cters. The nearest we get to any other aspect of their character is in the long soliloquy of Râkshasa in the sixth Act-after the great aim of his life had been finally abandoned in despair. Take, again, the other pair of rivals, who are brought into sharp contrast before us. Chandragupta is represented as a sovereign of dignity and strength of character, coupled with a proper respect for the minister, whose ability and diplomatic skill he 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 the principle of faithfulness to one'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 Viśâkhadatta, or as somśśe of our copies read it, Viśâakhadeva. And all the really trustworthy information we have about him is that contained in the Introduction to this drama, which is the only one of his productions that is at present known. We learn from that Introduction that Visakha- datta was the son of Pŗithu and grandson of Vațes'varadatta--a Sàmanta or subordinate chief. But I have failed in my endeavours to discover anything touching either Prithu or Vațeśvara. Professor Wilson, indeed, put forward a suggestion that Přithu might be identical with the "Chouhan chief of Ajmir, Prithu Raj." But, as he has himself pointed out, the name Vațeśvaradatta presents a difficulty in the way of this identification. And I own that it seems to me quite impossible to accept an identification for which there is no positive reason whatever except the similarity of name, while against it there is the circumstance noted above, and also this, quantum valeat, that while our Prithu is specially designated as “ bearing the title Mabârâj," the “Přithu of Ajmir," is generally known as Pŗithurâi or Prithurâj only. Professor Wil-
- Cf. pp. 150, 152, 163, 170, 184, 309, with pp. 197, 200, 209, 226-8, and
generally Act III., with act V. | Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., P. 128. +Ibidnote, and p. 154 note.
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 infraवलिताक्षराणि, 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 Archäeological Survey of India how frequently temples and remains connected with the Varâha Avatâra are to be met within Northern India. I But both circumstances appear to me to be capable of such obvious explanations, on other hypotheses, that even this little bit of inferentially derived knowledge regarding Viśâkhadatta must be treated as still in need of corroboration.
Regarding the date of the work, our information hitherto has been, I am afraid, almost equally scanty and equally unsatisfactory. Professor Wilson, relying upon two passages in the drama, deducted the conclusion, that it was composed in the 11th or 12th century of the Christian era, "when the Pathan princes were pressing upon the Hindu sovereignties." One of these passages is that in which reference is made to the Mlechchhas, a name which Professor Wilson understands to refer to the Muhammadans. The second passage is the stanza at the beginning of the fifth Act, on which Professor Wilson observes as follows:- This metaphorical style is not natural to the compositions of the period to which the drama belongs; the Hindus were, perhaps, beginning to borrow it from their neighbours."॥ The opinion thus propounded by Professor Wilson has, as usual in such cases, been not only accepted by subsequent inquirers, but has itself been made the basis, to a greater or less extent, of further speculation. Thus, in the Reports of the 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 As. Soc. of · Beng., Vol. XIV., p. 140; Cf. also Indian Antiquary, Vol. II., p. 145, and Vol.VI., p. 114, note of Schwanbeck,2
conclusion, if the dates of the Mudrârâkshasa and of the "great Muhammadan invasions” had been satisfactorily proved to synchronise. But, as we shall presently proceed to show, such is by no means the case. And, therefore, one feels a certain amount of regret that owing to this expression of opinion by Professor 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 necessity of making an independent investigation of the date at which the change in the course of the S'ona took place. If such an 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 leaning to the side of vice, which requires to be guarded against; and compare on this Mr. Furgusson's remarks at J. R. A. S., (N. S.), Vol. VI., p. 273. ++ See inter alia Cunningham's Arch. Surv., Vol. II, p. 70. Borooah's English-Sanskrit Dictionary, Vol. III, pp. 41, 53, 82 (Introd.) and particularly Elphinstone's India, by Cowell, p. 289, with which compare Kathåsaritsagara, Taranga XIX., St. 108. See, too, Max Müller, India: What it can teaches us,p. 282, and Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., p. 274;: also a note towards the end of this Introduction. ++Vide p. 274 infra. $ 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.
Nor is the reference to the offering of funeral libations* to the deceased father calculated to lull all suspicion about the correctness of the theory, which identifies the Mlechchhas of the Mudrârâkshasa with the Mussulmans. Of course, in these remarks, I entirely lay out of consideration a possible view, that although the word Mlechchha in the earlier portion of the play does not stand for the Mussulmans, it does signify the Mussulmans in the last stanza of the play. +† That would be a theory itself standing in need of confirmation and verification; and without such confirmation or verification, it is one which has really no fair claim to acceptance. Therefore it seems to me manifest, that the first link in Professor Wilson's chain of reasoning is an excessively weak one. But let us concede, for the sake of argument, that that link is not a weak one; that, in other words, the Mlechchhas alluded to in the Mudrârâkshasa-or rather in its last stanza —are identical with the Mussulmans. How does that justify the inference that the Mudrârâkshasa belongs to the 11th or 12th century of the Christian era ? The expression म्लेक्क्खैरुद्विज्यमाना, would to my mind, indicate not so much a permanent establishment of sovereignty or any continuous oppression, as a more or less constant series of annoyances and harassments; and the
* P. 192: It hardly needs saying that Mlechchha is equivalent to the Greek
- "Barbarian," meaning literally, “one who speaks barbarously.” It may, of
course, be objected to the argument based on the names Malayaketu and so forth, that the name Meghanâda, or Meghâksha, or Meghâkhya, ( 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 Malayaketu, &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 Pârasîkas and Persians, while the identification of Mlechchhas and Mussulmans is made by Professor Wilson and others the basis of a whole chronological superstructure. See further on this subject Kern's Brihatsamhitâ, Preface, p. 32, note, with which cf. Fergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 28++ In the Kîrtikaumudî (Circa 1250 A. C.) the Mlechchhas mentioned at II. 58 are stated by the learned editor, Professor Kâthavate, 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.
reference to the earth as having taken refuge from such annoyances and harassments with the power and strength of Vishnu in the guise of the then reigning prince, would seem rather to point to some warlike proceedings, in which the Hindus appeared to greater advantage than in the invasions of Muhammad of Ghazni, and the later Muhammadan invaders of India. On such previous proceedings history may, perhaps, be said to give forth at present a somewhat uncertain sound, but still it is assuredly not altogether silent. For a whole century, beginning from 711 A. C. and coming down to 812 A.C., there are traces of such annoyances as we have spoken of above, and the late Colonel Meadows Taylor says,* that "early Muhammadan enterprises against the Hindus, with the exception of that of Kassim (Circa 711 A. C.) were unsuccessful, and that they were found more united and more powerful and warlike than the people of the West over whom the Muhammadans had triumphed." Or turning to an original Muhammadan history, mentioned and epitomised in Sir Henry Elliott's elaborate work++, we read that "in the days of Tamîm, 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 Tamîîm 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 Elphinstone's India, by Cowell, p. 312, and notes there. +† See Elliott's History of India as told by its own Historians, by Professor Dowson, Vol. I, PP. 125-6, and C£, Burgess's Arch. Sury. Report, Vol. II. p. 71, and Fergusson's Indian Architecture, pp. 24, 729. See also Dowson's Elliott, Vol. I., PP. 116, 390, and pp. 414 et seq. ++But see Yule's Cathay, Vol. I., p. clxxxvi. Cf. generally J.B. B. 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.
preservation of India against the harassments of the Mlechchha Mussulmans points to its composition in that century.
It is not necessary to examine at any length the other argument which is suggested by Professor Wilson. Our note on the passage in question* (see P. 220 infra) will afford ample ground for considering that argument as being very far from satisfactory. And, therefore, we must now proceed to inquire whether there are any other materials available for forming an opinion on the question of the age when our author flourished. But before we do 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 argument in support of this point is based merely on the “introduction- of the Jainas” into the play which, by itself, he considers to be a 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*॥, 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 considers 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 Anugîtâ 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. 43. ॥ M. Barth is wrong in supposing him to be meant for & “ Buddhistic charac-ter," p. 134.
subsequent to the disappearance of the Bauddhas in India." Now, in the first place, I do not know on what authority the word Kshapanaka is limited to the narrow meaning stated by Professor Wilson. In the Panchatantra, which may be supposed to be earlier than the "period" to which Professor Wilson refers, the name is certainly applied to the Jainas.* And so is it in Govindânanda's commentary on the S'ârîraka Bhâshya, and in the Prabodhachandrodaya++ which though, perhaps, belonging to somewhere about that "period," ** still very clearly distinguish the Bauddhas from the Jainas. I confess I have a suspicion that Professor Wilson was himself probably confounding Ksĥapanaka and Śramaņaka. This latter word is, undoubtedly, employed very frequently to, signify the Bauddhas. Thus, in the Mŗììchchhakațika, the ascetic, who is there certainly meant to be taken as a Bauddha is called either Śramanaka or Bhikshuş*॥ and never, be it added in passing, Kshapaņaka. But although the word S'ramanaka is most usually employed to signify Buddhists, even that word is not strictly con-,
- See Tantra V., and Cf. Indian Antiquary, Vol. II, p. 194; also Wilson's
Essays, Vol. II., pp. 20, (where Professor Wilson traces a similar confusion in, the Panchatantra) 51, 76. The truth seems to be that the two sects are too much interlaced one with another for any such conclusion being based on these circumstances. In addition to what is said in the text, we have to remember, that S'râvaka, for instance, which Professor Wilson takes as referring to Jainas only (see Hindu Theatre, pp. 215-21), is also applied to Bauddhas. See interalia Beal's Fa-Hian, pp. 9-47, Cunningham's Bharhut Stûpa, p. 110. Other similar words, besides Arhat and Jina, mentioned in the text, are Thera and Bhadanta (or, in its Prâkrit forms Bhayanta or Bhante), which occur frequently in the Inscriptions on the Amarâvatî 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 Amrâvatî Stúpa, pp. 41, 54. See also Brihatsımhitâ, ch. LI., st. 20-21, with which cf. Burnell's S. Indian Paleography, pp 12 (n), 47 (n), Bhârhut Stûpa, p. 83; Journal Ceylon Asiatic Society (1845) p. 24, (1847) p. 19, (1856-8) p. 247; Indian Antiquary, Vol. XI., p. 29. Roth's Hemachandra, p 58. See S'ankara Bhâshya (Bib., Ind. ed.), P. 591 and p. 497. Harshacharita, p. 16; Ânandagiri's S'ankaravijnya, p. 153 ct scq.» Aufrecht's Halayudha. p. 38. (The entry in the Index is erroneous). Hindu Theatre Vol. I, p. 56, and Das'akumâracharita with commentary (ed. by Messrs. Godbole and Parab), p. 189. Ditto (Bomb. Class. ) p. 54 and note thereon. # pp. 55-8 ॥*See as to this Capningham's Arch. Sury. Roport, Vol. IX., p. 108. and also cf J. B. B. R. A. S. Vol. III., p. 312. $See pp. 93, 238-9. and Hindu Theatre, Vol. I, p. 56. 10PO
fined to this sense*. Thus in the Kadamba copperplates deciphered by me some years ago, it is unmistakably applied to Jaina ascetics++ 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 Buddhistic works Arhat++, I for instance, or Jina$, 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 countryØ#. 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 Jîvasiddbi in our play, however, is to be noticed as indicating the tolerant spirit of the times. Although as belonging to a heretical sect, the sight of him is supposed to be inauspicious, *॥ he is still admitted into the confidence of ministers of State. Chanakya, the Brâhmana minister, introduces him to Råkshasa; $ 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 Jîvasiddhi, in his character of Jaina ascetic, is actually employed, may find their parallels in the stories of Devasmitâ in the Kathâsaritsâgara and of Nitambavatî in the Das'akumâracharita,##where Bauddha
- See Indian Antiquary, Vol. IX. p. 122; Vol. X., p. 143. See, too,
Brihadâranyaka 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. $ Nâgananda, p. 1; Cf. Barth, Indian Religions, p. 142; Kielhorn's Report on Sanskrit MSS., p. 34. Fergusson's Architecture, p. 233. *॥See Barth's Religions of India, p. 147 1P. 212. $ P. 71.
- P. 258. ##See
Kathâsaritsâgara, Taranga XIII., st. 68 et seq. and Das'akumâracharita, p. 121, ( Calc. ed.) These stories may, perhaps, be taken as indicating the same antagonism to these “heretical sects" which is shown in the superstition regarding the sight of them being inauspicious, &c. Cf. also Indian Antiquary, Vol.VII., p. 201; Beal's Fa-Kian, p. 169; Varâhamihira’s Brihatsamhitâ ch. 78, st. 9, andWeber's History of Indian Literature, p. 281 (n.)
female ascetics are represented as taking an active part in even' more indefensible proceedings. And now let us turn to the materials we have for forming an opinion on the age of our drama. First, then, under this head, we have to deal with the quotations from it which, as already pointed out, are to be found in the Daśarûpa and the Sarasvatîîkánthâbha- raņa. The former work alludes to the Mudrarakshasa by name in' three different places,* in one of them setting out in full an extract from it for purposes of illustration, in another giving a general reference to certain of the characters in the play, and in the third -though the genuineness of this passage is not, apparently, above suspicion +|-pointing to the Bŗuhatkathâ as the source from which the main plot of the play is derived. The Sarasvatîkaņțhâbharaņa does not mention the Mudrarakshasa by name at all; but one of the passages which it has in common with that work must be taken to be a quotation from it, though the other need not be so regarded necessarily, as the quotation in the Sarasvatîkaņțhâbharaņa is a Sanskrit stanza, while the original in the Mudrarakshasa is a Prâkriti stanza, which, in its last line, differs from the other.# Still laying aside the passages upon which doubts may thus be raised, we have a clear residue of one passage in the Sarasvatîkaņțhâbharaņa, and two in the Daśarûpa, which must be taken to be derived from the Mudrarakshasa. The dates of these two works, therefore, afford us a fairly satisfactory terminus ad quem for the date of our play. Now those dates have been generally accepted, since thepublication of Dr. Fitzedward Hall's Daśarûpa and Vâsavadattâ, to fall in about the 10th or 11th century of the Christian era, the . : Sarasvatîkaņțhâbharaņa being attributed to king Bhoja himself, and the Daśarûpa being thought to be probably the work of an author who flourished in the time of Munja, the uncle of Bhoja $. We have not succeeded, since Dr. Hall's suggestions were made in gathering much further or other material for a decision of the point, and
- See pp. 59. 105, 120. |+See Dr. Hall's Preface, p. 36; Cf. Vâsavadattiâ, p. 55.
- See the references given at p.4 Supra.
$See the Dasśarûpa Preface, pp 2,3,43; and vâsavadattâ Preface, pp.8,9,11,21,50; and Cf, Prof. Bhandârkar's Preface to the Malatîmâdhava, P.X; Indian Antiquary, Vol. XL,. p. 236; Vol. VI.,p.51: Vol. I..p.251; Weber's Indian Literature, p. 201 notes Buhler's Vikramânkacharita Introd. p. 23 Eggeling's Gaņaratnamahodadhi,pp. VI., 1, 2.
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 अवन्तिवर्मा, instead of चन्द्रगुप्तः in the last line of that stanza. Another -that marked N-reads रन्तिवर्मा। 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 his name came to be substituted for Chandragupta in the stanza referred to. If this identification is correct, as Avantivarmâ's date may probably be taken to be somewhere about the seventh century A. D., that would also be the date of Vis'âkhadatta. And as the Maukhari princes may possibly have joined their neigh-
- See Rajatarangini, Chap. V., and Bubler's Tour in 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 Avantıvarmâ, 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 atGaņaratnamabodadhi, p. 123.
bours, the later Guptas, in their wars with the white 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 occurred in the fifth and sixth centuries A. D. All this, however, is only possible at present; further light on the subject must be awaited, before we can come to any safe conclusion upon it.
There is one other line of inquiry which may be worth pursuing, as it may lead to some result bearing upon the age of the Mudrârâkshaşa. 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 which probably there were no materials for ascertaining at the date of the play, but upon the state of things which actually existed at the time when the play was itself composed ##. 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 Śoņa, $$ and that the king's palace in that city overlooked the River Ganges|**|. T I think we may also safely assume that this Pâtaliputra was an existing city at the time of the composition of the play. This last proposition follows almost as a logical consequence, if we are right in the
- See Cunningham's Arch. Sur, 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.
- |Cf, as to these names, &c., Dr. Hall's Vasavadattâ, Preface p. 35; Cunningham's
Arch. Sury. Report, Vol. XIV., p. 1, et seq; Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. XVII., p. 49; see also Beals Fa-Hian, p. 70; Kern's Bruhatsamliitâ, Prefaco pp. 37-40; J. R. A. S. (N. S.)., Vol VI., pp. 227-228; Burgess's Arch, Sury. Report, Vol. V., p. 43. In some places, Kusumapura is distinguished from Påtaliputra, and is identified with the Modern Fulvari. But in our play they are treated as interchangeable names, see pp. 187, 196, 198, 203. ## Cf. Cunningham's Arch, Sury. Report Vol VIII., P. 22. $$ see pp. 211-14; Patanjali in the Mahâbhâshya, mentions. Pâtaliputra, as being on the S'ona; see Indian Antiquary Vol. I, p. 301; Cunningham's Arch. Sury, Report, Vol. VIII., pp. 6, 11, 8; see too, Indian Antiquary, Vol. V., PP. 331-4.
- $$ See p. 154 infra 23INTRODUCTION.
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 Pâțaliputra is the Indian name of the city, which is familiar in the classical accounts of this country under the name of Palibothra, which was visited by the Chinese traveller Fa-Hian (who travelled in India and Central Asia between the years 399 and 414 A. D.) as the capital of Magadha, and is described by the other famous Chinese traveller, Hiouen-Tsang, as being a ruined city, south of the Ganges the foundations of which still covered, in his time, an extent of 70 li, though it had then been long deserted. †+ Hiouen-Tsang's journey commenced about 629 A. D., and extended down to 646 A, D. Therefore, we have Pâțaliputra still in existence till about the middle of the seventh century. But one century later we come to another Chinese account of India, and speaking of the year 756 A. D, that account gives us the following item of information:-“At the close of the year Kan-yuen"-this is said to be about 756 A.D.-"the bank of the river Ho-lung gave way, and disappeared."## The scholar who has translated this Chinese account tentatively suggests that Ho-lung may stand for the Ganges, and General Cunningham and Mr. Beglar more confidently maintain the same view.$$ Mr. Beglar, then, arguing upon the basis that Ho-lung does signify the Ganges, proceeds to state some very fair grounds for holding that the event recorded in the extract above quoted is the destruction of the city of Pâțaliputra by the falling-in of the banks of the Ganges*॥. 4 If this conclusion is correct, then our previous argument shows that, the Mudrârâkshasa must have been composed about the first half
- See Wilson's Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., p. 136; and compare Beal's Fa-Hian,
p. 103, and note there; J. B. B. R, A. S., Vol. III, Part II., p. 153; J. R. A. S., Vol. XVII, p, 126. Indian Antiquary Vol. VI., P, 131. At p. 50 of the Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., may be seen a strange superstition regarding Pâtaliputra.
- |See Elphinstone's History of India, by Cowell, p. 292, and Cf. the authorities
referred to in the last preceding note. ++|See Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal Vol. VI, p.71 $$ Cunningham's Arch Sury. Report, Vol. VIII, p. 12; see also Vol. XI, p. 156. *॥ Lassen (see Indian Antiquary, Vol: II., p. 196) says "tbe ancient capital, Pâtaliputra, had long ceased to exist at the time to which, I think, the reign of Kalkin must be referred," that is to say, according to him, 1522 A. D. I do not know exactly what this alludes to. But it looks as if the meaning merely was that Pataliputra had ceased to be occupied as the seat of. royalty long before 1522. If so, the passage can have no bearing on the question
discussed in the text.
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 Holong, the kings of India ceased from that time to come to court."* These two renderings are entirely different from one another, and it is impossible for us to decide between them. We must, therefore, leave the question to be determined by those who are conversant with the subject. It is enough for us here to add, that while on the one hand the modern Pâtna does not date back to any period further removed from us than the time of Shir Shah, who- indeed, appears to have founded the modern fortress and town, we have no mention of Pâtaliputra in any work of ascertained date subsequent to the time of Hiouen-Tsang And it would be remarkable, that Ma-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 various geographical discussions regarding the change of the course of the S'ona and the actual site of Pâţaliputra, which have been going on from the time of Major Rennell to our own day. Nor is it necessary for our present purpose that I should do so. Suffice it' to say, that in all these discussions, as we have indicated above, the date of the Mudrârâkshasa instead of being treated as a point for investigation, has been assumed, in accordance with the opinion of Professor Wilson, to fall in about the eleventh century of the Christian era. There is however nothing, as far as I am able to judge, in the points made in that discussion, either to render such an assumption necessary, or even to indicate that it is a legitimate 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 see as to this and generally the pote on this point in our note on
'the date of S'ankaracharya' in the Indian Antiquary.
$ See p. 14 supra.
sion under reference. And, therefore, it is unnecessary to labour the point any further for our present purposes. I need only 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 |**militate against his view. If the indications furnished by our play are to be accepted, the city must have been situated near the confluence of the two rivers, and not between them, but along the southern banks of both rivers. It will have been perceived, that the considerations which have been so far dwelt upon, point to the seventh or eighth century A.D. as the probable date of our drama. One other circumstance looking the same way may now be adverted to. In the seventh Act we have a remarkable stanza, in which the conduct of Chandanadâsa, in sacrificing his life for his friend Râkshasa, is stated to have transcended the nobility even of the Buddhas. It seems to me that that allusion to Buddhism belongs to a period long prior to the decay and ultimate disappearance of Buddhism from India.$$ Of the other works, which, as stated in our note on this passage, contain similar references to Buddhism, the Nágánanda || may probably be taken to belong to about the middle of the seventh century A. D., and the Mâlatîmâdhava to the end of that century, The Kâdambarî, in which passages leading to a similar conclusion also occur, likewise belongs to the same period.*| Now, in FaHian's time---that is to say, about the beginning of the fifth century
* Arch, Surv. Report, Vol. VIII., p. 6. |+See pp. 211 and 214. I take the passage at p. 211 to signify that the army of Malayaketu had to cross the S'ona before reaching Pâtaliputra, while the passage at p. 214 shows that that army had to go from north to south. At the same time, it is possible, that the meaning of the former passage may be simply, that the elephants of Malayaketu are to enjoy themselves in the S'ona, after Malayaketu shall have obtained possession of the city. This is possible, but I do not think it is the true meaning of the passage.
- P. 304 infra.
$$Cf. on this Wilson's Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., 4; Elphinstone's History of India, by Cowell, p. 290 note; also S. P. Pandit's Mâlavikågnimitra, Preface, p. 35 et. seq. | I am aware that in the Introduction to Mr. Palmer Boyd's translation of this play, it is assigned 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. |* See p. 209; and Cf. further Harshacharita, pp. 211-2; and also Mâgha, Canto XX., st. 81; Bŗihatsambitâ, ch. LX., st. 19; and Elphinstone's India, by Cowell, p. 298.
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 discussion. But such a reference is not likely to have been made at any time very far removed from the period of which we are now speaking.## For in the eighth and ninth centuries "Buddhism had become so corrupt, that it no longer attracted the people, and when it lost the favour of kings, it had no power to stand against the opposition of the priests."$$ From these facts alone we may, I think, safely conclude that a work which refers to Buddhism in the way ours does probably dates from a time prior to the ninth century A. D. Some support to this conclusion might be drawn from the circumstance, which is alluded to on this point by the same authority as that from which
*Introduction, p. lsi., and cf. pp. 107-147.
- |See Rhys Davids' Manual of Buddhism, p. 245; and
Barth's Religions of India, p. 132. On the vicissitudes of the fortunes of Buddhism in India, see also inter alia Beal's Fa-Hian, p. 53; J. R. A, S. (N. S.), Vol. III., p. 105; Burgess's Arch. Surv. Report Vol. II, p. 10; Vol. IV. p. 60; VOL. V., pp. 16, 22; Burnell's South Indian Paleography, p. 114 note; Fergusson's Indian Architecture, pp. 21-25; and Barth's Indian Religions, p. 134.
- The argument here is not at all inconsistent with the view expressed by me at
Indian Antiquary, Vol. IX., p. 46; a view to which I still adhere, and which, I find, has been expressed by other scholars also, cf. inter alia Barth's Religions of India, p. 133; Max Muller's India: What it can teach us, pp. 280-307; Indian Antiquary, VOL VII, pp. 2 and 198; see, too, Burnell's South-Iodian Paleography, pp. 104, 111; Fergusson's Indian Archetecturc, p. 23; Journ. Bomb. Br. Roy. As.. Sec., VOL. XII., p. 315. There is, howerer, an obvious difference between mere tolerance by a king-which may have been due, to some extent, to motives of policy-or even support in common with other systems and a positive compliment by an ordinary author. And the gist of the argument in the text lies in this difference. $$ Davids' Buddhism, p. 246--passage which shows that the expressions used by Mr. Pandit at the place referred to in a previous note are too strong for the actual facts of the cace. Cf. also Cunnigbam's Arch. Surv. Report, Vol. VII., P. 198; Indian Antiquary
VOL XI., p. 116; Barth's Religions of India, p. 132.
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 Bhațța and Śankaracharya|+. But this still requires corroboration, and it opens up a question which is too wide to be fully discussed on the present occasion.l 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 conclusion 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 प्रारभ्यते, &c, which occurs at P. 135 infra, and which is also to be found in the Nîtis'ataka of Bbartŗihari. The next stanaza after that, beginning with किम् शेषस्य, is also to be found in some copies of Bhartŗīhari's S'atakas. As, however, the genuineness of this latter as forming a part of Bhartŗhari's work may be fairly doubted.॥ it is not necessary to discuss the question except as it is raised by the first stanza. Now, in the first place, it is remarkable that that starza is quoted in the Das'arüpâvaloka nominally as from the Bhartriharis'ataka, but in reality in the form which is plainly more appropriate to its context in the Mudrârâkshasa *| In the Bhartŗiharis'ataka the words त्वमिव in the last line must be impossible to understand. In the Mudrârâkshasa they are perfectly intelligible, and actually occur in four of our MSS.
* See p. 284. |* I must state, however, notwithstanding what is said, for instance, by Mr. Beal (Fa-Hian, 137) or by M. Barth (p. 135-6), that I have myself no faith in the traditions about these persecutions. As to S'ankarâchârya'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 sovereign, no Sârvabhaumrâjâ in India (see Bhâshya on Vedânt 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 (Nîtis'ataka). $ Ibid, p. 31 (Nîtis'ataka). ॥ See
Preface to Bhartŗihari, p. XX. *| See p. 62.)
The probability seems to be, that the author of the Das'arûpavaloka quoted the stanza from memory**, and in doing so, quoted the reading of his copy of the Mudrârâkshasa, wrongly attributing it to the Bhartŗiharis'ataka. Upon the question which arises with reference to these identical stanzas occurring in different and independent works, I have nothing to add to the remarks which I have elsewhere made, and which are already in print*|. In the particular case which we have here to deal with, I can see no alternative other than the theory of plagiarism on the one hand, and what may be called the Subhâshita theory on the other. The former is not 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 Mudrârâkshasa deserve a few words in this Introduction. Those names areas follows:-Śaka, Yavana, Kirâta, Kâmboja, Pârasîka, Bâhlîka, (which all occur in the second Act), Khas'a, Magadha, Gândhara, China, Hûya, Kaulûta, (which occur in the fifth Act), and Mlechchha 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 Sacœ, and have been thought
- Cf. on the observations in West and Bibler's Digest of Hindu Latr, p. 528
(20d ed.); Mr. Mandlik (Hindu Lavy, pp. 368, 389.) disputes the suggestion there made about Mitra Mis'ra quoting from memory as being without "authority." The suggestion seems to me, however, to be a very probable one as a general observation. Cf. J. B. B. R. A. S, Vol. X., 370; and Eggeling's Ganaratpamahodadhi, pp 33, 182, where the quotation from the Kiráta and the Venisamhara were probably made from memory. See our Bhartŗihari Preface, p. 21, and the Tractate on the Râmâyaņa there reierted to. ++ See Hall's Vâsavadattâ, Preface, P. 15. $ Sce also as to Mlechchhas. J. B. B.R.A.S. VOL. VI p. 114, and extra number for 1877, p. Ixxxii; Max Můller, India; What it can teach us, pp. 282 299; Cunnigham's Arch. Surv. Renort. Vol. II. p. 70; Burgess's Arch. Surt. Report, Vol. II, p. 26; Brihatsamhitâ, Chan. XVI., st. 35, (where they are described as dwellers in caves, &c.). Professor Kern renders the word by "barbarians",at
J. R. A. S., (N. S.), Vol. V., p. 235.
generally to be identical with Scythians.* They give their name to the royal dynasty from which the Marâthî word S'aka, meaning 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 regarding the various references to them were elaborately discussed by Dr. Râjendralâl Mitra some years ago$$. The name seems to have been applied at various times, to various tribes. Professor Wilson thinks that the Yavanas of Malayaketu's army may have been Greeks. The Yavanas, however, are also mentioned in the Mudrârâkshasa ,
- |* as having formed part of the invading army which fol-
lowed Chandragupta and Chânakya to Pâțaliputra. But I do not find, that in the classical accounts of the invasion which are collected 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 Yayanas 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 Nabapâna; 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. $$ See Indian Antiquary, Vol. VIII., P. 305; see also J.B. B. R. A. S., Vol. VIII., p. 281; Cupn- ingham's Arch. Surv. Reports, Vol. XII., p. 130; Fergusson's S'aka and other eras, pp. 7, 10; Bŗihatsambitâ, Chap. VIII., st. 20-21; Max Muller, India: What it can teach us, pp. 282, 292, 297, 301.$$ See J. A. S.B , Vol. XLIII, and contra Indian Antiquary, Vol. IV., pp. 170, 244; see also Indian Antiquary, Vol. V., P. 275; Vol. X., p. 197, (where it seems to be stated that & 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. *| 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.
Kirâtas 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 Kâmboja's and the Pârasîkas are both mentioned under those names in Kâlidâsa's Raghuvams'a as tribes inhabiting the out- lying districts on the north-western frontier. The Pârasîkas 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 Bâhlîkas are easily identified as the dwellers in the district of Bactria or Balkh,$$ where a Buddist Vihâra has been discovered.*| T So much for the invading army of Chandragupta, which in the classical ac- counts is described as containing vagabonds,|| and robbers, and banditti. This, doubtless, may be an exaggeration, as Professor Wilson was inclined to suppose. But it seems probable from the habitat of the peoples mentioned, if we have correctly fixed it, that they were outlying uncivilized peoples, whom Chandragupta and Chanakya formed into an army for the purpose of helping in their work of revenge. The elements stated to constitute the army which followed Malayaketu and Râkshasa are of the same description. The Khas'as appear to be identical with the tribes still dwelling in the Khaśia$ and Garo Hills in the north-eastern parts of Bengal. The real name of the tribe seems to be Khas'a and so our text
- See further Indian Antiquary, Vol. III., pp. 178-9; Vol. VI., pp. 133, 349 n;
Vol. X., p. 321. + See Raghuvams'a, Canto IV., st. 60-69. For the Kâmbojas, see also Indran Antiquary, Vol. IV., p. 244; Vol. V., p. 275; Vol. X., p. 272; they and Yavanas are described as मुण्ड in the Gaņaratnamahodadhi, p. 157, (Eggeling's ed.++. Raghuvams'a, Canto V. st. 73. See further on this and other names Vâsavadattâ, Hall's Preface, p. 52; Aufrecht's Halâyudha, p. 47. $$ See Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., P. 114. *|J. R. A.S., (N. S.), Vol. IX., p. 169 and Vol. XVII., (O, 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. III, P. 44; see, too, Bhilsa Topes, p. 94; and Bŗihatsamhitâ Chap. LXIX, st. 26;.
and J. A. S. B., Vol. XVI., p. 1237, (Mr. Brian Hodgson's paper.).
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 Râkshasa, repudiating all connexion with Chandragupta as a usurper. I own, however, that I have a suspicion, though it is nothing more, that Magadha is not the correct reading, but that it should be Magara. If our identification of the Khas'as is right, this rectification is strongly suggested by the fact that the Magara tribe inhabits the Himâlayan tracts near Kumaon in the neighbourhood of the Khas'as.*| According to Mr. Carleylle, the Goorkeas of Nepâl 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 to, in 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 Chînas are the next people who claim attention. Mr. Barooah identifies with the Chinese the Chînas 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. +| Canningham's Arch. Sury. Report, Vol. XII., pp. 126-30; Vol. III., p. 116; see also Indian Antiquaryवलिताक्षराणि, Vol. VI., p. 337; and cf. Fergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 301,+|+ Journ. R. A.S.,(N. S.), Vol. IV.## See Indian Antiquary, Vol. I., p. 22; Cunningham's Geography, pp. 15, 47, et seq; Elliott's Bibliographical Index, Part I., p. 30; J. R. A. S. Vol. XVII., pp. 114-5. *| See p. 459 (Bibl. Ind. ed.); see also Max 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|| See inter alia Fergusson's Indian Architecture, p. 169, et seq.; Indian Antiquary Vol. VIII., p. 227; J. R. A.S., (N. S.), Vol. XIII., P. 183; Vol. XIV. p. 319. One of the famous edicts of As'oka is in those parts, which formed, accord. ing to those edicts themselves, the western limit of As'oka's kingdom; see
Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., p. 275; cf. also Elliott's Index, part I., p. 102,
doubts whether in the Mahâbhârata the name Chînas 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,*| 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 Harshacharita*| to have been entrusted to Râjyavardhana, the elder brother of Harshavardhana, by his father who is himself also described as हूणहरिणकेसरी ।
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,## and in Varâhamihira,*| and is mentioned by Hiouen-Tsang, apparently, as lying on the way from Jalandar to Mathurâ and Thânes'var.|| The modern name of the district is, according to Mr. Barooah, Kulu., $ and its precise position is indicated in the map which forms the frontispiece to General Cunnigham's Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. I. Malaya, if our reading here is correct, is the only southern locality alluded to in our play. It is near the southernmost extremity of the Western Ghâts.** Kâs'mir is the province which still goes under the same name and Saindhava, doubtless, means belonging
- Barooah's Dictionary, Vol. III., P. 114; see, too, Weber's History of Indian
Literature, p. 243; Yule's Cathry, Vol. I., p. xxxiv.; and Kern's Brihatsamhità in J. R. A. S., (N. S.), Vol. V. p. 73 (st, 61); and contra Max Muller, India: What it can teach us, p. 13; faith is mentioned inter alia by Kalidasa and Dandî . +| See as to the Hûnas, Raghuvoms'a, IV., 68; J.R.A.S., Vol. II, p. 283; Vol.V., (N. 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. xx. supra. As to their early history, see J. R. A. S. (N. S.), Vol X., p. 285. ++ P. 116. See p. 101. Chap. XVII., st. 29; J. R. A, S. Vol. XVII., p. 119. || Cunninghan's Geography of Ancient India, pp. 142-564; and Arch. Surs, Report, Vol. XIV., p. 120; see algo Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI., p. 339; J. A. S. B. Vol. XVII. p. 23. $ See Dictionary, Vol. III., p. 41-56.
- Sco Raghurains'a, Canto IV., st. 51; Canto V., st. 64. See, however, as to
Malaya Indian Antiquary VOL XIV p. 105, and as to Malaya and generally ibid
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 itself a very proper end. Chânakya's ambition is to make his protégé, Chadragupta, firm upon his throne,++ and to bring back Râkshasa,
- 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; Cunningham's Ancient Geography, Harshacharita, P. 43; Patanjali's Mahâbhâshya, IV., L.4, pp. 60-5, (Banâras Ed.), Wilson's Vishnu Purâna, cited in our Anugitâ, 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 Kâdambarî, p.109; Chaņdakaus'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 quœre 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 before 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, hov
to the service of the king who properly represented those old masters of his to whom Râkshasa'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 conclusion of his commentary save one the necessity of any toilsome inquiry as to his age. He says that his commentary was written in the year 1635, at the request of one Tryambakâdhvarî, who was. patronised by the Bhonsle Râjâ of Cholamandala and 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'âlivâhahana era. And we are enabled to remove all doubt on that point by the statement, that it was in the time of S'arabhaji Bhonsle that the commentary was written. For this S'arabhaji the brother of Sîhaji, is doubtless identical with the Sarfoji, the brother of Sâhâji, whom we see mentioned in the genealogical tree of the Marathî dynasty of Tanjore, given by Mr. Sewell in his Sketch of the Dynasties of Southern India. Sarfojî is there
ever, no indication of this view in our play, and it stands in need of further corrolocation as a historical tlıcory. The indication which General Cunningham. had suggested (J.A.S. B. Vol. X,, P. 156), is based on a mistake, which has
been pointed out at P. 27 Supra,
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 think, 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, equivalent 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: इत्थमत्रातिगम्भीरशुभोदर्कचाणक्यनयसंविधानेन चन्द्रगुप्तसाचिव्यपदलाभपरितुष्टो महामात्यो राक्षसो यथा दनुजबलोपप्लवादुदधिजलनिमग्नां भुवं भगवानादिवराहो दंष्ट्रयोद्धृत्य यथापूर्वं पुनः प्रतिष्ठापितवान्, एवं भगवदंशभूतत्वेन तदभिन्नश्चन्द्रगुप्तोऽपि म्लेच्छबलोपप्प्लुतायाः पृथिव्या धुरं स्वभुजयोरासज्य धर्मतः परिपालयतादित्याशास्ते-वाराहीमिति। This explains the interpolation noticed at p. 4., at the same time displacing the suggestion there made, that the author of it may be some one other than Dhuņdhirâja, 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 the 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 Dhuņdhirâja is, I think, sufficiently good to fall within the scope of this principle. As a rule, it
- See p. 53. 36MUDRÂRÂKSHASA.
does not shun obscure places; it gives very full references to standard works like the Das'arûpa, for the various points of dramaturgic 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 Commission, 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, may, 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 shortcomings 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 preparation." After some progress had been made, however, I was informed in reply to my inquiries, that the Education Department would not be, then and for some time longer, in a position to undertake the publication, I, therefore, laid the whole thing aside, and undertook 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 Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., pp. 141-7.
Professor Wilson would appear to have seen only the portion translated by him, as he does not indicate anywhere that it was only introductory to the commentary of Dhuņdhirâja. At pp. 143, 147, however, of his translation, there are passages
which clearly show the character of the piece he had before bim.
published, thnt I was told that the information on which I had acted in 1877 was based on a misunderstanding, and was asked to resume my labours on the Mudrârâkshasa. This occurred in May 1882, and I resumed in bhe June following the work which had been entirely cast aside early in 1877.