The Mudra Rakshasa, or The Signet of the Minister. A Drama, Translated from the Original Sanscrit.
Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus, Translated from Original Sanskrit, in Two Volumes, Vol. II
by Horace Hayman Wilson
1835
PREFACE.
The Mudra Rakshasa is a drama of a very different description from either of the preceding, being wholly of a political character, and representing a series of Machiavelian stratagems, influencing public events of considerable importance. Those events relate to the history of Chandragupta, who is very probably identifiable with the Sandrocottus of the Greeks, and the drama therefore, both as a picture of manners and as a historical record, possesses no ordinary claims upon our attention.
The object of the play is to reconcile Rakshasa, the hostile minister of Nanda, the late king of Palibothra, to the individuals by whom, or on whose behalf, his sovereign was murdered, the Brahman Chanakya and the prince Chandragupta.
Our knowledge of Civil Asiatic History (I always except that of the Hebrews) exhibits a short evening twilight in the venerable introduction to the first book of Moses, followed by a gloomy night, in which different watches are faintly discernible, and at length we see a dawn succeeded by a sunrise more or less early, according to the diversity of regions. That no Hindu nation but the Cashmirians, have left us regular histories in their ancient language, we must ever lament; but from the Sanscrit [Sanskrit] literature, which our country has the honour of having unveiled, we may still collect some rays of historical truth, though time and a series of revolutions have obscured that light which we might reasonably have expected from so diligent and ingenious a people. The numerous Puranas and Itihasas, or poems mythological and heroic, are completely in our powers and from them we may recover some disfigured but valuable pictures of ancient manners and governments; while the popular tales of the Hindus, in prose and in verse, contain fragments of history; and even in their dramas we may find as many real characters and events as a future age might find in our own plays, if all histories of England were, like those of India, to be irrecoverably lost. For example: A most beautiful poem by Somadeva, comprising a very long chain of instinctive and agreeable stories, begins with the famed revolution at Pataliputra, by the murder of king Nanda with his eight sons, and the usurpation of Chandragupta; and the same revolution is the subject of a tragedy in Sanscrit [Sanskrit], entitled, the Coronation of Chandra, the abbreviated name of that able and adventurous usurper.
From these once concealed, but now accessible, compositions, we are enabled to exhibit a more accurate sketch of old Indian history than the world has yet seen, especially with the aid of well attested observations on the places of the colures....
I cannot help mentioning a discovery which accident threw in my way, though my proofs must be reserved for an essay which I have destined for the fourth volume of your Transactions. To fix the situation of that Palibothra (for there may have been several of the name) which was visited and described by Megasthenes, had always appeared a very difficult problem, for though it could not have been Prayaga, where no ancient metropolis ever stood, nor Canyacubja, which has no epithet at all resembling the word used by the Greeks; nor Gaur, otherwise called Lacshmanavati, which all know to be a town comparatively modern, yet we could not confidently decide that it was Pataliputra, though names and most circumstances nearly correspond, because that renowned capital extended from the confluence of the Sone and the Ganges to the site of Patna, while Palibothra stood at the junction of the Ganges and Erannoboas, which the accurate M. D'Anville had pronounced to be the Yamuna; but this only difficulty was removed, when I found in a classical Sanscrit book, near 2000 years old, that Hiranyabahu, or golden armed, which the Greeks changed into Erannoboas, or the river with a lovely murmur, was in fact another name for the Sona itself; though Megasthenes, from ignorance or inattention, has named them separately. This discovery led to another of greater moment, for Chandragupta, who, from a military adventurer, became like Sandracottus the sovereign of Upper Hindustan, actually fixed the seat of his empire at Pataliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes; and was no other than that very Sandracottus who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator...
-- Discourse X. Delivered February 28, 1793, P. 192, Excerpt from "Discourses Delivered Before the Asiatic Society: And Miscellaneous Papers, on The Religion, Poetry, Literature, Etc. of the Nations of India", by Sir William Jones
With this view, he is rendered by the contrivances of Chanakya, an object of suspicion to the prince with whom he has taken refuge, and is consequently dismissed by him. In this deserted condition he learns the imminent danger of a dear friend whom Chanakya is about to put to death, and in order to effect his liberation surrenders himself to his enemies — they offer him, contrary to his expectations, the rank and power of prime minister, and the parties are finally friends. It is unnecessary to describe the plot more fully in this place.
Simple as is the subject of the drama there is no want of action in its development. The stratagems of Chanakya are varied, numerous, and well connected, and although there is occasionally some want of probability in their execution, yet they are made to contribute very successfully and ingeniously towards the production of their combined result. It must be acknowledged, that the political code from which they emanate, exhibits a morality not a whit superior to that of the Italian school; but a remarkable, and in some respects a redeeming principle, is the inviolable and devoted fidelity which appears as the uniform characteristic of servants, emissaries, and friends: a singular feature in the Hindu character which it has not yet wholly lost.
The author of the play is called in the prelude Visakhadatta, the son of Prithu, entitled Maharaja, and grandson of the Samanta or chief Vateswara Datta. We are not much the wiser for this information, as we can scarcely venture to conclude, although it is not impossible, that the Chouhan chief of Ajmer, Prithu Rai, who was killed at the end of the twelfth century by the Mohammedans, is here intended. There is nothing unusual in a prince’s being an author, or at least a reputed one, and the closing speech of the drama clearly refers to the victorious progress of a foreign foe, whom it may not be unreasonable to connect with the Ghorian invasion.* [At the same time it is to be observed, that according to the Prithwi Rai Rayasa, the father of Prithu the king of Ajmer, was named Someswara, and his grandfather Ananda.]
Vishakhadatta was an Indian Sanskrit poet and playwright. Although Vishakhadatta furnishes the names of his father and grandfather as Maharaja Bhaskaradatta and Maharaja Vateshvaradatta in his political drama Mudraraksasa, we know little else about him. Only two of his plays, the Mudraraksasa and the Devichandraguptam are known to us. His period is not certain...
Mudraraksasa ("Rakshasa's Ring") is Vishakhadatta’s only surviving play, although there exist fragments of another work ascribed to him. Vishakhadatta has stressed upon historical facts in the Mudrarakshasa, a play dealing with the time of the Maurya Dynasty....
Stylistically he stands a little apart from other dramatists. A proper literary education is clearly no way lacking, and in formal terms, he operates within the normal conventions of Sanskrit literature, but one does not feel that he cultivates these conventions very enthusiastically for their own sake.... Vishakhadatta’s prose passages in particular often have a certain stiffness compared to the supple idiom of both Kalidasa and Bhavabhuti ... his style includes towards the principle of “more matter and less art.”... [He was a man] of action ...
The name Vishakhadatta is also given as Vishakhadeva from which Ranajit Pal concludes that his name may have been Devadatta which, according to him, was a name of both Ashoka and Chandragupta.
-- Vishakhadatta, by Wikipedia
The late Major Wilford has called the author of the Mudra Rakshasa, Ananta, and quotes him as declaring that he lived on the banks of the Godaveri (As. Res. vol. v. p. 280.) This however must be an error, as three copies, one of them a Dekhini manuscript in the Telugu character, have been consulted on the present occasion, and they all agree in the statement above given.
Not much is known about him [Somadeva] except that his father's name was Rama and he composed his work (probably during the years 1063-81 CE) for the entertainment of the queen Suryamati, a princess of Jalandhara and wife of King Ananta of Kashmir. The queen was quite distraught as it was a time when the political situation in Kashmir was 'one of discontent, intrigue, bloodshed and despair'. -- Somadeva, by Wikipedia
Patali-putra was certainly the capital, and the residence of the kings of Magadha or south Behar. In the Mudra Racshasa, of which I have related the argument, the capital city of Chandra-Gupta is called Cusumapoor throughout the piece, except in one passage, where it seems to be confounded with Patali-putra, as if they were different names for the same place. In the passage alluded to, Racshasa asks one of his messengers, “If he had been at Cusumapoor?” the man replies, “Yes, I have been at Patali-putra.” But Sumapon, or Phulwaree, to call it by its modern name, was, as the word imports, a pleasure or flower garden, belonging to the kings of Patna, and situate, indeed, about ten miles W.S.W, from that city, but, certainly, never surrounded with fortifications, which Annanta, the author of the Mudra Racshasa says, the abode of Chandra-Gupta was. It may be offered in excuse, for such blunders as these, that the authors of this, and the other poems and plays I have mentioned, written on the subject of Chandra-Gupta, which are certainly modern productions , were foreigners; inhabitants, if not natives, of the Deccan; at least Annanta was, for he declares that he lived on the banks of the Godaveri.
But though the foregoing considerations must place the authority of these writers far below the ancients, whom I have cited for the purpose of determining the situation of Palibothra; yet, if we consider the scene of action, in connexion with the incidents of the story, in the Mudra Racshasa, it will afford us clear evidence, that the city of Chandra-Gupta could not have stood on the site of Patna; and, a pretty strong presumption also, that its real situation was where I have placed it, that is to say, at no great distance from where Raje-mehal now stands. For, first, the city was in the neighbourhood of some hills which lay to the southward of it. Their situation is expressly mentioned; and for their contiguity, it may be inferred, though the precise distance be not set down from hence, that king Nanda's going out to hunt, his retiring to the reservoir, among the hills near Patalcandara, to quench his thirst, his murder there, and the subsequent return of the assassin to the city with his master's horse, are all occurrences related, as having happened on the same day. The messengers also who were sent by the young king after the discovery of the murder to fetch the body, executed their commission and returned to the city the same day. These events are natural and probable, if the city of Chandra-gupta was on the site of Raje-mehal, or in the neighbourhood of that place, but are utterly incredible, if applied to the situation of Patna, from which the hills recede at least thirty miles in any direction.
Again, Patalcandara in Sanscrit, signifies the crater of a volcano; and in fact, the hills that form the glen, in which is situated the place now called Mootijarna, or the pearl dropping spring, agreeing perfectly in the circumstances of distance and direction from Raje-mehal with the reservoir of Patalcandara, as described in the poem, have very much the appearance of a crater of an old volcano. I cannot say I have ever been on the very spot, but I have observed in the neighbourhood, substances that bore undoubted marks of their being volcanic productions; no such appearances are to be seen at Patna, nor any trace of there having ever been a volcano there, or near it. Mr. Davis has given a curious description of Mootijarna, illustrated with elegant drawings. He informs us there is a tradition, that the reservoir was built by Sultan Suja: perhaps he only repaired it.
The confusion Ananta and the other authors above alluded to, have made in the names of Patali-putra and Bali-putra, appears to me not difficult to be accounted for. While the sovereignty of the kings of Maghadha, or south Bahar, was exercised within the limits of their hereditary dominions, the seat of their government was Patali-putra, or Patya: but Janasandha, one of the ancestors of Chandra-Gupta, having subdued the whole of Prachi, as we read in the puranas, fixed his residence at Bali-putra, and there he suffered a most cruel death from Crishna and Bala Rama, who caused him to be split asunder. Bala restored the son, Sahadeva, to his hereditary dominions; and from that time the kings of Maghadha, for twenty-four generations, reigned peaceably at Patna, until Nanda ascended the throne, who, proving an active and enterprising prince, subdued the whole of Prachi; and having thus recovered the conquests, that had been wrested from his ancestor, probably re-established the seat of empire at Bali-putra; the historians of Alexander positively assert, that he did.[???]
Thus while the kings of Palibothra, as Diodorus tells us, sunk into oblivion, through their sloth and inactivity, (a reproach which seems warranted by the utter absence observed of the posterity of Bala Rama in the puranas, not even their names being mentioned;) the princes of Patali-putra, by a contrary conduct, acquired a reputation that spread over all India: it was, therefore, natural for foreign authors, (for such, at lead, Ananta was,) especially in competitions of the dramatic kind, where the effect is oftentimes best produced by a neglect of historical precision, of two titles, to which their hero had an equal right to distinguish him by the most illustrious. The author of Sacontala has committed as great a mistake, in making Hastinapoor the residence of Dushmanta, which was not then in existence, having been built by Hasti, the fifth in descent from Dushmanta; before his time there was, indeed, a place of worship on the same spot, but no town. The same author has fallen into another error, in assigning a situation of this city not far from the river Malini, (he should rather have said the rivulet that takes its name from a village now called Malyani, to the westward of Lahore: it is joined by a new channel to the Ravy;) but this is a mistake; Hastinapoor lies on the banks of the old channel of the Ganges. The descendants of Peru resided at Sangala, whose extensive ruins are to be seen about fifty miles to the westward of Lahore, in a part of the country uninhabited. I will take occasion to observe here, that Arrian has confounded Sangala with Salgada, or Salgana, or the mistake has been made by his copyists. Frontinus and Polyaenus have preserved the true name of this place, now called Calanore; and close to it is a deserted village, to this day called Salgheda; its situation answers exactly to the description given of it by Alexander's historians. The kings of Sangala are known in the Persian history by the name of Schangal, one of them assisted Asrasiab against the famous Caicosru; but to return from this digression to Patali-putra.
The true name of this famous place is, Patali-pura, which means the town of Patali, a form of Devi worshipped there. It was the residence of an adopted son of the goddess Patali, hence called Patali-putra, or the son of Patali. Patali-putra and Bali-putra are absolutely inadmissable, as Sanscrit names of towns and places; they are used in that sense, only in the spoken dialects; and this, of itself, is a proof, that the poems in question are modern productions. Patali-pura, or the town of Patali, was called simply Patali, or corruptly Pattiali, on the invasion of the Musulmans: it is mentioned under that name in Mr. Dow's translation of Ferishta's history.
-- XVIII. On the Chronology of the Hindus, by Captain Francis Wilford
There is a commentary on the drama by Vateswara Misra, a Maithila Brahman, the son of Gauripati Misra, who has laboured with more pains than success to give a double interpretation to the composition, and to present it as a system of policy as well as a play.
Ever since its publication the Ramacarita has been regarded as the most important literary document concerning the history of the Pala rule in Bengal. It has formed a subject of critical discussion by notable scholars, and many of its passages have been interpreted in different ways. Scholars have, however, experienced great difficulty in dealing with the text on account of the absence of any translation either of the commented or of the uncommented portion. The difficulty was rendered all the greater by certain readings and interpretations of MM. Sastri which proved to be erroneous on a closer examination of the manuscript. A new and critical edition of the text, with a running commentary and an English translation of the whole of it, was, therefore, a great desideratum....
The technique of composition is equally unique. Each verse of the poem has two meanings, one applicable to the story of the Ramayana, and the other to the history of the Pala kings...
The necessity of keeping to this double meaning obliged the author to use obscure words and unfamiliar expressions, and in particular to present personal and proper names in abbreviated and occasionally very twisted forms. Although the poem, as a literary composition, showed, therefore, technical skill of a high order, it was not likely to be fully intelligible to one not well acquainted with the history of the times. Fortunately this difficulty was realised before it was too late, and some one wrote a commentary for the elucidation of the subject-matter of the poem and thereby earned the gratitude of the posterity. This person, whose name is yet unknown, probably lived shortly after the author, and in any case must have flourished not long after, at a time when the events of the reign of Ramapala were still fresh in the minds of the people. This commentator appears to have quoted a lexicon in support of the two meanings of the word nana in verse 33 of Chapter II, which occurs in the lexicography (Vaijayanti) of Yadavaprakasa who is generally regarded to have flourished towards the end of the twelfth century A.D. MM. Sastri’s view that the commentary was probably written by the author himself while unnatural in itself, is positively disproved by the reference to different readings of the text in the commentary of verse 22 of Chapter I, for no author would possibly vouch for two different readings of his own text. Moreover, the commentator has often explained a word in more ways than one...
-- The Ramacaritam of Sandhyakaranandin
Au xiie siecle egalement, Visakha Datta, fils du roi Prithou Rai, publia le drame important de Moudra Rakchasa ou l'Anneau du Ministre, ne sept actes, une des meilleures pieces du repertoire Indien; elle a ete commentee par Vateswara Misra, pretre de Mithila, et par Govhasena. Nous y voyons le brahmane Tchanakya, apre avoir assassine Nanda, tyran de Patalipoutra, donner le trone, a la suite d'une foule d'incidents compliques, au prince Tchandragoupta.
[Google translate: Also in the twelfth century, Visakha Datta, son of King Prithou Rai, published the important drama Mudra Rakchasa or the Minister's Ring, in seven acts, one of the best plays in the Indian repertoire; it was commented on by Vateswara Misra, priest of Mithila, and by Govhasena. We see the Brahman Tchanakya, after having assassinated Nanda, tyrant of Pataliputra, give the throne, following a host of complicated incidents, to Prince Tchandragoupta.]
-- Critical Essay on Indian Literature and Sanskrit Studies, with bibliographical notes, by Alfred Philibert Soupé
Another commentary by Guhasena is said to exist, but it has not been met with; and the one referred to, owing to the commentator’s mystification of obvious meanings, and the exceedingly incorrect state of the manuscript, has proved of no advantage.
It 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 [Kathasaritsagara], 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.
Somadeva was an 11th century CE writer from Kashmir. He was the author of a famous compendium of Indian legends, fairy tales and folk tales -- the Kathasaritsagara.Not much is known about him except that his father's name was Rama and he composed his work (probably during the years 1063-81 CE) for the entertainment of the queen Suryamati, a princess of Jalandhara and wife of King Ananta of Kashmir. The queen was quite distraught as it was a time when the political situation in Kashmir was 'one of discontent, intrigue, bloodshed and despair'.The Kathasaritsagara ("Ocean of the Streams of Stories") is a famous 11th-century collection of Indian legends, fairy tales and folk tales as retold in Sanskrit by the Shaivite Somadeva.
Kathasaritsagara contains multiple layers of story within a story and is said to have been adopted from Gunadhya's Brhatkatha [Brihatkatha], which was written in a poorly-understood language known as Paisaci.
The work is no longer extant but several later adaptations still exist — the Kathasaritsagara, Bṛhatkathamanjari and Brhatkathaslokasamgraha. However, none of these recensions necessarily derives directly from Gunadhya, and each may have intermediate versions. Scholars compare Gunadhya with Vyasa and Valmiki even though he did not write the now long-lost Bṛhatkatha [Brihatkatha] in Sanskrit. Presently available are its two Sanskrit recensions, the Brhatkathamanjari by Ksemendra and the Kathasaritsagara by Somadeva. -- Kathasaritsagara, by Wikipedia
-- Somadeva, by Wikipedia
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 Bhagavata, and in the Vrihat-Katha; but when he adds, that it is told also 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-Dasa, 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 pandit, 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 [p. 94-100]), 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.
The accession of Chandragupta to the throne, and more particularly the famous expiation of Chanacya, after the massacre of the Sumalyas, is a famous era in the Chronology of the Hindus; and both may be easily ascertained from the Puranas, and also from the historians of Alexander. In the year 328 B.C. that conqueror defeated Porus; and as he advanced* [Diodor. Sic. lib. XVII. c. 91. Arrian also, &c.] the son of the brother of that prince, a petty king in the eastern parts of the Panjab, fled at his approach, and went to the king of the Gangaridae, who was at that time king Nanda of the Puranas. In the Mudra-rachasa, a dramatic poem, and by no means a rare book, notice is taken of this circumstance. There was, says the author, a petty king of Vicatpalli, beyond the Vindhyan mountains, called Chandra-dasa, who, having been deprived of his kingdom by the Yavanas, or Greeks, left his native country, and assuming the garb of a penitent, with the name of Suvidha, came to the metropolis of the emperor Nanda, who had been dangerously ill for some time. He seemingly recovered; but his mind and intellects were strangely affected. It was supposed that he was really dead, but that his body was re-animated by the soul of some enchanter, who had left his own body in the charge of a trusty friend. Search was made immediately, and they found the body of the unfortunate dethroned king, lying as if dead, and watched by two disciples, on the banks of the Ganges. They concluded that he was the enchanter, burned his body, and flung his two guardians into the Ganges. Perhaps the unfortunate man was sick, and in a state of lethargy, or otherwise intoxicated. Then the prince's minister assassinated the old king soon after, and placed one of his sons upon the throne, but retained the whole power in his own hands. This, however, did not last long; for the young king, disliking his own situation, and having been informed that the minister was the murderer of his royal father, had him apprehended, and put to a most cruel death. After this, the young king shared the imperial power with seven of his brothers; but Chandragupta was excluded, being born of a base woman. They agreed, however, to give him a handsome allowance, which he refused with indignation; and from that moment his eight brothers resolved upon his destruction. Chandragupta fled to distant countries; but was at last seemingly reconciled to them, and lived in the metropolis: at least it appears that he did so; for he is represented as being in, or near, the imperial palace, at the time of the revolution, which took place, twelve years after, Porus's relation made his escape to Palibothra, in the year 328, B.C. and in the latter end of it. Nanua was then assassinated in that year; and in the following, or 327, B. C. Alexander encamped on the banks of the Hyphasis. It was then that Chandragupta visited that conqueror's camp; and, by his loquacity and freedom of speech, so much offended him, that he would have put Chandragupta to death, if he had not made a precipitate retreat, according to Justin* [Lib. xv. c, 4.]. The eight brothers ruled conjointly twelve years, or till 315 years B.C. when Chandragupta was raised to the throne, by the intrigues of a wicked and revengeful priest called Chanacya. It was Chandragupta and Chanacya, who put the imperial family to death; and it was Chandragupta who was said to be the spurious offspring of a barber, because his mother, who was certainly of a low tribe, was called Mura, and her son of course Maurya, in a derivative from; which last signifies also the offspring of a barber: and it seems that Chandragupta went by that name, particularly in the west; for be is known to Arabian writers by the name of Mur, according to the Nubian geographer, who says that he was defeated and killed by Alexander; for these authors supposed that this conqueror crossed the Ganges: and it is also the opinion of some ancient historians in the west.
In the Cumarica-chanda, it is said, that it was the wicked Chanacya who caused the eight royal brothers to be murdered; and it is added, that Chanacya, after his paroxism of revengeful rage was over, was exceedingly troubled in his mind, and so much stung with remorse for his crime, and the effusion of human blood, which took place in consequence of it, that he withdrew to the Sucla-Tirtha, a famous place of worship near the sea on the bank of the Narmada, and seven coss to the west of Baroche, to get himself purified. There, having gone through a most severe course of religious austerities and expiatory ceremonies, he was directed to sail upon the river in a boat with white sails, which, if they turned black, would be to him a sure sign of the remission of his sins; the blackness of which would attach itself to the sails. It happened so, and he joyfully sent the boat adrift, with his sins, into the sea.
This ceremony, or another very similar to it, (for the expense of a boat would be too great), is performed to this day at the Sucla-Tirtha; but, instead of a boat, they use a common earthen pot, in which they light a lamp, and send it adrift with the accumulated load of their sins.
In the 63d section of the Agni-purana, this expiation is represented in a different manner. One day, says the author, as the gods, with holy men, were assembled in the presence of Indra, the sovereign lord of heaven, and as they were conversing on various subjects, some took notice of the abominable conduct of Chanacya, of the atrocity and heinousness of his crimes. Great was the concern and affliction of the celestial court on the occasion; and the heavenly monarch observed, that it was hardly possible that they should ever be expiated.
One of the assembly took the liberty to ask him, as it was still possible, what mode of expiation was requisite in the present case? and Indra answered, the Carshagni. There was present a crow, who, from her friendly disposition, was surnamed Mitra Caca: she flew immediately to Chanacya, and imparted the welcome news to him. He had applied in vain to the most learned divines; but they uniformly answered him, that his crime was of such a nature, that no mode of expiation for it could be found in the ritual. Chanacya immediately performed the Carshagni, and went to heaven. But the friendly crow was punished for her indiscretion: she was thenceforth, with all her tribe, forbidden to ascend to heaven; and they were doomed on earth to live upon carrion.
The Carshagni consists in covering the whole body with a thick coat of cow-dung, which, when dry, is set on fire. This mode of expiation, in desperate cases, was unknown before; but was occasionally performed afterwards, and particularly by the famous Sancaracharya. It seems that Chandragupta, after he was firmly seated on the imperial throne, accompanied Chanacya to the Suclatirtha, in order to get himself purified also.
This happened, according to the Cumarica-chanda, after 300 and 10 and 3000 years of the Cali-yuga were elapsed, which would place this event 210 years after Christ. The fondness of the Hindus for quaint and obscure expressions, is the cause of many mistakes. But the ruling epocha of this paragraph is the following: "After three thousand and one hundred years of the Cali-yuga are elapsed (or in 3101) will appear king Saca (or Salivahana) to remove wretchedness from the world. The first year of Christ answers to 3101 of the Cali-yuga, and we may thus correct the above passage: "Of the Caliyuga, 3100 save 300 and 10 years being elapsed (or 2790), then will Chanacya go to the Suclatirtha."
This is also confirmed in the 63d and last section of the Agni-purana, in which the expiation of Chanacya is placed 312 years before the first year of the reign of Saca or Salivahana, but not of his era. This places this famous expiation 310, or 312 years before Christ, either three or five years after the massacre of the imperial family.
My Pandit, who is a native of that country, informs me, that Chanacya's crimes, repentance, and atonement, are the subject of many pretty legendary tales, in verse, current in the country; part of some he repeated to me.
Soon after, Chandragupta made himself master of the greatest part of India, and drove the Greeks out of the Punjab. Tradition says, that he built a city in the Deccan, which he called after his own name. It was lately found by the industrious and active Major Mackenzie, who says that it was situated a little below Sri-Salam, or Purwutum, on the bank of the Crishna; but nothing of it remains, except the ruins. This accounts for the inhabitants of the Deccan being so well acquainted with the history of Chandragupta. The authors of the Mudra- Rakshasa, and its commentary, were natives of that country.
In the mean time, Seleucus, ill brooking the loss of his possessions in India, resolved to wage war, in order to recover them, and accordingly entered India at the head of an army; but finding Chandragupta ready to receive him, and being at the same time uneasy at the increasing power of Antigonus and his son, he made peace with the emperor of India, relinquished his conquests, and renounced every claim to them. Chandragupta made him a present of 50 elephants; and, in order to cement their friendship more strongly, an alliance by marriage took place between them, according to Strabo, who does not say in what manner it was effected. It is not likely, however, that Seleucus should marry an Indian princess; besides, Chandragupta, who was very young when he visited Alexander's camp, could have no marriageable daughter at that time. It is more probable, that Seleucus gave him his natural daughter, born in Persia. From that time, I suppose, Chandragupta had constantly a large body of Grecian troops in his service, as mentioned in the Mudra-Racshasa.
It appears, that this affinity between Seleucus and Chandragupta took place in the year 302 B.C. at least the treaty of peace was concluded in that year. Chandragupta reigned four-and-twenty years; and of course died 292 years before our era.
-- Essay III. Of the Kings of Magadha; their Chronology, by Captain Wilford, Asiatic Researches, Volume 9, 1809. pgs. 94-100.
Discarding, therefore, these accounts, and laying aside the marvellous part of the story, I shall endeavour, from the Vishnu and Bhagavata-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.] 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 Chandragupta, 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 Malayaketu, 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. Sandrocottus and Chandragupta can scarcely be considered different appellations.[!!!] But the similarity is no doubt still closer. Athenaeus, as first noticed by Wilford (As. Res. vol. v. p. 262.) and subsequently by Schlegel (Indische Bibliothek), writes the name, Sandrakoptus, ...
Chandra-Gupta, or he who was saved by the interposition of Lunus or the Moon, is called also Chandra in a poem quoted by Sir William Jones. The Greeks call him Sandracuptos, Sandracottos, and Androcottos. Sandrocottos is generally used by the historians of Alexander; and Sandracuptos is found in the works of Athenaeas. Sir William Jones, from a poem written by Somadeva, and a tragedy called the coronation of Chandra or Chandra-Gupta* [Asiatick Researches, vol. IV. p. 6. 11.], discovered that he really was the Indian king mentioned by the historians of Alexander, under the name of Sandracottos. These two poems I have not been able to procure; but, I have found another dramatic piece, intitled Mudra-Racshasa, or the seal of Racshasa, which is divided into two parts: the first may be called the coronation of Chandra-Gupta, and the second the reconciliation of Chandra-Gupta with Mantri-Racshasa, the prime minister of his father.
-- XVIII. On the Chronology of the Hindus, by Captain Francis Wilford, Asiatic Researches, Vol. V, P. 262, 1799
... 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 denomination that may be traced. We find in the play that Chandragupta is often called Chandra simply, or the moon, of which Chandramas is a synonime; and accordingly we find in Diodorus Siculus, the king of the Gangaridae, 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 [Jutiviveca] the offspring of a barber and a Sudra woman, or of a barber and a female slave. (As. Res. vol. v. p. 285.)
In the Mudra Racshasa it is said, that king Nanda, after a severe fit of illness, fell into a state of imbecility, which betrayed itself in his discourse and actions; and that his wicked minister, Sacatara, ruled with despotic sway in his name. Diodorus Siculas and Curtius relate, that Chandram was of a low tribe, his father being a barber. That he, and his father Nanda too, were of a low tribe, is declared in the Vishnu purana and in the Bhagavat Chandram, as well as his brothers, was called Maurya from his mother Mura; and as that word* [See the Jutiviveca, where it is said, the offspring of a barber, begot by stealth, of a female of the Sudra tribe, is called Maurya: the offspring of a barber and a slave woman is called Maurya.] in Sanscrit signifies a barber, it furnished occasion to his enemies to asperse him as the spurious offspring of one. The Greek historians say, the king of the Prasu was assassinated by his wife’s paramour, the mother of Chandra; and that the murderer got possession of the sovereign authority, under the specious title of regent and guardian to his mother’s children, but with a view to destroy them. The puranas and other Hindu books, agree in the same facts, except as to the amours of Sacatara with Mura, the mother of Chandra-Gupta, on which head they are silent. Diodorus and Curtius are mistaken in saying, that Chandram reigned over the Prasu, at the time of Alexander's invasion: he was contemporary with Sileucus Nicator.
-- XVIII. On the Chronology of the Hindus, by Captain Francis Wilford, Asiatic Researches, Vol. V, P. 285, 1799
It is most usually stated, however, to mean the offspring of Muni, 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 Takshah tribe, of which last no other mention has been found, whilst instead of Sehesnag the word is Sisunaga; 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.]
The first kings of the Dynasty of the Barhadrathas being omitted in the table, are given here from the Harivansa. The famous Uparichara was the sixth in lineal descent from Curu; and his son wasVrihadratha
Cushagra
Vrishabha
Pushpavan
Satyasahita
Urja
Sambhava
Jara-Sandha.
Jara-Sandha, literally old Sandha or Sandhas, was the lord paramount of India or Maha Raja, and in the spoken dialects Ma-Raj. This word was pronounced Morieis by the Greeks; for Hesychius says, that Morieis signifies king in India, and in another place, that Mai in the language of that country, signified great. Nonnus, in his Dionysiacs, calls the lord paramount of India, Morrheus, and says that his name was Sandes, with the title of Hercules. Old Sandha is considered as a hero to this day in India, and pilgrimages, I am told, are yearly performed to the place of his abode, to the cast of Gaya, in south Bahar, It is called Raja-Griha, or the royal mansion, in the low hills of Raja-giri, or the royal mountains; though their name I suspect to be derived from Raja-Griha The Dionysiacs of Nonnus are really the history of the Maha Bharata, or great war, as we shall see hereafter.
-- Essay III. Of the Kings of Magadha; their Chronology, by Captain Wilford, Asiatic Researches, Volume 9, 1809.
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, compassed 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 tenour 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 Gangaridae, as related by the writers of the east or west.
The Greek scholars recorded the names of kings of India as Xandrames, and Sandrocottus. Western historians deliberately identified these names with those of Mahapadmananda or Dhanananda and Chandragupta Maurya. Xandrames was said to be the father of Sandrocottus. According to John W. McCrindle, Diodorus distorted the name "Sandrocottus" into Xandrames and this again is distorted by Curtius into Agrammes...
-- Who was Sandrocottus: Samudragupta or Chandragupta Maurya?, The Chronology of Ancient India, Victim of Concoctions and Distortions, by Vedveer Arya
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 marvellous part of the story as told by the latter, nor can we conceive that a mere adventurer, as he makes Sandrocoptus 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 [a sin that is not regarded as depriving the soul of divine grace], 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.[!!!]