6. Date of Viśākhadatta

Viśākhadatta’s date is controversial. In the concluding stanza of the drama Mudrārākṣasa which, however, is not an integral part of the play but is meant to be spoken by the actor and hence called bharata-vākya, there is a mention of a king Candragupta, whose kingdom is said to have been troubled by the Mlecchas.^[1] As a reference to Candragupta Maurya, who is the subject of the play itself, would be unusual in the bharata-vākya, it is taken as the eulogy of a reigning sovereign. Scholars like Jayaswal, Konow and Śāstri have interpreted this as a reference to a contemporary king, whom they regard to be Candragupta II of the Gupta Dynasty (375-413).^[2] But since the readings of Dantivarmā, Rantivarmā or Avantivarmā instead of Candragupta, are also found in other versions no finality is reached on the question.

Taking the reading pārthivaścandragupta first, it is seen that Telang, the first editor of Mudrārākṣasa accepts this reading only to be in conformity with the name accepted by the commentator Dhuṇḍirāja, whose commentary he has printed along with the text of the play. In his learned Introduction, Telang shows inclination to the other reading, pārthivo’vantivarmā.^[3]

Viśākhadatta has also glorified the character of Candragupta II of Gupta dynasty in his former drama Devicandragupta and mentioned about the fight against Śakas (Mleechas). Over and above these, the Guptas were Vaiṣṇavas and in the concluding stanza the king is compared with the boar incarnation of Lord Viṣṇu. Now, if the reading pārthivaścandragupta is accepted as genuine, it would bring us to the conclusion that Viśākhadatta flourished in the 5^th century A.D.

The names of Rantivarmā and Dantivarmā are rejected as errors made by copyists, as no such kings can be found in Indian tradition, though it may incidentally be pointed out that Dantivarmā has been taken to be a Pallava king of Southern part of India of that name who is known to have been ruling about the beginning of the 9^th century A.D. But in the history of 9^th century no such record of barbarian attack can be found in our tradition in the above mentioned region. Again Pallavas were known to be Śaivas, but in the benedictory stanza the particular king is said to be the incarnation of Viṣṇu. This means that the reading Dantivarmā could not be a genuine one.

Again, about the reading Avantivarmā, which is even supported by Telang, it can be said that there were two Avantivarmās, one belonging to seventh century (king of Kanauj) and the other to the ninth century (king of Kashmir). But the Kashmir king could not have been the poet’s patron. The style of the play which is Gauḍī for the most of its part also shows that the poet belonged to or near to the Gauḍa country and not to Kashmir. Moreover, in Mudrārākṣasa the Kashmir king Puṣkarākṣa was criticized by Viśākhadtta as Mleccha. So if the writer was an inhabitant of Kashmir he would not have written this way.

Against this, the Maukharī king Avantivarmā also belonged to Kanauj, flourished in the 7^th century A.D.^[4] His son Grahavarmā was married to Harṣavardhana’s sister Rājyaśrī and along with Harṣavardhana fought with the Hūṇas, Viśākhadatta might called the Hūṇas as Mlecchas. This fact is also supported in the fifth chapter of the Harṣacarita.^[5]

In view of all this, the only conclusion possible is that the dramatist lived at some period before the ninth century. But the problem must still be regarded as unsolved.^[6]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

vārāhīmātmayonestanumavanavidhāvāsthitasyānurūpāṃ/ yasya prāgdantakoṭiṃ pralayaparigatā śiśriye bhūtadhātrī// mlecchairudvijyamānā bhujayugamadhunā saṃśritā rājamūrteḥ/ sa srīmadbandhubhṛtyaściramavatu mahīṃ pārthivaścandraguptaḥ// Mudrārākṣasa, VII, 19

[2]:

Vide, A History of Sanskrit Literature, Classical Period, Vol.I, By S.N. Dasgupta, University of Calcutta, Second Edition `–1962, pp. 262-263.

[3]:

Viśākhadatta’s Mudrārākṣasa by R. R. Deshpande, The Popular Book Store, Booksellers & Educational Publishers, Second Edition–1948, p.2

[4]:

Mudrārākṣasa or the Signet Ring: A Sanskrit Drama in seven Acts. by K, H. Dhruva, Poona: The original Book Supplying Agency,1923, p. 9.

[5]:

The Harsacarita of Bāṇabhaṭṭa, by P.V. Kane, Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi-1965 p. 19

[6]:

The earliest quotation from the work occurs in Daśarūpāvaloka (10th century A.D.)