Sten Knonow, however, opines that Śūdraka must have been another name for the king of ābhīras called Śiva-datta and this king is known to have lived in the third century CE. The primary evidence he draws to support his argument is the fact that in the play, we see a character named Āryaka, the son of Gopāla, eventually replacing King Pālaka on the throne. The ābhīras were cowherds (gopālas) and thus, the conclusion drawn by Sten Knonow. This does not sound reasonable. The name Gopāla need not necessarily refer to a person who takes care of cattle; just as Pālaka is the name of one of the characters, Gopāla is the name of the other. The Pratijñā-yaugandharāyaṇa says that King Mahāsena had two sons and they were called Gopāla and Pālaka. Because of political turmoil during their times, the son of Gopāla got Pālaka displaced from the kingdom and occupied the throne – this story might have been a part of the Bṛhatkathā.
Mehlande[1] places Śūdraka in the middle of the sixth century CE and mainly bases his argument on the Rājataraṅgiṇī[2]; however, the Rājataraṅgiṇī only makes a passing reference to Śūdraka. Moreover, its author, Kalhaṇa seems to speak about times which are much before his; therefore, it is hard to say if his words are reliable.
V G Paranjpe says that Śūdraka could have been the progenitor of a lineage of the Andhra kings and thus declares that the play must have been composed in the first century BCE.[3] He justifies his stance by quoting segments from the play which suggest the prevalence of the Buddhists and the respect they enjoyed in society; he also points to the fact that the play suggests that a brāhmaṇa could marry a śūdra woman – this was, perhaps, an accepted norm during his days; similarly, the elements of the play which do not align with the principles of the Nāṭyaśāstra and the miśra-prākṛta spoken by Saṃvāhaka, Dyūtakara, and Mādhura appear to support his estimate; additionally, the excessive usage of Prakrit in the play and the lack of attention paid by the poet to the structure of verses and metrical patterns are used by V G Paranjpe as aspects that support his argument.
The progenitor of the Andhra lineage of kings is given different names in different purāṇas. He has been variously called Śimukha, Sindhuka, Śiśuka, Śipraka, Śūdra[4], etc. It is hard to say which among these is the original form of the name and which is a corrupt form. If we are to agree that Mṛcchakaṭika is derived from the play Cārudatta which was composed in the third century CE, then it is impossible that the former was written in the first century BCE. For other reasons quoted above, it is not unlikely that it was composed in the fourth or the fifth century CE.
In the commentary on the Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtra-vṛtti, the author says that Śūdraka is a dākṣiṇātya, i.e., a person hailing from the South. In the play, we see that Candanaka declares himself to be a dākṣiṇātya and does karnāṭa-kalaha[5]; also, the play mentions many mleccha-jātis in the sixth act. These have been considered as pointers that indicate that Śūdraka was a dākṣiṇātya. However, this line of argument is not really sound. Even a person hailing from the North upon observing the behaviour of the Southerners may include such segments in the play.
Thus, for now, let us grossly accept that Śūdraka lived in the fourth or the fifth century CE as discussed above.
The Story of the Mṛcchakaṭika –
There lived a merchant named Cārudatta in Ujjayinī. He spent all his riches to help those in need and had himself grown poor. Nevertheless, the entire town was fond of him for his noble qualities. Vasantesenā, a famous prostitute who lived in the same town, was one of the people who had lost her heart for him. One evening, when she was returning from a garden, śakāra, viṭa, and ceṭa chased after her. She happened to come across Cārudatta’s house on her way and sought refuge in him; she deposited her jewels in his hands for safekeeping. Cārudatta asks his friend Maitreya to take care of the ornaments and safely escorts Vasantesenā to her house (Act 1)
Saṃvāhaka who worked as a masseur at Cārudatta’s place in the past, gambles away his wealth and hides himself in Vasantesenā’s mansion. Vasantesenā learns that Saṃvāhaka is Cārudatta’s friend and frees him by offering him money. Saṃvāhaka then becomes a bhikṣu (Act 2)
Śarvilaka was madly in love with Madanikā, a dāsī of Vasantesenā; to buy her freedom, he breaks open into Cārudatta’s house to loot money. He lays his hands on Vasantesenā’s jewellery. Dhūtādevī, who is pained to discover that an object which was deposited at their house for safekeeping was stolen, offers her necklace as a replacement. Cārudatta sends it with Maitreya to Vasantesenā. (Act 3)
To be continued ...
The current series of articles is an enlarged adaption of Prof. A. R. Krishnasastri's Kannada treatise Saṃskṛta-nāṭaka. They are presented along with additional information and footnotes by Arjun Bharadwaj.
[1] Bhandarkar Commemoration Vol. p. 374
[2] santyajya vikramādiyaṃ sattvodriktaṃ ca śūdrakam|
tvāṃ ca bhūpāl paryāptaṃ dhairyam-anyatra durlabham|| iii. 343
[3] See the version of Mṛcchakaṭika compiled by him; introduction page 8.
[4] We may wonder what the -ka at the end of the name Śūdraka stands for; is a svārtha-pratyaya, i.e., indicative of someone being one’s own; in fact, more than half of the character that occur in this play bear names that end with -ka. Is this because of a tradition that was in vogue in the Andhra region? The names of Kannadigas who lived in the vicinity of the Andhra region seem to end with ga; for instance, Pònniga, Janniga, Ariga, etc.
[5] The Kannada speaking people may feel amused looking at this kind of fame that their ancestors had; it also seems like Kannada was a ‘mleccha’-bhāṣā!
