelled to listen to an evil report about her husband, not earing for any thing, not even for her child. Even the son in one sentence shows himself worthy of a father like Candanadāsa when he tells his father that it was but their kula-vrata to die in the cause of a friend.56 What a high ideal, indeed, for a young lad to realise ! The woman in Candanadāsa's wife and the child in his son clearly come out when they are full of grief and cry out for help or when the latter asks what he would do after his father's death. It is, indeed, by touches like these that Viśākhadatta has succeeded in imparting life and individuality to these characters. Before bringing this chapter to a close we must consider another important question in connection with the characters in the Mudrā-Rākşasa viz. who is the hero of the Mudrā- Räkşasa? And the question becomes perplexing, indeed, when it is found that critics are divided in their views on this point, some putting forth the claims of Canakya to the position and others being equally vehement in bestowing the honour on Rākşasa. It is not, therefore, quite easy to decide the question either way particularly as there appear to be cogent arguments in support of the claims of both. We shall, therefore, ·96 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA try to tackle the problem by asking the question Who is a hero ?' and considering the claims of either in the light of the answer that we get to this question. The hero as the very name suggests it, is one who is mainly responsible for the development of the plot. While defining an act57 it has been suggested by oriental authorities on dramaturgy that the hero should be present on the stage in cach and every act. Several qualities's also have been ennuncrat ed as the qualities of a hero in general, though all of them may not necessarily be found to exist in any single hero of any Sanskrit play known to us. Four different typxs of heroes have further been described under the appellations of dhiroddhata, dhiralalita, dhīroddātta and dhirapraśānta ; in general it has been stated that they are gods, kings, generals or ministers, and lastly Brāhmanas or merchants respectively. Besides the hero some plays may also have a pratinayaka (rival hero) or a upanāyaka (a sub-hero, il we may so call him). Inspite of all this information, however, it is not always quite easy to fix up the hero of a Sanskrit drama cis can very well be realised from the controversies raging on this point in connection with plays like the Ver-samhāra and the Mudrā-Rākşasa. Restricting ourselves to the latter we may note that neither Cānakya nor Rāksasa, is actually present on the stage in each and every act, though in a way cach of them may be said to carry the plot further almost at every step. For it is the plots and the counter-plots of these two rivals that form the main bulk of its theme. Both again can be said to be possessed of several of the qualities expected in a hero, and may be classed under one or the other of the four types mentioned above. Thus it may be seen that if some conditions are satisfied by both, there are others which are satisfied by neither. And particularly when it is observed that both these rivals by their plots and counter-plots arrest our attention throughout the play, it becomes extremely difficult, iſ not al- ·CIIARACTERS 97 together impossible, to decide the question in favour of any one of them. According to western criticsso it is generally a tragedy that has sone one or two figures towering aboving the rest. The other characters there are so painted that they stand on a level far below the principal ones. Tragedy, again, is often called after the name of the chief figure, who gives significance and tone to it. The idea of a tragedy is foreign to Sanskrit literature ; and yet it may be observed that what has been said above regarding English tragedy can very well apply to several of our Sanskrit plays such as the sakuntala, the Uttara- Tāmacarita and the Mudrā-Rākışasa. But for the canon of Bharata these, with little alterations in their present would have ranked among the finest tragedies in the world. The tragic element in these is only too imposing to be lost sight of Coming to the problem of the hero we find tragic hero defined as a person neither eminently virtuous or just, nor yet involved in crime by deliberate vice or villainy, but by some reason of human frailty. The tragic hero has the root of his fall not so much in external circumstances as in his own character. It must be remembered that it is not the ultimate success or otherwise that prove or disprove the claim of a dramatis persona to the position of a hero. It is rather a towering personality endowed with lofty qualities that makes a hcro ; and when certain apparently innocent traits in the character of such a person lead him to his ruin, our sympathies are naturally roused in his favour and we automatically acknowledge him as the hero, of course, a tragic hero. Turning now to Rākşasa we find that he is clearly possessed of a towering personality made all the more imposing by the possession of magnanimity of heart, staunch fidelity to his masters even after their complete destruction, a sound brain and great AI. I----7 ·98 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUIRĀRĀKŞASA valour. Besides these again he is endowed with a softness of heart, considerateness for others, and sentimentality which lie at the root of almost every blunder that he has committed in the play leading ultimately to his defeat. It may be easily seen that it is on him that our attention is focussed from the very beginning of the play right upto its end. From the moment Cānakya declareshi his unqualificd admiration for Rākışasa and also his intention-nay cagerness... to harness him into the services of Candragupta, we are interested more in Raksasa and his actions (or rather re-actions to the working of Cānakya) than anything else. Even when our curiosity is roused by Cānakya's plots, a dceper thought will perhaps reveal that the curiosity at its base is not for Canakya so much as for Rākşasa. We want, for example, to know how the plan of Canakya will affect Rākişasa and what will be his re-action thereto. Both Cāņakya as well as Rākşasa are equally active hatching plots after plots for defeating one another; and we are surely interested in their working. But the main point of interest is not so much the plot as the person who carries our sympathies. And there can hardly be two opinions that our sympathies all through and ever incrcasingly arc for Raksasa. Nor is Višākhadatta slow to show his own inclination in this connection. He has bestowed much care, it would appcar, on Rākşasa whose character has on that account been more dynamic. The character of Canakya is almost the same throughout the play as what we sec of him in Act I. Again there are hardly any ups and downs confronting Cānakya so far as the MR.. is concerned. Raksasa, on the other hand, is made to undergo several ups and downs, and we see him moving on so to say. It is these vicissitudes which Räkşasa has to face that arrest all our interest ; and in the play more than once we find ourselves watching Räksasa and his actions with bated breath. At the end of almost every act we see Rākşasa prominently intriguing us, a fact which can be said ·CHARACTERS 99 to show that Višākhadatta desired to emphasize Rakşasa rather than his rival Canakya. Inferior to Cānakya as a politician though, Rākşasa has yet traits even nobler than his opponent. Thus we see that Rāksasa is inspired by a sense of duty and devotion to his masters even after their annihilation-a fact which is far more sublime than the boastful fulfilment of his vow by Cānakya which surly smacks of cruelty and selfishness by the side of the selfless devotion of Rākşasa. Visakhadatta, no doubt, tries to bring this trait into relief by making the chamberlain in Act III describe his disinterestedness and selflessness. But even then Cāņakya hardly appears to equal-much less to tower over, Rākşasa in point of selflessness. Cânakya again falls too short of Rakşasa in point of friendship. He is unscrupulous enough to get the innocento2 Sarvārthasiddhi murdered even though he had quietly retired to a penance-grove. Some justification for this may perhaps be found in the fact that Sarvärthasiddhi was a scion of the Nanda family and hence an enemy. But the murder of Parvateśvara through a poison maiden and that of Vairocaka by the falling arch can find no justification what- So ever ; for as we know they were allies and thereiore friends of Candragupta and hence of Cânakya. The mischief intended by Rākşasa could have been averted by punishing the poison-maiden and the carpenter and other culprits without endangering the lives of the allies. These murders can at best be justified as political murders; but they certainly make their perpetrator appear in bad light before Raksasa who has acted with all the magnanimity of hero under similar circumstances. We see how Rākşasa is greatly pained to learn that the forged letter was actually written by his dear friend Sakatadāsa, but is not prepared to believe it ; how ultimately he is greatly relieved when it is revealed to him, that Sakatadāsa wrote the letter only without knowing what he was doing. Rākişasa is very unwilling to entertain any suspicion regarding a ·100 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA a friend even though he has every reason to do so. Nobler still is the attitude shown by him to Malayaketu his erstwhile friend and ally now turned into an enemy. He was brought a captive before Cāņakya who referred the matter to Rākşasa. And he ike a noble hero declared that Malayakotu's life should be saved in view of their past friendship.ua Can we ever imagine Cāņakya rising to this height ? Not that Canakya is totally lacking the qualities of a hero. He, in fact, is second to none ; and is clearly responsible to a great extent for the progress of the plot. We also have admiration for his political brain. But Raksasa in addition to the political brain (acknowledged even by his rival") has certain other accomplishments which raise him far above Canakya and easily mark him as the hero of the play. That Visakhadatta intended Rākşasa to be the hero of his play is shown by other considerations also. It is a general rule that a play is named after the chief person i.e. the hero or the heroine or both, as can be seen from names like Cārudatta, Abhijñāna-Sākuntala, and Mālati-Madhava. In the whole range of Sanskrit dramatic literature we can liardly find an instance where a play is named after a character who is not its hero. Again the Bharata-vākya is generally put into the mouth of the hero only, rather than any other character. In the MR. we find both these considerations to be in favour of Rākşasa only, who may, therefore, be declared to be the hero of the play even in the opinion of Visãakladatta. We may now conclude this chapter by noting a 1xculiarity of the MR. so far as characterization is concerned. Visakhadatta has introduced the main characters in the first four Acts one after the other. Thus Act I brings before us Canakya, while his rival Rākışasa is introduced on the stage in Act II. Similarly Candragupta appears on the stage for the first time in Act II and it is not till Act IV that we see Malayaketu and Bhāgurāyana on the stage. The author thus seems to have paid ·CHARACTERS IVA greater attention to his characters and their introduction on the stage ; and all through the play our interest is focussed more on character than on action. It must be said to the credit of Visakhadatta that inspite of the abstruseness of his theme and absence of the sentiments of love and laughter, he has by his skill in character-painting endowed the play with an intrinsic interest all its own, though in doing this, as he himself has stated it, he must have been required to take infinite pains even like Raksasa, the minister of his own creation.

·CHAPTER V SOURCES Our study and appreciation of Višākhadatla's abilities as a dramatist or a poet is bound to remain incomplete unless we take into consideration the debt which owes to his predecessors. To be able to know accurately what Visakhacatta has achieved in his work we must know what he has borrowed from others. A knowledge of the exact form and nature of the matter or material borrowed by him will enable us to understand the real merit or otherwise of Visakhadatta, Here at the very outsct we must remember that the indebtedness of a poet or a play-wright might pertain to the main theme or story with or without some details, or to the use of various things or articles in the story, or to the arrangement of the different scenes, or to various other ideas and technical expressions incorporated in the work. It is but well-known that the two great epics, the Rāmāyama and the Mahābhärata, together with the BỊhatkathā and the Purānas form the inexhaustible store-house from which most of the Sanskrit authors have drawn their themes. It is only rarely that the theme is purely a creation of the poet's imagination. It is for the critic to find out the source or the sources of the play wright and compare the theme in the original with what has been given by the latter and see the effects of the changes introduced by him in the original. As for the use of various things or the arrangement of the different scenes and so on, the critic has to cast a glance through the earlier literature and see if it presents any parallels-striking and close oncs.--to: what is found in the work before him. In such cases again it is the business of the critic to compare the matter before ·SOURCES 103 him with the parallel available and see how far the author has imitated the earlier parallel and how far he has been able to leave his own stamp thereon. It is considerations like these that ultimately enable a critic to judge of the place of an artist and his work among others and thus help him to form his own opinion about the same. Coming to the Mudrā-Rākşasa it is evident that its author has derived his plot from some earlier sources. For, the story of the overthrow of the Nandas and the installation of Candragupta Maurya in their place is a historical fact recorded not only in Greek chronicles but also found in several of the Purānas,” and also incorporated in the Brhatkathā as can be concluded from its presence in the Kathāsaritsägara and Bșhatkathā-mañjarī.3 A reference to this incident is also found in the Arthaśāstraof Kautilya and the Nītisāra of Kamandaka.5 According to the Puranas, Mahānandin, the last of the Siśunāgas, married a sūdra woman and thus became the founder of a fresh dynasty. His son, Mahāpadma (who is also called Dhanananda) and his eight sons are together known as the naya nandāh who were uprooted by Cānakya alias Kautilya (also called Vişnugupta) who placed Candragupta Maurya on the throne. Greek chronicles, however, attribute the low origin of the Nandas not to the low caste of their mother, but to a low caste father, a handsome barber, a paramour of the queen of the Nanda who murdered her husband, the king. Visakhadatta differs from both these in mentioning the Nandas as mighty kings of illustrious lineage, 8 though he has skilfully utilised the traditional account about the Nandas, particularly their avarice and hoarded wealth. A reference in the MR. I. 12 to the cause of Cāņakya's rage shows that Visakhadatta knew the story as narrated in the Bșhatkathā.

·104 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA The Puranas make Candragupla the son of Murā, a low caste woman. There are several legends about Candragupta in Greek as well as Buddhistic and Jain chronick's. Accord ing to the latter he is called Maurya because he belonged to the clan known as Moriya, a branch of the illustrious Sikyas. A posthumous son, he was seen by Canakya 'holding a mock court on the village common as the rajah of the village boys'. Canakya, incensed at the insult heaperl on hit by Dhanananda, took hold of this boy and after «xtermination of the Nandas placed him on their throne. Visakhadatta is silent on thc cxact significance or derivation of the name Mauryn as applied to Candragupta," though he has shown him as an upstart of obscure or low birth." Ilc has also made Canakya call him VỊşala 19 all through the play. Greek chroniclers are silent about Chakya who), therefore, according to some is a mythological ligure, But the overwhelming evidence of Indian literature proves his historicity beyond all doubt. The story of his having exterminated the Nandas and placed Candragupta Maurya on the throne in their place is narrated not only in the Puranas but also in Kautilya's Arthaśāstra and Kāmandaka's Nīlistīm. Visakhadatta has made use of the Bșhatkatha story and also the traditional information about Cāņakya viz. his wrathful nature, his insult by the ruling Nanda prince, his vow to overthrow the Nandas by any means, and to wear his Sikhū loose until the vow is fulfilled. We thus see that Visakhadatta has derived only the barest skeleton of his theme from the sources before hin. Besides the prologue, he has also spun out of his imagination several details of great dramatic significance such as the sham quarrel between Canakya and Candragupta, the poisoning of Malayaketu's ears against Rākışasa and the other allies and the collsequent schism between them, the whole story of Candanadasa and also the plans and the counter-plans of Canakya and ·SOURCES 105 Räksasa. All these details have been so well woven into one fine texture that one really wonders at the art displayed here by Visakhadatta. The same is true of characters also in the MR. For beside the few characteristics of two principal characters viz. Canakya and Candragupta, and a few characteristics of the Nandas, Visakhadatta has borrowed nothing so far as the characters in the MR. are concerned. Thus the faithful and magnanimous Rākşasa, the self-sacrificing Candanadāsa and his wife, the shrewd and loyal Siddhārthaka and Bhāgurāyaṇa, and even the rash and vain Malayaketu are the creation of Visakhadatta himself who, therefore, deserves credit for his achievement in this respect also. Visakhadatta's indebtedness to Kautilya's Arthaśāstra is only too obvious. Almost at every step we come across some technical terms or ideas which have been borrowed by our author from that famous work on politics. Sādgunya, mandala. upāya, vyāyārna, prakyti, surangā, jigīşu, vyasana, atmaguna, tīkşna, rasada, tantrayukti, antahkopa, and bāhyakopa are only a few of them. The terms pariklesa, upāya, tiksna, rasada, and vyāyāma have been used by Visakhadatta in the sense ascribed to them by Kautilya in his Arthaśástra. Flogging as a mcans of extorting confessions and eliciting required information from the accused, adopted in the fifth act of the MR., has been actually recommended by Kautilya at Arthaśāstra IV. 8. Similarly the idea that persons having the mudrā alone were to be allowed to enter or leave the camp, made use of in MR. Act V again, has been clearly stated at Arthaśästra II. 34. The construction of a yantra-torana also seems to be hinted at in Arthasāstra 1. 20. The untouchability of the cāņdālas is again suggested by a simile at Arthaśāstra I. 14. Kautilya also has laid down that a widow may remarry,13 preferrably within the family of her deceased husband ; and Viſakhadatta has referred to this idea by making Räksasa blame Lakşmi by describing her as an ill-bred woman gone ·106 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA to another family.14 Similar is the case with the idea of releasing all prisoners as ordered by Cumakya at the close of the play.15 From these and similar other instances it may easily be seen that Visakhadatta was a close student of Kauțilya's Arthaśāstra which he must have had before him while composing the Mudrā-Rakşasa. The signet-ring, the letter and the ornaments are the things invested with great dramatic significance in the MR. ; and it may be interesting to see some parallels to these in other earlier works. Thus we know that the ring has been used in the Rāmāyana for the purpose of pratyabhijñā when Maruti convinces Sītā of his being a messenger of Rāma by showing her the latter's ring. Kālidāsa has used the ring in two of his plays. In the Mālavikāgnimitra it has been used to effect the release of Mālavikā, while in the Sākuntala it can be said to form the pivot on which the whole story turns. For it is the ring that brings about the union and it is its absence again that brings about the separation of two loving souls. Visakhadatta has used the mudrā in a still different way. For it docs not lead to the release of any-body, nor does it bring about the union of two loving souls, nor again does its loss result in their separation. Rākşasa's signet ring has been utilised in the MR. for sealing the forged letter and the ornament box, both of which are later on produced as being sent by Raksasa to Candragupta. Thus in the MR, the sight of the Mudra proves the identity leading to a catastrophe only to be averted by the vanity of Malayaketu. The letter has again been used by Kálidāsa in the Malavikagnimitra and also in the Sākuntala. The one in the latter is only a love letter. It is ony in the former that we have a letter of a political nature ; but the letter in the MR. differs from this also in being a forged document to be used against the enemy himself, and thus to bring about a complete schism ·SOURCES 107 between Malayaketu on the one hand and Rākşasa and the other Mleccha allies on the other. The use of the ornaments in the MR. easily reminds us of the ornaments in the Mșcchakatika. Whereas in the latter we have one set of ornaments and a ratnāvalī, in the former we have two sets of ornaments-one of Parvateśvara and the other of Malayaketu ; and just as the ornaments in the latter, dropped down from under the arm-pit of Maitreya, decided the case against Cārudatta, similarly the ornaments dropped by Siddhārthaka in the fifth Act of the former convince Malayaketu of Räksasa's infidelity. Visakhadatta's ingenuity, however, is realised when we see how he makes Rākşasa (quite in keeping with his character) put on the ornament of Parvateśvara (of course, without knowing that it was so) and thus utilize that ornament as the last straw to crush all hopes of Raksasa by causing an irreparable rift between him and Malayaketu. The Mycchakatika, indeed, presents several parallels to the MR. , of which the scene when Rākşasa is ultimately discomfited by the overwhelming evidence gathering against him even like Cārudatta and the scene at the impaling station in the last Act are the most striking. It may thus be seen that Viſakhadatta got only the skeleton of his main theme from earlier works; and that he has shown great skill in creating out of it a magnificent work of art, that the Mudra-Raksasa admittedly is, not only by his deep study of Sanskrit poetics, metrics, and dramaturgy, but also by his intelligent study of earlier plays like those of Kālidāsa and Sūdſaka without, however, being their slavish imitator.16 ·CHAPTER VI VISAKHADATTA AS A DRAMATIST The Mudrā-Rākşasa has neither a Vidūsaka, the usual source of humour and laughter, nor a heroine. In fact there is only one female character in it. the pathetic wife of Candanadāsa. The usual attraction of a crama viz. the sentiment of love also is conspicuous by its absence in this play. And yet it is striking to note that out of the dry bones of a historical incident, which he received from sources available to him. Visakhadatta has created a play which has a firm grip on the spectator from the beginning to the end. It may be interesting to see the ways and means devised by Visakhaclatta to achieve this purpose And the first thing that we must noto in this connection is the prologue. The importance of a good beginning and a good end in a work of art, and more particularly in a dramatic composition, can hardly be cxaggerated. The first problem with a playwright is to attract the attention of his spectators and rouse their interest. This he has to do with his prologue which on that account has to be short, lucid, and to the point. It must also contain some matter which will attract the attention of the spectators. Nor is the end any way less important. The play must end before the spectator's interest begins to flag. He must be still in the world that he has been visualizing so far, when he leaves the theatre. Even a slight prolongation of the play beyond the proper moment will mar the impression made by the whole show. Visākhadatta has not only begun his play well but has also taken care to bring it to a close at the proper moment. As we have already noticed the prologue of the MR. is just what a prologue should be and has served ·VISĀKHADATTA AS A DRAMATIST 109 its pages. its purpose well by imperceptibly leading the spectator into the very heart of the main plot. Nor is the end less artistic ; for it comes as soon as all points of curiosity arising in the course of the play are explained. But it is long way from the prologue to the bharatavākya ; and the play-wright has very often to tax his ingenuity to keep up the interest of his spectators roused by the former continuously up to the latter. And the simplest means of doing this is variation in its different aspects. Monotony tends to bring on dulness, and has to be killed by variation. Alternation of Sanskrit by different Prakrits and that of prose by verse are too common to be discussed. Nor is the alternation of the usual medium viz. dialogue by messages, letters and documents, soliloquies and monologues any way less common. Visakhadatta has made full use of all these types of variation in his play as can be observed even by a cursory glance through He has shown great skill in avoiding long speeches in his play. It may be seen how in Acts I and II he has made Cānakya and Rakşasa pass several remarks and ask questions at intervals to their spies and thus saved his play from flowing along the channels of narrative prose. And he has done this artistically too, as is evident from the fact that the remarks of the ministers serve a purpose of thcir own as we have already observed it above. Another device used by Visakhadatta in this connection is the use of letters and documents. Thus in Act III instead of himself giving a reply to Candragupta, Canakya is made to utilise a document for that purpose. Similarly a letter is used in Act V. It is evident that Viſakhadatta has used these just to avoid the unnaturalness of a character making a long speech on the stage and keeping others idle. But the real skill of our author lies in the naturalness with which thesc devices have been used. A message, 2 used in Act I and again in Act II, is again a similar device. Soliloquics and monologues serve the same purpose. The ·110 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKIASA former as a general rule serves to reveal the true spirit or character of a dramatis persona and also serves to give the play a realistic appearance, provided, of course, it is not too long. Nothing can be more natural than that while discussing some matter with others or on hearing something from some one, a person should have some thought in his mind which he may not speak out at the moment. But it is these thoughts alone that reveal the true character of the person and often mould his future course of action. Soliloquy, however, would be tiresome if it is too long. Visakhadatta lias, therefore, used what are called monologues, which resemble soliloquies in being speeches by one person only, but differ from them in havng the form of a diauogue between the person actually present on the stage and another imaginary person off the stage with the help of the device known as ākāśa-bhāşita." This device not only kills monotony, but is also a good economic measure if but sparingly used. Viſakhadatta has resorted to this device in his MR, four times in the beginning of Acts 1, II, III and VII. Patākā-sthāna is yet another variation in the meclium of thought used in a Sanskrit drama. A peculiar juxta-position of a person's words or thought with the words of another sometimes seems to foretell some future, event. Such a pecu.. liar phenomenon is in Sanskrit dramaturgy called patākā-sthina. This phenomenon is often utilized by Sanskrit play.wrights for intriguing the spectators by the dramatic irony contained therein. Visakhadatta has used this device thrice in the first Act and once again in Act IV; and thereby suggested that Cănakya is ultimately to succeed in his aim, defeating and captivating Raksasa and Malayakctu ; and that Raksasa would be easily taken in by the plan hatched by him. Having thus far studied the medium of thought and the different variations thereof used by Viſakhadatta we now pass -on to a consideration of the order in which the several details ·VIŠĀKHADATTA AS A DRAMATIST 111 of the plot are presented to us. In history and ordinary narrations the order followed is mainly chronological. But in plays (and in fact all works of art) the chronological order has to give way to what may be styled as the artistic one. Much of a writer's success depends upon the presentation of the various details; and the same story may become attractive or otherwise according to the arrangement of its various details. In the MR. we are at once taken into the very heart of the theme by Cânakya when he reveals to us his plans in an outline reserving some details which are to be revealed in due course. Thus insult of Canakya at the hands of the Nandas, his vow and alliance with Parvateśvara with a promise of half the Nanda territory, siege of Kusumapura, Sarvārthasiddhi leaving the capital only to be murdered by Canakya's men in the penance-grove, Rakşasa sending a poison-maiden to Candragupta, but Cāņakya directing her to Parvateśvara who succumbs to her, Malayaketu frightened and going away from Kusumapura with Bhāguāyana, Rākşasa arranging several plans for getting rid of Candragupta and going away from the capital to form an alliance with Malayaketu, leaving his wife and children with Candanadāsa, Canakya shrewdly arranging for Vairocaka going under the falling arch set up by Räkşasa's man, frustration of all other plans of Rākışasa through the vigilance of Canakya and the death of the several accomplices of Rākşasa by the very means which they intended to use against Candragupta---these are the events that have already taken place at the point where the play begins with the monologue of Canakya. Visakhadatta has shown his art in not only abandoning the chronological order of these events, but in introducing them all in the body of the play without the least tinge of artificiality. What would be more natural than that Canakya should get from his spy the information of Raksasa having left his wife and children at the house of Candanadāsa before leaving Kusumapura ? Again we see how ·112 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA by making Cānakya boastfully refer to the insult he had had at the hands of the Nandas, and how hic taking a vow to wreak vengeance fulfilled it single-handed, Visakhadatta has not only supplied a previous incident so necessary for the understanding of the story but at the same time given some iniportant trait in his character. Chakya is again made to explain how and why Sarvārthasiddhi left the capital and why he got him murdered. The art of Visakhadatta is again seen when we find him introducing several of the remaining details in the form of information gathered by Virādhagupta and delivered to Rūkşasa in Act II. Similarly the fact of Parvateśvara succumbing to a poison-maiden has been revcaled for the first time in Act I, and again brought in subscquently in Act II and IV. In connection with all these details it must be noted that they, one and all have not only been introduced in a very natural manner, but are at the same time made to serve some useful purpose. Thus, for example, the revelation of the facts about the poison-maiden in Act II, besides informing the spectator of that important cvcnt has been utilised to bring out the shrewdness of Canakya and also the appreciative nature of Rākşasa ; while the same again has been used to poison the mind of Malayaketu against Räkşasa. Visakhadatta, it may thus be evident, has shown great skill in taking the spectators directly into the hcart of the plot and introducing all the previous details later on in the most natural manner. The element of contrast renders great help to a dramatist in sustaining the interest of his spectators; and Visakhadatta has not been slow to exploit it. Looking to the arrangement of the several sections in Act I we can realise how the lighter and the more serious sections are very skilfully intermingled therein. Thus the enticing prologue is followed by the more serious monologue of Canakya which in its turn is followed by the lighter and partly humorous conversation between the spy and the pupil of Canakya. Then follows the more scri- ·VISAKHADATTA AS A DRAMATIST 113 ous narration the strain of which is slightly relieved by the occurrence of the patākā-sthānas ; but the interest is heightened by the revelation of some very important facts. The element of contrast is also observed in the arrangement of the various Acts. Thus Act II though resembling Act I in several respects presents a good contrast to it; for whereas the latter reveals the full self-confidence of Cānakya and the success of some of his plans, the former is only a sad tale of a chain of failures of the several plans of Rākşasa and reveals his lack of self-confidence and fatalism. Act III again brings before us the minister and the king, though loyal, loving and devoted to one another, pretending to be disaffected to the extent of severing connections. Act IV presents a good contrast by showing Malayaketu outwardly acting in a friendly manner towards Raksasa though in fact his mind is poisoned against him. Again Act III apparently shows a decline in the fortune of Canakya though the fact is just otherwise ; while Act IV, though apparently showing Räkşasa making for success, has yet taken him nearer his fall. Thus it may be seen that contrast is evident not only between two facts or incidents, but between the fact as it appears to be and the fact as it actual- Visakhadatta certainly deserves high praise for introducing this subtle aspect of contrast in his play, the aspect which is a common feature of the political world. It is again interesting to note how he has made his characters more definite and impressive on the basis of this element. We have already seen how Cānakya and Candragupta bear a good contrast to Raksasa and Malayaketu respectively. We have also noted how the treacherous Bhāgurāyana is taken to be the most trustworthy person by Malayaketu who, however, misreads the most faithful Raksasa for an infidel. The element of contrast in the hands of Visakhadatta has its own charming phases and proves a very effective measure for enhancing the interest of the spectators at every stage. M.I.--8 ly is.

·114 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRÄRĀKSASA 6 Another element that has contributed not a little towards Vişākhadatta's success is suspense. This in Act I are intro. duced the letter, the scal-ring of Räksasa and the ornaments of Parvateśvara by which Cānakya expects to catch Raksasa and Malayaketu. But at this stage we wonder how this would be accomplished. Again we watch with bated breath the conversation, or rather the wordy tug-of-war between Candauadása and Canakya the end of which gives us to some extent the clue to the whole plan of the latter. The end of the Act also affords a fine illustration of this clement wlien Canakya says Sarveşām sivālı panthānah santu' on learning from his pupil that Bhadrabhalla, Bhāgurāyana, and others have absconded. In fact this element has bcen increasingly utilized hy Visakha datta in his MR. Thus from the moment we rcalize that Malayaketu's mind is gradually being poisoned against the unsuspecting Rākşasa we are in a suspense which is heightened when Malayaketu thoroughly prejudiced by the revelations in the earlier part of Act V sends for Rākşasa only to be completely entangled in the wholc affair. The highest pitch is perhaps reached by the end of the Act when Räkşasa totally discomfited by the force of circumstances and to his great dismay realises that all his plans have resulted in the destruction, not of the enemies, but of his friends and allies only. At this stage we watch with great suspense the line of action that Rākşasa would decide to follow. Visakhadatta has, indeed exhibited great skill and ability in kecping this suspense at this height through the last two Acts of his play. Every moment we are per force kept watching with cagerness what Rākşasa would do further ; we are relieved to learn that Rákşasa decides to save Candanadāsa, but at the same time woulder how he would do it. The sight of his sword affords sone relief only to be thwarted by the tale of the man; and the relief that we get at the decision of Raksasa to surrender himself for Candanadāsa is only short-lived. For it gives rise ·VISĀKHADATTA AS A DRAMATIST 115 to an equally great suspense if not greater and we wonder whether Rākşasa would choose to sacrifice his life and friend for his principle i.e. devotion to Nandas or vice versa ; and it is not until he declares 'Eşa prahvo'smi' that we feel much relieved. But even here the sudden appearance of Bhadrabhata and others together with captivated Malayaketu and Cāņakya's leaving the whole affair to Rākşasa creates some suspense, very mild of course, to be instantly relieved by the magnanimity shown by Rakşasa. It would thus be realised that Visakhadatta though affording some relief at various intervals and thus lowering the tension on the spectators, has at the same time cleverly managed to keep up the suspense at a high pitch without tiring their patience. Now we pass on to the three unities. It is well-known that the idea of three unities as explained originally by the Greek writers has never been strictly adhered to by later play-wrights. The unity of action is the only one to be universally realised as the most essential for any good play. The other two unities have been respected only in a modified form. A reference to the Dasanūpaka will show the unity of time and action have been recognized in Sanskrit in connection with an Act which, we are told, must deal with some incident or incidents forming one connected whole and taking place in one day. The third unity is neither referred to in works on dramaturgy nor observed by Sanskrit play-wrights in the strictest sense of the term. Turning to the MR. it may be observed that Visakhadatta has carefully observed the unity of time by taking care to see that no act in his play represents action extending beyond the span of a day. He has also depicted one main point in each Act as can be seen from the names that he has given them; and thus observed the unity of action also. place it must be noted that as far as possible Visakhadatta has avoided any disconcerting change of place within an Act. Thus the scene in Act I is laid at the house of Cāņakya in Patali- As for ·116 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA putra : while in Act III it is partly at the royal palace and partly at Canakya's house in Pataliputra, and the last two Acts represent action taking place partly in a street in Pätaliputra, partly in an old garden in its outskirts, partly at the place of execution, and partly at the royal palace. The scene of action in Acts II and IV is partly a street in Malayaketu's territory and partly Rākışasa's dwelling therein, whercas the fifth Act represents action taking place partly in Malayakctu's camp, partly in a pavilion in the camp, and partly in Räkşasa's dwelling there. Thus on the whole it may be seen that the place of action in the MR, as a whole falls into three broad sections viz. Pātaliputra, Malayaketu's capital, and Malayaketu's camp between the two and ncarcr to the former. This change in the place, however, does not mar the impression of unity of action and hence Visakhadatta may be said to have observed the unity of place in this play. Let us now analyse the time element in the MR. It has been already observed that no Act in the MR. represents action extending beyond the span of a day. Now we have to look to the play as a whole and find out the time that is required by the action that is actually represented on the stage and also the time that is required by plot at a wholc. As for the former it may be observed that Visakhadatta has used his ingenuity to present maximum amount of action possible within the available scope of the seven Acts of his play, partly by using stage directions and partly by a skilſul arrangement of the various incidents. Thus, for example, when Canakya expresses his desire to see Candanadāsa, his pupil at once goes out and comes again on the stage with Candanadāsa in no time. In fact all this would require some time according to the distance at which Candanadāsa is residing. But Visakhadatta has brought all this within the compass of a minute with the stage direction “Nişkramya candanadāsena saha pravisya' and thus saved so much time. Several, indecd, are the places ·VISAKHADATTA AS A DRAMATIST 117 8 where Visakhadatta has resorted to this device : but in this connection it should be noted that they, all but one, occur in Acts I, and V which are over-crowded with incidents. Act III has this only once, while the other Acts do not have it at all. The The use of such a stage direction as an economic measure is rather artificial land hence mars the semblance of reality created by a play. Constant use of such a device may, therefore, be taken as a blemish in the art of a play-wright; and Viśākhadatta has committed the sin of using it at least ten times. This defect, however, dwindles into insignificance when we look to the skill exhibited by him in arranging the several incidents in his play. Thus in Act IV, for example, we see how while Rākşasa is trying to recall the mission on which he had sent Karabhaka, Malayaketu is shown going to see him, and how just when the latter reaches the place the former is made to remember the mission and put a question to Karabhaka. This is again used as an excuse for Malayaketu to wait outside, so that what follows is a bifocal scene with Malayaketu and Bhāgurāyana on one side of the stage and Räkşasa with Karabhaka and Sakațadasa on the other. And as soon as Raksasa is alone Malayaketu enters and has his talk with him. The biſocal scene in Act V is yet another illustration of Visakhadatta's skill in this respect. It is with these contrivances that Visakhadatta has succeeded in giving us within the span of a perid of a few hours incidents or action which in actuality would require a much longer period. As for the time required by the whole plot of the MR. it should not be very difficult for us to determine it approximately on the strength of the various references to some particular dates and also the mention of a definite period having elapsed from a particular incident together with the mention of the same persons at one place in one Act and at another several miles apart in another. Of direct references to the actual date we have three; one in Act I which speaks of the ·118 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA possibility of the moon-eclipse' on that day which, therefore, must be the full moon day ; another in Act III which speaks of the Day of the Kaumudī festival, which is the full moon day of Kārtika ; and lastly in Act IV where the Ksapanaka directly gives the full moon dayli as the best day for starting the proposed expedition. Another pertinent reference in this connection we come across in a remark of Malayaketu when he declares that it was then ten months since his father died.2: Side by side with these references we have to note that Siddharthaka with Sakatadāsa has left Kusumapura on the very day on which the action in Act I takes place; and it is perlaps on the same day again that Canakya has sent somebody with the ornaments of Parvateśvara which he has secured through Viśvāvasu and his brothers. All these, it may further be remembered, are seen in Malayaketu's capital in Act 11. Similarly the messages sent by Raksasa from Malayaketu's land has reached Stavakalasa before the feigned quarrel takes place in Act III. Again Karabhaka, sent by Stavakalasa after the quarrel in Act III from Kusumapura, is seen in Malayaketu's land in the beginning of Act IV; and Malayaketu and his army that start from their land at the end of Act IVIH are near Kusumapura in the beginning of Act V.15 And lastly Siddhārthaka and Rāksasa who have left Malayaketu's camp at the end of Act V are in Kusumapura in Act VI ; and Malayaketu himself continuing his cxpedition at the end of Act V is brought a captive to Kusumapura before Candragupta in the end. 16 The distance between Kusumapura and Malayaketu's capital is about a hundred yojanas and one would require at least ten to fifteen days to go from thc former to the latter.17 There can be no doubt that the day of the action in Act III is the day of the Kaumudī-festival i.e. the full moon day of the month of Kārtika. Now allowing due time for Viradhagupta to go from Räkşasa to Kusumapura and find time to ·VISĀKHADATTA AS A DRAMATIST 119 convey Raksasa's word to Stavakalasa we may take the action in Act Il as taking place a fortnight earlier; and that in Act I should be fortnight earlier still in view of the fact of Sakatadāsa and Siddharthaka having come from Kusumapura (in Act I) to Rākişasa (in Act II). Thus now the action in the first three Acts may be said to have taken place on the full moon day of Aśvina, the new moon day of the same month and the full moon day of the Kārtika respectively. A period of about a month must have elapsed between Acts III and IV and about a fortnight again between Acts IV and V, to allow Karabhaka to go from Kusumapura to Rāksasa and also to allow Malayaketu's camp to move from his capital and be near Kusumapura. That Acts IV and V are separated by about a fortnight is again shown by the remark of Malayaketu that he has not seen Rākşasa for a long time 18 That the action in Act VII takes place on the same day as that in Act VI is shown by the remark of the puruşa in Act VI viz. "Adya tāvad vyāpādyate'.19 A gap of a day or two seems to be necessary between Acts V and VI in view of the fact that Siddharthaka and Rşkşasa have come to Kusumapura from Malayaketu's camp which they have left at the end of Act V; and also that the former has not only seeni Cånakya but also (at his command) informed Candragupta of various incidents before ine meets his friend Samiddhārthaka in the interlude in Act V1.26 Thus it may be seen that the period of the Action covered by the drama actually extends from the full inoon day of Aśvina to the end of Märgaśīrṣa or thereabouts. But as we have alrcady seen above there are various incidents which have already taken place before the action represented in Act I, and which are only narrated on the stage later on under various devices. From Malayaketu's remark in Act IV (the full moon day of Mārgaśīrşa) that it was ten months since the death of his father we can conclude that Parvateśvara succumbed to the poison-maiden sometime about the ·120 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA middle of Phālguna. But on Cānakya's own statement21 the death of Parvateśvara occurred some time after Sarvārthasiddhi had left the capital for tapovana only to be killed there by his men. It, therefore, follows that the siege of Kusuma. pura by Candragupta must have commenced about the middle of Märgaśīrsa, nearly two months before the death of Parvateśvara. And making duc allowance for Canakya to make strong preparations for this siege by catching hold of Candragupta and forming an alliance with Parvateśvara, we may reasonably hold that the incident of Canakya being insulted by the Nandas must have taken place somewhere about the middle of Kārtika, the time of the Kaumudī festival. On the whole now we may conclude that the plot of the MR. (including the incidents that are merely introduced in the body of the play as matters of the past) covers a little over thirteen months from one Kaumudi ſestival approximately to about a month and a half after that very festival next year, though the incidents ūctually represented on the stage do not exceed a span of only about two) months and half from the middle of Asvina to the end of Märgaśīrsa. Unity of action is perhaps the strongest point in the art of Visakhadatta. Not that there are no minor cpisochis intro duced by him in the MR. ; but they are one and all kept strictly subservient to the main strory. Thus, for example, there are the stories of Candanadāsa, Sakatadāsa and Malayaketu ; but they, one and all, have been very cloverly interwoven with one another and again with the main story in such a way that they all together appear to form one story. Every incident and every thing that is introduced in the play ultimately leads to only one thing viz. the winning over of Rākşasa by Canakya. While reading the play at every point we feel as if we are witnessing a game at chess between two great experts who are moving their men with great porc- ·VIŠĀKIIADATTA AS A DRAMATIST 121 thouglit with the ultimate aim of giving a crushing defeat to the opponent. Just as every move in such a play is only a part and parcel of the whole game, similarly in this play also cach and every incident is only a part and parcel of the main theme viz. the contest between the two politicians. As the play procecds Visakhadatta has given a number of details one after another and also introduced several things which hardly seem to be connected with one another or even with the main theme. Thus in Act I are introduced the ornaments of Parvateśvara and we hardly suspect that they are going to play any important role in Cānakya's scheme. Similarly the ornaments of Malayaketu in Act II, the very ring of Rākşasa, the feigned quarrel and the consequent split between Cānakya and Candragupta afford fine illustrations of the skill of Visakhadatta so far as the unity of action is concerned. It is not until the fifth Act that Viśākhadatta stops spreading out the cob-web of things and cvents and begins to bring them together and lead them on to the denouement. If we look at the several Acts from the point of view of the development of the plot as leading to the ultimate aim, we may observe that Act I marks only the beginning where we get a good idea of the plans of Canakya, but are yet ignorant of Rākşasa's plans. Act II shows a dcterioration in the situation of Rākşasa whose prospects scern to grow brighter from the end of that Act upto the end of Act III. Act IV shows how though Rākşasa feels that he is heading for success, certain other events are taking place without the knowledge of Rākşasa which make his success doubtful in the eye of the spectators. Act V completely shatters the hopes of Raksasa and makes him think of saving his friend Candanadāsa. Thus the aim is partly achieved. It only remains now to convince Rakışasa that there was no other way of saving his friend but to surrender-not only his own person, but even his main contention, his aim to remain faithful to his old masters even after their annihila- ·122 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA tion--and accept the ministership of Candragupta. That done, Cānakya relinquishes his ministership in favour of Raksasa and ties his hair as a sign of the fullilment of his vow. This brings us to a consideration of the construction of the MR. according to Sanskrit works on dramaturgy. Visakhadatta has shown his deep acquaintance with the dramatic technique at IV. 3 where he has compared the strain that a minister like Rākşasa has to undergo with that of a good play-wright. According to this theory there are five arthapraktis" and an equal number of kūryāvasthuis ; * and a combination of these each to cach serially gives rise to what are technically called the sandhis,+ which also are, consequently, five in number. Thus the first sandhi, the muklia, is formed by a combination of bīja and ärambha.24 In Act I Canakya, after making a statement of his ain, has made a beginning of his plan ; and fortunately enough has received from his spy the signet ring of Rākşasa, an event which may be said to mark the beginning of the ultimate attainment of his aim by Canakya. This portion of Act I forms the mukha-sandhi. Next in order is the pratimukha sandhi which combines in itself bindu and yatna.This covers the rest of Act I where the narration of the spy apparently supervenes the main purpose which is revived by what follows. Thus the forging of the document with a mention of the ornaments therein, sonding away of Siddharthaka with the document and the scal ring with some important instructions kept secret at this stage, and the absconding of Bhadrabhata and Bhāgunāyana and others--all these are in fact so many links in the scheme of Canakya to fetter Rākşasa. Patākā and Präptyāšī form the Garbha sandhi27 which here covers the whole of Act II. The narration of Virādhagupta forms the patākā, which in this case appears again to throw into background the main purpose; while the prāptyāśā is found in II. 2 and the following sentence, and also in II. 8 and the speech of Raksasa that ·VISĀKHADATTA AS A DRAMATIST 123 precedes it. The next two Acts form the Vimarsa sandhi28 which combines in itself prakarī and niyatāpti, which are to be found in Act III and the conversation between Räksasa and his spy in Act IV respectively. The last is the nirvahana sandhi which is kārya and phalāgama put together. This occurs in the remaining three Acts. Act V accomplishes the avāntara kārya viz. the nigraha of Malayaketu ; in the next Act is accomplished the main object viz. the winning over of Rākşasa ; while the last Act brings about the fruit most ardently wished for by Cāņakya viz. making Rākşasa accept Candragupta's ministership and thus making the latter's position secure and firm. It may be remarked here that Viśākhadatta's play may be pointed out as one of the finest illustrations of the Sanskrit dramatic technique.30 We have now to note one more measure of economy that has been adopted by Visakhadatta in his MR. and thus succoded in creating a cobweb of entangling situations calculatcd to keep up the interest of the spectator all through the play. It is the introduction of some very important things in the most innocent manner and making them serve several purposes one after another and pass through several hands. Thus in Act 1 is introduced the signet ring of Rākşasa by making the spy hand it over to Canakya with full information about it. It is used there again to scal a letter which is to be later on used against Rākşasa, and is then through Siddharthaka made to pass into the hands of Raksasa who is made to give it to his friend and writer Sakatadāsa with an instruction to use it in all further transactions. Before giving it to Rākşasa, however, Siddharthaka is made to use it to seal the ornament received by him from the latter. Thus the ring is used for the purpose of setting a scal to the letter and the ornament-box, both of which later on serve as evidence against Rākşasa himself. It has thus an interesting journey of its own in Acts I II and V. The ornaments of Parvatesvara come next. They ·124 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA are introduced, (but not actually produced and shown on the stage), in Act I very innocently again inasmuch as at that time we are hardly conscious of the great disaster that they are going to bring upon Rākşasa in Act V. The very fact that Canakya has sent Brāhmaṇas of his acquaintance to receive them from Candragupta and asked them to see hin witli them, does give rise to a fceling that they are to form part of Cāņakya's machinery ; but we do not realize their importance at this stage. Thus the ornaments naturally fall into the possession of Candragupta after the demise of Parvatesvara ; and from him through Viśvāvasu and his brothers they go to Cānakya who arrange to send them to Malayaketu's land only to be bought by Sakatadāsa for Rākşasa whose fall they are to bring ultimately, These ornaments also we see passing through several hands and serving different purposes in Acts I, II, and V. Nor are the ornaments of Malayaketu any way less important from the dramatic point of view. In Act II Malayaketu is made to send the ornaments from his own person to Rākşasa as a sign of friendship with a pressing request that Rākşasa should put on the same. It is towards the end of the same Act that Rākşasa is made to part with it in his ecstacy at the rescue of his dear friend Sakatadāsa from the clutches of Canakya and the jaws of death. Siddharthaka is, however, made to seal the same with the ring of Rākşasa himself then in his possession and deposit it in the treasury of Raksasa himself with a plausible excuse. It is later on in Act V that we see Siddhārthaka moving out with this ornament-box with Rākşasa's seal and trying to go out to Kusumapura apparently on an errand of Rākşasa, but without a passport. Naturally, therefore, he is caught and produced before Bhāgurāyana who cross-examines him. Siddharthaka then cleverly drops the ornament-box which is naturally construed by Mālayaketu in the light of a statement in the letter recovered from him. Inspite of Rākşasa's explanation Malayakelu is ·VISĀKHADATTA AS A DRAMATIST 125 firmly convinced that Rākşasa was sending the ornament to Candragupta as a present accompanying the letter. The importance of the letter forged by Cānakya through Sakatadasa can hardly be exaggerated. For it is this letter that turns the whole scale against Rākşasa by thoroughly prejudicing Malayaketu's mind against him, and making Malayaketu construe other matters also differently in that light. This letter when it is read out in Act V throws a flood of light on the whole plan of Cāņakya to cause a split between Malayaketu on the one hand and Rākşasa and his other Mleccha allies on the other ; and we are struck by the keen insight commanded and displayed by Canakya in devising this plan almost on the spur of the moment in Acť I. From the point of view of stage-craft we have to note in the MR. three different factors viz. stage directions, sudden shifting of scenes from one place to another, and the bifocal scenes. The stage directions refer not only to the speeches which may be svagata, prakāśa or janāntika, 11 nor again to the entrance or exit of dramatis personae or the manner of their entrance or appearance on the stage, but even to the facial expressions and other signs such as the throbbing of the Some also refer to some noise behind the curtain. With these stage directions one will be justified in concluding that the play is meant to be acted on the stage ; and this conclusion finds confirmation in the very opening sentence in the prologue. They also show that the stage had a curtain (screening the tiring room) which could be tossed aside2 for the purposes of hurried entrance by a character on the stage, and also another short curtain called javanikā with a windowlike hole in it. This latter appears to have been moveable so that a person could stand screened by it as long as he wanted, but could set it aside at will and appear on the stage.34 More than once in the MR. we see the scene of action shifting suddenly from one place to another. Thus in Act III, for left cye.

·126 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA example, we find the scene shifting from the sugiiga palace to the abode of Canakya, and from there again back to the palace. Similarly in Act V it shifts from Malayaketu's place: to Rākışasa's abode there, and then back again to Malayalketu's place. Such sudden shifts in immediate sequence can be represented on the stage with the help of curtains only. Thus it follows that beside the nepathya and the javaniki, the Indian stage was also cquipped with one or two more curtains which could be dropped or liſted according to the requirenunts of the play.35 The biſocal scenes pre-suppose a still further developinent in stage-craft. Thus in Act IV, for example, we see how while Rākışasa is holding conversation with Viridhagupta in this abode, Malayaketu and Bhāgurāyana standing outside are over-hearing them and passing remarks on what they hear. A similar scene occurs in Act V also with Bhāgurāyana on one side and Malayaketu and Kşapanaka on the other. In such cases the spectators are expected to witness all the persons on the stage (i.c. those inside as well as those outside): but the persons on one side are not expected to see or hear the persons on the other side, and vice versa. IIence it follows that the stage must have been divided into two parts (right and left) both facing the spectators and separated from each other by a curtain. The stage in Ancient India thus appears to have been fairly well developed and equipped with curtains for different purposes. We now close this chapter by making a few observations about Viśākhadatta as a poet. It is clear that he can never risc to the height and sublimity of Kālidāsa or Bhavabhūli. In prose as well as in poetry his is a laboured style, more beſitting a scientific than a literary work. His prose abounds in technical terms, expressions, and ideas; and though free from very lengthy sentences, or involved constructions, is yet full of compounds of varying length. His poetry is more artificial ·VISĀKHADATTA AS A DRAMATIST 127 still and hence more difficult also. This defect he has tried to make up by the width and depth of his scholarship, using a large number of alamkāras like upamā, rūpaka, utprekṣā, śleşa, arthāntara-nyása, aprastuta-prasaṁsā and samāsokti. He has also used a large variety of metres ranging from the aņuştubh to the sragdharā (among the samavýttas), only two among the vişama vịttas viz. the mälyabhāriņi and the puşpitāgrā, and the vipulā and the pathyā varieties of the āryā meter. In this connection it may be observed that Višākhadatta in the MR. has shown a partiality for the lengthy metres like the sragdhrā and the sārdūla-vikrīdita. Befitting the laboured style he has often drawn on nyâya, arthaśāstra, nātya and jyotih-sõstra for his similes and metaphors, and in several cases indulged in śleșa which becomes boresome when reduced to a mere word jugglery. Vişākhadatta's style is rugged and forceful on the whole ; and he can hardly rank among the best Sanskrit poets with his occasional tautologics, and forced double entendre, though he may easily be admitted to stand very high among the stars of the second magnitude in the galaxy of Sanskrit play-wrights.

·CHAPTER VII SOCIETY AS DEPICTED IN THE MUDRĀ-RAKSASA In an admittedly political play like the MR. it is but inpossible to find a full reflection of the socicly in all its aspects. But at the same time it is a matter of general experience that no literary work of any value can be thoroughly devoid of any glimpses of the contemporary state of society. We may, therefore, make an attempt here on the basis of the glimpses available in the MR. to depict the social, religious and political conditions obtaining in the day of Visakhadatta. Caste-system was not only fully developed but even had a thorough hold on the society. The Brāhnianas were held in high esteem and respect by the rest of the society. On feastive and religious occasions they were invited for dinner and given good dakşiņā. At obscquial rites the ornaments and other things belonging to the departed souls were given to them as religious gifts. Some Brāhmaṇas were well up in politics and other Sāstras and worked as ministers or even Spies. Others were learned in the Vedic lore only; and as a rule were notorious for their illegible hand.' The Kayastha, on the other hand, was noted for beautiful hand-writing, though he se'ls to have carried little weight in the sphere of politics. The Vanik was generally noted for his cupidity, and amassed vast amount of wealth. When however occasion demandled it, he was also prepared to stake (very thing belonging to liimnay even his wife and children. For the sake of a friend he would undergo any risk; and would even consign himself to fire or hang himself to death just to avoid hearing the harrowing news of a friend's execution. The worse side of the castesystem, however, is seen when we find that untouchability is ·SOCIETY AS DEPICTED IN THE MUDRĀ-RĀKŞASA 129 also present and that Candālas (and presumably persons of some other classes also) are regarded as untouchable.3 Religious sacraments and observances are also casually referred to in our play. Thus on festival days or on religious occasions like the moon-eclipse it was customary to ask Brāhmaņas to dinner and give them dakşiņā. Religious rites were also performed with reference to the departed relatives and even friends and allies, though sometimes such rites were deferred with a view to wreak vengeance on the wrong-doer. At such obsequal rites it was customary to give away to learned Brāhmaṇas the ornaments and other belongings of the deccased. Importance of religious gifts was generally recognized so much so that a man before immolating himself often gave away all his wealth to the poor. 5 The custom of anumarana seems to have been fairly common, Friends often consigned themselves to fire or hanged themselves to death for the sake of a friend whom they could render no active help in his worst calamity. Inspite of what Kālidāsa and Bāna have said against this custom of anumarana, even women had recourse to this expedient in the full belief that to follow the husband in his death (or negatively, not to desert him at the point of death) is only a duty of a true wife & Nay anumarana is nothing short of ātmānugraha.? One consideration which might prevail against this course is only a young helpless child. But there seem to have been cases where even this consideration carried no weight. This custom does not, however, seem to have been compulsory for all ; and hence we find Malayaketu's mothers not immolating themselves and continuing to live even after the death of his father. It is perhaps likely that the custom was prevalent more among the Āryas than among the Mlecchas. Nothing is known from the play as regards the forms of marriage prevailing at that time. But from a simile in Act I it appears that a married woman was expected to be very M.I.-9 ·130 INTRODUCTION TO TIIE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA quietly and modestly waiting on her husband and the elderly persons of the family. Re-marriage seems to be allowed within the gotra or family of the deceased husband on certain conditions for all classes of people, and it was only women of low classes or character that transgressed this rule and took the liberty of marrying even outside the gotra of their deceased husband.10 Nor are theistic ideas wanting in our play. God Siva holding both the Ganges and the sasikalā on his head is described as indulging in a crooked specch with his wife, the simple Pārvatī,11 Another stanza12 describes his body smeared with bhasma, covered in elephant's hide, and decked with a garland of skulls. God Vişnu also is described as just waking up in his serpent bed, his eyes reddish and only half opened ; while the Varāha incarnation of the same god is referred to in the bharata-vākya.14 People generally paid obeisance to the new moon,15 and the sun also was an object of worship.16 Partly credulous is the idea of the God of Death and his pata. Man can live only through his favour ; for it is he who snatches away the lives of all, even those of the devotees of other deities. 17 Yamapata is used as a means of livelihood even as we find it sometimes used even to-day. This only shows how people then had strong though credulous belief in the accounts of the tortures of hell described in puranas and and vividly painted in the yamapata. Yama was helped in his work by Citragupta who kept a record of all the persons whose lives are to be snatched away.18 Of the heterodox system only two are referred to in the play. Buddhism seems to have been in a flourishing condition and enjoying a general approval. The conduct of a Buddha was looked upon as being remarkably above reproach-nay cven worthy of approbation. 19 Jainism also was fairly spread ; though it does not seem to enjoy the same honour and respect as its compeer. The sight of a kşapanaka was considered an ·SOCIETY AS DEPICTED IN THE MUDRĀ-RĀKŞASA 131 ill omen. 20 The main reason for this prejudice, however, seems to be the loathsome sight (bībhatsa darśana) that he presented, so much so that if he did not present a loathsome sight his appearance was not so much detested.21 On the whole, however, people seem to have imbibed a spirit of tolerance towards of all sects-a fact which generally may be said to be the badge of Hinduism, as can be inferred from the fact that even a kşapanaka could not only be a servant and friend of a Brāhmana minister, but be even his spy. Various credulous beliefs also are found to be prevailing. The moon-eclipse, it was believed, was caused by the wicked graha Kotu overpowering (and swallowing) the moon.22 Feeding Brāhmaṇas on such occasions was considered as a religious duty. The idea of ill omens also was present. Thus the sight of a serpent, 23 or that of a Kşapaņaka was considered inauspicious. The same was the case with the throbbing of the left eye. Another such credulity is represented in the MR. by what is known as a patākā-sthāna.25 The occurrence of several of these in the MR. and the remarks on those occasions passed by persons like Cāņakya and Rākşasa may easily be admitted as being suggestive of the belief of the generality of people in their prophetic powers.25 Among the family relations the wife was very loving and dutiful towards her husband. She gave her husband a hearty send off when he set out on a journey, and returned home after seeing him off upto a certain distance. During his absence from home she naturally looked after the household and her children. When, however, the husband was going out never to return (as when being led to the impaling station) she would not return home. She would rather keep him company even in his death leaving even her young children to the care of the Almighty.26 This course, however, was not followed by all; and in the MR. also we see the mothers of Malayaketu continuing to live even after their sad bereavement, pos- ·132 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA sibly with a desire to see with their own cyes their son avenging the wrong perpetrated by the enemy. Nor was the husband less loving or dutiful. Before going away from home he would, if necessary, arrange for the safety of his wife (and also children), and sometimes would even keep them with a friend. Though himsell in adverse circumstances he would try to consol and cheer up his wife and also to dissuade her from immolating herself at least for the sake of the children if for nothing else. The father as a rule cared for the wellare of his children ; and if he chanced to meet an unusual kind of death, he would be always careful to impress on the mind of his son that he was meeting his end not for any fault of his, but for some noblc cause. Character was the most important thing in his eye; and his one desire was that his children should not think of him as a moral wreck. The son, on the other hand, was all respect for the father, and was also obedient to him. Naturally he would feel quite helpless at the idea of his going to meet an untoward end; and would request him, if possible, to give him somc last picce of guidance and advice, particularly as to what he should do thercaſter. He would, of course, be all pride at the idea that his father has been upright all his life through and was sacrificing himself in the cause of a friend ; and would take it as a family vow. It is needless to add that mother was loving towards her children and served as a guide to him, particularly in the absence of her husband. When, however, caught between the Schylla and the Charibdis of two duties (that to her husband and that to her children) she would care more for the former and Icave the children to the care of gods. More important still is a friend whose touch-stone is adversity. Very few indeed, are there who would even care to see a person in his adversity, much less speak to him a few consoling words or render any active help27 Others merely shed tears finding themselves unable to render any active help.28:

·SOCIETY AS DEPICTED IN THE MUDRĀ-RĀKŞASA 133 But truer friends would undergo any risk for the sake of a friend. They would remain faithful even at the risk of losing not only their wealth, or wife and children, but even their life.20 It is no wonder then if one left one's wife and children in the house of such a friend before undertaking a serious task involving great risk. Friends, particularly when meeting after a long period of separation, naturally enough expressed their love and concern for one another and, sometimes even went to the length of blaming one another for causing delay.30 This blame is, after all, only more apparent than real; and soon the friends plunged into deeper matters acquainting one another with the important matters and events that they might have come to know during the period of separation. Some friends are so very loving and tender-hearted that they simply can't bear the idea of having to hear the harrowing news of the execution of a friend ; and to avoid it, therefore, would either consign themselves to fire or hang themselves to death.31 Sometimes a friend might unwittingly do something which would bring a person into trouble, and thus create a misunderstanding about himself and his fidelity in the eye of that person. The more fortunate ones32 among such friends may live to see the fog lifted ; but the less fortunate ones33 might succumb to the evil effects of the misunderstanding without getting any chance of clearing themselves. Faithless friends, however, are not wanting. Outwardly such persons profess to be good friends and are sweet-tongued, so that they are hardly suspected to be otherwise than what they appear to be. But it is such so-called friends alone that by their alluring speeches and talks oſten mislead a person and lead him to his ruin. There is nothing striking if a man risks his all-even his life--for a friend who has shown his friendship by similar actions. But the more magnanimous type of friend would go a step further and even forgive the insults and injuries inflicted on him by a former friend and ally, now turned into an enemy. 34 ·134 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA Servants, as a general rule, appear to have been more faithful than otherwise to their original masters, though they may also be found to act treacherously to the masters in whose employ they put themselves under some pretext or the other. They are in all matters so completely subservient to their masters that they can't even make a free use of their senseorgans, and very often have to stifle their conscience.65 Naturally therefore, several of them seem to be devoid of any conscience whatever, though there are a few who are yet subject to the pricking of their conscience, which, of course, they are obliged to suppress in view of their servitude. A servant, it seems, could have no sense of self-respect, and had to do any thing or assume any role-even the meanest one--in implicit obedience to his master's will. A dog's living is, indeed, a synonym for service in Sanskrit. 37 Masters were, no doubt, very often quite considerate and even kind to their servants. But some masters like Canakya were more feared than loved. Masters were not, however, wanting, who were soft-hearted and would be touched to the quick at the sad plight of their servants. They were also generous and gave away presents to their servants for bringing some glad tidings or doing some good service. One more relation of which we catch a glimpse in the MR. is that between the teacher and the taught. The latter was generally all respect for the former; and had grcat regard for his learning.38 He gave implicit obedience to his preceptor and in return received vidyā from him. There are, however, certain cases where disciples paid scant courtesy to their preceptors and insulted them.30 though good pupils like Candragupta would look upon such an action as a grave crime. The preceptor, on the other hand, scems to have had full control over his disciple, who often stayed with him. Naturally he would rather be short-tempered with his disciple, though some of his kind, being conscious of their defect, tried ·SO On. SOCIETY AS DEPICTED IN THE MUDRĀ-RĀKŞASA 135 to check themselves and appeared apologetic whenever they happened to fall a prey to it. 41 We don't get a clear idea of the various professions followed in those days. But we find the play referring to some of them viz. Yamapata, serpent-play, astrology, medicine, and The idea about these that we get from the play does not differ much from what we know of them even to-day. The same may be said about festivals in general as can be inferred from what we know of the Kaumidī festival. Flesh-eating was common; and flesh was regularly sold in shops.42 Drinking was looked upon as a vice, but at public festivals or on feastive occasions people seem to have indulged in wine to some extent. Woman and hunting are vices and were generally avoided by the people. Royal servants in particular had to be above all these vyasanas; and those who were found addicted to any of these were liable to be punished.43 The play is steeped in a political atmosphere all through, and we not only come across several technical terms of politics but even a very large number of political ideas as also a good deal of information about kings, ministers, and spies in particular. The king was an absolute monarch, and had full control over his subjects. Some kings, however, did not look to the administration themselves, but left it wholly to their ministersta and remained engrossed in enjoyment and festivals. Such kings naturally were completely dependent on their ministers, so much so that they were at times even insulted by the latter in case they questioned the accuracy or advisability of the course that was being followed. Under these circumstances the kings had either to swallow the insult or punish the overbearing ministers. In fact the king could not only dismiss his minister but even sentence him to death,45 though the latter course was only sparingly adopted. More generally ·As a 136 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA perhaps the affairs of the state were conducted by the king in consultation with his minister. From the point of view of his relation with his minister thus the king was other svāyattasiddhi, sacivāyattasiddhi, or ubhayāyattasilahi. The commands of a king were proclaimed at various places (called ghoşanā-sthānas) and were implicitly obeyed. Even the slightest disrespect shown to his command was sure to rouse his indignation, and bring ruin on the culprit. general rule the king was devoted to the well-being of his subjects; and in return expocted from them nothing but full loyalty. 47 Some kings, no doubt, were covetous and cared more for the wealth of their subjects than any thing else. Rājāpathya, however, was in any case a very serious offence and would bring total annihilation on its perpetrator. Everybody therefore avoided rājāpathya (treason in general) at least to save himself and his family, if for nothing else. 48 A king's lot, however, was not considered to be very cnviable, particularly if he would be a king in the real sense of the term. 10 If the king was the first member of the state (pradhana prakſti), the minister was the next in order. In practice sometimes he was all in all, particularly when the king remained completely indifferent to the affairs of the state. But even when the king was quite alive to his dutics as a king, the minister had his own importance and responsibilities, so much so that it was he who was held generally responsible for any wrong committed by the king.50 He was, therefore, as a rule expected to be not only shrewd and brave but also, above all, loyalsi to his king; and it was not quite casy to find a person endowed with all these qualities. The idea that kings were often swayed by their ministers is hinted at by Viſakhadatta by comparing the former with elephants or serpents and the latter with mahats or snake-catchers.52 Ministers were expected to be upright and disinterested, though some fell very ·SOCIETY AS DEPICTED IN THE MUDRĀ-RĀKŞASA 137 short of their requirements and did nothing better than lavishing eulogies on their lord and bread-giver.53 The fate of the state depended not merely on the king, nor again merely on the abilities of the minister, but on both, on their mutual and hearty co-operation and confidence. Howso-ever clever a minister may be, he is sure to be defeated in his aims and undertakings if he finds himself associated with an unworthy prince. Mutual distrust between the king and his minister always results in a political breakdown of the state ; while mutual confidence will lead even less talented ministers to success.54 Thus inspite of the absolute monarchy that apparently was the rule of the day, it seems to have been held that the king should follow the rājadharmas and do every thing in consultation with his ministers. Spies are often described as the eyes of the king, and are of great use and importance in the political world. A spy was expected to be adept in languages of the different parts of the country and expert in assuming various disguises.55 This was but natural because he was required to go to different parts of the land and gather information by moving among various kinds of people. He generally assumed such disguises as would enable him to have a free access to any place, even that of a minister, and would at the same time be above all suspicion. And the best disguises seem to have been those of a snakecatcher, a yāmapatika, or a religious mendicant-even buddhist or jain or an astrologer who had access to all houses and could talk to all sorts of people high and low. Inspite of the detailed instructions that they received from their employers, the spies had often to use their own ingenuity and decide the course of action to be followed on the spur of the moment. They were, therefore, required to be men of good calibre. At times spies were required to get themselves employed in the service of the enemy and do their work very cautiously, sometimes even at the risk of their own lives. The slightest mis- ·138 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKŞASA take on the part of a spy in such cascs would not only cost his life, but even frustrate the whole plan of his master and bring destruction on the state. Thus we see that spies had to play a very active part in the political world by wandering through different peoplc under various disguises and gathering information, or by getting into the services of the enemy in different departments and waiting for an opportune moment to carry out the instructions of their master. Implicit obedience and staunch fidelity were strictly expected from the spies and any one showing the slightest sign to the contrary ran the risk of being sentenced to death. Punishments seems to have been very severe...nay cruel. Flogging was common and was generally resorted to for extorting confessions from a culprit and also for wringing the required information from him. Confiscation of all the belongings, imprisonment together with wife and children, and expulsion were the usual punishments for a person suspected of sedition. Nor is capital punishment less common. rally was awarded in the form of impalement; but in particular cases it took the form of poisoning, burning or burying alive, 57 or tying to the feet of an clephant.** A person sentenced to death was led to the vadhya-sthāna dressed in red garments with a garland of red flowers and the süla on his neck59 through the main street of the town proclaiming at several places the crimes committed by him and also the punishment awarded to him. Offenders could as a general rule be ransomed with large amounts of money ; but this was not allowed in the case of persons accused of sedition, who could secure their release only by proving by their action that they were not seditious.co Recluses and monks seem to have been exempted from capital punishment, the highest punishment in their case being expulsion from the land with disgrace. All punishments were given by the minister, but the capital punishment seems to have been a special prerogative of the ·SOCIETY AS DEPICTED IN THE MUDRĀ-RĀKŞASA 139 king6! even when he has left the whole administrative affair to his minister. On feastive occasions all prisoners were released unconditionally.62 The army consisted of four parts, elephants, cavalry, chariots and infantry. Of these, however, the first two seem to have been more highly valued than the others.63 These together with territory and treasure formed the strength of a king ; and hence it is these that these were always coveted and prized more than any thing else.64 The sword and the bow seem to have been the most common weapons of war; and a coat of mail was also common. The art of war-fare was not restricted to this or that particular class; and even Brāhmaņas appear to be quite well up in it. They even at times led an expedition themselves.65 The Mlecchas on the whole seem to have been held in a low esteem by the Āryas, 66 though alliance between the Āryas and the Mlecchas appears to be quite common. Defeated monarchs were taken captives before the victorious kings who sometimes took a lenient view and ordered them to be released or even re-instated. But as a general rule it would appear that the principalities of such princes were annexed to that of the victor ; and even when the former were allowed to retain them, their position would be only subordinate to the latter. Among the flora and fauna our play mentions only the lion,67 the elephant-particularly its two varieties vyāla68 and ekacara, 60 the honey-making bees, 70 the skrasa, 71 the hamsa72 and the pea-cock.73 The geographical references74 in the play include Cīna, Kulūta, Sindhudeśa, Malaya, and Kāśmira in addition to the city of Pataliputra, the mountain Himālaya, 25 the rivers Sonam and the Gangā," and the Southern Ocean.78 Besides the Hūnas we find Sakas, Sabaras, Khaśas, Gāndhāras, and Yavanas79 mentioned by Visakhadatta and referred to by the general term Mleccha, which would appear to have been applied to all foreigners in general. The concluding stanza of ·80) 140 INTRODUCTION TO TIE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA the play tells us that the prince, during whose reign it was composed, had rescued the carth from the scourge of the Mleccha, who had been harrassing it time and again. After this broad survey of the state of society as depicted in the MR. a few words must be said to do away with the misunderstanding that the MR. depicts a state of society marked by low morality. Such a conclusion regarding the state of society in general is vitiated by the fact that MR is mainly a political play, and whatever morally objectionable actions have occurred therein, have one and all occurred in the sphere of politics only. It is, therefore, wrong on the basis of these actions to draw any conclusions regarding the society in general outside the sphere of politics. If, on the other hand, we look to the other incidents and characters outside the political atmosphere and also the thoughts and actions entertained by the politicians themselves in their private and individual capacities we find the code of morality certainly very enviable. Fidelity loyalty, truthfulness, firmness, sincerity, love and fellow-feeling, and the spirit of self-sacrifice are the qualities noticeable in almost every character high or low. Even those who have displayed the qualitics of cruelty, treachery, infidelity, ingratitude, falsehood and forgery have done so only out of some political reasons, and not for their private or personal gain or animosity. Even these characters. it must be noted, in their personal capacitics, divested of their political responsibilities and purposes have shown a high standard of morality as can be easily seen from the fact that minister of the position of Canakya lived in but a poor hut, and rcſuscd to bend even before the sovereign ; 81 that a spy like Bhāgurāyana feels the sting of his conscience that he has to act trcacherously towards the fully confiding Malayaketu ; 82 that an ordinary spy like Samiddharthaka is enraged at the idea that he should be asked to commit the heinous act of murdering a good man like Candanadāsa,83 that a poor spy like Siddhār- + ·SOCIETY AS DEPICTED IN THE MUDRĀ-RĀKŞASA 141 thaka should faithfully hand over the signet ring of Rākşasa to his master Cānakya without being tempted to melt it for himself ; 84 that Rākşasa, so cruel in devising various means to get Candragupta murdered, should be touched to the quick by the sad plight of Virādhagupta 385 that he again should show high appreciation of the worth of his very rival ; 86 that cven Cāņakya, hard-hearted and devoid of any emotion as he is, should insist on his accepting the ministership of Candragupta, and should relinquish it in his favour ; 87 or that Räksasa should desire that Malayaketu should be released in view of their past friendship inspite of his misconduct.88 Instances like these which can be easily multiplied by a perusal of the play, should be enough to brush aside any misconception about the moral level of the society of the day of the MR. And the impression gathered by these and such other instances is greatly heightened when we take into consideration the virtues displayed by Candanadāsa, his wife and son, Vişnudāsa and Sakaçadāsa. About the use of questionable means in the sphere of politics and the standard of morality revealed thereby it must be stated that even the twentieth century civilization with all its boastſulness can't afford to look down upon the ancient civilization with contempt. Can we not find a series of instances equally (at least, if not more) objectionable in the pages of the history of modern times? What century and what land can boast (with truth) of its politics being thoroughly above such blemishes ? Power-politics is sure to abound in such and even more blameworthy actions and events irrespective of the civilization and moral standard of the society as a whole, at least so long as politicians are politicians first and human beings afterwards.

·No text on this page.

·NOTES . 1 cf. राक्षसः-विष्णुगुप्त, न मां चाण्डालस्पर्शदूषितं स्प्रष्टुमर्हसि । चाणक्यः-भो अमात्यराक्षस, नेमा चाण्डालौ । अयं खलु दृष्ट एव भवता सिद्धार्थको नाम राजपुरुषः । योऽप्यसौ द्वितीयः सोऽपि समिद्धार्थको नाम राजपुरुषः एव । pp. 186 & 188. * 2 The honorific titles तत्रभवत् and भगवत् are applied to the ब्राह्मणs by both the नटी as well as the सूत्रधार. See p. 4. 3 It may be noted that भवभूति and भट्टनारायण, who were ब्राह्मण by caste, have no face in their plays. 4 cf. B. C. Law Volume, Part I, p. 51 n. Also see Pandit, The Signet Ring, p. 183 f. 5cf. Dhruva, Intr. p. xxi, n.9. 6 cf. Dhruva, Intr. p. vii and n. 3. 7 e. g. Prof Taranath and M. R. Kale. Prof. S. Ray also adopts this reading but identifies the king with TAUH II of the TH dynasty. K. T. Telang adopts this reading in the text, but seems to be inclined in his introduction to favour the reading अवन्तिवर्मा. 8 e. g. Dhruva, Jacobi, Macdonell and Rapson. 9cf. Dhruva, Intr. p. viii. 80 cf. Indian Antiquary, XL, pp. 265 ff. 11 cf. The Journal of The Mythic Society, 1923, pp. 616 f. 12 cf. For these see Dhruva, Intr. p. vii. 13 cf. Keith, p. 204 and n. 1. 14 cf. I. 20 with the preceding remark of चाणक्य. 15 cf. Dhruva, Intr., n. 32. 19 cf. बुद्धानामपि चेष्टितं सुचरितः क्लिष्टं विशुद्धात्मना । * The page-referances are to Prof. Deodhar and Bedekar edition of the मुद्रा-राक्षस.

·144 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MURĀRĀKŞASA 17 cf. म्लेच्छरुद्विज्यमाना भुजयुगमधुना संश्रिता राजमूर्तः। 18 cf. Krishn., p. 606, n. 8. 19 cf. Telang, Intr. p. 21 f. 20 Sisupālavadha I 47.is adduced as parallel to मु. राvii. 21. 21 The prologue, the scene between राक्षस and मलयकेतु in Act V, the scene at the place of execution casily remind us of the prologue, the trial scene, and the scene at the place of execution in the मृच्छकटिक. It may be interesting to pursue this topic in fuller details. 22 Bibliothica Indica (Hall ) 1865, p. 62. But the NSP. edition adopts the other reading. 23 See Krishn., para 632. 24 See Krishn., para 632. For an account of several of these, Read Dr. Raghavan, मुद्राराक्षसकथा, Intr. pp. 5.1 ff. 25 cf. तत् त्रिविष्टपमाख्यातं तन्वइग्या यद् वलित्रयम् । येनानिमेषदृष्टित्वं नृणामप्युपजायते ॥ No 1548. सेन्द्रचापैः त्रिता मेधैर्निपनिझरा नगाः । वर्णकम्बलसंवीता बभुर्मत्तद्विपा इव ॥ 1728. 26 I.46.5 and I.3.5. 27 cf. तत्र बृहत्कथामूलं मुद्राराक्षसम्- चाणक्यनाम्ना तेनाथ शकटालगृहे रहः । कृत्यां विधाय सहसा सपुत्रो निहतो नृपः ।। योगानन्दे यशःशेषे पूर्वनन्दसुतस्ततः । चन्द्रगुप्तः कृतो राजा चाणक्येन महौजसा ॥ इति बृहत्कथायां सूचितम् । p. 34. It may be noted here that these stanzas actually occur in the बृहत्कथामञ्जरी of क्षेमेन्द्र who, is admittedly later than धनिक, the author of the दशरूपावलोक. 28 cf. Dhruva, Intr. p. xix f.; and Haas, Intr. to FETETT, p. xxiii. 29 cf. B.C. Law Volume, Part I, p. 50, n. 2.

·NOTES 145 30 op. cit., p. 51. 31 For an analysis of the metres in the मु०रा० see Dhruva, pp. 117 f. 32 cf. तत् किं कुकविकृतनाटकस्येवान्यन्मुखेऽन्यनिर्वहणे । p. 156. 33 cf. कार्योपक्षेपमादौ तनुमपि रचयंस्तस्य विस्तारमिच्छन् वीजानां गर्भितानां फलमतिगहनं गूढमुद्भेदयंश्च । कुर्वन् बुध्या विमर्श प्रसृतमपि पुनः संहरन् कार्यजातं कर्ता वा नाटकानामिममनुभवति क्लेशमस्मद्विधो वा ।। 34 cf. न केवलमहं सर्पजीवी प्राकृतकविः खल्वहम् । p. 46. 35 cf. अन्तःकोप (p. 10), सहोत्थायिनः प्रधानपुरुषाः (p. 10), सचिवाय- तसिद्धि (p. 80), लेख्यपत्र (p. 84), अपराग (p. 86), प्रतिविधान, निग्रह, अनुग्रह (p. 88), अरिमित्रोदासीनव्यवस्था (p. 132), गुल्मस्थान (p. 132), 36 p.12. 37 cf. आर्ये, कृतश्रमोऽस्मि चतुःषष्टयङ्गे ज्योतिःशास्त्रे । तत् प्रवर्त्यतां भगवतो ब्राह्मणानुद्दिश्य पाकः । चन्द्रोपरागं प्रति तु केनापि विप्रलब्धासि । पश्य- ऋरग्रहः सकेतुश्चन्द्रं सम्पूर्णमण्डलमिदानीम् । आभभवितुमिच्छति बलात् रक्षत्येनं तु बुधयोगः ॥ p. 4. 38 cf. चतुःषष्टयने ज्योतिःशास्त्रे परं प्रावीण्यमुपगतः । p. 12. 39 cf. राक्षसः-भदन्त निरूप्यतामस्मत्प्रस्थानदिवसः। क्षपणकः-श्रावक, निरूपितः। आ मध्याह्नानिवृत्तसमस्तकल्याणा पौर्ण- मासी । युप्माकमुत्तरस्या दिशो दक्षिणां दिशं प्रस्थितानां च दक्षिणं नक्षत्रम् । अपि च अस्ताभिमुखे सूरे उदिते सम्पूर्णमण्डले चन्द्रे । गमनं बुधस्य लग्ने उदितास्तमिते च केतौ ॥ राक्षसः-भदन्त, तिथिरेव न शुध्यति । क्षपणकः-श्रावक, एकगुणा तिथिश्चतुर्गुणं नक्षत्रम् । चतुःषष्टिगुणं लग्नमेष ज्योतिषतन्त्रसिद्धान्तः ॥ तत् । लग्नं भवति सुलग्नं सौम्ये ग्रहे यद्यपि दुर्लग्नम् । वहसि दीर्घा सिद्धिं चन्द्रस्य बलेन गच्छन् । p. 118. M.I.-10 ·146 INTRODUCTION TO TIIC STUDY OF MIUDRĪRĪKSISA 40 cf. साध्ये निश्चितमन्वयेन घटितं बिभ्रत्सपले स्थिति व्यावृत्तं च विपक्षतो भवति यत्तत्साधनं सिद्धये। यत्साध्यं स्वयमेव तुल्यमुभयोः पक्षे विरुद्धं च यत् तस्याशीकरणेन वादिन इव स्यात् स्वामिनो निग्रहः ॥p. 1:38. 41 cf. त्रिपुरविजयिनः पातु वो दुःखवृत्तम् । 1.2. 42cf. III 21. 43cf II. 15. 44cf. II.4 45 cf. दुष्कालेऽपि कलावसज्जनरुची प्राणः परं रक्षता नीतं येन यशस्विनातिलघुतामौशीनरीयं यशः ॥ VII. 5. 46 cf. नटी:-आर्य, आमन्त्रिता मया भगवन्तो ब्राह्मणाः । सूत्रधारः कथय करिमानिमित्ते। नटी:-उपरज्यते किल भगवांश्चन्द्र इति। p.4. 47. cf. इच्छाम्यायेंणाभ्यनुज्ञातो देवस्य पर्वतेश्वरस्य पारलौकिक कर्तु तेन च धारितपूर्वाणि आभरणानि ब्राह्मणानां प्रतिपादयामीति । D. 20. 48 विशाखदत्त seems to have good regard for the forrner (cf. VII.6c); but the latter appears to have been low in general esteem as can be very well inferred from the general belief of the sight of a क्षपणक being inauspicions. (cf. राक्षसः-कथं प्रथममेव क्षणकः। ... अबीभत्सदर्शनं कारयित्वा प्रवेशयनम् । 2. 116). 49 cf सेवेयं मम चित्रकर्मरचना भित्तिं विना वर्तते । 50. see B. C. Law Volume, part I, p. 56, n. 2. 51 राजशेखर in his काव्यमीमांसा quotes a stanza which appruar's to refer to this incident. cf. दत्त्वा रुद्धगतिः खसाधिपतये देवी ध्रुवस्वामिना यस्मात् खण्डितसाहसा निववृते श्रीशर्मगुप्ता नृपः। तस्मिन्नेव हिमालये गुरुगुहाकोणकणकिनारे गीयन्ते तव कार्तिकेयनगरस्त्रीणां गण: कीर्तयः ।। 12.47 For details read Mujmudar and Altekar, A new IIistory of the Indian people, Vol VI, pp. 161-165 52 see B. C. Law volume, part I, p. 57 53 cf. Dhruva, Intro. p. xii 54 Nos. 1548 ann 1728 ·NOTES 147 CHAPTER III 1 cf. आशीर्वचनसंयुक्ता स्तुतिर्यस्मात् प्रयुज्यते। देवद्विजनृपादीनां तस्मानान्दीति संज्ञिता ॥ माल्यशङ्खचन्द्राब्जकोककैरवशसिनी। पदैर्युक्ता द्वादशभिरष्टाभिर्वा पदैरुत ॥ सा० द. VI. 24 f, 2 cf. नटी विदूषको वापि पारिपार्श्वक एव वा ॥ सूत्रधोरण सहिताः संलापं यत्र कुर्वते । चित्रैर्वाक्यैः स्वकार्योत्थैः प्रस्तुताक्षेपिभिर्मिथः । आमुखं तत्तु विज्ञेयं नाम्ना प्रस्तावनापि सा ॥ सा० द. VI. 31 f. 3 cf. क्रूरग्रहः सकेतुश्चन्द्रं सम्पूर्णमण्डलमिदानीम् । अभिभवितुमिच्छति बलात् रक्षत्येनं तु बुधयोगः ॥ I. 6. 4 cf. उद्धात्यकः कथोद्धातःप्रयोगातिशयस्तथा। प्रवर्तकावलगिते पञ्च प्रस्तावनाभिदः ॥ साद. VI. 33. 5 cf. यदि प्रयोग एकस्मिन् प्रयोगोऽन्यः प्रयुज्यते । तेन पात्रप्रवेशश्चेत् प्रयोगातिशयस्तदा ॥ सा० द. VI. 36 6cf. धनञ्जय defines कथोद्धात as follows:- स्वेतिवृत्तसमं वाक्यमर्थं वा यत्र सूत्रिणः । गृहीत्वा प्रविशेत् पात्रं कथोद्धातो द्विधैव सः॥द० रू. III 9 According to this view the TFATTHT of our play would be कथोद्धात based on वाक्य. 7 These are defined as follows: कालं प्रवृत्तमाश्रित्य सूत्रधृग्यत्र वर्णयेत् । तदाश्रयश्च पात्रस्य प्रवेशस्तत्प्रवर्तकम् ॥ यत्रैकत्र समावेशात् कार्यमन्यत् प्रसाध्यते । प्रयोगे खलु तज्ज्ञेयं नाम्नावलगितं बुधैः ।। सा० द. VI. 37 f. 8 Read : पदानि त्वगतार्थानि तदर्थगतये नराः। योजयन्ति पदैरन्यैः स उद्धात्यक उच्यते ।। यथा मुद्राराक्षसे सूत्रधार :- क्रूरग्रहः सकेतुश्चन्द्रं सम्पूर्णमण्डलमिदानीम् । अभिभवितुमिच्छति बलात् - .

·148 INTRODUCTION TO TIE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA इत्यनन्तरम् -- (नेपथ्ये) आः क एष मयि जीवति चन्द्रगुप्तमा भवितु- मिच्छति इति अत्र अन्यार्थवन्त्यपि पदानि हदिस्थार्थमत्या अर्थान्तरे संक्रमय्य पात्रप्रवेशः । सा० द. VI. 3.1.and वात Thereon. 9 गुणवत्युपायनिलये स्थितिहेतोः साधिके त्रिवर्गस्य । मद्भवननीतिविद्य कार्यादायें द्रुतमुपेहि ।। 10 क्रूरग्रहः सकेतुश्चन्द्रं सम्पूर्णमण्डलमिदानीम् । अभिभवितुमिच्छति बलान् रक्षत्येनं तु बुनयोगः ।। 11 This is shown by the fact That Aqua in det I clescribes जीवसिद्धि as one of the thrce persons in the capital, who were चन्द्रगुप्तादपरक्त, in the words प्रथमं तावदा यस्य रिपुपक्षे बद्धपक्षपातः क्षपणकः । P. 16. 12 कायस्थ इति लघ्वी मात्रा। तथापि न युक्त प्राकृतमपि रिपुमवज्ञातुम् । तस्मिन्मया सुहृच्छमना सिद्धार्थको विनिक्षिप्तः। P. 18 13 ननु वक्तव्यं राक्षस एवास्मदलिप्रणयी संवृत्त इति । P. 18. 14 भद्र श्रुतम् । अपसर । नचिरादस्य परिश्रमस्यानुरूपं फलमधिगमिष्यसि । (P.20 ) Also read the remark reported to have been passed by चाणक्य regarding the undue diligence or hastee shown by दारुवर्मन् in Act II 'अचिरादस्य दाक्ष्यस्यानुरूपं फलमधिगमिष्यसि दारुवर्मन् ।' P.50 15 अथवा न लिखामि । पूर्वमनभिव्यक्तमेवास्ताम् । P. 22 16 cf. वत्स, श्रोत्रियाक्षराणि प्रयत्नलिखितान्यपि नियतगस्फुटानि भवन्ति ! तदुच्यतामस्मद्वचनात् सिद्धार्थकः etc. P. 22 17 cf. चाणक्यः-(चिन्तां नाटयति । आवागतम् ) अपि नाम दुरात्मा राक्षसो गृह्येत। सिद्धार्थकः--आर्य गृहीतः चाणक्यः-(सहर्षमात्मगतम् ) हन्त, गृहीतो राक्षसः । (प्रकाशम् ) भद्र कोऽयं गृहीतः। सिद्धार्थकः-गृहीत आर्यसन्देशः । तद् गमिष्यामि कार्यसिन्छ । चाणक्यः -( साङ्गुलिमुद्रं लेखमपयित्वा) गम्यताम् । अस्तु ते कार्यसिद्धिः। 2.2.4. 18 भो श्रेष्ठिन्, एवमयं राजापथ्यकारिपु तीक्ष्णदण्डो न मर्पयिष्यति राक्षसकलत्र- प्रच्छादनं भवतः । तदक्ष परकलत्रेणात्मनः कलत्रं जीवित च । p.32 19 आर्य किं ये भयं दर्शयसि । सन्तमपि गेहे अमात्यराक्षसस्य गृहजन न समर्पयामि किं पुनरसन्तम् । p. 32.

·NOTES 149 20 चाणक्यः-(सहर्षम् ) हन्त, लब्ध इदानीं राक्षसः । कुतः त्यजत्यप्रियवत् प्राणान् यथा तस्यायमापदि । तथैवास्यापदि प्राणा नूनं तस्यापि न प्रियाः॥p. 34. 21 cf. (आत्मगतम्) दुरात्मन् राक्षस, केदानी गमिष्यसि । एषोऽहमचिरा- द्भवन्तम्- स्वच्छन्द कचरमुज्ज्वलदानशक्ति- मुत्सेकिना मदबलेन विगाहमानम् । बुध्द्या निगृश्य वृषलस्य कृते क्रियाया- मारण्यकं गजमिव प्रगुणीकरोमि ॥ p.36. 22 cf. II.Gand 7. 23 cf. तदहमाश्रयान्मूलनेनैव त्वामकामां करोमि । p. 42 24 cf. प्रतिक्षणमरातिवृत्तान्तोपलब्धये तत्संहतिभेदनाय च व्यापारिताः सुहृदा जीवसिद्धिप्रभृतयः । p. 42. 25 cf. तस्यैव बुद्धिविशिखेन भिनभि मर्म वर्माभवेद्यदि न दैवमदृश्यमानम् ॥ II. 8 cd. 26 cf. साधु अमात्यराक्षस, साधु । साधु श्रोत्रिय, साधु । साधु मन्त्रिबृहस्पते साधु । कुतः- ऐश्वर्यादनपेतमीश्वरमयं लोकोऽर्थतः सेवते तं गच्छन्त्यनु ये विपत्तिषु पुनस्ते तत्प्रतिष्ठाशया । भर्तुयें प्रलयेऽपि पूर्वसुकृताराशन निःसझ्या भक्त्या कार्यधुरं वहान्त बहवस्ते दुर्लभास्त्वादृशाः ॥ et seq. p. 10. 27 cf. न नः कौतूहलं सर्पेषु । p. 44. 28 प्रियंवदक, प्रवंशयनं सुकविरेषः । श्रोतव्यमस्मात्सुभाषितम् । p. 46 29 प्रियंवदक भुजरिदानी विनोदयितव्यम्। तद्विश्रम्यतामितः परिजनेन । त्वमपि स्वाधिकारमशून्यं कुरु । p. 46. 30 cf. कार्यव्यग्रत्वान्मनसः प्रभूतत्वाच प्रणिधीनां विस्मृतम् । इदानीं स्मृतिरुप- लब्धा । (p. 46.) Also cf. कस्मिन्प्रयोजने मयायं प्रहित इति प्रयोजानां बाहुल्यान्न खल्ववधारयामि । p. 100. 31 cf. अये विराध-( इत्यक्तेि) ननु विरूढश्मश्रु: p. 46. 32 cf. (शस्त्रमाकृष्य ससम्ध्रमम् ) आः मयि स्थिते कः कुसुमपुरमुपरोत्स्यति। प्रवीरक प्रवीरक क्षिप्रमिदानीम् -----et seq. p. 48.

·150 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NUTRĀRĀKSASA 33 cf. (निःश्वस्य) कष्टं वृत्तमिदम् । मया पुनीत स एवायं काल इति । (शस्त्रमुत्सृज्य) हा देव नन्द स्मरामि ते राक्षसं प्रति प्रगादातिशयम् । et sell. p.48. 34cf. II. 15 35 cf. (साढ़ेगम् ) सग्धे, कुतश्चाणक्यबटीः परितोपः । अफलमनिष्टफलं वा दारुवर्मणः प्रयत्नमवगच्छामि । p. 52. 36 cf. नियतमतिधूर्तन चाणक्यबटुना तस्यापि तपस्विनः कमप्युपांशुवधमा- कलय्य पर्वतश्वरविनाशेन जनितमयशः प्रमाष्टुंगषा लोकप्रतिलिपचिता । p. 52 37 cf. कथमत्रापि देवेनोपहता वयम् । p. 55. Also real :- (सास्रम् ) कष्टं भोः कटम् । सखे पश्य देवसम्पदं दुरात्मनश्चन्द्रगुप्तहतकस्य । कुतः et seg. p. 56. 38 cf. (स्वगतम्) साधु कौटिल्य साधु । परिहृतमयशः पातितमस्मासु च घातितोऽधराज्यहरः । एकमपि नातिबीजं बहुफलतामति यस्य तव ॥ p. 58. 39 cf. अथवा स्वाभ्यर्थमुपरतो न शांच्यस्त्वम् । वयमेवात्र शोच्या ये नन्दकुलविनाशेऽपि जीवितुमिच्छामः। P. 58. 40 cf. तत् किं परितुष्टः कथयसि अपवाहितं राक्षसकलत्रमिति । ननु वक्तव्यं संयमितः सपुत्रकलत्रो राक्षस इति । P. 60. 41 cf. तस्माच सुहृत्प्राणपरिरक्षणपरितुष्टात् पारितोषिकं प्रात्यम् । राक्षस एवं कंचित्काल सेवितव्यः । (p. 24 ;) also read: (स्वगतम् ) अयं स्वल्वायांपदेशः । भवतु । तथा करिष्यामि । (p. 62;) and जानात्येवामात्यो यथा चाणक्यबटुकस्य विप्रियं कृत्वा नास्ति पुनः पाटलिपुत्रे प्रवेश इति इन्छाम्यहममात्यचरणावेव शुश्रूषितुम् । P. 64. 42 cf. आर्य तातेन धृतपूर्वाणां विशेषतश्चन्द्रगुप्तहस्तगतानां वणिग्विक्रय इति न युज्यते । अथवा युज्यत एवैतत् । कुतः- चन्द्रगुप्तस्य विक्रेतुरधिकं लाभमिच्छतः । कल्पिता मूल्यमेतेपां करेण भवता वयम् ॥ P. 148. 43 cf. राज्यप्राप्तिकृतार्थमेकमपरं तीर्णप्रतिज्ञार्णवं सौहादात् कृतकृत्यतैव नियतं लब्धान्तरा भेत्स्यति ॥ II. 23 cd. 44 विश्वनाथ defines गर्भाव as follows:--- अकोदरप्रविष्टो यो रङ्गद्वारामुखादिमान् । अकोऽपरः स गभांकः सबीजः फलवानपि ॥ सा. द. V1. 20. Pammam ·NOTES 151 In his प्रियदर्शिका Act III श्रीहर्ष has made the maids of वासवदत्ता enact before her a play representing her early adventures with वत्स. We have two more instances of गाड़, one in भवभूति's उत्तर- रामचरित act VII and the other in राजशेखर' बालरामायण Act III. 45 This is defined as- किंबधीप्येवमित्यादि विना पात्रं ब्रर्वति यत् । श्रुत्वेवानुक्तमप्ये कस्तत् स्यादाकाशभाषितम् ॥ द. रू. I. 67. 46 cf. (स्वगतम् ) राज्यं हि नाम राजधर्मानुवृत्तिपरस्य नृपतेर्महदप्रीति- स्थानम् । et seq. P. 70 47 cf. दुराराध्या हि राजलक्ष्मीरात्मवाद्धरपि राजभिः । कुतः । et seq. P. 70. 48 cf. अन्यच । कृतककलहं कृत्वा स्वतन्त्रेण त्वया किंचित्कालान्तरं व्यवहर्तव्यमित्यार्यादेशः । स च मया कथमपि पातकमिवाभ्युपगतः। P. 70. 49 cf. III.6 50 cf. III.7-9 1cf. III. 15 52 cf. न शक्नुमो वयमार्यस्य वाचा वाचमतिशयितुम् । P. 90. 53 cf. सर्वथा अमात्यराक्षस एवात्र प्रशस्यतरः । and also III. 26. 54 cf. (विहस्य ) एतत् कृतं राक्षसेन । मया पुनर्जातं नन्दमिव भवन्तमुद्धृत्य भवानिव भूतले मलयकेतू राजाधिराजपदे नियोजित इति । P. 92. 55 ct. अन्येनैवेदमनुष्ठितम् । किमत्राय॑स्य । and नन्दकुलविद्वेषिणा देवेन । P.92. 56cf. विद्वांसोऽन्यविकत्वना भवन्ति । 57 cf. अनेन शुष्ककलहेन शिरोवेदना मां बाधते । P. 96. 53 cf. राक्षस राक्षस एष भवतः कौटिल्यबुद्धिविजिगीषोर्बुद्धेः प्रकर्षः । चाणक्यतश्चलितभक्तिमहं सुखेन जेष्यामि मौर्यमिति सम्प्रति यः प्रयुक्तः। भेदः किलष भवता सकलः स एव सम्पत्स्यते शठ तवैव हि दूषणाय ॥ P. 94. 59) आयज्ञियैव मम लहितगौरवस्य बुद्धिः प्रवेष्टुमिव भूविवरं प्रवृत्ता ! ये सत्यमेव हि गुरूनतिपातयन्ति तेषां कथं नु हृदयं न भिनत्ति लज्जा || III. 33.

·- 152 INTRODUCTION TO TUE STUDY OF MU'IWĀRĀKŞASA -- 60 cf. भद्र शनैर्मन्त्रय । एपोऽमात्यः कार्यचिन्ताजनितिन जागरण समुत्पन्नशापवेदनोऽद्यापि शगनं न मुबति। ". 98 61. cf. आयीः एप सल कुमारी मलय केतुः समापदनमगामराक्षस प्रोक्षतुमित एवागच्छति । I. 1:30. 62 cl. ( आकर्ण्य) सखे भागुरामण, :: : प्रगते । न तत्र तावदुपसामः । शृणमस्तावत् । p. 106. It must, however, Ix luoted that are has offered a plausible ground for what he has proposed to do. cf. कुतः । रात्वमाभयारामः कथयन्त्यमा पुरः। अन्यथा वितायपु स्वैरालापेषु मात्रणः ।। 10. 8. 63 cf. मलयकेतुः-सने भागुराग्रण, विज्ञानमिहागच्छदिगंभटप्रातिभिः यथा न वयममात्यराक्षराद्वारेण कुमारमाश्रयणीयमाश्रयामहे । किन्तु मारस्य गंगापति शिखरकमुरीकृत्य दुष्टामात्यपरिगृहीताचन्द्रगुप्तादपरताः कुमारमागिरासिकगुणयांगादा- श्रयणीयमाश्रयामह इति । तन्न मया सुचिरमपि बिचारमा तपामयं वाक्या- र्थोऽवधारितः। भागुरायणः- कुमार न दुर्बोधोऽयमर्थः । विजिगापुमात्गगुणसम्प, प्रियहितद्वारे- णाश्रयणीयमाश्रयेदिति तु न्याय एवायमर्थः । मलयकेतुः----सखे भागुरायण, नन्वमान्यराक्षोऽस्माकं प्रियतमो हिततगश्च । भागुरायणः-एवमेतत् । किन्त्वमाल्यराक्षराधाणक्ये बरशे न चन्द्रगुप्ते । तद्यदि कदाचिच्चाणक्यमतिजितकाशिनमसहमानः स साचिव्यादपरोपयेत्ततो नन्दकुलगवत्या नन्दान्वय एवायमिति सुहृजनापेक्षया चामात्यराक्षसश्चन्द्रगुप्तेन सह संदधीत । चन्द्रगुप्तोऽपि पितृपर्यायागत एवायमिति सन्धिमनुमन्येत । एवं सत्यस्मासु कुमारो न विश्वसेदित्ययमेषां वाक्यार्थः । मलयकेतुःयुज्यते । अमात्यस्य गृहमादेशय । I. 10.1. 64 ( आत्मगतम् ) कस्मिन् प्रयोजने मयायं प्रहित इति प्रयोजनानां बाहुल्यान खल्ववधारयामि । ( इति चिन्ता नाटयति) p. 100. 65 cf. शकटदास, एवमेतत् । गच्छ विश्रामय करमकम् । शकटदासः-तथा । ( इति पुरुषेण सह निकान्तः ) 10. 110. 66 cf. शकटदास नेदमुपपद्यते । पश्य । et sec. p. 110. 67 cf. अलमन्यथा विकल्प्य । उपपद्यत एवैतत् । पश्यलमात्यः । et seq. , p. 110.

·NOTES 153 68. cl. It may perhaps be argued that the presence of a dear friend like 1727 is not unnatural in view of the fact that राक्षस is suffering from headache. 6) cf. दिष्ट्या न सचिवायत्ततन्त्रोऽस्मि । p. 114. 70 cf. ऐकान्तिकामेव कार्यासमिवगन्तुमर्हति कुमारः। कुतः। et scq. p.114. 71 cl. IV. 16-17. 72 in fact it is HET alone who is shown to enter into the presence of 272727, with the remark BERATI FANG:!' (. 110) Nothing is here said about FTIGTETT. This may be interpretel to mean that भागुरायण did not accompany मलयकेतु into TUTT's presence. The same is shown again by the stage direction “यथार्हमुपविष्टी' the dual wherein shows that besides राक्षस and मलयकेतु there was none else there. After IV. 17, however, we get the stage-direction 'इति भागुरायणेन सह निष्कान्तो मलयकेतुः' (p. 116) which would mean that भागुरायण was present on the stage while 7575 was engaged in conversation with राक्षस. 73. cf. प्रायो भृत्यास्त्यजन्ति प्रचलितविभवं स्वामिनं सेवमानाः। IV. 21d. 74. cf. सर्वथा शिवाः पन्धानः सन्तु । ( p. 34 ); Also read तत्तत्कारणमुत्पाद्य कृतकृत्यतामापादिताश्चतसहोत्थायिनो भद्रभटप्रभृतयः प्रधानपुरुषाः । p. 101. 75. e.g. The letter which चाणक्य got written by शकटदास, the अलारs wich चाणक्य secured through विश्वावसु and his brothers from चन्द्रगुप्त, the ornaments sent to राक्षस by मलयकेतु etc. etc. 76. Ultimately perhaps the root of Tet's defeat may be said to lie in a trait in his own character viz full faith or absence of suspicion or cautiousness as it may be described negatively. It is obvious that this trait in his character is responsible for Suveral blunders committed by him. 77 For definitions of प्रवेशक and विष्कम्भक read:- वृत्तवतिष्यमाणानां कथांशानां निदर्शकः । संक्षेपार्थस्तु विष्कम्भो मध्यपात्रप्रयोजितः ॥ - ·15.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MURÄRĪKSASA एकानेककृतः शुद्धः संकीणों नाचमध्यमः । नदेवानुदानांकन्या नीचपात्रप्रयाजितः । प्रवेशाद्वयस्यान्तः शेषार्थस्योपसनकः ॥ द» !. 5ff. 78 This T of STEJTETUT is no less important from the dramatic point of view. It is owing to its absence that firarif is captivated and brought before भागुरायण who questions him in the presence. of मलयकेतु. It is here in fact that we evince: a beginning of the fall of राक्षस. 79 This situation, so far as stage arrangement is concerned, is similar to the one in the bifocal scene in Act IV. Even here मलयकेतु's mind is adversely affected by the information that: he gathers by overhearing the conversation between भागुरायण and क्षपणक. 80 cf. कष्टमेवमस्मामु स्नेहवान् कुमारो मलयकेतुरतिसन्धातव्य इत्यहो दुष्करम् । अथवा et sexy. P. 126. 81 cf. (स्वगतम् ) अहो राक्षसं प्रति विकल्पबाहुल्यादाकुला में बुलिन निश्चय- मधिगच्छति कुतः et scg. P. 126f. It may be observed here that मलयकेतु's mind has been very well prejudiced against T27 in Act IV; but yet (this remark of मलयकेतु shows) the poisoning is not complete. This is what is accomplished by the bifocal scene here. 82 cf. क्षपणक:-का गतिः । शृणोतु श्रावकः। अस्ति तावदह मन्दभाग्यः प्रथम पाटलिपुत्रे निवसन् राक्षसेन मित्रत्वमुपगतः। तस्मिन्नवसरे राक्षरोन गूढधिपकन्या- प्रयोगमुत्पाद्य घातितो देवः पर्वतेश्वरः । मलयकेतुः-(सबाप्पमात्मगतम् ) कथं राक्षसेन घातितो न चाणक्येन । भागुरायणः-भदन्त ततस्ततः । क्षपणकः-ततोऽहं राक्षसमित्रमिति कृत्वा चाणक्यहतकेन सनिकार नगरा- निर्वासितः। इदानीमपि राक्षसेनानेकाकार्यकुशलेन किमपि तादृशमारभ्यते येनाहं जीवलोकान्निष्कासिष्ये। भागुरायणः -- भदन्त, प्रतिश्रुतार्धमनिच्छता चाणक्यहतकेनेदमकार्यमनुष्ठितं न राक्षसेनेति श्रुतमस्माभिः। क्षपणकः-शान्तं पापम् । चाणक्येन विषकन्याया नामापि न श्रुतम् । P. 130 ·NOTES 155 - 83 cf. भदन्त, इयं मुद्रा दीयते । एहि कुमारं श्रावय । P. 130 84 cf. अये, श्रुतं मलयकेतुहतकेन । हन्त कृतार्थोऽस्मि । P. 130 85 cf. सग्वे भागुरायण, लेखमपनय । and मुद्रां परिपालयन्नुदाट्य दर्शय । P. 134 86 cf. राग्वे अयं लेखस्याशून्यार्थो भविष्यति । इमामपि मुद्रां परिपालयन्तुद्धाट्य दर्शय । P. 136 87 cf. (विलोक्य ) अये तदिदमाभरणं मया स्त्रशरीरादवतार्य राक्षसाय प्रेषितम् । व्यक्तं चन्द्रगुप्तस्य लेखः। P. 136 88 cf. (स्वगतम् ) कथं चित्रवर्मादयोऽपि मामभिद्रुह्यन्ति । अथवा अत एव तेषां राक्षसे निरतिशया प्रीतिः। P. 138 89 cf. (आत्मगतम् ) आपूर्णमस्मद्वलं चन्द्रगुप्तबलैरिति यत्सत्यं न मे मनसः परिशुद्धिरस्ति । कुतः- साध्ये निश्चितमन्वयेन घटितं बिभ्रत् सपक्षे स्थिति व्यावृत्तं च सपक्षतो भवति यत् तत् साधनं सिद्धये । यत् साध्यं स्वयमेव तुल्यमुभयोः पक्षे विरुद्धं च यत् तस्याङ्गीकरणेन वादिन इव स्यात् स्वामिनो निग्रहः ॥ अथवा विज्ञातापरागहेतुभिः प्राक्परिगृहीतोपजापैरापूर्णमिति न विकल्पयितुमर्हामि । P.138 90 cf. परिधापिताः कुमारेणाभरणानि वयम् । तन युक्तमनलङ्कृतैः कुमारदर्श- नमनुभवितुम् । अतो यत्तदलङ्करणत्रयं क्रीतं तन्मध्यादेकं दीयतामिति.। P. 140 91 cf. (आत्मगतम्) अधिकारपदं नाम निर्दोषस्यापि पुरुषस्य महदाशङ्का- स्थानम् । कुतः et seg. P. 140 92cf. V.13 93 cf. ( स्वगतम् ) कथं य एव मद्विनाशेन चन्द्रगुप्तमाराधयितुमुद्यतास्त एव मां परिवृण्वन्ति । P. 142 94 cf. राक्षसः-अवसितमिदानी गतागतप्रयोजनम् । अल्पैरेवाहोभिर्वयमेव तत्र गन्तारः! मलयकेतुः-(स्वगतम्) विज्ञायते । p. 142 95cf. (स्वगतम् ) अहो सुश्लिष्टोऽभूच्छत्रुप्रयोगः । कुतः । लेखोऽयं न ममेति नोत्तरमिदं मुद्रा मदीया यतः सौहार्द शकटेन खण्डितमिति श्रद्धेयमेतत् कथम् ।

·156 INTRODUCTION TO THIS STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA मौर्ये भूषणविक्रयं नरपती को नाम सम्भावयेत् तस्मात् सम्प्रतिपत्तिरेव हि वरं न ग्राम्यमत्रीत्तरम् ॥ p. 1.18. yti cf. कुमार य आयस्तं पृच्छ । क्यामिदानामनामा: संपत्ताः । p. 1.18 97 cf. राक्षसः---कुमार, एवमयुक्तन्याहारिणा निर्णया दत्तः । भवतु तव को दोपः। p. 1.18 98 cf. मलयकेतु:-(लेखमलारणस्थगिको चग) रामदानी किम् । राक्षराः-(सबाप्पम् ) विधिविलसितम् । .. See 1. 12. 1.51 99 cf. ( सरोपम् ) किमद्यापि नियत एव । विधः किराधान न लोभस्थ । अनाय et sey. p. 15.). 100 cf. राक्षस:-नाहं पर्वतेश्वरे विपकन्यां प्रयुकवान् । मलयकेतु:-केन तहि व्यापादितस्तातः । राक्षसः-देवगत्र प्रष्टव्यम् । मलयकेतुः-(सरोपम् ) देवमत्र प्राप्टव्यम् । न क्षपणको जीवतिः । राक्षसः-(स्वगतम्) कथं जीवसिनिदरपि चाणक्यप्रणिधिः । हन्त रिपुभिर्म हृदयमपि स्वीकृतमू । p. 150. 101 cf. राक्षस राक्षस नाई विश्रम्भघाती राक्षसः। मलय केतुः खल्वहम् । तद् गच्छ समाधीयतां सर्वात्मना चन्द्रगुप्तः। p. 152 102 cf. ( सावेगम् ) हा धिक् कष्टम् । तेऽपि घातिताश्चित्रपमादयस्तपस्विनः तत्कथं सुहृद्विनाशाय राक्षसश्चेष्टते न रिपुविनाशाय । तत् किमिदानी मन्दभाग्यः करवाणि । किं गच्छामि तपोवनं न तपसा शाम्येत् सर्वैरं मनः किं भर्तृननुयामि जीवति रिपो स्त्रीणाभियं योग्यता । किंवा खासखः पताभ्यरिबले नतच युफ भवे- चेतश्चन्दनदासमोक्षरभसं रुन्ध्यात्कृतघ्नं न चत् ॥ v. 25 103 वयस्य भद्रभटप्रमुखाः किल देवानन्द्रगुप्तादपरका मलयतुं समाश्रिता इति लोके मन्यते । तत् किं कुकविकृतनाटकस्येवान्यन्मुखेऽन्यनिर्वहणे । सिद्धार्थकः-वयस्य देवगत्या इवाश्रुतगत्यै नाम आयचाणक्यनीले । p. 156 Also read :-अतिमुग्धोऽसीदानीं त्वं यतोऽमात्यराक्षसेनाप्यनवगाहितपूर्वमाय- चाणक्यस्य चरितमवगाहितुमिच्छसि । p. 158 104 cf. तदिदानीमपि तावदरातिहस्तगतो विनश्येन तु राक्षसश्चन्द्रगुप्तेन सह संदधीत । p. 164 ।

·NOTES 157 105 cf. अथवा मम काममसत्यसन्ध इति वरमयशो न तु शत्रुवश्चनपराभूत इति । p. I61 106 cf. अत्र प्रविश्य कुतश्चियन्दनदासप्रवृत्तिमुपलप्स्ये । p. 164 107 cf. पुरुषः अथ पुनः केनोपायेन त्वं चन्दनदासं मरणान्मोचयसि । राक्षसः-(खजमाकृष्य ) नन्वनेन व्यवसायसुहृदा निस्त्रिशेन । p.172f. 108 cf. आश्चर्य दिष्ट्या दृष्टोऽसि । प्रसीदन्त्वमात्यपादाः । et seg. p. 174. 109cf. VI. 21 110 cf. अयं मित्रकार्येण मे विनाशो, न पुरुषदोषेण । (p. 180) ; जात अवश्य- म्भवितव्ये विनाशे मित्रकार्य समुद्रहमानो विनाशमनुभवामि । p. 182. 111 cf. अथवा न नृशंसानामुदासीनेषु इतरेषु वा विशेषोऽस्ति। तथा हि et seg. p. 180. 112 cf. अथवा दुर्लभास्ते मानुषा य एतस्मिन्काले दृष्टिपथेऽपि तिष्ठन्ति । p. 180 113 cf. स्वर्ग गतानां तावद्देवा दुःखितं परिजनमनुकम्पन्ते । P. 182. 114 cf. भद्र मुहर्त तिष्ठ यावत्पुत्रकं सान्त्वयामि । p. 182. 115cf. तात किमिदमपि भणितव्यम् । कुलधर्मः खल्वेषोऽस्माकम् । p. 182. 116cf. IV.4. 117 cf.चन्दनदासः-(सवाप्पं विलोक्य) अमात्य किमिदम् । राक्षसः-त्वदीयसुचरितैकदेशस्यानुकरणं किलैतत् । चन्दनदासः-अमात्य, सर्वमपीमं प्रयासं निष्फलं कुर्वता त्वया किमनुष्ठितम् । राक्षसः-सखे, स्वार्थ एवानुष्ठितः । कृतमुपालम्भेन । P. 184 118cf. VI. 5. 119ct.चाणक्यः भद्र कथय कथय । केनोत्तुशिखाकलापकपिलो बद्ध ः पटान्ते शिखीं पाशैः केन सदागतेरगतिता सद्यः समासादिता । केनानेकपदानवासितसटः सिंहोऽर्पितः पञ्जरे भीमः केन च नैकनक्रमकरो दोया प्रतीर्णोऽर्णवः । चाण्डालः-नीतिनिपुणवुद्धिनार्यण । चाणक्यः-मा मैवम् । नन्दकुलविद्वेषिणा दैवेनेति ब्रूहि । P. 186. 120 cf शकटदासोऽपि तपस्वी तादृशं लेखमजाननेव कपटलेखं मया लेखित इति । P. 188.

·158 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MIDRĀRĀKSASA 121 cf. दिष्टया शकटदासं प्रत्यापनीती विकल्पः । 12:2cf.VII.9 123cf. VII. 10-11 124 cf किं बहुना । न खल भवतः शत्रग्रहणमनारेण चन्दनदासस्य जीवितमस्ति । राक्षसः-(प्रकाशम् ) विष्णुगुप्त, नमः सर्वकार्यप्रतिपत्तिहेतवे सुहृत्स्नेहाय । का गतिः एष प्रदोऽस्मि । IV 1cf. I.11-13; III. 27-28; etc. 2 cf. I. 21 also read: वयस्य, को जीवलाके जीवितुकामः आयचाणक्य- स्याज्ञप्ति प्रतिकूलयति । ( P. 160). 3 e. g. The ornaments of पर्वतेश्वर and the: मुद्रा of राक्षस. 4. This is clear from his argumentation in Act III. 5 PP.28f. 6cf. I. 15-16. 7 cf. VII.7; II. 19. 8 चन्दनदास calls him चाणक्यहतक : दुष्ट (cf. P. 25); and also advises this son to stay in a चाणक्यांवरहित देशः (ct. P. 182). 9cf. III. 15. 10 cf. साधु अमात्यराक्षस, साधु । साधु श्रोत्रिय, साधु । साधु मन्त्रिगृहस्पते साधु कुतः et. seq.; also cf. VII. 8 where he appreciates राक्षस. Also read: साधु चन्दनदास, साधु । and the stanza that follows (1P.32). 11 This is shown by the almost identical remark that le passes at what is done by his spy (P. 20). and also by दारुतमन्. (IP. 50). 12cf. I. 15. 13 cf. I. 14 and the precedding speech of चाणक्य. Also cf. II. 20 and the preceding remark of राक्षस and विराधगुप्त. Also read IL. 22. 14 cf. अये देवपादपोपजीविनाऽवस्थेयम् । (इति रोदिति । ) 1. 48 15cf. II. 16; V.21; VI.7; 15. 16cf. P. 42 f.

·NOTES 159 17 cf. उच्यतां शकटदासः । यथा परिधापिताः कुमारेणाभरणानि वयम् । तन्न युक्तमनलकृतैः कुमारदर्शनमनुभवितुम् । अतो यत्तदलारणत्रय क्रोतं तन्मध्यादेकं दीयतामिति । (IP. 140). 18 cf. संवदन्त्यक्षराणि । शकटदासस्तु भित्रमिति च विसंवदन्त्यक्षराणि । et. ser. P. 1.16. 19 cf. दिष्टया शकटदासं प्रत्यपनीतो विकल्पः । (P. 188). 20 cf. Iris request that मलयकेतु's life should be saved. (P. 192). 21 cf. III. 21. 22 cf. राज्यं हि नाम राजधर्मानुवृत्तिपरस्य नृपतेर्महदप्रीतिस्थानम् । and the following stanza. (P. 70). 23 cf. दुराराध्या हि राजलक्ष्मीरात्मवद्भिरपि राजभिः । and the following stanza. (III. 5). 24cf. III. 7-9. 25 cf. भोः श्रष्टिन्, चन्द्रगुप्तराज्यमिदं न नन्दराज्यम् । यतो नन्दस्यैवार्थरुचेरर्थ- सम्बन्धः प्रीतिमुत्पादयति । चन्द्रगुप्तस्य तु भवतामपरिक्लेश एव । ( P. 28). 26 cf. वृषल एव केवलं प्रधानप्रकृतिरस्मास्वारोपितराज्यतन्त्रभारः सततमुदास्ते। ( P. 12 ); ततः सचिवायत्तसिद्धेस्तव किं प्रयोजनान्वेषणेन । (P. 80) 27 cf. III. 12 ; 18; cf. VII. 14. where राक्षस also suggestively compares नन्द and चन्द्रगुप्त. 28 cf. अहो विवेकशून्यता म्लेच्छस्य । कुतः । and the following stanza. (VI. 8). 29 cf. His soliloquy in Act IV.(P, 102 ). 30 cf इमान्याभरणानि कुमारेण स्वशरीरादवतार्य प्रेषितानि धारयितुमर्हत्यार्यः । ( P. 44). 31cf. VIL.14 32 cf चन्द्रगुप्तशरीरमभिद्रोग्धुमस्मत्प्रयुक्तानां तीक्ष्णरसदायिनामुपसंग्रहार्थं पर- कृत्योपजापार्थ च महता कोशसंचयेन स्थापितः शकटदासः । (P. 42). 331P.21 34 P. 146 35 cf. हन्त लब्ध इदानीं राक्षसः । कुतः। त्यजत्यप्रियवत् प्राणान् यथा तस्यायमापदि । तथैवास्यापदि प्राणा नूनं तस्यापि न प्रियाः ॥ I. 25 .

·160 INTRODUCTION TO TUE STUDY OF MUDRĀKĀKSASA 36 cf. ताक :परितुष्टः कथयसि अपवारितं राक्षस कलत्रमिति । ननु वक्तव्यं संयमितः सपुत्रकलत्रो राक्षरा इति । (1.60) 37 cf. आर्य, अगं मित्रकार्यण में विनाशा न पुनः गुरुपदारेण । नदलं विपादेन । (1P. 180); स्वर्ग गतानां नावदेवा दुःनि पार अनगनुकम्पन्ते । अन्यच मित्रकार्यण मे विनाशो नायुक्तकागण । तर कस्मिानेऽपि स्यने । (12. 183); जात, अवयं भवितव्ये विनाशे मित्रकार्य रामुद्दगानो विनाशभनुभवामि । P. (182); अमात्य, सर्वमपीमं प्रयास निष्फलं कुर्वता त्वया सिगनुपाग। (1P. 18-1) 38 f. P. 10 39 cf. अयं खल्यापिदेशः । भवतु । नया करिष्यामि । (प्रकाशम् ) अमात्य प्रथमप्रविष्टस्य नास्ति कोऽपि परिचितो यत्रेममान्यस्य प्रगाद निक्षिपनियता भवामि। तस्मादिच्छाम्यहमेतया मुद्या मुद्रितममात्यस्यैव भाण्डागारे स्थापयितुम् । यदा मे प्रयोजनं तदा ग्रहीष्यामि। (P.G2): जानात्येवामात्यो यथा चाणक्यबटुकस्य विनियं कृत्वा नास्ति पुनः पाटलिपुने प्रवेश तायाम्पसममात्यचरणावेच शुभूषितम् । (19.6.1) 40 cf. V. 1. 41 cf. वयस्य को जीवलोके जीवितुकाम आर्यचाणक्यस्याज्ञप्ति प्रतिकूलयति। p. 160 42 cf. पिता ते चाणक्येन घातित इति रहसि त्रासयिला भागुरागणेनापवाहितः पर्वतकपुत्रो मलयकेतुः । ( P. 10) 43 P. 104 44P. 128f 45 p. 134 ft. 46 p. 146 47 p. 132. 48 cf. ईशमस्य विशेषतः कुमारेणात्मगानादवतायें प्रसादीकृतस्येयं परित्याग- भूमिः । (p. 144). 49 cf. V. 4 and the preceding renmark of भागुरायण (p. 126). 50 p. 12. 51 cf. e.gIV. 19 and 20. 52 p. 118. 53 cf. अये श्रुतं मलयकेतुहतकेन । हन्त कृतार्थोऽस्मि । (p. 130).

·NOTES 161 54 cf. VI. 4; V.1; and IV. 3. 55 cf. p. 180 f. 56 cf. तात किमिदमपि भणितव्यम् । कुलधर्मः खल्वेषोऽस्माकम् । (p. 182). 57 cf. दशरूपक ३.३०. 58 cf. दशरूपक २.१-२. 59 cf. दशरूपक २.३; न्याट्यशास्त्र २४.३ ff. 60 This and the next paragraphs are based on Allardyce Nicoll's 'The Theory of Drama' (1931). 61. p. 10. 62 Even चाणक्य, it should be noted here, calls him तपस्वी. cf. p. 8. 63 cf. राजन् चन्द्रगुप्त, विदितमेव ते यथा वयं मलयकेतौ कंचित् कालमुषिताः । तत् परिरक्ष्यन्तामस्य प्राणाः । (p. 192). 64 cf. अये, अयमसावमात्यराक्षसः येन महात्मना- गुरुभिः कल्पनाक्लेशैर्दीर्घजागरहेतुभिः । चिरमायासिता सेना वृषलस्य मतिश्च मे ॥ VII- 8. CHAPTER V 1 According to धनञ्जय the plot of adrama may be प्रख्यात ( or derived from history), उत्पाद्य ( imaginary) or मिश्र (i.e. partly historical and partly imaginary). धुण्डिराज says that the plot of the मुद्राराक्षस is of the first variety. cf. प्रख्यातोत्पाद्यमिश्र- त्वभेदात् त्रेधापि तत् त्रिधा। प्रख्यातमितिहासादेरुत्पाद्यं कविकल्पितम् । मित्रं च सकरात्ताभ्यां दिव्यमादिभेदतः॥ दशरूपक १.१५-१६. 2 cf. तस्य चाष्टौ भविष्यन्ति सुमाल्यप्रमुखाः सुताः । य इमां भोक्ष्यन्ति महीं राजानः स्म शतं समाः॥ नव नन्दान् द्विजः कश्चित् प्रपन्नानुद्धरिष्यति । स एव चन्द्रगुप्तं वै द्विजं राज्येऽभिषेक्ष्यति ॥ भागवत XII. 1. 10f. Also cf. वायु० 99. 326 ff. 3 The author of the दशरूपावलोक seems to have held बृहत्कथा as the source of the मुद्राराक्षसः cf. तत्र बृहत्कथामूलं मुद्राराक्षसम् । M.I.-11 ..

·INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA चाणक्यनाम्ना तेनाथ शकटालगृहे रहः । कृत्यां विधाय राहा सपुत्रो निहता नपः ।। योगानन्दे यशःशेषे पूर्वनन्दगुतस्ततः । चन्द्रगुप्तः कृतो राजा चाणक्येन महोजसा ।। इति बृहत्कथायां सूचितम् । दशरूपावलोक. p. 3.1. 4.cf. येन शस्त्रं च शास्त्रं च नन्दराजगताच भूः। अमर्षणोद्धतान्याशु तेन शास्त्रमिदं कृतम् ॥ अर्थशास्र, p.131. 5 cf. यस्याभिचारवज्रेण वज्रज्वलनतेजसः । पपात मूलतः श्रीमान् सुपर्वा नन्दपर्वतः ॥ एकाकी मन्त्रशक्त्या यः शक्तः शकिधरोपमः । आजदार नृचन्द्राय चन्द्रगुप्ताय मेदिनीम् ॥ नीतिशास्त्रामृतं धीमानर्थशास्त्रमहोदधेः । य उद्दधे नमस्तस्मै विष्णुगुप्ताय वेधसे ।। कामन्दक quoted by धुण्डिराज. 6 cf. भागवत XII. 1.8--15; वायु 99.326-3:33. 7 For the Greek versions of this story, Read Dr. Raghavan, HERTETTE2T, Introduction, pp. 78 ff. 8cf. II.7 and VI.G. 9 For the early life of FT based mainly on the Jain sources and copious references to the other sources, cf. B.C. Low Volume, Part I. pp. 590-610. Also read Dr. Raghavan,op. cit, pp 68 ff. 10 It is curious to note that though gencrally fastiaca refers to चन्द्रगुप्त as मौर्य, in one place ( II. 6 ) he has calledl hinm मौर्यपुत्र. 11cf. II. 7 and VI. G. 12 Inspite of all attempts to explain this terın, it must be admitted that it was generally regarded as not being very commendable, as is clear from the कबुकिन्'s remark, 'तत् स्थाने खल्वस्य वृषलोद्यश्चन्द्रगुप्तः।' Act III.

·NOTES 163 । 13 cf. दीर्घप्रवासिनः प्रवजितस्य प्रेतस्य वा भार्या सप्त तीर्थान्याकाइक्षेत । संवत्सरं प्रजाता। ततः पतिसोदर्य गच्छेत् । बहुषु प्रत्यासन्न धार्मिकं धर्मसमर्थ कनिष्ठमभार्य वा । तदभावेऽप्यसोदर्य सपिण्ड तुल्यं वा । आसन्नमेतेषामेव क्रमः ॥ अर्थशास्त्र III. 4. 14 cf. उच्छिन्नाश्रयकातरेव कुलटा गोत्रान्तरं श्रीर्गता । MR. VI. 5. 15 कौटिल्य has given the circurmstances under which all prisoners are to be rcleased, at अर्थशास्त्र II. 36. 16 Abhinavagupta in his commentary on the ATERIET has quoted from प्रतिज्ञाचाणक्य, a play on the same story apparently as that of the मुद्राराक्षस, composed by महाकवि भीम. This play, when it comes to light, inight throw goud light on some of the problems concerning Aemeci and his HETTATH. CHAPTER VI 1 p. 84 ff. 2p.20, and p. 425. 3 for def. see दशरूपक I. 67 4. pp. 20, 22 and 24. 5 p. 100. In fact राक्षस recognizes in as ईश्वरी वाक्. 6 cf. एकाहाचरितैकार्थमित्थमासत्रनायकम् । पात्रस्त्रिचतुरैरकस्तेषामन्तेऽस्य निर्गमः ॥ दशरूपक ३.३६. 7 It may be observed that the distance separating Kusumapura from the capital of Malayaketu is over a hundred yojanas according to IV. 1 which reads TTFETO FACTA in some editions. 8 pp. 22, 26, 32 (twice), 34 (twice),84,136 (twice) and 140. 9cf. I.6. 10 The festival is referred to as पार्वण विधि ( Full-moon festival at III. 10.) 11cf. IV. 19. 12 cf. अद्य दशमो मासस्तातस्योपरतस्य । (p. 102). 13p.66. , ·164 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRĀRĀKSASA 14cf. IV. 16-17. 15 cf. इदानी प्रत्यासन्ने कुसुमपुरे न कोऽयमुद्रालान्छितो निर्गन्तुं प्रवेष्टुं वानुमोद्यते। (p. 124). 16 In fact a lcars the tunultous cries of joy raised by चन्द्रगुप्त 's men at मलयकेतु's capture in act VI. cf. अये किमिदमस्मिन् काले पटुपटहशइखमिश्रो नान्दीनादः । et sec!. 17 The time required for going fronm कुसुमपुर to मलयकेतु's capital can be roughly calculated from the fact that Act I is separated from Act III by at lest one month (i. e. from one atrompt to another) which, therefore, is approximately the period required for a man to make a return journey from one place to the other. 18 cf. आर्य, चिरदर्शनेनार्यस्य वयमुद्विमाः। (p. 142). The last visit that मलयकेतु paid to राक्षस was in Act IV (P. 102), 19 p. 172. Also see p. 160. 20 cf. प्रसीदतु वयस्यः । दृष्टमात्र एवार्यचाणक्येनाज्ञप्तोऽस्मि यथा-'सिद्धार्थक गच्छ । इमं प्रियोदन्तं देवस्य चन्द्रश्रियो निवेदय' इति । तत एतस्य निवेथैवमनु- भूतपार्थिवप्रसादोऽहं प्रियवयस्यं प्रेक्षितुं तवैव गेहं चलितोऽस्मि । (p. 156). 21cf. p. 10. 22 cf. बीजबिन्दुपताकाख्यप्रकरीकार्यलक्षणाः । अर्थप्रकृतयः पश्च ता एताः परिकीर्तिताः । दशरूपक १-१८ 23 cf. अवस्थाः पञ्च कार्यस्य प्रारब्धस्य फलार्थिभिः । आरम्भयत्नप्राप्त्याशानियताप्तिफलागमाः ॥ दशरूपक १-१९ 24 cf. अर्थप्रकृतयः पञ्च पश्चावस्थासमन्विताः । यथासंख्येन जायन्ते मुखाद्याः पश्च सन्धयः॥ अन्तरैकार्थसम्बन्धः सन्धिरेकान्वये सति । मुखप्रतिमुखे गर्भः सावम पसंहतिः ॥ दशरूपक १.२२-२४ 25 cf. दशरूपक १-२५. 26 cf. दशरूपक १-३०. 27 cf. दशरूपक १-३६. 28 cf. दशरूपक १-४३ where it is named अवमर्श.

·NOTES 165 29cf. दशरूपक १-४८. 30 This paragraph is based on statements made by धुण्डिराज in his commentary on the मुद्राराक्षस. 31 These are defined as follows:- सर्वश्राव्यं प्रकाशं स्यादश्राव्यं स्वगतं मतम् । and त्रिपताकाकरेणान्यानपवार्यान्तरा कथाम् । अन्योन्यामन्त्रणं यत् स्याज्जनान्ते तज्जनान्तिकम् ॥ दशरूपक १.६४-६५ 32 cf. The stage-lirection प्रविश्य पटाक्षेपेण (p. 184). 33 cf. The direction ततः प्रविशति जवनिकावृतशरीरो मुखमात्रदृश्यः चाणक्यः। (p. 186). 34 cf. The stage direction जवनिकां करेणापनीयोपसृत्य च । (p. 186). 35 The existence of other curtains, which could be dropped or raised when necessary is also proved by stage-directions which make a person enter the stage seated on a seat (प्रविशति आसनस्थः) [p. 74] together with (सह, pp. 98 and 138), or followed by (अनुगम्यमानः, P. 40) another person or persons. CHAPTER VII 1 cf. वत्स, श्रोत्रियाक्षराणि प्रयत्नलिखितान्यपि नियतमस्फुटानि भवन्ति (p.22). 2 cf. कायस्थ इति लध्वी मात्रा । (p. 16). 3 cf. विष्णुगुप्त, न मां चाण्डालस्पर्शक्षितं स्प्रष्टुमर्हसि । (p. 186). 4 cf. The soliloquy of मलयकेतु in Act IV. (p. 102). 5 cf. स सम्प्रति दत्ताभरणादिविभवो ज्वलनं प्रवेष्टकामो नगरानिष्कान्तः । (p. 168). 6 cf. आर्य यद्येवं तदिदानीमकालः कुलजनस्य निवर्तितुम् । (p. 180). 7 cf. भर्तुश्चरणावनुगच्छन्त्या आत्मानुग्रहो भवतीति (p. 182). 8 cf. चन्दनदासः-आर्ये दुर्व्यवसितमिदं त्वया । अयं पुत्रकोऽश्रुतलोक- संव्यवहारो बालोऽनुग्रहीतव्यः ।

·166 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF MUDRÄRĀKSASA कुम्बिनी :- अनुगृहन्त्येनं प्रसना देवताः । (p. 182). s) f. तस्याः कुमारमंरोधसम्भ्रमप्रनलितााले करात पुरुषाशालिपरिणाहप्रमाण- घटिता विलिनेयमालिमुद्रिका दलाबी पतिता जान्थता तया अनवबुद्धव मम चरणपार्थ समागत्य प्रणामनिता कुलवधरिव निचला संपत्ता । (P. 20). 100 cf. उच्छिनाश्रयकातरेव कुलटा गात्रान्तरं श्रीगता । VI.S. 11cf.1.1 12 cf. I.2 13 cf. III. 21 14cf. VII. 19. 15 cf. VI. 10. 16 cf. अये अस्ताभिलाषी भगवान् भास्करः। (p. 120) 17 cf. I.17-18. 18 cf. नामान्येषां लिखामि ध्रुवमहमधुना चित्रगुप्तः प्रमाष्टुं । 1. 20 19 cf. बुद्धानामपि चेष्टितं स्वचरितैः किष्ट विशुद्धात्मना । VII. 5. 20 cf. कथं क्षपणक आगच्छति । यावदस्याशकुनभूतं दर्शनं मम संमतमेव । तस्मान परिहरामि । (p. 122). 21 cf. राक्षसः- [ आत्मगतम् । अनिमित्तं सूचयित्वा ] कथं प्रथममेव क्षपणकः। पुरुषः-जीवसिद्धिः। राक्षस: (प्रकाशम् ) अबीभत्रादर्शनं कृत्वा प्रवेशय । (p. 116). 22 cf. I.6 23 cf. (वामाक्षिस्पन्दनं सूचयित्वा आत्मगतम्) कथं प्रथममेव सर्पदर्शनम् । (P.44) 24 See pp.44 and 100. 25 See pp. 20, 22, 24 and 100. It may be noted that राक्षस actually designates this as वागीश्वरी. 26 cf. The conversation between चन्दनदास and his wife in Act VII (pp. 180 ff ). 27 cf. दुर्लभास्ते खलु मानुषा य एतस्मिन्काले दृष्टिपथेऽपि तिष्ठन्ति । (p. 180). 28 cf. एतेऽस्मत्प्रियवस्या अश्रुपातमात्रेण कृतनिवापसलिला इव कथमपि प्रतिनिवर्तमाना बाष्पगुा दृष्टया मामनुगच्छन्ति । (p. 180). - ·NOTES 167 29 cf.p.3.2 30 cf. कुतः मुखं येन लं चिरप्रवासप्रत्यागतोऽप्यद्य न मे गेहमागच्छसि। (p. 154) 31 cf. अहमपि यावत्तस्याश्रोतव्यं न शृणामि तावदात्मानमुद्ध्य व्यापादयितुमिदं जीर्णोद्यानमागतः। (p. 168); किमस्य भवतो यथा सुहृद एव नाशोऽवशः। VI. 16; and ततो यावदस्य चन्दनदासस्याश्रोतव्यं न शृणोमि तावज्ज्वलनं प्रविशामीति श्रेष्ठी विष्णुदासो नगरानिष्कान्तः । (p. 172). 32 Like शकटदास whose innocence was happily conveyed to TETET later on in Act VII. 33 Like the most allies of Hesteha sentenced to be killed at the end of Act V. 34 As done by राक्षस in the case of मलयकेतु. 35cf. V.4. 36 See p. 160. 37 cf. III. 14. 38 cf. घिद मूर्ख, किं भवानस्मदुपाध्यायादपि धर्मवित्तरः। and मूर्ख. सर्वज्ञतामुपाध्यायस्य चोरयितुमिच्छसि । (p. 14) 39 cf. ये सत्यमेव हि गुरूनतिपातयन्ति III. 33. 40 cf. स च मया कथमपि पातकमिवाभ्युपगतः (p. 70); and HII. 33. 41 cf. वत्स कार्याभिनियोग एवास्मान् व्याकुलयति । न पुनरुपाध्यायसहभू, शिष्यजने दुःशीलता । (p.6). 42 cf. प्रारब्धाः प्रलयाय मांसवदहो विक्रेतुमेते वयम् । V. 22. 43 भद्रभट and पुरुषदत्त have been apparently dismissed because they were स्त्रीमद्यमृगयाशील. (p. 86 ). 44 Such kings are technically known as सचिवायत्तसिद्धि. 45 That is why भागुरायण is afraid that मलयकेतु would order राक्षस to be put to death. See p. 132. 46 cf. पृथिव्यामस्खलितपूर्व देवस्य शासनं कथं पौरेषु स्खलिष्यति । (p. 72). Also read III. 22 and 23. 47 cf. प्रीताभ्यः प्रकृतिभ्यः प्रतिप्रियमिच्छन्ति राजानः। (p. 28); संक्षेपतो राजन्यविरुद्धाभित्तिभिः । (p. 28).

·168 INTRODUCTION 10 TIIL: STUDY OF MUIRĀRĀKSASA 48cf. VII. 1-2. 49 cf. राज्यं हि नाम राजधर्मानुत्तिपरस्य नृपतेर्महरप्रीतिस्थानम् । and the stanza that follows. (1.70). 50 cf. स दोषः राचिवस्यैव यदसत कुरुते नृपः । III. 32. 51 cf. प्रज्ञाविक्रमभक्तयः सगुन्दिता येषां गुणा भूतये ते प्रत्या नृपतेः I. 15. 52cf. III.32; II.1. 53 cf. III. 14 and VI. 12. 54cf. VII. 14. 55 cf. बहुविधदेशवेशभाषासश्चारवेदिनः नानाव्यजनाः प्रणिधयः। (p. 10). 56e.g, अभयदत्त. 57 cf. एतेषु त्रयः प्रथमे मदीयां भूमि कामयन्ते ते गभीरश्वभ्रमभिनीय पांशुभिः पूर्यन्ताम् । (p. 152). 58 इतरी हस्तिबलकामुको हस्तिनैव घात्येताम् । (1P. 152). 59 cf. ततः प्रविशति द्वितीयचाण्डालानुगतो वध्यवेशधारी शुलं स्कन्धेनादाय कुटुम्बिन्या पुत्रेण चानुगम्यमानश्चन्दनदाराः । (IP. 178). 60 cf. PP. 172ff. 61 cf. वृषल एवास्य प्राणहरं दण्डमाशापयिष्यति । (P. 34 ). 62 cf. विना वाहुनहस्तिभ्यो मुच्यतां सर्वबन्धनम् । VII. 17. 63 cf. II. 13-14; and IV. 16-17; VII. 15. 64 cf. एतेषु प्रथमगृहीतास्त्रयो राजानो मलयकेतीविषयमिच्छन्त्यपरौ हस्तिबलं कोषं च । (P. 138); also see Nos. 57 and 58 above. 65cf. ततःप्रभृति सारसाधनसमेतेनेतो निष्क्रम्यायचाणक्येन प्रतिपनं सकलराज- लोकसहितमशेष म्लेच्छबलम् । (p. 158). 66cf. अहो विवेकशून्यता म्लेच्छस्य । कुतः et seg. (p. 162). 67 I.8; VII. 6; III. 22. 68 III.32 69 1-27 70 II. 11 71 III.7 72 III. 20

·169
NOTES
73 IJI. 8. Besides are mentioned भुजगी (I. 8); भुजग ( III. 11 );
नाग (III. 21); नक and मकर (VII. 6).
74 cf. I.203 V. 11; and also p. 48.
75 III. 19; farzt also is mentioned at IV. 17.
76 IV. 16.
77 III.9.
78 III. 19.
79 cf. शकयवनकिरातकाम्बोजपारसीकबाल्हीकप्रभृतिभिः (p. 48).
80 cf. म्लेच्छैरुद्विज्यमाना भुजयुगमधुना संश्रिता राजमूर्तेः। VII. 18.
81 III. 15-16.
82 P. 126
83P. 160
84 P. 18
85 P.48
86 II. 19; VII. 7.
87 PP. 190f.
88 P. 192
.

·No text on this page.

·INDEX Abhijnina-sūkuntala 91, 100. blisarika-bandhitaka 12. Abhistriku-varcitaka 12. Abhinavagupta 12, 13, 157. Action, unity of 114ff. Akasa-bhasita 58, 106. Altekar 140. Anantapandite 7. Anumarang 223. army 133 arrangement of events 110. Arthaśästra 10, 99, 156, 157. Balarāmāyana 145. Bana 3, 123. Becs 133. Blūgurata-purūna 155f. Bhiigurāy(Inc 85, 861., 1:18. Bharuta 12. Bharala-vakya 2, 3, 4, 5, 103. Bhaytrhari 6, 7. Bhüskaradatta 2. Bhavabhūti 3, 137, 1.15. Bhoja 12, 13. Bifocal scene 62, 68, 120, 158. Bhima 157. Blunders of Raksasa 54. Brālimuua 2, 122. Byhatkathā 8, 96, 98, 1551. Brhatkatha-mañjarī 97, 138. Brhatsarkitä 5. Buddhism 3, 5, 12, 124. Buddhistic chronicles 98. Budha-yoga 5, 10. Candāla 2, 122. Candanadāsa 84f., 152. Candragupta 821. Caste system 122 Characters ch. iv. Citragupta 124 Commentaries 7. Construction 116. Contrast 1061. Credulous beliefs 125. Dasarūpaka 109, 145, 147f., 155. 156, 157, 158. Dasarūpāvalo ka 7, 8, 138, 155. De Dr. 2. Dcath 124. Dcfeated monarchs 133. Denouement 66. Devī-candragupta 12. Dhanika 7, 138. Dhundirāja 2, 3, 4, 156, 159. Dhruva Prof, 4, 13, 137, 138, 139, 140. Dialogue 103. Disciple 128 Dramatic irony 641. Drinking 129. Document 103. Economy 110ff. Elephant 133. Ekacara 133. End 103. Episodes, minor 114f Fa Hien 3. Father 126. Cānakya 80F., 92, 93, 94.

·172 INDEX Flesh-cating 129. Flogging 132. Flora and fauna 1331. Friend 1261. Garbharku 57, 1411. Geographical references 1:. Gifts 123. Greek chronicles 97, 98. Gunacandra 12. Haas 138. Harisa 133. Harivikrya 6. Hurşa-carita 3. Head-ache 60, 61. Hero, of the MR. 8917.; tragis 911. ; western critics on 911. ; Sk. writers on 90f. Ficroine 102. Ilillebrandt 8. Himalaya 133. Hiuen Tsang 3. Humour 181. Hina 5, 8. Hunting 129. Husband 126. kanilya 99, 157. Künyüniscsam 10. Karya-minciristä 1.10). kayastha 122. licitl 137. King 1391. Kirütarjunya 6. Krishnamachariar ( Krish) 138. Ksapunaka 10, 12,11., 1.10. Ksemondra 138. Kusumapura 3. Laksmi 53. Lagr 11. Letter 103; forged 119. long speeches, avoiding of 1031. Macdoncll 4, 5. Mahabharata X). Malabar MSS. 4. Mülavikāgrimitra 100 Malayaketu 83, 118. Marriage 1231. Masters 128. Maurya 971. Madium 104. Mesage 103. Minister 79, 1301. Minor characters 89. Mleccha 4, 5, 8. Monologie 18, 58, 1031, Monks 132. Moon-cclipse 5, 10, 12, 111, 12 125. Moral standard 1341. Moriya 98 Mother 126 Myochakațiku 6, 79, 138. Mujmudar 1:10. Mythology 116. Irony of fate 67, 71, 72. Interlude 58, 66. Jacobi 4. Jain chronicles 98. Jainism 5, 12, 124. Jayaswal 3. Jivasiddhi 85, 88. Jyotih-śāsira 101. Kale 137. Kalidāsa 1, 8, 78, 100, 123. Kamandaka 99.

·INDEX 173 Naksacra 11. Rapson 4, 5. Narration 49. Ratnākara 6. Națya-śāstra 9, 12, 155, 157, Ratnāvali 3. Nicoll, Allardyce 155. Ray 137. Niti-sära 97. Recluse 132 Nitisataka 65. Release of prisoners 100. Nyāya 11. Religious sacraments 123; observances 123. Obsequial gifts 124. Remarks of Canakya 49. Obsequial rites 122, 124. Re-marriage 991. Order of events 104ff. Rivers 133. Ornaments, of Malayaketu Royal servants 129. 118f.,, of Parvateśvara 117f. Pallava 4. Sadukti-karnāmīta 7, 13. Pandit R. S. 137. Sahitya-dar pana 141, 142, 144. Patākā-sthāna 51, 104, 125. Sahitya-śāstra 9. Pathos 77. Sakatadāsa 84. Sārasa 133. Pca-cock 133. Sedition 132. Peterson 7, 13. Servants 128. Place, unity of 109., of action in MR. 110. Shiſting of scenes 119f. Prastāvanā 46, 141. Siddhārthaka 85, 86. Pratijñā-canakya 157. Signet ring 117f., 99f. Praveśaka 58, 66, 147f. Sisupäla-vadha 6, 138. Preceptor 128. Soliloquy 58, 103f. Son 126. Priyadarsikā 145. Sources ch. V. Professions 129. Southern ocean 133. Prologue 2, 5, 481., 103. Punishments 132. Spies 85f., 131f. Sridharadāsa 7. Pzrāna 69, 97, 98. Puşkarāksa 4. Sriharşa 58, 145. Sšngāra-prakāśa 12. Raghavan Dr. 138, 156. Stage 68. Raghuvarsa 6. Stage-directions 119, 159. Räjäpathya 130. State 131. Rājaśckhara 140, 145. Subhāşitāvali 7, 13. Raksasa 81f., 91fl., 147. Suspence 108f. Rāmacandra 12. Rāmāyana 96, 100. Taranath Prof. 137. Rangaswami Sarasvati 4. Teacher and taught 128. Ransom 132. Telang 4, 5, 137, 138.

·174 INDEX Theistic idcas 124. Time, unity of 109, in MR. 1091. Timc-analysis 1101f. Tithi 11. Tragedy 76, 78, 911f. 69; Unitics, three 109ff. Unravelling 78. Untouchability 1221. Uttara-Rūmacarita 2, 91, 1.15. Vidusaka 102. lisäkradalla. casta 21.; creation 99; defects SI, 51, 63, 64; defects avoided dramatic skill 50, 61, 104ff., native place 2 ; jxatronage and date 311. : personal history 11.; a poc 1201. ; scholarship 811.; SNS of corony 59), 11011., stage-craft 61. 1191.: works 121. Visakhadena 1, 10, 11, 12 Viskambhaka 58, 60, 1471. Vismantlist 141. V väla 133 Vägbhala 10. Vallabladeva 7. Vanik 122. Varāhamihira 5, 10. Variation 103ff. Vateśraradatta 2. Vāyu-purana 155. Venīsanhura 2. Versions 7. Viccs 129, Weapons 133. Wife 1251, Wilson 5. Varna 124. Yumapu 124, 129, 131.

·SANSKRIT CLASSICS Edited and Annotated Rs. as. p. ... . ... .. ... ...200 1 Kavyaprakasha of Mammata, Ullas I, II, III* By Prof. S. S. SUKHTANKAR 3 8 0 *Kavyaprakasha of Mammata, Ullas X* By Prof. S.S. SUKHTANKAR ... 5 0 0 Kumar-Sambhavam," Cantos IV E V Edited by V. R. NERURKAR 1 8 0 Meghadutam* Edited by V. R. NERURKAR ... ... 1 0 0 The Kadambari of Banabhatta, Pp. 76-124 of Peterson's Edition Edited by V. R. NERURKAR and G. V. DEVASTHALI The Kadambari of Bana,* Pages 124-175 (FETTETTET:) By II. D. KARNIK & V. D. GANGAL 2 12 0 1 Vikramorvasiyam Edited by S. B. ATHALYE & S. S. BHAVE 2 8 0 I Rashuvamsa of Kalidasa, Cantos VI-IX* Edited by Prof. C. R. DEODHAR 3 0 0 Abhijnana Sakuntala of Kalidasa" Edited by Prof. C. R. DEODHAR and Prof. N. G. SURU 4 8 0 Mudrarakshasam Edited by Prof. C. R. DEODHAR and Prof. V. M. Bedekar 4 8 0 Malavikagnimitram ** 2 ... .. ... ... Books with * are edited with an Introduction and Notes and those with | contain Translation also.

·NEW INDIAN ANTIQUARY and ALLIED PUBLICATIONS ... 4 # ### New Indian Antiquary Vols. I, II, III, IV, V, VI & VII in Loose Numbers, each Volume 15 0 0 New Indian Antiquary Vols. I to VI (Bound) each Volume ... 18 00 A Volume of Eastern and Indian Studies In Honour of F. W. THOMAS . 12 8 0 A Volume of Indian and Iranian Studies Presented to E. DENNISON Ross 13 8 0 Inscriptions of Kathiawar By D. B. DISKALKAR 6 4 0 Paramarthasar of Adisesa Edited by S. S. SURYANARAYAN SASTRI Introduction to Indian Textual Criticism By Dr. S. M. KATRE, M.A., Ph.D. Some Survivals of Harappa Culture By T. G. ARAVAMUTHAN 3 0 0 Bhoja's Sringar Prakash Vol. I Part I An exposition by Dr. V. RAGHAVAN, M.A.1.D. 7 Do Do Part II 7 8 0 Vedic Bibliography By Prof. R. N. DANDEKAR 15 0 0 .. ... .* ### .. KESHA V BHIKAJI DHA WALE KARNATAK PUBLISHING HOUSE Shri Samarth Sadan, Girgaon, Girgaon, Bombay 4

·No text on this page.