8¢x+w$R¢it $vig£ n. XXVII. NUDRARAKSHASA BY A VISWAKHADATTA, WITH THE COMMENTARY OF DHUNDHIRAJA. EDITED With Critical and Explanatory Notes BY KASHINATH TRIMBAK TELANG, M.A., LL. B., C..E. sometiane Senio DakshinarelowElphinston College; JudgeHigh Court, Bombay• Fifth Edition.–1,000 COPIES. REVISED BY Professor V. S. GHATE, M. A. DECCAN COLLEGE, POONA. PUBLISHED BY TUKARAM JAVAJ , PROPRIETOR OF THE / NIRNAYA-SAGAR' PRESS. f ®िombay. 1915. Price One Rupee and , IFourteep Als
Published by Sukaram Javaji and Printed by Ramchandra. Yes Shedge at the Nirnaya-Sagar Press, 28, Kolblhat Lane, BOMBAY. न्त ।
PREFACE IO ED F7FTH EDITION. In this edition, the text has been materially revised, especi ally as the edition of the play by Prof. Hillebrandt has been consulted throughout, and all the new Zeadings found therein have been given in the footnotes, marked as H. In several places, the heading in the text of the last edition has been abandoned in favour of another reading decidedly better. Thus for instance on p. 54, भास्करदत्त takes the place of पृथु, as the former is more in conformity with ईश्वरदत्त and विशाखदत. So also on p. 91, the speech of Chandanadasa, which was prose in form in all the previ ०us editions, has been here put in a methical form. (See Verse 21 beginning with चाणक्कम्मि अकरुणे etc.. On p. 94, the second speer of Chandanadasa has been 1etained in the same form as before •but its conjectural netrical form has been given in the footnote The same is the case with p. 297, where also the speech of Chan danadasa beginning with अम्हारित्राणं वि etc. though retained in th text, in the prose form, has its conjectural metrical form given the footnote. On p. 215, the verse एकगुणा तिथी etc. put in t mouth of Kshapapaka is evidently defective from the metric point of viewbut the new reading given in the footnote t. e, t insertion of the word भोदि after the words एकगुणा and चउग्गुणे makes it alright. These illustrations are enough to give th Greader an idea of the textual alterations made in the editio The additions and alterations in the notes, very few indeed, hav been indicated by rectangula brackets [ ] V. S. G.
CRITICAL NOTICE ( FIRST EDITION. ) THE present edition of the Mudrakshasa is based upon nine different copies, eight of which are manuscript copiesand one printed. These seem to fall roughly into two groupsthe one containing bhose denoted by the letters A, P., M.R., and K., and the other those denoted by the letters' B., E, N., G. The text yielded by the former group is that which has been generally followed in this edition, and that is the text which appeans to have been the one received as the best by the commentato Dhudhiraja, Dhundhinaja, however, himself notices various readings in some places (ovide e. ५g., pp. 87-88, and as his comment bay was written early in the beginning of the last century, his authority is, of course, by no means conclusive on such questions. The text followed in this edition, bherefore, has not been accepted primarily on his authority, but as being the text which was worthy of acceptance upon other grounds also. Tb will be noticed, from the account of the various MSS. which is given in the sequel that bhat bext is based upon MSS, one of which comes from Banaes, another from Poona, another from Kolhapur and the remaining two from Southern India. These South Indian MSS., ib may be remarked in passing, always deserve looking into, and often yield very good readings It is necessary, however, in this place to draw attention to one circumstance which touches all the MSS. which have been used, for this editionNone of them agrees completely with the Sarasvatikanthabhara11a, and the Dasarapa, in the passages which those two works quote from the Mudrarkshasa. Thus comparing the quotation in the Dasarjpg, at p. 120, with the same passage as ead by our MSS., (see p. 88 below ), we find very considerable divergences between the former and every one of the copies we have used. It is not necessary to set them out here in full, but the reader can easily make the comparison for himself. The Dasartpa contains only one actual quotation from the Mudrीr6 CRITICAL NOTICE, kshasa, the Sarasvatikanthabhanana contains two,* The first is bhe stanza at p. 98 two, which runs as follows in the very useful edition of the Satavatikanthabharana recently published by MrA. Bogooah. (See p. 165 ). It is, however, to be noted that this is not here mentioned as being taken fronm the Mudr&ra. kshasa, nor is the second passage referred to further on. उपरि घनं घनपटलं दूरे दयिता किमेतदापतितम्। हिमवति दिव्यौषधयः कोपाविष्टः फणी शिरसि ॥ The second is the second stanza at p. 16 in which is quoted at p. 292 of the Sarasvatikanthabharana. It is not necessary to do more than indicate the various readings which out MSS. do not contain, viz, जुम्भरैः for ज़भितैः and अतिताम्रा for अभिताम्रा. Now it is remarkable, that in all the cases here noted, the read ings which occur in the Dasaripa and the Sarasvatikanth}bha rana, should not be found in any one of our MSS. And the circumstance is not only a remarkable omeit is calculated to create an uneasy suspicion in ones mind that we have not before us materials quite satisfactory for settling our text. On the other hand, howeve', we have to remember, that some of the discrepancies which we meet with may be due merely to mistakes or defects in the copies of the Dasaripa and Sarasvatikantha bharapa themselves. It is also to be borne in mind, that these discrepancies are of no great moment in themselves, as they do not affect the meaning, although, of coursein one sense every variation, howevery unimportant in itself, is of importance upon the question: -what was the text as it left the hands of the author. It may be further pointed outthat even as regards other works, which are quoted in the Dasaripa and Sarasvati kanthabharata, we neet occasionally with various readings in the passages quoted, of which we find no brace in many of the manu scripts available to us. A few references to such passages are given in the note. See Introduction 1 *g on these passages. * We have also to take account of the fact that, in all probability, some at least of these quotations were not verified before they were written down by the authors of the Das'aripa and the Sarasvatikanthabharana, but were merely written down from memory. See our remarks on this subject below ( P. 23 } and also the next note. + Cf. Dasaku वैracharita, p. 1, with Sarasvatikanthabharata, p.114; Malatmadhava, pp.166, 307, , Sarasvatikanthीbharana pp. 115,311,840 respectively, and pp. 449, BG5with MUDRARARSHASA, We now proceed to enumerate the copies of the Mudrérakshasa which have been used for this edition. The first is that marked A. it is complete, and includes the text and the commentary of Dhundhirja here published. It is throughly legible and correct. It belongs to Mr. Apठी Shastri Khadilkar , and was very kindly lent to me by that venerable scholarFrom the concluding sen tences, it appeas that the text and commentary were originally copied in the Vis'ves varanagari, or Banares in the Saka year 1658, in the month of Asvin, by उपाध्यायभुकदेव It is the copy which generally speaking, has been exclusively relied upon for the text of the commentay. and its text of the play itself is that which bhe conmentator had before him, and which has also been mainly adopted in this edition.* There is one circumstance which deser ves to be noted here in connection with this MS, It consists of bvo distinct parts, pparently copied by two different hands. The inst of these two parts goes down to नागयूथेश्वराणाम् । द् (800.). and then there is a considerable space left blank on that page and on bhe next page of the same leaf. The words quoted will be found at p. 168 fro, The second part of the MSdoes not start from that point. It begins with अपि च आस्वादितद्विरदशोणितशोणशोभमिति पूर्वोक्तं पठति, and then goes on to the end of the work. The words last quoted will be found at p. 99 @red. The two fragments of le play now decribed are, it may be added, written on paper of different sizes, and the date above given, ---viz. Saka16 , is, of -course, found at the end of the second fragment. (See f•bher, p. 11 frce The second MS. used for the purposes of this edition is that marked P. This MS. forms part of a volume bound in the Eu ropean style, and containing two plays in MS, the Mudharakshasa and the Malathmadhava. This volume, I am informed, is one of a series of volumes containing manuscript copies of various works made several years ago at Jejuri, and now in the possession of M. Aparao Vaidya of Poona. It was procured for me by my friend 1656, with Dasaraph, pp. 95, 149 respectively. Note that the passage cited from the Malaffmdhava . 118 of the Sarasvatikanthabharana is again cited at at p p: 202 with a variation in one word, and that the same passage its cited at Dasa xp, p. 143, with a variation in another word. I regeet thhab owing to inadvertence the readings of this group of MSS. have EOnetines got into the foof-notes instead of being taken as the text CRITICAL NOTICE. Râo Bahadur Gajanan Krishna Bhâta vadekar, now in the service of the Baroda State. The MS. is by no means accurately, though it is most clearly and legibly, written. There are sundry mistakes to be met with from time to time, but they are nearly always easy of correction. · The MS., for instance, often writes z for f. The Sanskrit equivalent of the Prâkțit passages is given in considerable portions of the play, but not throughout, and it follows the Prâkrit passages themselves in the middle of the text. In the latter portion of the play, viz. from the fifth Act onwards, the Prâkrit mostly remains without the Sanskrit translation. The original from which the copy was made, in all probability, contained both the text and commentary, as before the final stanza, and after the words तथापि इदसस्तु, we read इत्थमन्नातिगम्भीर- शुभोदर्कचाणक्यनयसंविधानेन चन्द्रगुप्तसाचियपदलाभपरितुष्टो सहामात्यो राक्षस इत्याशास्ते ॥ भरतवाक्यम् | and then follows वाराहीम् and so forth, as in our text. The words set out here are not to be found in our copies of the commentary. They may, perhaps, belong, and probably do belong, to some other commentator than Dhundhirâja; but they are plainly no part of Visakhadatta's text, and they must very likely have got into the text in the copy now under description from the copy from which it was prepared. The MS. bears no date, but is comparatively very modern-looking, probably not even so much as fifty years old. It states at the end the het as 1350, which is, no doubt, a note of the copyist made for calculating his own remuneration. (See further, p. 11 infra.). The next copy to be mentioned is a MS. written on palmyra leaves which is denoted by the letter M. It was a MS. procured for me by my friend, Mr. V. N. Narasimiengar of Bangalore, who has always been most useful both to Professor Bhandarkar and myself, in procuring for us copies of Sanskrit texts from Southern India. This MS. and the next are both written in the Telugu characters, which I am unable to read, and I had therefore to re- sort to the services of readers to help me in the matter. The MS. appears to be, on the whole, very correctly written. It contains no double letters, apparently such letters being denoted by the corresponding single letters with a dot over the previous letter in many cases. (Cf. Burnell's Indian Palæography, p. 13; Pandit's Drâlavikâgnimitra, pp., IX., X.). The confusion of s and seems MUDRÂRÂKSHASA. to be a pretty common phenomenon in these southern MSS., and in the two I have used there seems to have been some confusion also between 2 and 7. The MS. bears no date. The next MS. consulted is the one marked R. It was kindly sent to me from the India Office Library through Dr. F. Kielkorn by Dr. R. Rost, when he heard that I was preparing this edition for the Bombay Sanskrit Series. The same remarks apply to this MS. as to the last one here described. There is also, apparently, some confusion in this MS. in the last scene, where the speeches are in some disorder. As a general rule, these southern MSS. are always worthy of careful attention, and the MSS. I have used for this edition belong to the same group as the copy from which the com- mentator took his text. I cannot say how old R and M are. The next MS. is one marked K. It comes from the collection of MSS. belonging to the Goverpment of Bombay and deposited in Elphinstone College. This MS., however, is only a copy recent- ly made for Government, and contains the text only down to the end of the first Act. The rest of the MS. contains a copy merely of the commentary of Dhundhirâja. So much for the group of MSS. on which the text adopted in this edition is mainly based. The next group contains one print- ed copy, B., namely, the edition of this play published at Calcutta with a commentary, by Professor Târânâth Tarkavâchaspati. That edition has been assumed to be a fair representative of the Bengal text of our play. It contains now and then some various readings, but in sundry places the text of the play as there given, is very unsatisfactory. Two other editions have been printed at Calcutta, one was published many years ago without either vari. ous readings or exegetical notes, and another with some various readings and the commentary of Dhundhirâja. This last, bowever, was never completed, as far as I have been able to ascertain, and the portion printed goes down to a little beyond the middle of the second Act. I have not deemed it necessary to compare the read- ings of those editions with the text here adopted, save to a very small extent indeed. The next copy in this group is the one marked E. It belongs to the collection of MSS. deposited in the Library of Deccan College, Poona. It is a very indifferently written MS. It con- tains numerous mistakes, as may be seen even on an examination of the readings from it, which are contained in our foot-notes. It is bound up in one volume with a MS. of the Uttararâmacharita. On the last page of the Mudrārakshasa we read संवत १७०४ समये (!) CRITICAL NOTICE AIHEUTHET ARHî ll U:---which would make the date of the MS. to be 1648 A. C., if the Vikrama era is to be understood to be the era intended. The MS., it is believed, comes from Guzerâth. The next copy is N. This is a MS. belonging to a Shastri o Nagpur, in the Central Provinces. I was not able to see it my- self, but my very obliging friend, Mr. Hari Mâdhava Pandit, was so kind as to undertake the arduous work of collating the MS. for me, and it was thus I obtained the various readings which are mentioned in the foot-notes. The MS. bears no date on the face of it, but Mr. Pandit thinks that it may be about a hundred years old. Mr. Pandit also compared another MS, which belonged to the Library of the Râjâ of Nagpur. But after he had compared the first few pages, he found that MS, to be so hopelessly incor- rect that he had to abandon the work of collation as a thing which could not lead to any useful result. Wherever any readings of both these MSS. are given, they are distinguished thus, the Shâstri's MS. is called N. S.; and the Râjâ's N, R., Mr. Pandit informs me that both these MSS. are believed to have been copied at Benares. The last MS. to be mentioned is the one described in the foot- notes as G. It is a MS. coming from the Province of Guzerâth and was lent me by Râo Bahâdur Shankar Pândurang Pandit to whom it belongs. It is unfortunately incomplete, pages being wanting both at the beginning and at the end, and it is also very incorrectly written. It extends from Siddharthaka's speech Feu &c, in the first Act at P. 88 to Chânakya's speech in the last Act at p. 315, 7 &c. The MS. is, however, pretty old-its age being between two and three hundred years. It will be perceived from the above description of the materials used for this edition, that those materials are drawn from nearly all the different Provinces of India. We have Bengal, Southern India, the Central Provinecs, Guzeråth, Mahârâshtra, and Benares all represented in the collection of copies which have been consul- ted for this edition. Since the Text was sent to the Press, I have had a MS. lent me by my friend, Mr. Kâshinâ th Pândurang Parab, which seems to be traceable to Tryambakes'var, near Nâsık. It is a copy recently made. The date सीमाधाविमिते गतेदनिकरक्षज्यारुहस्था- fait 1944964T JAG FTH17TRTET (!) is probably that of the original MS. from which this was copied. It has not been collated throughout for the purposes of the present edition, but on a comparison of a sufficient number of pages and passages, it appears to agree very nearly with our MS, P. And it is worthy of 10 MUDRÅRAKSHASA. note that the two agree even in that interpolation from the com- mentary which has been noticed in the description of P. I have also recently examined another MS., one in that collection of volumes which has been referred to by Prof. Bhânđârkar in his Mâlati- madhava (Preface, p. ii.), that bears no date (see Mâlatîmâdhava, 1. c.), and agrees also generally with our MS. P., including the in- terpolation referred to. The last MS. to be named here is one be- longing to Alvar,* which I have not been able to examine myself. Prof. Peterson, however, has been good enough to compare about thirty pages of my text with that MS., and he tells me that he did not find any variants worthy of note, while he found the MS. agreeing generally with our MS. A. Dr. Buhler was kind enough to draw my attention to the MS. of the play existing in the Jesalmîr Bhândâr. But at the date of writing this notice, I have not been able to obtain either the copy itself or any col- lations from it. In order to avoid the appearance of too many figures above the lines of the text, the various readings on each line have been generally grouped together under one figure in the foot-notes, and as they are printed in due order, it is hoped that there will not be much difficulty in assigning each variant to its proper original in the text. A semi-colon generally separates variants not connected with one another. Aº before a letter indicates that the foregoing portion of the word has been omitted to save space. Variants even when purely the result of error, are mentioned in the foot- notes, but generally only in those cases where there were other real variants appearing in other copies; so that the erroneous Tariant would show which of the two genuine variants was in- tended to be written. (THIRD EDITION ) This edition is merely a reprint of the first edition. Changes in orthography, punctuation and type have, however, been made according to the system followed up in the Nirnaya-sagara publications. K. P. P. w
- Butace l. 33 infra. I luve collated considerable portions of the Commentary.
INTRODUCTION. ( FIRST EDITION.) The Mudranakshasa isin sundry 2espects, a very unique work in Sanskrit literature. Its plot is not a pure invention, but on the other hand, it is not derived from the usual store-house of legends on which Sanskrit authors have generally drawn for their mate. rials. It has no female among its prominent decuts person, and the business of the play, accordingly, is diplomacy and politics to the entire exclusion of love. There is, in truth, but one female characte, with one little child, introduced into the play, and these are Chandanadasa's wife and son, who come in at the beginning of Bhe last Act. But even their appearance introduces no passages suggestive of tenderness or the purely domestic virtues, but only of sacrifice. —a, stern sense of dutby. The style is appropriate to the nature of the subject; it does not lay much claim to Sweetness or beauthy, but is always business-like and often vigorous. In the delineation of characterlikewise, the virtues and vices which are depicted are more those of the sterner sort, not 50 much those con: nected with the tendex affections. Thus, to take first the most prominent character in the play, Chanakya is represented as a clear-headed, self-confident, intriguing, hard politician, with the ultimate end of his ambition thoroughly well-determined, and .directing all his clear-headedness and intrigue to the accomplishment of that end. Rakshasa, on the other hand, is represented as a brave soldier, but a, blundering and somewhat soft-natured politician, whose faithfulness to his original masters prompts him to Wreak vengeance for their destruction on Chandragupta and Chénakya who were their destroyers, but who has ultimately to abandon the selfimposed task, being foiled by the arts of his adversary. The proximate motive of the abandonment, however, is bhe duty of repaying favours received by him when he was engaged in his at tempts at vengeance as above stated. Thus the two rivals are both placed before us, so to say, almost exclusively in their official chara ,
- Cf. pp. 75, 6 with pp. 119-21; pp. 85-6, 108 with pp. 128 (1where the snakes
are mentioned, though 1radhagupta is brought in for his Subhashita, p.12 ),188, 20.5, 243-6; pp202-8 with pp. 14, 960; and see Act VI. possi + p, 292 et seg 12 MUDRÂRÂKSHASA cters. The nearest we get to any other aspect of their character is in the long soliloquy of Râltshasa in the sixth Act-after the great aim of his life had been finally abandoned in despair. Take, again, the other pair of rivals, who are brought into sharp contrast before us. Chandragupta is represented as a sovereign of dignity and strength of character, coupled with a proper respect for the minister, whose ability and diplomatic skill be had seen good reason to trust. In Malayaketu, on the other hand, we find a prince whose confidence and distrust are alike misplaced, who is thoughtless, suspicious, wanting in dignity, and almost child-like, not to say childish.* In the minor characters, we see tke principle of faithfuluess to oue's lord, adhered to through good report and evil report- per fas et per nefas. In the more prominent ones, the same principle still prevails, and the course of conduct to which it leads is certainly quite Machiavellian. And all this is brought out in a plot put together with singular skill, and inferior in that respect only to the plot of the Mțichchhakatika, among Sanskrit dramas. The name of the author of the play is Visakhadatta, or as sone of our copies read it, Visakhadeva. And all the really ti ustworthy information we have about him is that contained in the Introduc- tion to this drama, which is the only one of his productions that is at present known. We learn from that Introduction that Visakha- datta was the son of Přithu and grandson of Vates'varadatia--a Sànanta or subordinate chief. But I have failed in my endea- vours to discover anything touching either Prithu or Vates vara. Professor Wilson, indeed, put forward a suggestion that Přithu might be identical with the "Chouhau chief of Ajmir, Prithu Raj." But, as he has limself pointed out, the name Vates' varadatta pre- sents a difficulty in the way of this identification. And I own that it seems to me quite impossible to accept an identification for which there is no positive reason whatever except the similarity of name, while against it there is the circumstance noted above, and also this, quantum valeat, that while our Prithu is specially designated as “ bearing the title Mabârâj," the “Přithu of Ajmir," is generally known as Prithurai or Prithuaj only. Professor Wil-
- Cf. pp. 150, 152, 163, 170, 184, 309, with pp. 197, 200, 209, 226-3, and
generally Act III., with act V. 4 Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., P. 128. ^ Ibid uote, and p. 154 note. INTRODUCTION. 13 son also suggests that our author was probably not a native of Southern India, and he bases this suggestion on the simile which occurs at p. 129 infra, viz. pearis spotless like snow. A similar idea occurred to me, with reference to the last stanza of our play on noticing in General Cunningham's Reports on the Archäologi- cal Survey of India how frequently temples and remains connected with the Vardha Avatâra are to be met with in Northern India. I But both circumstances appear to me to be capable of such obyi- ous explanations, on other hypotheses, that even this little bit of inferentially derived knowledge regarding Visakhadatta must be treated as still in need of corroboration. Regarding the date of the work, our information hitherto has been, I am afraid, almost equally scanty and equally unsatisfac- tory. Professor Wilson, relying upon two passages in the drama, deducted the conclusion, that it was composed in the 11th or 12th century of the Christian era, "when the Pathan princes were pressing upon the Hindu sovereignties." One of these passages is that in which reference is made to the Mlechchhas, a name which Professor Wilson understands to refer to the Muhamma- dans. The second passage is the stanza at the beginning of the fifth Act, on which Professor Wilson observes as follows:- This metaphorical style is not natural to the compositions of the period to which the drama belongs; the Hindus were, perhaps, beginning to borrow it from their neighbours." || The opinion thus pro- pounded by Professor Wilson has, as usual in such cases, been not only accepted by subsequent inquirers, but has itself been made the basis, to a greater or less extent, of further speculation. Thus, in the Reports of the Archæological Survey of India, a change in the course of the river S'ona being the subject of enquiry, it is stated to have occurred "shortly before or at the period of the great Muhammadan invasions, when the author of the Mudrârâkshasa, flourished."$ Now this might have been a thoroughly legitimate
- Ibid, p. 182, note, + Our text has not kept this reading, which occurs
only in two of our eight MSS. See the references given in our note on the passage, but see, too, inter alia Burgess's Arch. Sury. Report, Vol. I., pp. 7, 22, 26; Vol. IV., p. 15; Vol. Y., pp. 30-52. and see p. 21. infra. Hindu Theatre, II, p. 251, note. Ibid, p. 128. Ibid, p. 218. $ See Cunningham's Arch. Surv., Vol. VIII., p. 22, and Journal Ag. Soc. of · Beng., Vol. XIV., p. 140; Cf. also Indian Antiquary, Vol. II., p. 145, and Vol. VI., p. 114, note of Schwanbeck, 14 MUDRARAKSHASA conclusion, if the dates of the Mudrârâkshasa and of the "great Mu- hammadan invasions” had been satisfactorily proved to synchronise. But, as we shall presently proceed to show, such is by no means the case. And, therefore, one feels a certain amount of regret that owing to this expression of opinion by Professor Wilson— owing to this which is a very common form of manifestation of that scientific manliness and straightforwardness on the part of scholars, of which Professor Max Müller desires a wider extension, * -our Archaeological Surveyor felt himself relieved from the neces- sity of making an independent investigation of the date at which the change in the course of the S'ona took place. If such an in- dependent investigation had been made, we might have got results that would either have necessitated a reconsideration of the date suggested for the Mudrârâkshasa, or would have corroborated that date by testimony which would have sufficed to countervail the effect of the objections that may now be certainly urged against it with some force. For, first, what is the ground for assuming the Mlechchhas to mean the Mussulmans? It cannot be contended for an instant that the name is specifically confined to the Mussulmans at every period of Sanskrit literature. And, therefore, in deciding whether it is applied to them in any particular case, we must be guided by collateral circumstances. I can see no such collateral circumstances here, and Professor Wilson and Mr. Beglar are both alike silent about any such circumstances. On the other hand, Malayaketu himself is called a Mlechchha. Neither his name, . nor that of his uncle Vairochaka, nor that of his father Parvataka - which, be it remembered, is sometimes Paraphrased by S'ailes'- vara or Parvates'vara---shows any mark of Muhammadan origin.
- India: What it can teach us, p. 283. I quite agree with Professor Max
Müller that the manliness" he wishes for is in many cases desirable. All I wish to suggest is, that that virtue has a leaniog to the side of vice, which requires to be guarded agaicst; and compare on this Mr. Furgusson's remarks at J. R. A. S., (N. S.), Vol. VI., p. 273. + See inter alia Cunningham's Arch. Surv., Vol. II, p. 70. Borooah's English-Sanskrit Dictionary, Vol. III, pp. 41, 53, 82 (Introd.) and particularly Elphinstone's India, by Cowell, p. 289, with which compare Kathåsaritsagara, Taranga XIX., St. 108. See, too, Max Müller, India: What it can teaches us,p. 282, and Indrar Antiquary, Vol. VI., p. 274;: also a note towards the end of this Introduction. Vide p. 274 infra. $ See pp. 107, 134, 255, 273 infra, and cf. inter alia, J. A. S. B. Vol. 43, p. 104, and J. B. B.R.A.S., Vol. X. p. 368. . INTRODUCTION. Nor is the reference to the offering of funeral libations* to the deceased father calculated to lull all suspicion about the correct. ness of the theory, which identifies the Mlechchhas of the Mudrâ- râkshasa with the Mussulmans. Of course, in these remarks, I entirely lay out of consideration a possible view, that although the word Mlechchha in the earlier portion of the play does not stand for the Mussulmans, it does signify the Mussulmans in the last stanza of the play. † That would be a theory itself standing in need of confirmation and verification; and without such confirm- ation or verification, it is one which has really no fair claim to acceptance. Therefore it seems to me manifest, that the first link in Professor Wilson's chain of reasoning is an excessively weak one. But let us concede, for the sake of argument, that that link is not a weak one; that, in other words, the Mlechchhas alluded to in the Mudrârâkshasa-or rather in its last stanza —are identical with the Mussulmans. How does that justify the inference that the Mudrârâkshasa belongs to the 11th or 12th century of the Christian era ? The expression T- HTETT, would to my mind, indicate not so much a permanent esta- blishment of sovereignty or any continuous oppression, as a more or less constant series of annoyances and barassments; and the
- P. 192: It hardly peeds saying that Mlechchha is equivalent to the Greek
- Barbarian," meaning literally, “one who speaks barbarously.” It may, of
course, be objected to the argument based on the names Malayaketu and so forth, that the name Meghanada, or Meghâksha, or Meghakhya, ( as to which see Ind. Ant., Vol. II., p. 145 ), does not betray a Persian origin, although it is expressly stated to be the name of a Pârasika king. This is quite true, and it may be, that though Muhainmadans are intended to be denoted by the names Malaya. ketu, &c., the names used are Sanskritised in order to be made appropriate to a Sanskrit drama. This may be, but the two cases are distinct in that, firstly, in the one case we know specifically from other evidence who the Pârasikas are, while we do not similarly know who are referred to by the Mlechchhas; secondly, Mlechchha is a connotative name. While Pârasika is not; and, thirdly, no further inference is sought to be based here on the identification of Parasikas and Per- sians, while the identification of Mechchhas and Mugsulmans is made by Pro- fessor Wilson and others the basis of a whole chronological superstructure. See further on this subject Kern's Brihatsamhite, Preface, p. 32, note, with which cf. Fergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 28. In the Kirtikaumudi (Circa 1250 A. C.) the Mlechchhas mentioned at II. 58 are stated by the learn- ed editor, Professor Kathavate, to be the Muhammadans (See Notes, p. 34) and from the Indian Antiquary, Vol. IV., p. 364, we find that in Târânâth's history of Buddhism the pame Mlechchhas is understood to refer to the Muhammadans. See further on this subject J.A, S. B., Vol. IX., p. 849. 16 MUDRÂRÂKSHASA. reference to the earth as having taken refuge from such annoyances and harassments with the power and strength of Vishnu in the guise of the then reigning prince, would seem rather to point to some warlike proceedings, in which the Hindus appeared to greater advantage than in the invasions of Muhammad of Ghazni, and the later Muhammadan invaders of India. On such previous proceed- ings history may, perhaps, be said to give forth at present a some- what uncertain sound, but still it is assuredly not altogether silent. For a whole century, beginning from 711 A. C. and coming down to 812 A.C., there are traces of such annoyances as we have spolen of above, and the late Colonel Meadows Taylor says,* that "early Muhammadan enterprises against the Hindus, with the exception of that of Kassim (Circa 711 A. C.) were unsuccessful, and that they were found more united and more powerful and warlike than the people of the West over whom the Muhammadans had trium- phed." Or turning to an original Muhammadan history, mentioned and epitomised in Sir Henry Elliott's elaborate work, we read that "in the days of Tamim, the Mussulmans retired from several parts of India, and left some of their positions, nor have they up to the present time advanced as far as in days gone by." The force of this statement, on the point now under consideration, will be understood by remembering that the Tamim referred to in it was the successor of a Mussulman governor of Sindh, named Junaid, who is stated, in the same historical chronicle, to have " sent his officers," among other places, to Barus, which is understood to mean Broach; to have "sent à force against Uzain” or (Ujjayinî). and "against the country of Maliba" (said to be Malva or Mala- bar); and to have "conquered all Bailmân and Jurz," which last is. identified with Guzarâth, Now Junaid's achievements belong to about the second quarter of the eighth century after Christ, and therefore, it seems to me at least as tenable a position as Professor Wilson's to hold, that the allusion in the Mudrârâkshasa to the
- See the Student's Manual of the History of India, p. 77. Compare Elphin-
stone's India, by Cowell, p. 312, and notes there. † See Elliott's History of India as told by its own Historians, by Professor Dowson, Vol. I, PP. 125-6, and C£, Burgess's Archi. Sury. Report, Vol. II. p. 71, and Fergusson's Indian Architecture, pp. 24, 729. See also Dowson's Elliott, Vol. I., PP. 116, 390, and pp. 414 et seq. But see Yule's Cathay, Vol. I., p. clxxxvi. Cf. generally J.B. B. B. A. S., Vol. XIV. pp. 30-2; J. A. S. B., Vol. VI. p. 71, Vol. X. p. 189, Vol. XXX. p. 1138, and Fergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 729. INTRODUCTION. 17 preservation of India against the harassments of the Mlechchha Mussulmans points to its composition in that century. It is not necessary to examine at any length the other argu- ment which is suggested by Professor Wilson. Our note on the passage in question* (see P. 220 infra) will afford ample ground for considering that argument as being very far from satisfactory. And, therefore, we must now proceed to inquire whether there are any other materials available for forming an opinion on the ques- tion of the age when our author flourished. But before we do so, it is desirable to consider another point on which also Professor Wilson bases a chronological inference, though without deducing a date more definite than "one subsequent to the disappearance of the Bauddhas in India."* That point is that the antiquity of the play cannot be very great in consequence of its reference to the Jaina Kshapanaka Jivasiddhi. Professor Wilson's first argu- ment in support of this point is based merely on the “introduction- of the Jainas” into the play which, by itself, he considers to be a mark of modernness. One can only understand this argument when one remembers that Professor Wilson's estimate of the age of the Jaina system was a very low one. But in view of the facts and arguments bearing on this topic that are now available, T it seems to me impossible to accept Professor Wilson's premises, and the particular argument we are here dealing with must, therefore, fall to the ground. His second argument is based on what he con- siders to be the misapplication of the word Kshapanaka—a word which, Professor Wilson says, means not a Jaina, but a Bauddha only. Its application in the play to one who is plainly intended to be taken as a Jaina, not a Bauddha, || involves, Professor Wilson thinks, a confusion of terms "which is characteristic of a period
- Cf. also Hindu Theatre, Vol. I., p. 88, and Das'akumâracharita, p. 164 (Calc.
ed.) This work is attributed to the 6th century. See India: What it can teach us, p. 314; Indian Antiquary. Vol. III., P. S2; and Burnell's Aindra Grammer, p, 73. + Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., p. 159, note. This is a point on which something will have to be said in later portion of this Introduction. Hindu Theatre, Vol. II, p. 215. See Indian Antiquary, Vol. II., p. 193; Vol. VI., p. 15. Barth, Religions of India, p. 150. I See our Anugitâ in the Sacred Books of the East, p. 225, and Barth, Religions of India, p, 151; J. B. B. R. A.S., Vol. XII., p. 54; Burgess's Arch. Sury. Report, Vol. V., p. 48. ... A M. Barth is wrong in supposing him to be meant for & “ Buddhistic charac- ter," p. 134. 18 MUDRÂRÂKSHASA. subsequent to the disappearance of the Bauddhas in India." Now, in the first place, I do not know on what authority the word Ksha- panaka is limited to the narrow meaning stated by Professor Wil- son. In the Panchatantra, which may be supposed to be earlier than the "period" to which Professor Wilson refers, the name is certainly applied to the Jainas.* And so is it in Govindananda's commentary on the S'ârîraka Bhashya, and in the Prabodha- chandrodayat which though, perhaps, belonging to somewhere about that "period," I still very clearly distinguish the Bauddhas from the Jainas. I confess I have a suspicion that Professor Wilson was himself probably confounding Kshapanaka and Sramanakalio This latter word is, undoubtedly, employed very frequently to, signify the Bauddhas. Thus, in the Mrichchhakatika, the ascetic, who is there certainly meant to be taken as a Bauddha is called either Sramanaka or Bhikshuş and never, be it added in passing, Kshapanaka. But although the word S'ramanaka is most usually employed to signify Buddhists, even that word is not strictly con-, www
- See Tantra V., and Cf. Indian Antiquary, Vol. II, p. 194; also Wilson's
Essays, Vol. II., pp. 20, (where Professor Wilson traces a similar confusion in, the Panchatantra) 51, 76. The truth seems to be that the two sects are too inuch interlaced one with another for any such conclusion being based on these circumstances. In addition to what is said in the text, we have to remember, that S'ravaka, for instance, which Professor Wilson takes as referring to Jainas only (see Hindu Theatre, pp. 215-21), is also applied to Bauddhas. See inter alic Beal's Fa-Hinn, pp. 9-47, Cunningham's Bharhut Stúpa, p. 110. Oblier similar words, besides Arhat and Jina, mentioned in the text, are Thera and Bhadanta (or, in its Prakrit forms Bhayanta or Blante), which occur frequent- ly in the Inscriptions on the Amaravati Stúpa and in our Western India Cave, Inscriptions. Cf. on all this J. R. A. S. Vol. XVI. p. 361; Vol. XVII., p. 117 (N.S.); Vol. II., p. 140; Burgess's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. IV., pp 92, 112; Beal's Fa Hian, p. 5; Cave Temple Inscriptions by Dr. Burgess and Pandit Bha- gvânlal, pp. 7, 11, 37, 76, and many other places; Burgess's Amravati Stúpa, pp. 41, 54. See also Brihatsımhitâ, ch. LI., st. 20-21, with which cf. Burnell's S. Indian Paleography, pp 12 (12), 47 (n), Bhirhut Stipa, p. 83; Journal Ceylon Asiatic Society (1845) p. 24, (1847) p. 19, (1856-8) p. 247; Indian Antiquary, Vol. XI., p. 29. Roth's Hemncbapdra, p 58. See S'ankara Bhishya (Bib., Ind. ed.), P. 591 and p. 497. Harshacharita, p. 16; Anandagiri's S'ankaravijnya, p. 153 ct scq.» Aufrecht's Halayudha. p. 38. (The entry in the Index is crroneous). Hindu Theatro Vol. I, p. 56, and Das'akumâracharita with commentary (ed. by Messrs. Godbolo and Parab), p. 189. Ditto (Bomb. Class. ) p. 54 and note thereon. * pp. 55-8 See as to this Capningham's Arch. Sury. Roport, Vol. IX., p. 108. and also ci J. B. B. R. A. S. Vol. III., p. 312. See pp. 98, 238-9. and Ilindu Theatre, Vol. I, p. 56. 10 PO INTRODUCTION. fined to this sense. Thus in the Kadamba copperplates deciphered by me some years ago, it is unmistakably applied to Jaina ascetics.t But further, assuming the "confusion" alleged by Professor Wilson to be proved, I still do not know from what materials we can draw the inference that that "confusion” is characteristic of the period referred to by him. Other words, •which have undoubtedly been specifically appropriated by Jainism, may be found used in Bu- ddhistic works~ Arhat, I for instance, or Jina, S And the doctrines of the Jainas and Buddhists are in so many respects identical that in the eyes of Brahmaņas, the "confusion" may well have taken place, even when both the heretical sects were living side by side in the country. T The truth is, that there is nothing in this "confusion, even if it was a proved fact, from which any such chronological inference could be drawn as has been drawn by professor Wilson. The position of the Jaina Jivasiddbi in our play, however, is to be noticed as indicating the tolerant spirit of the times. Although as belonging to a heretical sect, the sight of him is supposed to be inauspicious. || he is still admitted into the con- fidence of ministers of State. Chanakya, the Brâhmana minister, introduces him to Råksbasa; $ and Rakshasa, also a Brâhmaņa minister, becomes so close a friend of his, as to speak of his heart itself having been taken possession of by the enemy, when he finds that Jivasiddhi is like the others, merely a tool of Chanakya** On the other hand, the questionable purposes for which Jivasiddhi, in his character of Jaina ascetic, is actually employed, may find their parallels in the stories of Devasmitâ in the Kathasaritsagara and of Nitambavati in the Das'akumâracharita,tf where Bauddha
- See Indian Antiquary, Vol. IX. p. 122; Vol. X., p. 143. See, too, Briha-
ditanyaka Upanishad, p 796 and Sankara's Bhashya thereon, with which compare Beal's 7.-Hian, p, 5; J. R. A. S., Vol. XVI., p. 230 et seq., Vol. IX. (N. S.), p. 169; Dowson's Elliott, Vol. I., p. 506. See J. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. XII. p. 321. See J.R.A.S. (N. S.), Vol. IV., p. 310. S Nagananda, p. 1; Cf. Barth, Indian Religions, p. 142; Kielhorn's Report on Sanskrit MSS., p. 34. Fergusson's Architecture, p. 233. TSee Barth's Religions of India, p. 147 1P. 212. $ P. 71.
- P. 258. See
Kathâsaritsagara, Taranga XIII., st. 68 et seq. and Das'akumâracharita, p. 121, ( Calc. ed.) These stories may, perhaps, be taken as indicating the same antago- nism to these “heretical sects" which is shown in the superstition regarding the sight of them being inauspicious, &c. Cf. also Indian Antiquary, Vol.VII., p. 201; Beal's Fa-Kian, p. 169; Varahamihira’s Brihatsamhitâ ch. 78, st. 9, and Weber's History of Indian Literature, p. 281 (n.) · INTRODUCTION. 21 therefore, if we accept Dr. Hall's opinion as a basis, it seems to follow that the Mudrârâkshasa was probably composed at the latest about the century prior to the 11th century A. D. This argument, it must never be forgotten, only yields a terminus ad quem for the date of our play. And this terminus would fit in very well with the hypothetical conclusion which has been indicated above as derivable from the last stanza of the play. On that last stanza there is another remark germane to this branch of our subject, which may now be made. One of our MSS. --the one marked E-reads araregui, instead of grea: in the last line of that stanza. Another that marked N-reads raa- hf. It is not quite impossible that the difference between E and N is due only to miscopying, and that in both MSS. one name only was intended whether that name be Rantivarmâ or Avanti- varmâ. As to the former, Rantivarmâ, I am unable to find any trace of that name anywhere. But we find two kings, named Avantivarmâ, mentioned in the documents accessible to us. One king of that name is the famous Avantivarmâ of Kas'mir. * But that province is too far off from the provinces to which the two MSS. in question belong, and too little connected with them, to justify us in identifying the Avantivarmâ mentioned in one of them with this king of Kås'mir, We know, however, of another Avantivarmâ, who was the father of the Maukhari king Graha- varmâ, the husband of the sister of Harshavardhana of Kanoj. He must have been a king of Western Magadha or Behar, and, if our author was an inhabitant of that part of the country, it is not impossible that this play was written by him in the reign of Avanti- varmâ, and so bis name came to be substituted for Chandragupta in the stanza referred to. If this identification is correct, as Avan. tivarmâ's date may probably be taken to be somewhere about the seventh century A. D., that would also be the date of Vis'âkhadatta. And as the Maukhari princes may possibly have joined their neigh-
- See Rajatarangini, Chap. V., and Bubler's Tour ip Kas'mir, J. B. B. R. A. S.
(Special No.), p. 74. + Cunningham's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol, XV., p. 164. Vol. XVI., pp. 73-78; and see Harshacharita, p. 108. Another Avantıvarma, apparently, is mentioned at J. A. S. B. Vol. XXX., p. 321, but nothing has been ascertained about his date, &c. A king Avanti is mentioned at Gaparatna. mabodadhi, p. 123. 22 MUDRÂRÂKSHASA.. bours, the later Guptas, in their wars with the wliite Huns, it is again not impossible that the Mleclichhas referred to in the last stanza of our play were these white Huns, whose inroads are sup- posed by General Cunningham to have occurrred in the fifth and sixth centuries A. D. All this, however, is only possible at present; further light on the subject must be awaited, before we can come to any safe conclusion upon it. There is one other line of inquiry which may be worth pursu- ing, as it may lead to some result bearing upon the age of the Mudrârâlshaşa. The scene of the play is laid for the most part in the city of Pataliputra, or Kusumpura, as it is also called. + Now it may be argued, I think, with some ground of reason, that the geography of our play must have been based not upon the state of things which existed in the time of Chandragupta, and wbich probably there were no materials for ascertaining at the date of the play, but upon the state of things which actually existed at the time when the play was itself composed. I And more especially may this argument be accepted in the case of those indications of geographical facts which are yielded only in an incidental way by passages in the drama designed for an entirely different purpose. Now, if we put together these geographical indications, we find that the Pâtaliputra, where the scene of the play is laid, was to the south of a river named the Soua, $ and that the king's palace in that city overlooked the River Ganges. T I think we may also safely assume that this Pâtaliputra was an existing city at the time of the composition of the play. This last proposition follows almost as a logical consequence, if we are right in the
- See Cupningham's Arch. Sury, Report, Vol. III., p. 135; also Harshacharita,
p. 116; and Cf. Mr. Fergusson's S'aka Sainvat and Gupta Eras, and J. A. S. B., Vol. IX., P. 849, about the white Huns and their invasions of India. 4 Cf, as to these names, &c., Dr. Hall's Vasavadatta, Preface p. 35; Cunning- ham's Arch. Sury. Report, Vol. XIV., p. 1, et sea; Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. XVII., p. 49; see also Beals Fa-Hian, p. 70; Kern's Briliatsamliitâ, Prefaco pp. 37-40; J. R. A. S. (N. S.)., Vol VI., pp. 227-228; Burgess's Arclı, Sury. Report, Vol. V., p. 43. In some places, Kusumapura is distinguished from Påtaliputra, and is identified with the Modern Falvari. But in our play they are treated as interchangeable names, see pp. 187, 196, 198, 203. Cf. Cunning- ham's Arch, Sury. Report Vol VIII., P. 22. S see pp. 211-14; Patanjali in the Mauüblisliya, mentions. Pataliputra, as being on the S'ona; see Indian Antiquary Vol. I, p. 301; Cunningham's Arch. Sury, Report, Vol. VIII., pp. 6, 11, 8; see too, Indian Antiquary, Vol. V., PP. 331-4. T See p. 154 infra. INTRODUCTION. argument which has been above set fortlı touching the value of; the geographical date in our play. Now we may, I think, take it to be historically demonstrated, that Pataliputra is the Indian name of the city, which is familiar in the classical accounts of this country under the name of Palibothra," which was visited by the Chinese traveller Fa-Hian (who travelled in India and Central Asia between the years 399 and 414 A. D.) as the capital of Ma- gadha, and is described by the other famous Chinese traveller, Hiouen-Tsang, as being a ruined city, south of the Ganges the foundations of which still covered, in his time, an extent of 70 li, though it had then been long deserted. † Hiouen-Tsang's journey commenced about 629 A. D., and extended down to 646 A, D. Therefore, we have Pâtaliputra still in existence till about the middle of the seventh century. But one century later we come to an- other Chinese account of India, and speaking of the year 756 A. D, that account gives us the following item of information:-“At the close of the year Kan-yuen"-this is said to be about 756 A.D.-"the bank of the river Ho-lung gave way, and disappeared."I The scholar who has translated this Chinese account tentatively suggests that Ho-lung may stand for the Ganges, and General Cunningbam and Mr. Beglar more confidently maintain the same view. Mr. Beglar, then, arguing upon the basis that Ho-lung does signify the Ganges, proceeds to state some very fair grounds for holding that the event recorded in the extract above quoted is the destruction of the city of Pâtaliputra by the falling-in of the banks of the Ganges. 4 If this conclusion is correct, then our previous argument shows that, the Mudrârâkshasa must have been composed about the first balf -
- See Wilson's Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., p. 136; and compare Beal's Fa-Hian,
p. 103, and note there; J. B. B. R, A. S., Vol. Il1, Part II., p. 153; J. R. A. S., Vol. XVII, p, 126. Indian Antiquary Vol. VI., P, 131. At p. 50 of the Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., may be seen a strange superstition regarding Pataliputra. See Elphinstone's History of India, by Cowell, p. 292, and Cf. the authorities referred to in the last preceding note. Soe Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal Vol. VL, p.71 $ Cunningham's Arch Sury. Report, Vol. VIII, p. 12; sce also Vol. XI, p. 156. Lassen (see Indian Antiquary, Vol: II., p. 196) says "tbe ancient capital, Pataliputra, had long ceased to exist at the time to which, I think, the reign of Kalkin must be referred," that is to say, according to him, 1522 A. D. I do not know exactly what this alludes to. But it looks as if the meaning merely was that Pataliputra had ceased to be occupied as the seat of. royalty long before 1522. If so, the passage can have no bearing on the question discussed in the text. MUDRÂRÂKSHASA of the eighth century of the Christian era. I am bound, however, to point out, that besides the doubtful character of the evidence we have here set out, we must recollect that in the recent- republication of the account of Ma-Twan-Lin, the passage above. adduced is very differently rendered. Instead of what is quoted above, we read there as follows:-"Towards the end of the Khien-yuen period ( 668), China having lost the country of Ho- long, the kings of India ceased from that time to come to court."* These two renderings are entirely different from one another, and it is impossible for us to decide between them. We must, there- fore, leave the question to be determined by those who are con- versant with the subject. It is enough for us here to add, that while on the one hand the modern Pâtna does not date back to any period further removed from us than the time of Shir Shah, who- indeed, appears to have founded the modern fortress and town, we have no mention of Pâtaliputra in any work of ascertained date subsequent to the time of Hiouen-Tsang And it would be re- markable, that Ma-Tyan-Lin's own account should contain nothing about a city which is referred to both by Fa-Hian and by Hiouen- Tsang. For obvious reasons, it is not possible for me to go into the Fari- ous geographical discussions regarding the change of the course of the S'ona and the actual site of Pâţaliputra, which have been go- ing on from the time of Major Rennell to our own day. Nor is it necessary for our present purpose that I should do so. Suffice it' to say, that in all these discussions, as we have indicated above, the date of the Mudrârâkshasa instead of being treated as a point for investigation, has been assumed, in accordance with the .opinion of Professor Wilson, to fall in about the eleventh century of the Chri- stian era. There is however nothing, as far as I am able to judge, in the points made in that discussion, either to render such an assumption necessary, or even to indicate that it is a legitimate one. The date of the play may be placed even five or six centuries earlier than the point at which professor Wilson placed it, without in any way running counter to any fact established in the discus-
- See Indian Antiquary. Vol. XI., p. 19, and Cf. Yule's Catbay, Vol I., P.
lxxxi. Sec Cunningham's Arch. Sury. Report, Vol. VIII., p. 14. But sce as to this and generally the pote on this point in our note on S'ankaracharyn' in the Indian Antiquary. the date of $ See p. 14 supra. . INTRODUCTION. 25 sion under reference. And, therefore, it is unnecessary to labour the point any further for our present purposes. I need oply remark, that while General Cunningham places the 'site of Påtaliputra between the ancient beds of the river Ganges and the S'ona," the passages above referred to as probably indicating that the city must have been situated to the south of the Sona fmilitate against his view. If the indications furnished by our play are to be ac- cepted, the city must have been situated near the confluence of the two rivers, and not between them, but along the southern banks of both rivers. It will have been perceived, that the considerations which have been so far dwelt upon, point to the seventh or eighth century A.D. as the probable date of our drama. One other circumstance looking the same way may now be adverted to. In the seventh Act we have a remarkable stanza, in which the conduct of Chandanadâsa, in sacrificing his life for his friend Râklasa, is stated to have trans- cended the nobility even of the Buddhas. It seems to me that that allusion to Buddhism belongs to a period long prior to the decay and ultimate disappearance of Buddhism from India. Of the other works, which, as stated in our note on this passage, con- tain similar references to Buddhism, the Nágánandall may pro- bably be taken to belong to about the middle of the seventh cen- tury A. D., and the Mâlatîmâdhava to the end of that century, The Kâdambarî, in which passages leading to a similar conclusion also occur, likewise belongs to the same period. I Now, in Fa- Hian's time---that is to say, about the beginning of the fifth century
- Arch, Surv. Report, Vol. VIII., p. 6.
See pp. 211 and 214. I take the passage at p. 211 to signify that the army of Malayaketu had to cross the S'ona before reaching Pâtaliputra, while the passage at p. 214 shows that that army had to go from north to south. At the same time, it is possible, that the meaning of the former passage may be simply, that the elephants of Malayaketu are to enjoy themselves in the S'ona, after Malayaketu shall have obtained pos- session of the city. This is possible, but I do not think it is the true meaning of the passage. P. 304 infra. Cf. on this Wilson's Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., 4; Elphinstone's History of India, by Cowell, p. 290 note; also S. P. Pandit's Mâlavikågnimitra, Preface, p. 35 ct. seq. | I am aware that in the Introduction to Mr. Palmer Boyd's translation of this play, it is assinged to about the 12th century. But it seems to be by the same author as the Ratnâvalí, and the assertion in the text is based on that assumption. I See p. 209; and Cf. further Harshacharita, pp. 211-2; and also Mâgha, Canto XX., st. 81; Brihatsambitâ, ch. LX., st. 19; and Elphinstone's India, by Cowell, p. 298. 26 BIUDRÂRÂKSHASA. A, D.-according to Mr. Beal, "Buddhism in India had arrived at a stage of development that foreshadowed its approaching decline and overthrow."* In the time of Hiouen-Tsang--that is to say, between 629-645-it was, however, still far from being decayed, though it "appears to have fallen very far below the point at which it stood in Fa-Hian's time; to have been equal in power with Brahminism only where it was supported by powerful kings, and to have been generally accepted as the one religion of the country only in Kâs'mîr and the Upper Punjab,in the Magadha and in Guzarât." In this condition of things, it was still quite possible, that one who was not himself a Buddhist-and Vis'âkhadatta plainly was not one-should refer to Buddhism in the complimentary terms we find in the passage under disscussion. But such a reference is not likely to have been made at any time very far removed from the period of which we are now speaking. For in the eighth and ninth centuries "Buddhism had become so corrupt, that it no longer attracted the people, and when it lost the favour of kings, it had no power to stand against the opposition of the priests."S From these facts alone we may, I think, safely conclude that a work which refers to Buddhism in the way ours does probably dates from a time prior to the ninth century A. D. Some support to this conclusion might be drawn from the circumstance, which is alluded to on this point by the same authority as that from which
- Introduction, p. Isi., and cf. pp. 107-147.
- See Rhys Davids'
Manual of Buddhism, p. 245; and Barth's Religions of India, p. 132. On the vicissitudes of the fortunes of Buddhism in India, see also inter alia Beal's Fa- Hian, p. 53; J. R. A, S. (N. S.), Vol. III., p. 105; Burgess's Arch. Surv. Report Vol. II, p. 10; Vol. IV. p. 60; VOL. V., pp. 16, 22; Burnell's South Indian Paleo- graphy, p. 114 note; Fergusson's Indian Architecture, pp. 21-25; and Barth's Indian Religions, p. 134. The argument here is not at all inconsis- tent with the view expressed by me at Indian Antiquary, Vol. IX., p. 46; a view to which I still adhere, and which, I find, has been expressed by other scholars also, cf. inter alia Barth's Religions of India, p. 133; Max Muller's India: What it can teach us, pp. 280-307; Indian Antiquary, VOL VII, pp. 2 and 198; see, too, Burnell's South-Iodian Paleography, pp. 104, 111; Fergusson's Indian Archetec- turc, p. 23; Journ. Bomb. Br. Roy. Ag. Soc., VOL. XII., p. 315. There is, how- erer, an obrious difference between mere tolerance by a king-which may have hicea due, to some extent, to motives of policy-or even support in common with other systems and a positive compliment by an ordinary author. And the gist of the argument in the text lies in this difference. $ Davids' Buddhism, p. 246--passage which shows that the expressions used by Mr. Pandit at the place rciorred to in a previons note are too strong for the actual facts of the cace. Cf. also Cunnigbam's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. VII., P. 198; Indicit Antiquary VOL XI., p. 116; Barth's Religions of India, p. 132. INTRODUCTION. we have made the last two extracts quoted above, # namely, Mr. Rhys Davids' Manual of Buddhism. That circumstance is the alleged persecution of the Buddhists under the instigation of Kumârila Bhatta and Sankaracharya. But this still requires corroboration, and it opens up a question which is too wide to be fully discussed on the present occasion, Looking back at the various lines of investigation which have now been pointed out it seems to me that they all run pretty closely towards the conciusion that our drama belongs to some- where about the early part of the eighth century A. D. I am not aware of any thing in the evidence, external or internal, bearing upon this subject, with which that conclusion stands in conflict. And this being so, I think, we may accept that conclusion, always remembering, of course, that the reasons by which it is supported are not such as to silence all possible suspicion. One interesting question relating to our drama arises upon the stanza fria, &c, which occurs at P. 135 infra, and which is also to be found in the Nitis'ataka of Bbartřihari. The next stanaza after that, beginning with o ther, is also to be found in some copies of Bhartrīhari's S'atakas. As, however, the genuine- ness of this latter as forming a part of Bhartribari's work may be fairly doubted.ll it is not necessary to discuss the question except as it is raised by the first stanza. Now, in the first place, it is re- markable that that starza is quoted in the Das'arüpâvaloka nomi- nally as from the Bhartriharis'ataka, but in reality in the form which is plainly more appropriate to its context in the Mudra- rakshasa. T In the Bhartriharis'ataka the words are in the last line must be impossible to understand. In the Mudrarakshasa they are perfectly intelligible, and actually occur in four of our MSS.
- See p. 284.
I must state, however, notwithstanding what is said, for instance, by Mr. Beal (Fa-Hrad, 137) or by M. Barth (p. 135-6), that I have myself no faith in the traditions about these persecutions. As to S'apkara- chârya's supposed share in them, I expressed this opinion as far back as 1876, see Indian Antiquary, Vol. Y., p. 290. And as we learn from that great philosopher's work that, in his time, there was no universal sovereigo, no Sarvabhaumrâjâ in India (see Bhashya on Vedant Sûtras, Bibl, Ind. ed., p. 314), it becomes certainly still more doubtful than it is on the other evidence, whether any such persecution as is alleged ever took place. Cf. on this point Barth's Religions of India, pp. 134-6 See our Bhartrihari, p. 7 (Nitis'ataka). $ Ibid, p. 31 (Nitis'ataka). | See Preface to Bhartrihari, p. XX. ( See p. 62. 28 DIVDRÂRÂKSHASA. WA The probability seems to be, that the author of the Das'arûpa valoka quoted the stanza from memory, and in doing so, quoted the read- ing of his copy of the Iſudrârâkshasa, wrongly attributing it to the Bhartriharis'ataka. Upon the question which arises with reference to these identical stanzas occurring in different and independent works, I have nothing to add to the remarks which I have else- where made, and which are already in print. In the particular case which we have here to deal with, I can see no alternative other than the theory of plagiarism on the one hand, and what may be called the Subhashita theory on the other. The former is not a probable one, especially in such a case as this. The latter therefore, is the only one that we can adopt. The names of the various peoples mentioned in the Mudra- rakshasa deserve a few words in this Introduction. Those names areas follows:-Saka, Yavana, Kirâta, Kamboja, Parasika, Bablika, (which all occar in the second Act), Khas'a, Magadha, Gândhara, China, Hûya, Kauluta, (which occur in the fifth Act), and Mle- chchha on which some remarks have already been made. It is unnecessary, in this place, to go into any elaborate examination of all that has been said with respect to these various names. I will indicate only in a general way what these names are commonly understood to signify, and give references in the notes to the principal sources of information. The S'akas appear to have been a tribe inhabiting the countries on the north-west frontier of India-between the Indus and the sea." They are spoken of by the classical writers under the name Sacce, and have been thought www
- Cf. on the obsersatiobs in West and Bibler's Digest of Hindu Latr, p. 528
(20d ed.); DIr. Mandlik (Hindu Lavy, pp. 368, 359.) disputes the suggestion there made about Mitra Nis'ra quoting from memory as being without "authority." The muggestion seems to ne, however, to be a very probable one as a general ob. sortation. Cf. J. B. B. R. A. S, Vol. X., 370; and Eggeling's Ganaratpamaho- dndbi, pp 33, 182, where the quotation from the Kiráta and the Vedisambara were probably made from memory. See our Blartrihari Preface, p. 21, and the Tractate on the Ramayana there reierted to. I See Hall's Vasavadattal, Preface, P. 177. $ Sce also as to Diechchbas. J. B. B.R.A.S. VOL. TI p. 114, and extra number for 1877, 7). Ixxxii; Max Miller, India; What it can teach us, pp. 28% 299; Cognichann's Arch. Surs. Renort. Vol. II. p. 70; Burgess's Arch. Surt. Teport, Vol. II, p. 96; Brihatsamhita, Chan. XVI., st. 35, (where they are des- criber as dircilers in caves, &c.). Professor Kern renders the word by barbarians, J. R. A. S., (N. S.), Vol. V., p. 235. INTRODUCTION." 29 generally to be identical with Scythians.* They give their name to the royal dynasty from which the Marâthî word S'aka, mean- ing era, is derived. This particular signification of the word is based upon an error, † but the era current in this part of the country, and known as the S'aka era, which commences with 78 A, D., is
- so called from the "Saka kings." The Yavanas have not been
very satisfactorily identified. The questions which arise regard- ing the various references to them were elaborately discussed by Dr. Rajendralâl Mitra some years ago. The name seems to have been applied at various times, to various tribes. Professor Wilson thinks that the Yavanas of Malayaketu's army may have been Greeks. The Yavapas, however, are also mentioned in the Mudra- rakshasa, T as having formed part of the invading army which fol- lowed Chandragupta and Chânakya to Pataliputra. But I do not -find, that in the classical accounts of the invasion which are col- lected by Professor Wilson,| any mention is made of Greek soldiers. Yet such mention might fairly be expected, if the Yavanas of the Mudrârâkshasa were really identical with the Greeks. The Yaya. nas referred to in our play were probably some of the frontier tribes inhabiting Afghanisthan and neighbouring districts. The
- See inter alia Prinsep's Essays, by Thomas, Vol. I., p. 125; Indian Antiquary,
Vol. IV., pp. 166, 167, 244; Vol. VI., p. 337; J. R. A, S., (N. S.), Vol. V., p. 59; Burgess's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. II, p. 26; Vol. III., p. 55; Vol. IV., pp. 97. 101, 104, 114; J. R. A. S., Vol. XVI., P. 247. See J. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. X., p. xliii. ; Mr. Fergusson (S'aka and other eras, p. 9; Indian Architecture, p. 27), thinks that Kanishka founded this era, other scholars have attributed the foundation to Nabapana; see Professor Bhândâ kar's paper in the Transaction of the Orientalist's Congress in London. p. 318. The legend about S'âlivâhana, hov- cver, prevails in the Punjab, see Indian Antiquary, Vol XI., p. 289, and also, apparently in Java; Fergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 640. See Indian Antiquary, Vol. VII., P. 305; see also J.B. B. R. A. S., Vol. VIII., p. 281; Cupn- ingham's Arch. Surv. Reports, Vol. XII., p. 130; Fergusson's S'aka and other eras, pp. 7, 10; Bțihatsambitâ, Chap. VIII., st. 20-21; Max Muller, India: What it can teach us, pp. 282, 292, 297, 301. See J. A. S. , Vol. XLIII, and contra Indian Antiquary, Vol. IV., pp. 170, 244; see also Indian Antiquary, Vol. V., P. 275; Vol. X., p. 197, (where it seems to be stated that & people dwell. ing near Siam are called by this name in Hlouen-Tsang), Vol. VI. p. 114; and J. R. A. S. (N. S.) Vol. IV., p. 442; Burgess's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. IV., pp. 34-38, 90-5, 114; Fergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 142, note. 1 P. 124 infra. | Hindu Theatre, Vol. II, p. 147. Chandragupta, indeed, appears to have been hostile to the Greeks, see J. B. B. R. A. S. Vol. III., pp. 153-154; Vol. XV., pp. 274-5; see, too, Cunningham's Bhilsa Topes, p. 87 and author- ities there cited. 30 MUDRÂRÂKSHASA. Kiratas are another of these savage tribes, which are stated by Mr. A. Barooah to have been inhabitants of the hilly tracts just below the Himalaya, near Kumaon and Nepal. In the great duel which forms the subject of the Kirâtârjuniya, and which took place, be it remembered, on the heights of the Himalaya, Arjuna's opponent was a Kirâta from whom the great epic takes its name* The Kâmbojast and the Pârasikas are both mentioned under those names in Kâlidâsa's Raghuvams'a as tribes inhabiting the out- lying districts on the north-western frontier. The Pârasikas are doubtless the people inhabiting Persia and the adjoining regions. Horses from their country are also mentioned under the name Vanâyudes'ya in the Raghuvams'a. The Bahlikas are easily indentified as the dwellers in the district of Bactria or Balkh, where a Buddist Vihara has been discovered. T So much for the invading army of Chandragupta, which in the classical ac- counts is described as containing vagabonds,ll and robbers, and banditti. This, doubtless, may be an exaggeration, as Professor Wilson was inclined to suppose. But it seems probable from the habitat of the peoples mentioned, if we have correctly fixed it, that they were outlying uncivilized peoples, whom Chandragupta and Chanakya formed into an arnay for the purpose of helping in their work of revenge. The elements stated to constitute the army which followed Malayaketu and Rakshasa are of the same description. The Khas'as appear to be identical with the tribes still dwelling in the Khasſia$ and Garo Hills in the north-eastern parts of Bengal. The real name of the tribe seems to be Khas'a and so our text
- See further Indian Antiquary, Vol. III., pp. 178-9; Vol. VI., pp. 133, 349 n;
Vol. X., p. 321. + See Raghuvams'a, Canto IV., st. 60-69. For the Kâmbojas, see also Indran Antiquary, Vol. IV., p. 244; Vol. V., p. 275; Vol. X., p. 272; they and Yavanas are decribed as que in the Gaparatnamahodadhi, p. 157, (Eggel. ing's ed.). Raghuvams'a, Canto V. st. 73. See further on this and other names Vâsavadattâ, Hall's Preface, p. 52; Aufrecht's Halâyudha, p. 47. See Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., P. 114. J. R. A.S., (N. S.), Vol. IX., p. 169 and Vol. XVII., (0, S., ) p. 112. Hindu Theatre, Vol. II, pp. 133, 149. An explanation of this statement in the classical writers is suggested by General Cunningham in his Bhilsa Topes, p. 89. $ Barooah's Dictionary, Vol. 111., P. 44; see, too, Bhilsa Topes, p. 94; and Bțihatsamhiting Chap. LXIX, st. 26;. and J. A. S. B., Vol. XVI., p. 1237, (Mr. Brian Hodgson's paper.). INTRODUCTION. 31 ought to have read it, following the MSS. A. and P.* The next name is Magadha. If our text is on this point correct, and all our MSS. read the name as Magadha, the reference is probably to the discontented inhabitants of Magadha, who still followed Rakshasa, repudiating all connexion with Chandragupta as a usurper. I own, however, that I have a suspicion, though it is nothing more, that Magadha is not the correct reading, but that it should be Magara. If our identification of the Khas'as is right, this rectification is strongly suggested by the fact that the Magara tribe inliabits the Himâlayan tracts near Kumaon in the neighbourhood of the Khas'as. According to Mr. Carleylle, the Goorkeas of Nepal originally belonged to the twin tribes, Magaras and Khas'as. It must be admitted, however, that the emendation here is a mere suggestion, which cannot be accepted at present in the face of the evidence of our MSS. of the Mudrârâkshasa. I may add, that the language of the Magaras has formed the subject of an essay by Mr. Beams in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. The Gândhâras who come next are undoubtedly the people settled about the modern Peshawar. That part of the country is referred toin the Chhậndogya Upanishad, and it is well known that many Buddhistical remains of ancient days have been found at Ali Masjid and other places on the borders of Afghanisthan.. The Chinas are the next people who claim attention. Mr. Barooah identifies with the Chinese the Chinas mentioned in the Mahâbhârata. The Chînas of our text are probably not to be distinguished from the Chinas mentioned in the great epic. But Professor Max Muller
- See further as to the Khas'as, Indian Antiquary, Vol. X., p. 386; and
J. B. B. R. A, S. VOL. III., P. 156; and as to some of their customs, Indian Antiquary, Vol. VII., PP. 164, 205. 4 Canningham's Arch. Sury. Report, Vol. XII., pp. 126-30; Vol. III., p. 116; see also Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., p. 337; and cf. Fergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 301, Journ. R. A.S., (N. S.), Vol. IV. S See Indian Antiquary, Vol. I., p. 22; Cunningham's Geography, pp. 15, 47, et seq; Elliott's Bibliographical Index, Part I., p. 30; J. R. A. S. Vol. XVII., pp. 114-5. See p. 459 (Bibl. Ind. ed.); see also Max Muller's India: What it can teach us, p. 300; Beal's Fa-Hian, p. 30. Indian Antiquary, Vol. I., p. 21; Fergusson's Indian Architecture, pp. 59. 72. Il See inter alia Ifergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 169, et seq.; Indian Anti- quary Vol. VIII., p. 227; J. R. A.S., (N. S.), Vol. XIII., P. 183; Vol. XIV. p. 319. One of the famous edicts of As'oka is in those parts, which formed, accord. ing to those edicts themselves, the western limit of As'oka's kingdom; see Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., p. 275; cf. also Elliott's Index, part I., p. 102, 32 BIUDRÂRÂKSHASA doubts whether in the Mahâbhârata the name Chinas really does stand for the Chinese.* However whether they are to be identified with the Chinese or not, they would seem to belong to some where about the north-eastern quarter of India, whether on this side of the Himûlaya mountain or the further side. The Hûnas come next and these are probably to be identified with the White Huns, t whose inroads into India are said to have occurred in the fifth and sixth centuries A D. They are mentioned in Kâlidâsa, and an expedition against them is stated in the Harshacharitato have been entrusted to Rajyavardhana, the elder brother of Harshavar- dhana, by his father who is himself also described as FETOTERAT . Kaulûta appears in our play as the description of one of the confederates of Malayaketu. Professor Wilson says that the part of the country called Kulûta is not known. Since his time, how- ever, some evidence on the subject has become accessible. Kulüta is alluded to in the Kadambari,s and in Varahamihira, f and is mentioned by Hiouen-Tsang, appearently, as lying on the way from Jalandar to Mathurâ and Thânes'var.] The modern name of the district is, according to Mr. Barooah, Kulu., $ and its precise position is indicated in the map which forms the frontispiece to General Cunnigham's Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. I. DIalaya, if our reading here is correct, is the only southern locality alluded to in our play. It is near the southernmost extremity of the Western Ghâts.** Kâs'mir is the province which still goes under the same name and Saindhava, doubtless, means belonging AM
- Barcoal's Dictionary, Vol. III., P. 114; see, too, Weber's History of Indian
Literature, p. 243; Yule's Cathry, Vol. I., p. xxxiv.; and Kera's Brihatsamhità in J. R. A. S., (N. S.), Vol. V. p. 73 (st, 61); and contra Max Muller, India: What it can teach u9, p. 13; faith is inentioned inter alia by Kalidasa and Dandi. + See as to the Hiinas, Raghuvoms'a, IV., 68; J.R.A.S., Vol. II, p. 283; Vol.V., (V. S.), p. 73; Cunningham'a Geography of Ancient India, p. 7; Fergusson's S'aka and other Eras, p. 21; and Indian Architecture, pp. 39, 726, and nole at p. XI. rpra. As to their early history, see J. R. A. S. (N. S.), Vol X., p. 285. P. 216. See p. 101. Chap. XIV., st. 29; J. R. A, S. Vol. XVII., p. 119. l Cunninghan's Geography of Ancient India, pp. 142-564; and Arch. Surs, Report, Vol. XIV., p. 120; see algo Indian Antiguary, Vol. VI., p. 339; J. A. S. B. Vol. XVII. p. 23. $ See Dictionary, Vol. III., p. 41-56.
- Sco Raghurains'a, Canto IV., et. 51; Canto V., st. 64. See, howevor, as to
alnya Intran antiquury VOL XIV p. 103, and as to Malaya and generally vid INTRODUCTION. 'to Sindh,* as Professor Wilson has pointed out. A review of all these names shows, that except the name Malaya, they one and all belong to the northern parts, and most to the northern fron- tier of India. There is just one other point, touching the general character of our play, on which a few words might fairly be said in this intro. duction. It is plain that the sympathy of the reader is expected for Chânakya and his party, while it is equally plain that the policy of Châņakya is not remarkable for high morality. From the most ordinary deception and personation, up to forgery and murder, evey device is resorted to that could be of service in the achieve- ment of the end which Chânakya had determined for himself. On the other side, too, there is no lack of highly objectionable and immoral proceedings. It must be admitted that this indicates a very low state of public morality, and the formal works on politics which exist certainly do not disclose anything better." With reference to the criticisms which might be, and have been, based on these facts, however, there are one or two circumstances to be taken into account. In the first place, although this is no excuse, it may be said to be an extenuation, that the questionable pro- ceedings referred to are all taken in furtherance of what is in it- self a very proper end. Chanakya's ambition is to make his protégé, Chadragupta, firm upon his throne, and to bring back Rakshasa,
- See Cunningham's Geography, p. 6; with regard to most of the names dis-
cussed, the following may also be consulted; As'oka's Edicts, Brihatsamhitâ, Chaps. 9 to 11, 14, 16 to 18, and 32; Manu, Chap. X., st. 44; Cuppingham's Ancient Geography, Harshacharita, P. 43; Patanjali's Mahâbhâshya, IV., I. 4, pp. 60-5, (Banâras Ed.), Wilson's Vishnu Purâna, cited in our Apugitâ, p. 222; Kathâsaritsågara, Taranga 19, and Muir's Sanskrit Texts, Vol. I., p. 480, et seq. + Chanakya is one of our great authorities on all matters of politics. Cf. inter alia Kamandaki's Nîtisára (Bibl. Ind. Ed.), p. I, and preface of Dr. R. Mitra, p. 3; Das'akumâracharita, p. 145, (Calc. Ed.), p. 13 (Bombay Sanskrit Series), Panchatantra, Introductory Verses, and Kadambarî, p.109; Chandakaus'ika, p.3: see further J. R. A. S. (N. S.), Vol. IX, p. 177; J. A. S. B. Vol. XXXIV., p. 23, (where he is represented as tampering with the currency of his time), and Vol. LII., Part I., P. 267. (Sed qucere as to some of the things there said.) I In the paper of Mr, Thomas at J. A. S. B. Vol XXXIV., P. 68, there is a suggestion (and the same suggestion had been made bofore by General Cunningham) that the Nandas were Buddhists, and Châņakya was the prime mover in a Brahma- nical movement for the expulsion of the Buddhist sovereigns. There is, hovMUDRÂRÂKSHASA to the service of the king the properly represented those old masters of his to whom Rakshasa's loyalty still remained quite firm. If the end could ever be regarded as justifying the means, it might be so regarded in this case. And, secondly, it must not be forgotten, that the games of diplomacy and politics have always been games of more or less doubtful morality. When we hear of one great politician of modern days declaring another to be a great statesman, because, as I believe he expressed it, the latter lied so cleverly, we cannot say that the world has risen to any very perceptibly higher moral plane in the times of Metternich and Napoleon, than in those of Châņakya and Râkshasa. Nor are suppression of important passages in despatches for the purposes of publication, or wars undertaken on unjustifiable and really selfish. pretexts, calculated to convince one, that even in Europe in the nineteenth century the transaction of political affairs has been purged of the taint of immorality, however different, and I may even add, comparatively innocent, may be the outward manifesta- tions of that taint, A few words only need to be added regarding the commentary published in this volume. The author of it is Dhundhirâja, son of Lakslimana, of the family of Vyâsa. The exordium and the con- clusion of his commentary save one the necessity of any toilsome inquiry as to his age. He says that his commentary was written in the year 1635, at the request of one Tryambakâdhvari, who was. patronised by the Bhonsle Râjâ of Cholamandala and surround- ing districts, named Sarabhaji, the brother of S'âhaji. The copy of the commentary used by us explains 1635 to be 1635 of the S'ilirähana era. And we are enabled to remove all doubt on that point by the statement, that it was in the time of S'arabhaji Buonele that the commentary was written. For this S'arabhaji the brother of Sîhaji, is doubtless identical with the Sarfoji, the brother of Sahaji, whom wo see mentioned in the geneological treo of the Marathî dynasty of Tanjore, given by Mr. Sewell in his Sketch of the Dynasties of Southern India. Sarfoji is there crer, no indiention of this view in our play, and it sinods in need of further forrolocation as a historical tlıcory. The indication which General Cunningham. bu soggesicil (J.A.S. B. Vol. X,, P. 156), is based on a mistake, which has Iman skintvl out at P. 27 Snu, INTRODUCTION. 35 stated to have reigned from 1711 to 1729 of the Christian era.* Therefore 1635 may be taken to be equivalent to 1713 A. D. and that is the year in which our commentary was written. The text of this commentary as printed in the present edition has been taken, as above stated, mainly from the Ms. A. The original of that MS. is traced back to a period very near, indeed to the actual composition of the commentary, and the confidence, which our MS. of the commentary claims from that circumstance, is, I thiuk, well deserved. I have, however, also had the help of the copy of the commentary contained in the Ms. K., and, so far as it extends, the copy published in the uncompleted edition of the Mudrâr'âkshasa commenced to be published in Calcutta about twelve years ago. Since the above paragraphs were sent to the press, Professor Peterson has been kind enough to hand over to me the MS. which he procured for me, from the Râjâ's library at Alvar. It bears date Samvat 1912, equivalvent to 1856. The only point I need note here is that in the commentary on the last stanza, as this MS. gives it, we read as follows: FATIHITT HIESTUFTTT- विधानेन चन्द्रगुप्तसाचियपदलाभपरितुष्टो महामात्यो राक्षसो यथा दनुजबलोप- लवादुदधिजलनिमग्न भुवं भगवानादिवराहो दंष्ट्रयोद्धृत्य यथापूर्वं पुनः प्रतिष्ठापि- तवान्, एवं भगवदंशभूतत्वेन तदभिन्नश्चन्द्रगुप्तोऽपि म्लेच्छबलोपलतायाः पृथिव्या T FUTTIT FT aha: Tier ATCERTIF IEĦa. This ex- plains the interpolation noticed at p. 4., at the same time displaca ing the suggestion there made, that the author of it may be some one other than Dhundhiraja, as the commentary in the Alvar MS. is by that author. I suspect the whole passage to be an addition in the copies of the commentary which contain it, it not occurring either in A or in K, The commentary is published here in full. I am very strongly of opinion, that where a commentary is a really good one, it is pot quite fair to the author of it to give merely a few extracts from it. And the commentary of Dhundhiraja is, I think, suficient- ly good to fall within the scope of this principle. As a rule, it
- See p. 53. 36
MUDRÂRÂKSHASA. does not shun obscure places; it gives very full references to standard works like the Das'arûpa, for the various points of dra- maturgic criticism which it contains, and, on occasion, points out various readings also, as already mentioned. It also gives a short introductory sketch of the previous events, a knowledge of which is necessary for understanding the course of the story as contained in the play itself.* If our commentary is not quite so copious and learned as the commentaries of Mallinâtha or Jagaddhara, it still follows them, I think, at no very great distance. In conclusion, I am sorry that the correction of the proofs has not been quite as well done as I could have wished. For a very considerable portion of the time during which this volume has been going through the press, I have had on hand, in addition to my ordinary engagements, the special work of the Education Ctmmission, which necessitated for some time my absence from Bombay, and involved considerable and distracting labour even when I was not absent. To other circumstances which contributed to the same result, it is not needful to refer here. One word, however, inay, perhaps, be properly added in explanation of the great delay wich has occurred in giving this volume to the public, especially as that explanation may also account for some other shortcomivgs of this volume, of which I am myself conscious. I actually commenced preparations for this work as far back as 1875, when it was also officially announced as being in prepara- tion." After some progress had been made, however, I was informed in reply to my inquiries, that the Education Department would pot be, then and for some time longer, in a position to undertake the publication, I, therefore, laid the whole thing aside, and un- dertook to prepare a volume for Professor Max Muller's Series of Sacred Books of the East, having just about that time received the kind invitation of that distinguished scholar for co-operation. And it was not til some time after my volume in that series was
- This is translated into English in the Hinutt Theatre, Vol. II., pp. 141-7.
Professor Wilson Fould appear to have seen only the portion translated by him, 29 lic does not indicate anywhere that it was only introductory to the commentary of Dhundhiraja. At pp. 143, 147, however, of his translation, there are passages nici cloarig show the character of the picce he had before bim. INTRODUCTION, 37 published, thnt I was told that the information on which I had actied in 1877 was based on a misunderstanding, and was asked to resune my labours on the Mudr€t$kshasa. This occurred in May 1882, and I resumed in bhe June following the work which had been entirely cast aside early in 1877.
उपोद्धतः। सिन्दूरारुणगण्डमण्डलमदामोद्भ्रमङ्गुञ्जिका- शंकरेण कलेन कर्णमुरजध्वानेन । मन्त्रेण च तन्तौर्यत्रिकरीतिमेति शिरसः शश्वन्मन्दोलनं यस्य श्रीगणनायकः स दिशतु श्रेयांसि भूयांसि वः ॥ १ ॥ षङ्गिरदैरुपेताय पुमथोमरभूरुहे । शंकराय नमस्कुर्मो निगमाय नयाय च ॥ २ ॥ श्रीमद्भोसलवंशभूपतिकुलामात्येषु विख्यातिमा- न्भारद्वाजकुलार्णवेन्दुरुदभूद्वाजिरश्याहितः। पुत्रस्तस्य किलैकभूपतिमणेर्मी सदैवादृत स्तेनासीद्रुवप्रगल्भधिषणो गङ्गधराख्योऽध्वरी ॥ ३ ॥ तस्य द्वौ तनयावुदारचरितौ कृष्णाम्बिकागर्भजा- कक्ष्मापतिलालितौ गुरुपदं चारोप्य संमानितौ । तपुत्रेण च शाहजिक्षितिभृता ज्येष्ठानुवृत्यादृतौ तत्तादृग्विविधाग्रहारकरणाद्विद्वत्प्रतिष्ठापकौ ॥ ४ ॥ ज्येष्ठस्तत्र सदावदातचरितः श्रीमानृसिंहाध्वरी गायत्रीसमुपासनादिभिरपि तैश्च सकर्मभिः। आत्मन परिपूय तं सुचरितै: पुत्रैः प्रतिष्ठाप्य च त्रेधा ब्रह्महिताय सत्कृतिचितान्स ब्रह्मलोकानगात् ॥ ५ ॥ तस्यात्मत्रितयेऽग्रजस्तु धृतिमानानन्दुरायाध्वरी कौमाराप्रधति प्रगल्भधषणः श्रीशाहराजाहतः । इष्टापूर्तसदन्नदानमुहितत्रैविद्यवृद्धे: सह श्रुत्युक्तार्थपरिष्क्रियापटुमतिः सत्कर्मनिष्णातधीः ॥ । ६ ॥ श्रीसाम्बं त्रिपुरेश्वरीमपि कुलाराध्यं नृसिंहं यज न्मिष्टान्नैर्जपहोमपूजनमतैर्वासन्तिकैः शारदैः। मुद्राराक्षसे सोऽयं भक्त्युपपादितैः स्मृतिगतैः श्रौतैश्च सत्कर्मभिः । | श्लाघ्यः श्रीप्रभुरिष्टदैवतदयादृष्ट्या चिरं जीवतात् ॥ ७ ॥ । (युग्मम् ।) ज्येष्ठे तत्र नृसिंहयज्वनि दिवं यातेऽनुजस्तसुता- न्पश्यन्पुत्रबदग्रजापचितिमप्यानन्दराये दंधत् । । वैतानानि च कारयन्सुचरितान्येतैः स्वपुत्रेण च • • • | श्रीमानन्न महाग्निचिद्विजयते श्रीत्र्यम्बकार्योध्वरी ॥ ८ ॥ यो गङ्गामवगाहकः पथि महायास दुवीयस्यय- .- न्वृद्धां मातरमिष्टदैवततया शुश्रूषसाणोऽनिशम् ।। धन्यः श्रेयसि गाङ्गपाथसि मुहुर्भक्त्या निमज्ज्य स्वयं हन्त स्वानुमजयल्पितृगणान्सर्वान्भवाम्भोनिधेः ।। ९ ।। वोढुं शाहमहीभृता निजधुरा सँछन्द्यमानोऽपि त-. च्छ्रौतोपास्तिविरोधि नाचकमत प्रज्ञावतामग्रणीः । मन्ने धर्मनयेऽथ तेन गुरुवन्नित्यादृतस्तरकृपा- लव्धैर्भूरिधनैरयष्ट विबुधान्यज्ञैर्महादक्षिणैः ॥ १० ॥ तत्रे कुत्रचन प्रवृत्त्य बहुधा राजानुरोधादयं तत्सिद्ध्यै वसुनो व्ययेन बहुना जातोऽधमण भृशम् । राजा प्राज्यमृणं तदस्य स निराकर्तुं विलम्ब व्यधा- | न्निर्वेदादयमाधमण्र्यविहतस्तीर्थाटनायाव्रजत् ॥ ११ ॥ तत्रोचैरुपचार्य नीवृदधिपैरेनं स्वयं चादरा- प्रत्युद्गम्य समाधाद्गुणविदामग्रेसरः शाहराद । स त्यागेशसरूपतामर्थ गतस्तत्पादपद्मार्चना- यत्तस्वान्ततया ययातिनलमांधात्रादिभिर्दुर्लभाम् ॥ १२ ॥ भ्राता तस्य महोन्नतिः शरभजीराजः प्रशास्ति क्षितिं विश्वानन्दविधायिभिर्गुणगणैरावर्जयन्विष्टपम् ।। वृत्तीर्त्रह्महिताय शाहजिमहाराजार्पिता: पालय- न्नाधिक्येन सदाढतद्विजवराशीर्वद्धतप्रभवः ॥ १३ ॥ नित्यं वर्षति वासवो जनपदामोदाय वृष्टिं शुभां कावेरीसलिलैश्च चोलधरणिः स्वच्छन्दमाप्यायते ।। उपोद्धातः । यस्मिन्राज्यमिदं प्रशासति निराबाधं जगन्मोदते : , स श्रीमाञ्छरभः क्षितीन्दुरवनीं शासचिरं जीवतु ।। १४ ।। एतं ज्येष्ठपुरस्क्रियोपचरितं मत्रिप्रवीरं दया- | नावा प्रार्णमहार्णवादुद्धरद्दाक्षिण्यशाली नृपः। वृत्तिं चातनुतास्थ सह्यगिरिजाकूलेऽनुकूले श्रुति- | स्मृत्युक्ताखिलकर्मणां श्रितपरित्राणप्रवीणस्य सः ॥ १५ ॥ यः कौमारिलतत्रतः समतनोत्कर्मस्थितिं पावन ब्रह्मोपादिशदाशु शोकधुतये यो नारदाय स्फुटम् ।। तं स्कन्दं परिचर्य साधु परयो भक्त्या तदाप्तुं मह- त्कर्मब्रह्मफलं सुधीः कलयते यः स्वामिशैले स्थितिम् ।। १६ ।। विष्णुरुर्विशाखाभिधमुडुयुगलं मध्यरत्नं यदीयं । सैषा चन्द्रार्कनिष्का लघुमणिभिरिवालंकृता चोपहोमैः । स्यूताहोरात्रसूत्रे विधिवदुपचिताधानतः सप्तविंशे | वर्षे नक्षत्रसवस्रगखिलमखभुक्प्रीतये येन पुण्या ।। १७ ।। सोऽयं स्वामिगिरौ गिरीशकृपया प्राप्य स्थिति सुस्थिरा विद्वद्वैदिकबान्धवैः सह सदा संभुक्तसंपद्भरः । श्रौतैः सच्चरितैरुपास्तिसुभगैराराधयन्नीश्वरं । | श्लाघ्यः श्रोत्रियपुत्रपौत्रसहितो जीयात्सहस्रं समाः ॥ १८ ॥ परिष्कुर्वन्नेतत्पुरमभिजनश्रोत्रियबुधा- श्रितागारैरुद्दामभिरुपवनाभोगसुभगैः । सुमेधोभिर्वेदत्रयविविधशास्त्राभ्यसनतः समुद्रुष्टं छात्रैरशनवसनाभ्यङ्गसुहितैः ॥ १९ ॥ कुमारेशं भक्त्या चिरमुपचरन्भूषणगणै- रुदारैस्तैस्तैरप्युपचिततरैरुत्सवभरैः ।। प्रसादास्योच्चैः श्रियमनुभवन्भव्यविभव- | श्चिरं जीवन्नव्याद्भुवनमखिलं त्र्यम्बकसखः ॥ २० ॥ तदीयायाः पात्रं निरुपधियायाः श्रितगणै- गणेयस्तेनैवार्पितवसुकृतैः कैश्च सुकृतैः ।। समाराध्य श्रीशं विधूतपितृदेन्नाघृणताय कृतार्थस्तस्याज्ञादरवशता जातकुतुकः ॥ २१ ॥ बुधो डुण्ढिनाम्ना जगति विदितो लक्ष्मणसुधी मणेः श्रीमच्यासान्घयजलधिचन्द्रस्य तनयः । दधन्मुद्राकं राक्षखमिति नवं नाम शुभसं विधानं व्याचष्टेऽद्भुतरसनयं नाटकवरम् ॥ २२ ॥ श्रीमद्विशाखदत्तीये मुद्राराक्षसनाटके । कथोपोद्धातमाचक्षे संविधानाबबुद्धये ॥ २३ ॥ नन्दन्ते क्षत्रियकुलमितिं पौराणशासनात् । कल्यादौ नन्दनामानः केचिदासन्महीभुजः ।। २४ ॥ सर्वार्थसिद्धिनामासीत्तेषु विख्यातपौरुषः । स चिराशिषपृथ्वीं नवकोटिशतेश्वरः ॥ २५ ॥ वक्रनासाद्यस्तस्य कुळमात्या द्विजातयः । बभूवुस्तेषु विख्यातो राक्षसो नाम भूसुरः ॥ २६ ॥ दण्डनीतिप्रवीणः स षाङ्गुण्यप्रविभागवित् । शुचिः शूरतमो नन्दैर्मान्यो राज्यधुरामधात् ॥ २७ ॥ राज्ञः पत्नी सुनन्दासीज्ज्येष्ठान्या वृषलात्मजा । मुराख्या सा प्रिया भर्तुः शीललावण्यसंपदा ॥ २८ ॥ स कूदाचित्तपोनिष्ठमतिथिं गृहमागतम् । अर्यपाद्यादिभिर्भक्त्या सभार्यः समपूपुजत् ॥ २९ ॥ तस्य पादोदकं पत्योरुपर्युक्षांबभूव सः ज्येष्ठाया न्यपतन्मूनि नवपादोदबिन्दवः ॥ ३० ॥ एको मुरायास्तं भक्त्या मूर्तुं प्रहेण साग्रहीत् । तदादरं वीक्ष्य तस्यां प्रससादाधिकं द्विजः ॥ ३१ ॥ मुरा प्रासूत तनयं मौर्याख्यं गुणवत्तरम् । सुनन्दा बहुगर्भाढ्यां मांसपेशीमसूत सा ॥ ३२ ॥ नवास्यां गर्भशकलान्यासंस्तानि तु राक्षसः । तैलद्रोणीषु निक्षिप्य यत्नेन समपूपुषत् ॥ ३३ ॥ उपोद्धातः । बभूवुर्नव ते वीरा राक्षसेनाभिवद्भिताः । नन्दा इत्येव ते पित्रा व्यपदिष्टा महौजसः ॥ ३४ ॥ तेषु राज्यं समासज्य तत्सेनान्यं महामतिम् । विधाय मौर्य खजासौ वृद्धः शमरतोऽभवत् ॥ ३५ ॥ चन्द्रगुप्तोत्तमस्तस्य मौर्यस्यासञ्शतं सुताः । अत्यशेतेव तान्नन्दान्मौर्यः पुत्रैर्महाबलैः ॥ ३६॥ ततो नन्दा दुरात्मानः सपुत्रं तमसूयया । । अवेश्यान्तभूमिगृह मंत्रव्याजादजीघनन् । ३७ ।। मधूच्छिष्टमयं जातु जीवन्तमिव पञ्जरे । सिंहमाधाय नन्देभ्यः प्राहिणोत्सिहलाधिपः ॥ ३८ ॥ यो द्रावयेदिम शूरं द्रागनुद्धाट्य पञ्जरम् । स वोऽस्ति कश्चित्सुमतिरित्येवं संदिदेश च ॥ ३९ ।। वाक्छलं तदुजानद्भिर्मन्दैनन्दर्विलोभितः । कथंचिवशिष्टासुः समुत्तार्य समाहितः ॥ ४० ॥ चन्द्रगुप्तस्तु मेधावी प्रतप्तायःशलाकया । व्यलापयत्पञ्जरस्थं व्यस्मयन्त ततोऽखिलाः ॥ ४१ ।। जिघांसितोऽपि भूच्छिद्रान्नन्दैरेतेन हेतुना ।। निष्काशितो जिजीवासौ भाविन्या दैवसंपदा ॥ ४२ ॥ आजानुबाहुरियादिराजलक्षणलक्षितः ।। औदार्यशौर्यगाम्भीर्यनिधिवनयवारिधिः ॥ १३ ॥ ईदृशोऽपि स तैर्दुष्टैनैष्र्यालुभिरसह्यत । पुनश्छद्मवधे तस्य प्रायतन्त दुराशयाः ॥ ४४ ।। अन्नसत्राधिकारे तैर्नियुक्तः कालपर्ययम् ।। प्रतीक्षमाणस्तत्रास्थात्स नन्दापचिकीर्षया ।। ४५ ।। स कदाचिद्विज कंचिदुद्राक्षीदतिकोपनम् । मादलग्नकुशोन्मूलदाहे कृतमहोद्यमम् ॥ ४६॥ मत्वातिक्रोधनं मौर्यस्त नन्दोन्मूलनक्षमम् । उपेत्य शरणं स्वेष्टसिद्धये समुपाचरत् ।। १७ ।। मुद्राराक्षसे विष्णुगुप्ताभिधानः स बाल एव द्विजोत्तमः । औशनस्या दण्डनीयां ज्योतिःशास्त्रे च पारगः ॥ ४८ ॥ नीतिशास्त्रप्रणेता यश्चणकस्तस्य नन्दनः । चाणक्य इति विख्यातः श्रोत्रियः सर्वधर्मवित् ।। ४९ ॥ गुणाढ्ये चन्द्रगुप्तेऽस्य पक्षपातो महानभूत् ।। स च नन्दकृतं तस्मै व्यसनं स्वं न्यवेदयत् ॥ ५० ॥ नन्दराज्यं तदा तस्मै प्रतिश्रुत्य बुभुक्षितः ।, भुक्तिशाल से नन्दानां प्रविश्याग्रसने स्थितः ॥ ५१ ॥ नन्दाः कुद्धा महात्मानं कालोपतचेतसः । बटुरित्यवमत्यैनमासनादुदतिष्ठिपन् । ५२ ॥ धिग्धिग्मा मैवमित्येवं वादिष्वखिलमत्रिषु ।, अग्रासनात्ते चाणक्यं क्रोधाकुलमचीकृषन् ॥ ५३ ।। मध्येशालं स रोषान्धः शिखामुन्मुच्य पाणिना । प्रतिज्ञामकरोत्तीव्र नन्दुवंशदिधक्षया ॥ ५४ ।। पन्धान्दुर्मतीनेतानेवं मामवजानतः ।। नन्दाधमाननुत्खाय ने बन्नामि शिखामिमाम् ॥ ५५ ॥ इत्युक्त्वा निर्ययौ तूर्ण पुरात्लुभितमानसः । गतश्रियश्च ते क्रुद्धं न समादधतोद्धताः ।। ५६ ।। चन्द्रगुप्तोऽपि स तदा स्वनिग्रहभयाकुलः । निर्यायोपांशु नगराचाणक्यं समुपाश्रयत् ॥ ५७ ॥ मौर्येन्दुमुपसंगृह्य कौटिल्यः कुदिलं नयम् । अनुसंधदातिष्ठद्यनं नन्दुकुलोद्धृतौ ।। ५८ ॥ स्वमित्रमिन्दुशमणं कृत्वा क्षपणकाकृतिम् । तेनाभिचारिकविदा राक्षसादीनवञ्चयत् ॥६९ ।। नन्दराज्यार्द्धपणनात्समुत्थाप्य महाबलम् ।. पर्वतेन्द्र म्लेच्छबलैन्यरुणकुसुमं पुरम् ।। ६० । । नन्दाः सर्वे सुसंरब्धा निरुद्धाः प्रबलारिभिः ।। दृप्ता राक्षसवीर्येण युद्धायैव मनो दधुः ॥ ६१ ॥ उपोद्धातः । घटमानोऽपि बहुधा दुर्जयं वीक्ष्य तद्वलम् । राक्षसश्छद्मना हन्तुं मौर्यं तेनाथ संदधे ।। ६२ ।। सर्वे नन्दाः पर्वतेन्द्रबलानिलसमेधिते ।। - चाणक्यक्रोधदहने घोरे शलभतामयुः ॥ ६३ ।। ततः स राक्षसः क्लिष्टः प्रक्षीणवलपौरुषः । निरुद्धवीवधासारप्रसारं क्षीणसंचयम् ।। ६४ ॥ असुरक्षं पुरं पश्यन्नसुरक्षणतत्परः । नन्दवृद्धस्य सर्वार्थसिद्धेने सुरङ्गया ।। ६५ ।।" पुरान्निःसार्य निभृतं पौरैनन्दानुरागिभिः । पुरं मौर्यवशीकृत्य तत्सख्यमिव नाटयन् ।। ६६ ।। अभिचारकृती मौर्यायादिशद्विषकन्यकाम् । तच्छद्मवित्पर्वतेशं कौटिल्योऽघातयत्तया ।। ६७ ।। स्वच्छद्म बोधयित्वा तत्सुतं मलयकेतुकम् । उपांशु भीषयित्वासैः पलाय्यत कूटधीः ॥ ६८ ।। अराजकं वशीकृत्य कौटिल्यः कुसुमं पुरम् ।। नन्दानुरक्तपौराढ्यं सहसा न विवेश तत् ॥ ६९ ॥ पुरं प्रविष्टसप्याशु जिघांसू राक्षसो रिपुम् । सुहृद्भिरुवर्माद्यैः कूटयाद्यय॒युजत् ।। ७० ।। कौटिल्यः कुटिलप्रज्ञस्तत्सर्वमरिकल्पितम् ।। विषकन्याकूटयत्रगरदादि व्यबुध्यत ।। ७१ ॥ क्रूरेण राक्षसेनैव ह्यस्मत्पक्षजिघांसया । विपकन्या पर्वतेशे योजितेति समादधत् ॥ ७२ ॥ वैरोचकं पर्वतेशभ्रातरं चकिताशयम् । अस्थापयज्जिगमिषु शपथैश्छलगभितैः ॥ ७३ ।। स्वापवाद निलुवानः पर्वतेशवधोत्थितम् । प्राग्दित्सितार्धराज्येन शठः प्रलोभयच्च तम् ।। ७४ ।। सर्वार्थसिद्धिरगमतपस्तप्तुं क्वचिद्वने । तत्रापि चारदृक्क्रूरः कौटिल्यस्तमजीघनत् ।। ७५ ॥ मुद्राराक्षसे । सर्वार्थसिद्धिं निहतं श्रुत्वा शोचन्स राक्षसः ।। गत्वा मलयकेतु तं प्रोत्साहयितुमूर्चिवान् ।। ७६ ।। अरूढमूलं मौर्यं द्रागुन्मूल्य सहसा बलात् । आनृण्यं गन्र्तुमिच्छामि स्वामिना नाकवासिनाम् ॥ ७७ ।। सर्वेऽस्मास्वनुरज्यन्ते पौरा गूढाभिसंधयः । तस्योपांशु वधार्याप्ताः पुरे जाग्रति मामकाः ।। ७८ ।। सर्वोपायैर्विक्रमैश्च घटेमहि हिताय ते । .. जहि मौर्य सकौटिल्य नन्दराज्यं तवास्तु तत् ।। ७९ ।। विषकन्यां योजयित्वा चाणक्येनैव पापिना । पिता ते मौर्यराज्याधहारी विनिहतश्छलात् ।। ८० ।। सर्वथैव निहत्यैनमुपायेन बलेन वा । त्वय्यासज्याखिलं राज्यमानृण्यं स्वामिनामयै ।। ८१ ।। इति प्रोत्साह्य बहुधा धीमान्साहसिकाग्रणीः । मौर्यं जेतुं म्लेच्छबलैः समनह्यत राक्षसः ।। ८२ ॥ उपोद्धातोऽत्र वृत्तायाः कथाया एवमीरितः । अतः परं कविर्वस्तु नाटकीयं प्रयोक्ष्यते ।। ८३ ॥ क्रूरग्रहः स इत्यस्मिन्पचे प्रस्तावनामुखे ।। उक्तमर्थं श्लेषदिशा कविरन्ववदन्मनाक् ॥ ८४ ।। इत्युपोद्घातप्रकरणम् । ।