APPENDIX IV. PROFESSOR WILSON'S NOTES ON THE MUDRA RAKSHASAIt may not here be out of place to offer a few observations on the identification of CHANDRAGUPTA and SANDROCOTTUS. It is the only point on which we can rest with any thing like confidence in the history of the Hindus, and is therefore of vital importance in all our attempts to reduce the reigns of their kings to a rational and consistent chronology. It is well worthy therefore of careful examination, and it is the more deserving of scrutiny, as it has been discredited by rather hasty verification and very erroneous details.
Sir William Jones first discovered the resemblance of the names, and concluded CHANDRAGUPTA to be one with SANDROCOTTUS. (As. Res. vol. iv. p. 11.) He was, however, imperfectly acquainted with his authorities, as he cites “a beautiful poem" by Somadeva, and a tragedy called the coronation of Chandra, for the history of this prince. By the first is no doubt intended the large collection of tales by Somabhatta, the Vrihat Katha, in which the story of NANDA's murder occurs: the second is, in all probability, the play that follows, and which begins after CHANDRAGUPTA's elevation to the throne. In the fifth volume of the Researches the subject was resumed by the late Colonel Wilford, and the story of CHANDRAGUPTA is there told at considerable length, and with some accessions which can scarcely be considered authentic. He states also that the Mudra Rakshasa consists of two parts, of which one may be called the coronation of CHANDRAGUPTA, and the second his reconciliation with Rakshasa, the minister of his father. The latter is accurately enough described, but it may be doubted whether the former exists.
Colonel Wilford was right also in observing that the story is briefly related in the Vishnu Purana and Bhagavat, and in the Vrihat Katha; but when he adds, that it is told in a lexicon called the Kamandaki he has been led into error. The Kamandaki is a work on Niti, or Polity, and does not contain the story of Nanda and CHANDRAGUPTA. The author merely alludes to it in an honorific verse, which he addresses to Chanakya as the founder of political science, the Machiavel of India.
The birth of NANDA and of CHANDRAGUPTA, and the circumstances of Nanda's death, as given in Colonel Wilford's account, are not alluded to in the play, the Mudra Rakshasa, from which the whole is professedly taken, but they agree generally with the Vrihat Katha and with popular versions of the story. From some of these, perhaps, the king of Vikatpalli, Chandra Das, may have been derived, but he looks very like an amplification of Justin's account of the youthful adventures of Sandrocottus. The proceedings of CHANDRAGUPTA and CHANAKYA upon Nanda's death correspond tolerably well with what we learn from the drama, but the manner in which the catastrophe is brought about (p. 268) is strangely misrepresented. The account was no doubt compiled for the translator by his pundit, and it is therefore but indifferent authority.
It does not appear that Colonel Wilford had investigated the drama himself, even when he published his second account of the story of CHANDRAGUPTA (As. Res. vol. ix. p. 93), for he continues to quote the Mudra Rakshasa for various matters which it does not contain. Of these, the adventures of the king of Vikatpalli, and the employment of the Greek troops, are alone of any consequence, as they would mislead us into a supposition, that a much greater resemblance exists between the Grecian and Hindu histories than is actually the case.
Discarding, therefore, these accounts, and laying aside the marvellous part of the story, I shall endeavour, from the Vishnu and Bhagavat Puranas, from a popular version of the narrative as it runs in the south of India, from the Vrihat Katha,* [For the gratification of those who may wish to see the story as it occurs in these original sources, translations are subjoined; and it is rather important to add, that in no other Purana has the story been found, although most of the principal works of this class have been carefully examined. (Note by Prof. W.)] and from the play, to give what appear to be the genuine circumstances of CHANDRAGUPTA's elevation to the throne of Palibothra.
A race of kings denominated Saisunagas, from Sisunaga the first of the dynasty, reigned in Magadha, or Behar: their capital was Pataliputra, and the last of them was named NANDA or MAHAPADMA NANDA. He was the son of a woman of the Sudra caste, and was hence, agreeably to Hindu law, regarded as a Sudra himself. He was a powerful and ambitious prince, but cruel and avaricious, by which defects, as well as by his inferiority of birth, he probably provoked the animosity of the Brahmans. He had by one wife eight sons, who with their father were known as the nine NANDAS; and, according to the popular tradition, he had by a wife of low extraction, called Mura, another son named CHANDRAGUPTA.
This last circumstance is not stated in the Puranas nor Vrihat Katha, and rests therefore on rather questionable authority; at the same time it is very generally asserted, and is corroborated by the name Maurya, one of CHANDRAGUPTA's denominations, which is explained by the commentator on the Vishnu Purana to be a patronymic formative, signifying the son of Mura. It also appears from the play, that CHANDRAGUPTA was a member of the same family as NANDA, although it is not there stated that he was Nanda's son.
But whatever might have been the origin of this prince, it is very likely that he was made the instrument of the insubordination of the Brahmans, who having effected the destruction of Nanda and his sons, raised CHANDRAGIPTA, whilst yet a youth, to the throne. In this they were aided by a prince from the north of India, to whom they promised an accession of territory as the price of his alliance. The execution of the treaty was evaded, very possibly by his assassination, and to revenge his father's murder, his son led a mingled host against Magadha, containing amongst other troops, Yavanas, whom we may be permitted to consider as Greeks. The storm was averted, however, by jealousies and quarrels amongst the confederates. The army dispersed, and MALAYAKETI, the invader, returned, baffled and humbled, to his own country. CHANDRAGUPTA reigned twenty-four years, and left the kingdom to his son. We have now to see how far the classical writers agree with these details.
The name is an obvious coincidence. Sandracottus and CHANDRAGUPTA can scarcely be considered different appellations. But the similarity is no doubt still closer. Athenæus, as first noticed by Wilford (18. Res, vol. v. 262.) and subsequently by Schlegel (Indische Bibliothek), writes the name, Sandracoptus, and its other form, although more common, is very possibly a mere error of the transcriber. As to the Andracottus of Plutarch, the difference is more apparent than real, the initial sibilant being often dropped in Greek proper names.
This name is, however, not the only coincidence in the denomination that may be traced. We find in the play that CHANDRAGUPTA is often Chandra simply, or the moon, of which Chandramas is a synonime; and accordingly we find in Diodorus Siculus, the king of the Gangarida, whose power alarms the Macedonian, is there named Xandrames. The Aggramen of Quintus Curtius is merely a blundering perversion of this appellation.
There are other names of the prince, the sense of which, though not their sound, may be discovered in classical writers. These are Vrishala, and perhaps Maurya. The first unquestionably implies a man of the fourth or servile caste; the latter is said by Wilford to be explained, in the Jati Viveka, the offspring of a barber and a Sudra woman, or of a barber and a female slave. (As. Res. vol. v. p. 285.) It is most usually stated, however, to mean the offspring of Mura, as already observed, and the word does not occur in any of the vocabularies in the sense attached to it by Col. Wilford.* [Colonel Tod considers Maurya a probable interpolation for Mori, a branch of the Pramara tribe of Rajputs, who in the eighth century occupied Chitore. He observes also, that Chandragupta in the Puranas is made a descendant of Sehesnag of the Takshak tribe, of which last no other mention has been found, whilst instead of Schesnag the word is Susunaga; and with respect to the fact of the princes belonging to the Pramara tribe no authority is cited. Colonel Tod, like the late Col Wilford, is sparing of those specific references, which in all debateable points are indispensable. See Transactions Royal Asiatic Society, vol. i. p. 211. Also, Account of Rajasthan, p. 53.] It is sufficient, however, to observe, that the term Vrishala, and frequent expressions in the drama, establish the inferior origin of CHANDRAGUPTA, a circumstance which is stated of the king of the Gangaridae at the time of Alexander's invasion, by Diodorus Siculus, Quintus Curtius, and Plutarch.
According to the two former of these writers, Xandrames, or Chandramas, was contemporary with Alexander. They add, that he was the son of the queen by an intrigue with a barber, and that his father being raised to honour and the king's favour, compsssed his benefactor's death, by which he paved the way for the sovereignty of his own son, the ruling prince. We have no indication of these events in the Hindu writers, and CHANDRAGUPTA, as has been noticed, is usually regarded as the son of NANDA, or at least a relative. It may be observed that his predecessors were Sudras, and the character given to MAHAPADMA Nanda in the Vishnu Purana, agrees well enough with the general tenor of the classical accounts, as to his being of low origin and estimation, although an active and powerful prince. If Nanda be the monarch alluded to, there has been some error in the name; but, in either case, we have a general coincidence in the private history of the monarch of the Gangaridæ, as related by the writers of the east or west.
If the monarch of Behar at the time of Alexander's invasion was NANDA, it is then possible that CHANDRAGUPTA, whilst seeking, as the Hindus declare, the support of foreign powers to the north and north-west of India, may have visited Alexander, as asserted by Plutarch and Justin. We cannot, however, attach any credit to the marvelous part of the story as told by the latter, nor can we conceive that a mere adventurer, as he makes Sandracoptus to have been, should have rendered himself master of a mighty kingdom, in so brief an interval as that between Seleucus and Alexander, or by the aid of vagabonds and banditti alone.
Although, therefore, the classical writers had gleaned some knowledge of CHANDRAGUPTA's early history, it is very evident that their information was but partially correct, and that they have confounded names, whilst they have exaggerated some circumstances and misrepresented others. These defects, however, are very venial, considering the imperfect communication that must have subsisted between the Greeks and Hindus, even at the period of Alexander's invasion, and the interval that elapsed before the accounts we now possess were written.
These considerations rather enhance the value of both sets of our materials. It is more wonderful that so much of what appears to be the truth should have been preserved, than that the stories should not conform in every particular.
However questionable may be the contemporary existence of Alexander and Sandracoptus, there is no reason to doubt that the latter reigned in the time of Seleucus Nicator, as Strabo and Arrian cite the repeated declarations of Megasthenes, that he had often visited the Indian prince. Seleucus is said to have relinquished to him some territories beyond the Indus, and to have formed a matrimonial alliance with him. We have no trace of this in the Hindu writers, but it is not at all improbable. Before the Christian era, the Hindus were probably not scrupulous about whom they married[!!!]; and even in modern days, their princesses have become the wives of Mohammedan sovereigns. CHANDRAGUPTA, however, had no right to be nice with respect to the condition of his wife[???], and in whichever way the alliance was effected, it was feasible enough, whilst it was a very obvious piece of policy in CHANDRAGUPTA, as calculated to give greater security to his empire and stability to his reign. The failure of Seleucus in his attempt to extend his power in India, and his relinquishment of territory, may possibly be connected with the discomfiture and retreat of MALAYAKETU, as narrated in the drama, although it may be reasonably doubted whether the Syrian monarch and the king of Magadha ever came into actual collision. It is very unlikely that the former ever included any part of the Punjab within his dominions, and at any rate it may be questioned whether CHANDRAGUPTA or his posterity long retained, if they ever held possession of the north western provinces, as there is no conjecturing any resemblance between the names of the Maurya princes (As. Res. vol. ix. table) and the Amitrochates and Sophagasenas, who reinforced the armies of Antigonus the son of Seleucus, and of Antigonus the Great, with those elephants that were so highly prized by the successors of Alexander (Wilford, As. Res. vol. v. p. 286, and Schegel, Indische Bibliothek), although, as shewn by Schlegel, the names are undoubtedly Sanscrit and Hindu.
All the classical writers agree in representing Sandracoptus as king of the nations which were situated along the Ganges, which were the Gangaridae and Prasii -- called, however, indifferently, but no doubt inaccurately, Gargaridae, Gandaridae, and Gandarii, and Prasii, Parrhasii, and Tabresii. The first name was probably of Greek origin, expressing, as Raderus and Cellarius justly observe, the situation of the nations in the neighbourhood of the Ganges;
but in truth there was a nation called the Gandhari or Gandaridae west of the Indus, whom the classical authors often confound with the Gangetic nations, as has been shewn in another place. (As. Res. vol. xv.) The other appellation, which is most correctly Prasii, is referable to a Hindu original, and is a close approximation to Prachí, the eastern country, or Prachya, the people of the east, in which division of Bharata Khanda, or India, Mithila, the country opposite to Behar, and Magadha or South Behar, are included by Hindu geographers. Both Greek and Hindu account are, therefore, agreed as to the general position of the people over whom CHANDRAGUPTA reigned.
Finally; the classical authors concur in making Palibothra, a city on the Ganges, the capital of Sandracoptus. Strabo, on the authority of Megasthenes, states that Palibothra is situated at the confluence of the Ganges and another river, the name of which he does not mention. Arrian, possibly on the same authority, calls that river the Erranoboas, which is a synonime of the Sone. In the drama, one of the characters describes the trampling down of the banks of the Sone, as the army approaches to Pataliputra; and Pataliputra, also called Kusumapura, is the capital of CHANDRAGUPTA. There is little question that Pataliputra and Palibothra are the same, and in the uniform estimation of the Hindus, the former is the same with Patna. The alterations in the course of the rivers of India, and the small comparative extent to which the city has shrunk in modern times, will sufficiently explain why Patna is not at the confluence of the Ganges and the Sone, and the only argument, then, against the identity of the position, is the enumeration of the Erranoboas and the Sone as distinct rivers by Arrian and Pliny: but their nomenclature is unaccompanied by any description, and it was very easy to mistake synonimes for distinct appellations.
Rajamahal, as proposed by Wilford, and Bhagalpur, as maintained by Franklin, are both utterly untenable, and the further inquiries of the former had satisfied him of the error of his hypothesis. His death prevented the publication of an interesting paper by him on the site of Palibothra, in which he had come over to the prevailing opinion, and shewn it to have been situated in the vicinity of Patna.* [Asiatic Researches, vol. xiv. p. 38.]
It thus appears, that the Greek and Hindu writers concur in the name, in the private history, in the political elevation, and in the nation and capital of an Indian king, nearly, if not exactly cotemporary with Alexander, to a degree of approximation that cannot possibly be the work of accident; and it may be reasonably concluded, therefore, that the era of the events described in the following drama is determined with as much precision as that of any other remote historical fact.
1. Pauranic accounts of Chandragupta.The son of Mahanandi, born of a Sudra woman, a powerful prince named Mahapadma, shall put an end to the Kshetriya rule, and from his time the kings will be mostly Sudras, void of piety. He will bring the earth under one umbrella, his rule being irresistible, and he will reign like another Bhargava. He will have eight sons, Sumalya and others, who will be kings of the earth for one hundred years. A Brahman will destroy these nine Nandas, and after their disappearance the Mauryas will reign in the Kali age. That Brahman will inaugurate Chandragupta as king. -- (Bhagavat, 12th Skandha.)
Mahanandi will be the last of the ten Saisunaga princes, whose joint reigns will be three hundred and sixty-two years. The son of Mahanandi or Nanda, named Mahapadma, will be born from a Sudra mother. He will be avaricious, and like another Parasurama will end the Kshetriya race, as from him forwards the kings will be all Sudras. He, Mahapadma, will bring the whole earth under one umbrella, his rule being irresistible. He will have eight sons, Sumalya and others who after him will govern the world. He, and these sons will reign for a period of one hundred years, until Kautilya, a Brahman, shall destroy the nine Nandas.
After their destruction the Maurya will possess the earth, Kautilya inaugurating CHANDRAGUPTA in the kingdom. (Vishnu Purana.)
The comment explains Maurya thus; -- so named from CHANDRAGUPTA, the first, who derived this name from his mother Mura, one of the wives of NANDA.
2. Story of Nanda, as related by Vararuchi in the Vrihat Katha.I now returned from my sojourn in the snowy mountains, where by the favour of Sira I had acquired the Paniniya grammar. This I communicated to my preceptor Versha, as the fruit of my penance; and as he wished to learn a new system, I instructed him in that revealed by Serami Kumara. Vyari, and Indradatta then applied to Versha for like instructions, but he desired them first to bring him a very considerable present. As they were wholly unable to raise the sum, they proposed applying for it to the king, and requested me to accompany them to his camp, which was at that time at Ayodhya; I consented, and we set off.
When we arrived at the encampment we found every body in distress, Nanda being just dead. Indradatta, who was skilled in magic, said; "This event need not disconcert us: I will transfuse my vitality into the lifeless body of the king. Do you, Vararuchi, then solicit the money: I will grant it, and then resume my own person, of which do you, Vyari, take charge till the spirit returns." This was assented to, and our companion accordingly entered the carcase of the king.
The revival of NANDA caused universal rejoicing. The minister Sakatala alone suspected something extraordinary in the resuscitation. As the heir to the throne, however, was yet a child, he was well content that no change should take place, and determined to keep his new master in the royal station. He immediately, therefore, issued orders that search should be made for all the dead bodies in the vicinage, and that they should forthwith be committed to the flames. In pursuance of this edict the guards came upon the deserted carcase of Indradatta, and burning it as directed, our old associate was compelled to take up his abode permanently in the tenement which he had purposed to occupy but for a season. He was by no means pleased with the change, and in private lamented it with us, being in fact degraded by his elevation, having relinquished the exalted rank of a Brahman for the inferior condition of a Sudra.
Vyari having the sum destined for our master, took leave of his companion Indradatta, whom we shall henceforth call Yogananda. Before his departure, however, he recommended to the latter to get rid of Sakatala, the minister, who had penetrated his secret, and who would, no doubt, raise the prince CHANDRAGUPTA to the throne, as soon as he had attained to years of discretion. It would be better, therefore, to anticipate him, and, as preparatory to that measure, to make me, Vararuchi, his minister. Vyari then left us, and in compliance with his counsel I became the confidential minister of Yogananda.
A charge was now made against Sakatala, of having, under pretence of getting rid of dead carcases, burnt a Brahman alive; and on this plea he was cast into a dry well with all his sons. A plate of parched pulse and a pitcher of water were let down daily for their sustenance, just sufficient for one person. The father, therefore, recommended to the brothers to agree amongst themselves which should survive to revenge them all, and relinquishing the food to him, resign themselves to die. They instantly acknowledged their avenger in him, and with stern fortitude refusing to share in the daily pittance, one by one expired.
After some time Yogananda, intoxicated like other mortals with prosperity, became despotic and unjust. I found my situation therefore most irksome, as it exposed me to a tyrant's caprice, and rendered me responsible for acts which I condemned. I therefore sought to secure myself a participator in the burthen, and prevailed upon Yogananda to release Sakatala from his captivity, and reinstate him in his authority. He, therefore, once again became the minister of the king.
It was not long before I incurred the displeasure of Yogananda, so that he resolved to put me to death. Sakatala, who was rejoiced to have this opportunity of winning me over to his cause, apprised me of my danger, and helped me to evade it by keeping me concealed in his palace. Whilst thus retired, the son of the king, Hiranyagupta, lost his senses, and Yogananda now lamented my absence. His regret moved Sakatala to acknowledge that I was living, and I was once more received into favour. I effected the cure of the prince, but received news that disgusted me with the world, and induced me to resign my station and retire into the forests. My disappearance had led to a general belief that I had been privately put to death. This report reached my family. Upakosa, my wife, burnt herself, and my mother died broken hearted.
Inspired with the profoundest grief, and more than ever sensible of the transitory duration of human happiness, I repaired to the shades of solitude, and the silence of meditation. After living for a considerable period in my hermitage, the death of Yogananda was thus related to me by a Brahman, who was travelling from Ayodhya, and had rested at my cell.
Sakatala brooding on his plan of revenge, observed one day a Brahman of mean appearance digging in a meadow, and asked him what he was doing there. CHANAKYA, the Brahman, replied: "I am rooting out this grass which has hurt my foot." The reply struck the minister as indicative of a character which would contribute to his designs, and he engaged him by the promise of a large reward and high honours to come and preside at the Sraddha, which was to be celebrated next new moon at the palace. CHANAKYA arrived, anticipating the most respectful treatment; but Yogananda had been previously persuaded by Sakatala to assign precedence to another Brahman, Subandhu, so that when CHANAKYA came to take his place he was thrust from it with contumely. Burning with rage, he threatened the king before all the court, and denounced his death within seven days. NANDA ordered him to be turned out of the palace. Sakatala received him into his house, and persuading CHANAKYA that he was wholly innocent of being instrumental to his ignominious treatment, contributed to encourage and inflame his indignation. CHANAKYA thus protected, practised a magical rite, in which he was a proficient, and by which on the seventh day Nanda was deprived of life. Sakatala on the father's death effected the destruction of Hiranyagupta, his son, and raised CHANDRAGUPTA, the son of the genuine Nanda, to the throne. Chanakya became the prince's minister; and Sakatala having attained the only object of his existence, retired to end his days in the woods.
3. Story of Nanda and Chandragupta, by a Pundit of the Dekhin.(From a Manuscript in the collection of the late Col. Mackenzie, Sanscrit, Telinga character.)
After invoking the benediction of Ganesa the writer proceeds: In the race of Bharadwaja, and the family of the hereditary counsellors of the Bhosala princes, was born the illustrious and able minister Bhavaji. He was succeeded by his son Gangadhara surnamed Adhwari (a priest of the Yajur Veda), who continued to enjoy the confidence of the king, and was equal to Vrihaspati in understanding.
By his wife Krishnambika, Gangadhara had two sons, who were both employed by the Raja, Sahuji, the son of the preceding prince. The favour of the Raja enabled these ministers to grant liberal endowments to pious and learned Brahmans.
The elder of the two, Nrisinha, after a life passed in prayer and sacred rites, proceeded to the world of Brahma, leaving three sons.
Of these, the elder was Ananda Raja Adhwari. He was noted for his steadiness and sagacity from his childhood, and in adult years deserved the confidence of his prince, Sahuji. He was profoundly versed in the Vedas, a liberal benefactor of the Brahmans, and a skilful director of religious rites.
Upon his death and that of the youngest brother, the survivor, Tryambaka Adhwari, succeeded to the reputation of his ancestors, and cherished his nephews as his own children.
Accompanied by his mother he proceeded to the shores of the Ganges, and by his ablutions in the holy stream liberated his ancestors from the ocean of future existence.
He was solicited by Sahu, the king, to assume the burthen of the state, but regarding it incompatible with his religious duties he was unwilling to assent. In consideration of his wisdom and knowledge he was highly venerated by the Raja and presented with valuable gifts, which he dedicated to pious rites or distributed to the Brahmans. Having on a particular occasion been lavish of expenditure in order to gratify his sovereign, he contracted heavy debts, and as the prince delayed their liquidation, he was obliged to withdraw to seek the means of discharging them. On his return he was received by Sahu and his nobles with high honours, and the prince by the homage paid to him obtained identification (after death) with Tyagesa, a glory of difficult attainment to Yayati, Nata, Mandhata, and other kings.
The brother of the prince, Sarabhaji, then governed the kingdom and promoted the happiness of all entrusted to his care by Sahu, for the protection of piety, and rendering the people happy by his excellent qualities: the chief of the Brahmans was treated by him with increased veneration.
The land of Chola is supplied at will by the waters of the Kaverí, maintained by the abundant showers poured down constantly by Indra, and in this land did the illustrious Sarabhaji long exercise undisturbed dominion and promote the happiness of his people.
Having performed with the aid of his reverend minister the late rite to his brother, he liberally delivered Tryambaka from the ocean of debt, and presented him with lands on the bank of the Kaveri (the Sahyagirija), for the preservation of the observances enjoined by religion and law.
And he diffused a knowledge of virtue by means of the Tantra of the son of the foe of Kama (Karikeya), as communicated by Brahma or Nareda to relieve his distress, and whatever learned man takes up his residence on the hill of Svami and worships Skanda with faith, will undoubtedly obtain divine wisdom.
Thus, on the mountain of Swami, enjoying the favour of Girisa, does Tryambaka reside with uninterrupted prosperity, surrounded by his kinsmen, and sons, and grandsons, and Brahmans learned in the Vedas, engaged in the performance of the holy rites and the worship of Iswara. May he live a thousand years!
An object of his unbounded benevolence, and one to be included in those cherished by his bounties, having worshipped the lord of Sri (Vishnu), and acquitted himself of his debt to the Gods and Manes, is rewarded by having it in his power to be respectfully obedient to his (Tryambaka's) commands. This individual, named Dhundí, the son of the excellent Pundit Lakshmana, of the family of Vyasa, had in his possession, and expounded, the new and wonderful drama entitled the Mudra Rakshasa, and in order to convey a clear notion of his drama, the composition of Visakha Datta, he relates as an introduction the following particulars of the story.
Story of Nanda and ChandraguptaAccording to the Puranas the Kshetriya sovereignty was to cease with NANDA. In the beginning of the Kali age the Nandas were kings so named.
Amongst them SARVARTHASIDDHI was celebrated for his valour: he was monarch of the earth, and his troops were nine crore and one hundred. Vaktranasa and others were his hereditary ministers, but amongst them the most famous was the Brahman, RAKSHASA.
He was skilled in government and policy, and the six attributes of princes, was eminent for piety and prowess, and was highly respected by Nanda. The king had two wives, of whom Sunanda was the elder -- the other was of Sudra extraction; she was the favourite of the king, of great beauty and amiable character -- her name was Mura. On one occasion the king in the company of his wives administered the rights of hospitality to a venerable ascetic, and after washing his feet sprinkled the queens with the water: nine drops fell upon the forehead of the elder, and one on Mura. This she received with reverence, and the Brahman was much pleased with her deportment.
Mura accordingly was delivered of one son, of most excellent qualities, who was named Maurya. Sunanda was delivered of a lump of flesh.
This RAKSHASA divided into nine portions, which he put into a vessel of oil, and carefully watched.
By his cares nine infants were in time evolved, who were brought up by RAKSHASA and called the nine Nandas after their progenitor.
The king when he grew old retired from the affairs of state, consigning his kingdom to these nine sons, and appointing Maurya to the command of the army.
Maurya had a hundred sons, of whom CHANDRAGUPTA was the best, and they surpassed the Nandas in merit.
The Nandas being therefore filled with envy, conspired against his life, and inviting him and his sons into a private chamber put them to death.
At this time the Raja of Sinhala sent to the court of the Nandas a lion of wax in a cage, so well made that it seemed to be alive. And he added this message, "If any one of your courtiers can make this fierce animal run without opening the cage, I shall acknowledge him to be a man of talent."
The dullness of the Nandas prevented their understanding the purport of the message; but CHANDRAGUPTA, in whom some little breath yet remained, offered, if they would spare his life, to undertake the task, and this being allowed, he made an iron rod red-hot, and thrusting it into the figure, the wax soon ran, and the lion disappeared.
Although they desired his death, CHANDRAGUPTA was taken by the Nandas from the pit into which he had been cast, and continued to live in affluence. He was gifted with all the marks of royalty: his arms reached to his knees; he was affable, liberal, and brave; but these deserts only increased the animosity of the Nandas, and they waited for an opportunity of compassing his death.
Upon one occasion CHANDRAGUPTA observed a Brahman of such irascible temperament, that he tore up violently a tuft of kusa grass, because a blade of it had pierced his foot: on which he approached him, and placed himself under his protection through fear of incurring the Brahman's resentment.
This Brahman was named Vishnugupta, and was deeply read in the science of government taught by Usanas (Saturn), and in astronomy: his father, a teacher of níti or polity, was named Chanaka, and hence the son is called CHANAKYA.
He became the great friend of CHANDRAGUPTA who related to him all he had suffered from the Nandas.
On which CHANAKYA promised him the throne of the Nandas; and being hungry, entered the dinner-chamber, where he seated himself on the seat of honour.
The Nandas, their understanding being bewildered by fate, regarded him as some wild scholar of no value, and ordered him to be thrust from his seat. The ministers in vain protested against the act; the princes forcibly dragged CHANAKYA, furious with rage, from his seat.
Then, standing in the centre of the hall, CHANAKYA, blind with indignation, loosened the lock of hair on the top of his head, and thus vowed the destruction of the royal race: "Until I have exterminated these haughty and ignorant Nandas, who have not known my worth, I will not again tie up these hairs."
Having thus spoken, he withdrew, and indignantly quitted the city, and the Nandas, whom fortune had deserted, made no attempt to pacify him.
CHANDRAGUPTA being no longer afraid of his own danger, quitted the city and repaired to CHANAKYA, and the Brahman Kautilya, possessed of the prince, resorted to crooked expedients for the destruction of the Nandas.
With this view he sent a friend, Indraserma, disguised as a Kshapanaka, as his emissary, to deceive RAKSHASA and the rest, whilst on the other hand he excited the powerful Parvatendra to march with a Mlechchha force against Kusumapura, promising him half the kingdom.
The Nandas prepared to encounter the enemy, relying on the valours of RAKSHASA. He exerted all his prowess, but in vain, and finding it impossible to overcome the hostile force by open arms, attempted to get rid of Maurya by stratagem; but in the mean time all the Nandas perished like moths in the flame of CHANAKYA's revenge, supported by the troops of Parvatendra.
Raksasa, being worn in body and mind, and having lost his troops and exhausted his treasures, now saw that the city could no longer be defended; he therefore effected the secret retreat of the old king SERVARTHASIDDHI, with such of the citizens as were attached to the cause of the Nandas, and then delivered the capital to the enemy, affecting to be won to the cause of C'HANDRAGIPTA.
He prepared by magic art a poisoned maid, for the destruction of that prince; but Kautilya detected the fraud, and diverting it to Parvatesa caused his death; and having contrived that information of his share in the murder of the monarch should be communicated to his son, MALAYAKETU, he filled the young prince with alarm for his own safety, and occasioned his flight from the camp.
Kautilya, though master of the capital, yet knowing it contained many friends of Nanda, hesitated to take possession of it, and Rakshasa, taking advantage of the delay, contrived with Daruverma and others, machines and various expedients to destroy CHANDRAGUPTA upon his entry; but Kautilya discovered and frustrated all his schemes.
He persuaded the brother of Parvateswara, VAIRODHAKA, to suspend his departure, affirming with solemn asseverations, that RAKSHASA, seeking to destroy the friends of CHANDRAGUPTA, had designed the poisoned maid for the mountain monarch. Thus he concealed his own participation in the act, and the crafty knave deceived the prince, by promising him that moiety of the kingdom which had been promised to his brother.
SERVARTHASIDDHI retired to the woods to pass his days in penance, but the cruel Kautilya soon found means to shorten his existence.
When Rakshasa heard of the death of the old king he was much grieved, and went to MALAYAKETU and roused him to revenge his father's death. He assured him that the people of the city were mostly inimical to Chandragupta, and that he had many friends in the capital ready to cooperate in the downfall of the prince and his detested minister. He promised to exhaust all his own energies in the cause, and confidently anticipated Malayaketu's becoming master of the kingdom, now left without a legitimate lord. Having thus excited the ardour of the prince, and foremost himself in the contest, RAKSHASA marched against Maurya with an army of Mlechhas, or barbarians.
This is the preliminary course of the story -- the poet will now express the subject of the drama. It begins with an equivoque upon the words Kruragraha, in the dialogue of the prelude. This ends the introduction.
4. Extracts from Classical Writers relating to the History of SandrocottusHe (Alexander) had learned from Phigæus that beyond the Indus was a vast desert of twelve days' journey, and at the farthest borders thereof ran the Ganges. Beyond this river dwell the Tabresians, and the Gandaritae whose king's name was Xandramas, who had an army of 20,000 horse, 200,000 foot, 2,000 chariots, and 4,000 elephants. The king could not believe this to be true, and sent for Porus, and inquired of him whether it was so or not. He told him all was certainly true, but that the present king of the Gandaritae was but of a mean and obscure extraction, accounted to be a barber's son; for his father being a very handsome man, the queen fell in love with him, and murdered her husband, and so the kingdom devolved upon the present king -- Diodorus Siculus.
At the confluence of the Ganges and another river is situated Polibothra: it is the capital of the Prasii, a people superior to others. The king, besides his birth-name and his appellation from the city, is also named Sandrarottus. Megasthenes was sent to him.
Megasthenes relates that he visited the camp of Sandracottus, in which 400,000 people were assembled.
Seleucus Nicator relinquished the country beyond the Indus to Sandracottus, receiving in its stead fifty elephants, and contracting an alliance with that prince (contracta cum eo affinitate).--Strabo.
Phegelas informed him, that eleven days from the river the road lay over vast deserts to the Ganges, the largest stream in India, the opposite bank of which the Gangaridae and Parrhasii inhabited. Their king was named Aggramen, who could bring into the field 20,000 horse, and 200,000 foot, 2,000 chariots, and 3,000 elephants. As these things appeared incredible to the king, he referred to Porus, who confirmed what he heard. He added, however, that the king was not only of low, but of extremely base origin, for his father was a barber, whose personal merits recommended him to the queen. Being introduced by her to the king then reigning, he contrived his death, and under pretence of acting as guardian to his sons, got them into his power and put them to death. After their extermination he b got the son who was now king, and who, more worthy of his father's condition than his own, was odious and contemptible to his subjects --- Quintus Curtus.
Megasthenes tells us he was at the court of Sandracottus.
The capital city of India is Palembothra on the confines of the Prasii, where is the confluence of the two great rivers, Erranoboas and Ganges. The first is inferior only to the Indus and Ganges.
Megasthenes assures us he frequently visited Sandracottus king of India. --- Arrian.
Sandracottus was the author of the liberty of India after Alexander's retreat, but soon converted the name of liberty into servitude after his success, subjecting those whom he rescued from foreign dominion to his own authority. This prince was of humble origin, but was called to royalty by the power of the gods; for, having offended Alexander by his impertinent language, he was ordered to be put to death, and escaped only by flight. Fatigued with his journey he laid down to rest, when a lion of large size came and licked off the perspiration with his tongue, retiring without doing him any harm. The prodigy inspired him with ambitious hopes, and collecting bands of robbers he roused the Indians to renew the empire. In the wars which he waged with the captains of Alexander he was distinguished in the van, mounted on an elephant of great size and strength. Having thus acquired power, Sandracottus reigned at the same time that Seleucus laid the foundation of his dominion, and Seleucus entered into a treaty with him, and settling affairs on the side of India directed his march against Antigonus. — Justin. -- 15-4.
The kings of the Gandarites and Prasians were said to be waiting for them there (on the Ganges) with 80,000 horse, 200,000 foot, 8,000 chariots, and 6,000 elephants. Nor is this number at all magnified, for Androcottus, who reigned not long after, made Seleucus a present of 500 elephants at one time, and with an army of 600,000 men traversed India and conquered the whole.
Androcottus, who was then very young, had a sight of Alexander, and he is reported to have said, that Alexander was within a little of making himself master of those countries: with such hatred and contempt was the reigning prince looked upon, on account of his profligacy of manner and meanness of birth.--- Plutarch. -- Life of Alexander.
Professor Wilson's Preface to the RetnavaliThe Retnavali is a play of a different character from any of those which we have hitherto examined. Although the personages are derived from Hindu history, they are wholly of mortal mould, and unconnected with any mystical or mythological legend; and the incidents are not only the pure inventions of the poet, but they are of an entirely domestic nature. In this latter respect the Retnavali differs from the Mrichchakatí, Malati Madhava, and Mudra Rakshasa, whilst its exemption from legendary allusion distinguishes it from the Vikramorvasi and Uttara Rama Cheritra.
Although, however, the Retnavali differs from its predecessors in these respects, and in others of still greater importance, it is well entitled to attention, as
establishing an era in the history of both Hindu manners and literature, of which we are able to fix the date with precision.The story of this drama appears to have been not wholly the invention of the author, but to have
enjoyed very extensive popularity, at a period to which we cannot refer with confidence.[!!!] The loves of Vatsa, prince of Kausambi, and Vasavadatta, princess of Ujayin, are alluded to in the Megha Duta, and are narrated in the Vrihat Katha of Soma Deva. The last is a writer of the same period as the drama, but he does not pretend to have invented the story; and
the manner in which the tale is adverted to* [The author terms Avanti or "Ougein," great with the number of those versed in the tale of Udayana (Vatsa).] in the Megha Duta, the date of which work is unknown, but which is no doubt anterior to the Vrihat Katha,
seems to indicate a celebrity of some antiquity.† [The Vasava Datta of Subandhu, the nephew of Vararuchi, and as well as his uncle patronized by Bhoja, has nothing in common with the story of Vatsa and his bride, except the name of the latter. The Megha Duta, therefore, does not refer to that work. Subandhu also alludes to the Vrihat Katha, to which he is consequently subsequent.] The second marriage of Vatsa, which forms the business of the Retnavalí, appears to be the invention of the writer, as it is very differently told in the Vrihat Katha; the heroine being there named Padmavati, and being a princess of Magadha, not of Ceylon. The circumstances under which the marriage is effected are altogether distinct.‡ [The story is translated from the Vrihat Katha, in the Quarterly Oriental Magazine, Calcutta, vol. ii. p. 198.]
From whatever source, however, the plot of the drama may have been derived,
it is very evident that the author is under considerable obligation to his predecessors, and especially to Kalidas, from the Vikrama and Urvasí of which writer several situations, and some of the dialogue even, are borrowed.[/i][/b] At the same time, the manners described are very different, and the light and loose principles of Vatsa are wholly unlike the deep, dignified passion of Pururavas.
If we compare the Retnavali with the Mrichchakatı, or with the drama of Bhavabhuti, the difference is still more striking, and it is impossible to avoid the conviction, that they are the productions of different ages, and different conditions of society; the Retnavalí indicating a wider deviation from manners purely Hindu, more artificial refinement, and more luxurious indulgence, and a proportionate deterioration of moral feeling.
The Retnavalí, considered also under a purely literary point of view, marks a change in the principles of dramatic composition, as well as in those of social organization. Besides the want of passion and the substitution of intrigue, it will be very evident that there is in it no poetic spirit, no gleam of inspiration, scarce even enough to suggest a conceit in the ideas. The only poetry of the play, in fact, is mechanical. The structure of the original language is eminently elegant, particularly in the Prakrit. This dialect appears to equal advantage in no other drama, although much more laboured in the Malati Madhava: the Sanscrit style is also very smooth and beautiful without being painfully elaborate. The play is, indeed, especially interesting on this account, that whilst both in thought and expression there is little fire or genius, a generally correct and delicate taste regulates the composition, and avoids those absurdities which writers of more pretension than judgment, the writers of more recent periods, invariably commit. The Retnavali, in short, may be taken as
one of the connecting links between the old and new school; as a not unpleasing production of that middle region, through which Hindu poetry passed from elevation to extravagance.
The place to which the Retnavali is entitled in the dramatic literature of the Hindus is the more interesting, as
the date is verifiable beyond all reasonable doubt.[!!!] It is stated in the prelude to be the composition of the sovereign, Sri Hershu Deva. A king of this name, and a great patron of learned men, reigned over Cashmir: he was the reputed author of several works, being however in fact only the patron, the compositions bearing his name being written, the author of the Kavya Prakas asserts, by Dhavaka and other poets. That it was fashionable in his reign to take the adventures of Vatsa for the subject of fictitious narrative, we may infer from their being the groundwork of the Vrihat Katha, the author of which was a native of Cashmir, and a cotemporary of the prince.
Somadeva, the author, states that he compiled his collection of tales for the amusement of the grandmother of Hersha Deva, king of Cashmir, the son of Kalasa, the son of Ananta, the son of Sangrama. His genealogy is nearly identifiable with that of Abulfazl, which runs in Gladwin's translation of the Ayin Akberi, Sungram, Haray, Anunt, Kulusder, Ungrus, Hurruss. The two additional princes, Huray and Ungruss, reigned conjointly but forty-four days, and they are for all chronological purposes non-entities.* [See also the Quarterly Oriental Magazine for March, 1871, p. 64.]
But we have fortunately a better authority than either of the preceding, in the history of Cashmir by Kalhana Pandit.Little is known about the author Kalhana (c. 12th century CE), apart from what is written in the book...
Kalhana's work is ... full of legends and inconsistencies...
Ashoka / Great-grandson of Shakuni and son of Shachinara's first cousin. Built a great city called Srinagara (near but not same as the modern-day Srinagar). In his days, the mlechchhas (foreigners) overran the country, and he took sannyasa. According to Kalhana's account, this Ashoka would have ruled in the 2nd millennium BCE, and was a member of the dynasty founded by Godhara. Kalhana also states that this king had adopted the doctrine of Jina, constructed stupas and Shiva temples, and appeased Bhutesha (Shiva) to obtain his son Jalauka. Despite the discrepancies, multiple scholars identify Kalhana's Ashoka with the Mauryan emperor Ashoka, who adopted Buddhism. Although "Jina" is a term generally associated with Jainism, some ancient sources use it to refer to the Buddha....
Despite the value that historians have placed on Kalhana's work, there is little evidence of authenticity in the earlier books of Rajatarangini. For example, Ranaditya is given a reign of 300 years. Toramana is clearly the Huna king of that name, but his father Mihirakula is given a date 700 years earlier. Even where the kings mentioned in the first three books are historically attested, Kalhana's account suffers from chronological errors. Kalhana's account starts to align with other historical evidence only by Book 4, which gives an account of the Karkota dynasty. But even this account is not fully reliable from a historical point of view. For example, Kalhana has highly exaggerated the military conquests of Lalitaditya Muktapida.
-- Rajatarangini, by Wikipedia
Kalhana (sometimes spelled Kalhan or Kalhan'a) (c. 12th century), a Kashmiri, was the author of Rajatarangini (River of Kings), an account of the history of Kashmir....All information regarding his life has to be deduced from his own writing... Robin Donkin has argued that with the exception of Kalhana, "there are no [native Indian] literary works with a developed sense of chronology, or indeed much sense of place, before the thirteenth century".
Kalhana was born to a Kashmiri minister, Chanpaka, who probably served king Harsa of the Lohara dynasty. It is possible that his birthplace was Parihaspore and his birth would have been very early in the 12th century. It is extremely likely that he was of the Hindu Brahmin caste, suggested in particular by his knowledge of Sanskrit....
[H]is own writings did not employ what Stein has described as "the very redundant praise and flattery which by custom and literary tradition Indian authors feel obliged to bestow on their patrons". From this comes Stein's deduction that Kalhana was not a part of the circle surrounding Jayasimha, the ruling monarch at the time when he was writing the Rajatarangini.
-- Kalhana, by Wikipedia
The first portion of this work, down to the reign of Sangrama Deva, in A.D. 1027, is translated summarily in the fifteenth volume of the Asiatic Researches. [An Essay on the Hindu History of Cashmir, by Horace Hayman Wilson, Esq., Sec. A.S., 1825, pgs. 1-119 Since its publication, the subsequent portion of the original has been procured in Cashmir, and presented to the Asiatic Society by the late enterprizing traveller, Mr. Moorcroft. From this we are enabled to trace the successors of Sangrama with precision.Sangrama reigned twenty-five years, and was succeeded by his son Hari, who enjoyed his elevation but twenty-two days, having been removed, it was supposed, by the practices of his mother, who aspired to the regency during the minority of a younger son. She was set aside by the chief officers of the state, under whose ministry Ananta, the next prince, reigned interruptedly fifty-three years, when he was succeeded by his son Kalasa. Kalasa reigned eight years, and being displeased with his son Hersha, left the crown to a kinsman, Utkersha. That prince, however, enjoyed his authority but twenty-two days, having been defeated, and invested in his palace, by the partisans of the legitimate heir, and putting an end to his existence rather than fall into their hands. Hersha succeeded. He consequently ascended the throne A.D. 1113, and the play [Retnavali] must have been written between that date and A.D. 1125, the termination of his reign. No mention is made of the composition by the author of the history: but he dwells at much length, and with some acrimony, on Hersha's patronage of poets, players, and dancers, and the prince's conversancy with different dialects and elegant literature. Hersha's propensities, indeed, were not likely to be regarded with a favourable eye by a brahmanical historian, for, in order to defray the expenses into which he was led by them, he made free with the treasures of the temples, and applied their gold and silver vessels, and even the images of the gods, to his necessities. These measures and others of an equally imprudent character, distracted the latter period of his reign with civil broils, and he perished in an insurrection which transferred the crown to a different dynasty. The date thus assigned for the composition refers to a period, which Mohammedan history and Hindu literature sufficiently establish, as pregnant with important changes in the political situation and national character of the natives of Hindustan.