Book Title: Indian Antiquary Vol 51
Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

View full book text
Previous | Next

Page 58
________________ THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY [MAROH, 1922 they are mentioned only once in the drama, i.e. in Act V, v. 11 ; and that as associates of the Chinese they are named Chinahaņaih. Here we must however, bear in mind that another reading Chedihûnaiḥ is available. Further, he remarks, as worthy of note, that they do not figure at all in the army mentioned in Act II. In order to make out that the Hðņas are meant by the term Mléchchha and that they were contemporaneous with Chandragupta II, he is forced to interpret udvijyamand in a future sense, because of the fact of the Hûnas having no territory in India at the time, or to suggest that these particular Mlêchchhas represented the Saka power in Western India which Chandragupta had suppressed; or in the alternative to suggest that the drama might refer to the annoyance caused by the Kushanas, " or possibly to the new element of the Hôņas, also might have already made some incursions, possibly in league with Kushanas, during the last years of Chandragupta II's reign." It will be seen that the above interpretation of the term Mlêchchha, which is indeed wide enough to comprise all foreigners, whether Sakas, Yavanas or Hûnas, is necessary only if the Chandragupta of the bharata-udkya of the Mudrd-Rakshasa is to be identified with Chandragupta II. But in that king's time, as already pointed out, the Hûņas had no territory in India, much less could they have been in a position to harass the land, as is said in the sloka above quoted. It is true that the term Mléchchha could have referred to the Hàņas, because their conduct shows that they were greater harassers than the Kushanas or Sakas. This is amply proved by general history and the inscriptions ; e.g., in the Jônagadh Inscription of Skandagupta we have direct evidence in the line रिपवोऽपि आमलभन्न निर्वचना tug that by Mléchchha the Hûņas are meant. The incidents of the latter days of his father and his own Inscription at Bhitêrî leave no doubt whatever that the Hanas did vex both father and son, till the latter put them down after much labour. They were, however, only scotched, and after a while occupied territory in India which they greatly afflicted till the people threw themselves into the arms of Yasodharman (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. III, pp. 146-7). This would infer that the Mlêchchhas were HQņas whose history was known to the poet, and that he was playing on two senses of the name Mléchchha, viz. the Yavanas as they were known in the days of Chandragupta Maurya and defeated by him, and the HQņas who were suppressed either by Narasimha-Bâladitya or Yasodharman. Butit cannot be said with any certainty that the poet meant to allude to these things or not, and in any case it seems to be going too far to see so much history in the simple word adhund, and in consequence to identify the Chandragupta of the Mudrd-Rakshasa with Chandragupta II. The plain fact is that the king has been made by the poet to narrate all that had already come to pass in the bloka just before the bharata-udkya, which runs as follows: रामसेन सम मैची राज्ये चारोपिता ववम् नन्दाचीन्मूलिताः सर्वे किं कर्तब्धमतः प्रियम् । And in contrast to the past tense his minister says, "now" let the king rule, etc. So the force of "now" is only with reference to the events of the past. There does not seem to be anything in it but that, and so the poet's Chandragupta must remain Chandragupta Maurya, according to the conventional method of interpretation. Further, I may add that the very word adhuna has also been used in the sloka preceding the bharata-vákya in his Msichchhakatika, the play on which the poet arranged and developed the plot of the Mudrd-Rakshasa. Besides all bharata-vákyas refer to the present time, whether the word adhuna is actually used or not. It is evident, too, from Act IV, v. 3. that the poet had to labour a good deal at his task, and he is at pains to observe the strict rules of dramaturgy. Consequently we may assume that he set the Mrichchhakatika as a model before him in arranging his plot.

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374