Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c13.s6: 6. Mahendravikramavarman

The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory & Practice c13.s6

Language
English

6. Mahendravikramavarman

c13.s6.1

Almost a contemporary to a day of Harṣa was Mahendravikramavarman, son of the Pallava king Siṃhaviṣṇuvarman, and himself a king with the styles of Avanibhājana, Guṇabhara, and Mattavilāsa, all alluded to in his play,¹ who ruled in Kāñcī, the scene of his drama, in the first quarter of the seventh century A.D.² Chance rather than any special merit has preserved for us his Prahasana,³ which is so far the only early farce published, and which has special interest as it comes from the south, and, as we have seen, shows signs of the same technique as that of Bhāsa. Thus the play is opened by the director at the close of the Nāndī, which is not preserved, and the prologue is styled Sthāpanā, and not, as usual, Prastāvanā. We have also a reference to Karpaṭa as the writer of a text-book for thieves, as in the Cārudatta of Bhāsa, but there is an essential difference in the fact that great care is taken in the prologue to set out at length the merits of the author as well as the name of the drama.

c13.s6.2

¹ The Mattavilāsa, ed. TSS. lv. 1917.

c13.s6.3

² EI. iv. 152; South Ind. Inscr. i. 29 f.; G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, The Pallavas, pp. 37 ff.

c13.s6.4

³ A Sarvacarita is attributed to a Bāṇa in Rājarāma Çāstrin’s Sūcīpatra, but it may really be Vāmana Bhaṭṭa Bāṇa’s as is the Pārvatīpariṇaya (against Ettinghausen, Harṣa Vardhana, pp. 122 f.). The Mukuṭatāḍitaka of Bāṇa is cited in Caṇḍapāla’s comm. on the Nalacampū, p. 227.

c13.s6.5

The director introduces the play by a dialogue in which he by skilled flattery induces his first wife to aid him in the work, despite her annoyance at his taking to himself of a younger bride, and the transition to the actual drama is accomplished as in Bhāsa by his being interrupted in the midst of a verse by a cry from behind the scene, which leads him to complete his stanza by mentioning the appearance of the chief actor and his companion. They are a Çaiva mendicant of the skull-bearing order, a Kapālin, and his damsel, Devasomā by name. Both are intoxicated, and the maiden asks for her companion’s aid to prevent her from falling; he would hold her if he could, but his own condition hinders aid; in remorse he proposes to forswear strong drink, but the lady entreats him not for her sake thus to break his penance, and he joyfully abandons the rash project, praising instead his rule of life :¹

c13.s6.6

¹ This verse is attributed to Bhāsa by Somadeva in his Yaçastilaka; Peterson, Reports, ii. 46.

c13.s6.7

peyā surā priyatamāmukham īkṣitavyam : grāhyaḥ svabhāva-lalito 'vikṛtaś ca veṣaḥ yencdam īdṛśam adṛśyata mokṣavartma : dīrghayur astu bhagavān sa pinākapāṇiḥ.

c13.s6.8

‘Long live the god who bears the trident and who has revealed to men this as the way of salvation, to drink brandy, to gaze on the face of one’s beloved, to wear beautiful and becoming raiment.’ He is reminded by his companions that the Arhants have a very different definition of the path of salvation, but he has little trouble in disposing of them :

c13.s6.9

karyasya niḥsaṃśayaṃ ātmahetoḥ : sarūpatāṃ hetubhir abhyupetya duḥkhasya kāryaṃ sukham āmanantaḥ : svenaiva vākyena hatā varākāḥ.

c13.s6.10

‘They establish that an effect, as self-caused, is of the same nature as its causes ; when, therefore, they declare that pleasure is the effect of pain, the poor fools contradict their own dogmas.’ There follows a complimentary description of Kāñcī, and a careful parallel between the tavern where the pair are seeking more charity and a scene of sacrifice ; the Kapālin also discovers that Surā has a celestial origin ; it is none other than the form taken by the god of love when burnt by the flame from Çiva’s eye, a conclusion heartily accepted by his friend. The two are successful in attaining alms, but the tragic discovery is made that the skull, which serves as begging bowl, and which seems indeed at first to be the raison d’être of the Kapālin, is lost, though he consoles himself by reflecting that it was only a sign and that his occupation is still intact. A search through Kāñcī follows, and suspicion falls on a Buddhist monk, Çākyabhikṣu, who is lamenting the fact that despite the excellent fare he has received the law forbids the enjoyment of strong drink and women ; he concludes that the true gospel of the Buddha contained no such ridiculous restrictions, and expresses his desire to benefit the whole community by discovering the authentic text.

c13.s6.11

Naturally, when challenged, he denies that his begging bowl is that of the Kapālin, and blesses the master for his good sense in insisting on shaving the head, since it prevents the damsel from succeeding in her well-meant effort to aid her companion by pulling his hair. His arguments as to the identity of his bowl are unconvincing to the Kapālin :

c13.s6.12

*dṛṣṭāni vastūni mahīsamudra—: mahīdharādīni mahānti mohāt*
*apahnuvānasya sutaḥ kathaṃ tvam: alpaṃ na nihnotum alaṃ kapālam?*

c13.s6.13

‘Thou art the son of one who denies in his folly things that we see, the earth, the ocean, mountains and so forth; how then art thou not ready to deny so small a thing as a bowl?’ Moreover, when the Buddhist, politely and with commendable charity, picks up Devasomā when her fruitless assault on his locks lands her on the ground, he accuses him of taking her in marriage and invokes punishment on this violator of the rights of Brahmins. A Pāçupata, a more respectable type of Çaiva sectarian, comes on the scene and is appealed to as an arbitrator, but finds the task too difficult; both claimants proudly assert their adherence to a creed which forbids lying, and the Buddhist recites in addition the whole list of moral rules which makes up the Çikṣāpada. The obvious arguments from colour and shape in favour of the Buddhist are made out by his rival to be no more than signs of his skill in changing objects at pleasure. Finally the Pāçupata suggests that they must take the matter before a court. *En route*, however, a diversion is made by an Unmattaka, or madman, who has rescued the skull from a dog, the real thief; he first appears willing to give it as a present to the Pāçupata, who haughtily rejects the horrible object, but suggests the Kapālin as the recipient; then he changes his mind, but, annoyed by the cry of ‘mad’, asks the Kapālin to hold the skull and to show him the madman; the Kapālin, nothing loth, accepts the skull, and misdirects the madman. All are now happy; the Kapālin makes a handsome apology to the Buddhist monk, and the usual Bharatavākya with a reference to the ruling king, the author, concludes the work.

c13.s6.14

The author undoubtedly shows a considerable knowledge of the tenets of the Buddhists, and the play is not unamusing, though the subject is much too trivial for the pains taken to deal with it. The style is certainly appropriate to the subject-matter; it is like that of Harṣa, simple and elegant, while many of the verses are not without force and beauty. In the prose speeches of the Kapālin, however, we have occasional premonitions¹ of the unwieldy compounds of Bhavabhūti. There is, as in all the later Prahasanas, a certain incongruity between the triviality of the subject-matter and the elaboration of the form but the king has the merit of avoiding the gross vulgarity which marks normally the later works of this type.

c13.s6.15

¹ pp. 7, 8, 9.

c13.s6.16

Short as is the play, it shows a variety of Prākṛits, for of the *dramatis personae* only the Kapālin and the Pāçupata speak Sanskrit, while the madman, the Buddhist, and Devasomā talk in Prākṛit. That of the Buddhist and of Devasomā is practically Çaurasenī, but the madman uses Māgadhī.² The Prākṛits show some of the signs of antiquity which have been seen in Bhāsa’s dramas; thus forms of the plural in *āni* and *ññ* in lieu of *ṇṇ* are found, doubtless as a result of the influence of Bhāsa. The frequency of such forms as *aho nu khalu* and *kim nu khalu* is precisely in the manner of Bhāsa, and mention may be made of the employment of *mā* with the infinitive in Prākṛit in a prohibition.

c13.s6.17

² So the Unmattaka in the *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa* of Bhāsa.

c13.s6.18

The variety of metres is large in view of the brief extent of the play. There are nine different stanzas employed; five each of the Çloka and Çārdūlavikrīḍita, three each of Indravajrā type and Āryā, two each of Vaṃçasthā type and Vasantatilaka, the solitary Prākṛit verse being of the former kind, and one each of Rucirā, Mālinī, and Sragdharā.³

c13.s6.19

³ Antiquity is claimed by the editors of *Caturbhāṇī* (1922) for the Bhāṇas, *Ubhayābhisārikā* of Vararuci, *Padmaprābhṛtaka* of Çūdraka, *Dhūrtaviṭasaṃvāda* of Īçvaradatta, *Pādatāḍitaka* of Ārya Çyāmilaka, but no reliance can be placed on the first two ascriptions, and none of the plays need be older than 1000 A.D. Their technique is similar to that of the *Mattavilāsa*.

Cites (13)