Chapter 7 - Conclusion

kāryopakṣepamādau tanumapi racayaṃstasya vistāramicchan
  bījānāṃ garbhitānāṃ phalamatigahanaṃ gūḍhamudbhedayaṃśca /
kurvan budhyā vimarśe prasṛtamapi punaḥ saṃharan kāryajātaṃ
  kartā vā nāṭakānāmimamanubhavati kleśamasmadvidho vā //^[1]

“First of all to cast the tiny seeds of the enterprise, then to supervise their development, and when the seeds have elongated, to unfold these secret deep hidden fruit; then to lay on the plot more definitely by the force of intellect, and finally to make the various coverage to the desired issue—such is the trouble which a dramatist has to undergo.”

These are the realization through the words of our erudite dramatist Viśākhadatta who apprehended the minutes of a playwriting in his masterpiece Mudrārākṣasa. Perhaps our dramatist had to undergo such difficulty for taking the very subject matter through the five junctures of a drama from the starting till the end so nicely and perfectly that we have in our hand the ever relevant work of genius, the Mudrārākṣasa.

Following the norms of dramaturgy Mudrārākṣasa begins with a nāndī and a prologue. A nāndī is a verse or a cluster of verses paying eulogy towards some deity, Brahmin or king etc. which is endowed with a benediction to the people coming to the theatre. A nāndī verse sometimes indicates the plot or subject matter of a play and even characters, of course, in a suggestive way. The Nandi of Mudrārākṣasa comprises of two verses in Śragdharā meter describing the śāṭhya (the crookedness) and tāṇḍavanṛtya (a dance having manly stain) of Śiva invoking his blessings. Herein, the śāṭhya of Lord Śiva very well suggests the crooked policy of Cāṇakya; and in the second verse Śiva’s tāṇḍavanṛtya performed under various limitations is suggestive of the fact that Cāṇakya will have to undergo various difficulties for the accomplishment of his tusk, which is as hard as the tāṇḍavanṛtya. According to the Nāṭyaśāstra, the mention of the moon is considered as having special merit in a nāndī verse, because moon god is said to be pleased with the benediction.^[2] There is a mention of the moon (śaśikalā) also is found in the aṣṭapadā nāndī of this present drama.

The introductory portion of a play is said to be the prastāvanā, wherein, the naṭī or Viduṣaka or an attendant hold a conversation with the stage manager with striking words which are suggestive to the main plot of the play and introduces the author with some information regarding his lineage along with the name of the play to be performed in front of the audience. Besides, prologue gives a hunch of some incidents of the plot itself. The prologue of the present play is moderately up to the mark from every side. After nāndī, the stage manager comes and introduces Viśākhadatta, the author and his pedigree and also states the name of the drama to be performed. After that, promising for some music, the sūtradhāra turns towards home. In this point, the interest of the audience being roused by a scene of a large number of ladies engaged in the preparation for the lunar eclipse at sūtradhāra’s house. Being asked about the situation by sūtradhāra, a small conversation takes place among him and his wife. There, a stanza having double entendre is utilized for introducing the main character of the drama, i.e. Cāṇakya on the stage. At this point, it is to be mentioned that an influence of Mrcchakaṭika and Cārudatta is clearly found as in those plays also we can see Sūtradhāra turning towards home after music, finds there preparation being made and eagerly asks what the occasion was. But unlike Śudraka and Bhāṣa, Viśākhadatta avoided lengthiness in conversation. Rather with a lucid and short conversation our dramatist successfully rouses the interest and captivates the attention of the spectators and introduces to them the poet and his play.

In the field of Sanskrit dramatic literature Mudrārākṣasa holds a unique position. The play proper starts with a monologue of Cāṇakya befitting the seriousness of the drama. With this monologue Viśākhadatta very cleverly acquaints the spectators the report of alliance of Rākṣasa with Malayaketu against Candragupta, the past achievements of Cāṇakya and his immediate plan, i.e. the winning over Rākṣasa into the service of Candragupta. Again through this monologue Viśākhadatta has brought out some of the salient features of Cāṇakya, such as, his furious nature, political insight, self-confidence and also the appreciative nature even towards his enemies like Rākṣasa. Though this monologue is a bit lengthy, does not make the spectators bored, rather making them curious about the future happenings. Thus this monologue of Cāṇakya proves very significant in making the spectator acquainted with various circumstances at the same time, constructing the background of the plot of the play.

The above scene is followed by the conversation between Cāṇakya’s pupil and a spy outside Cāṇakya’s house, which, can be taken as a specimen of fine humour. Overhearing the conversation outside and immediately recognizing him as his own spy, Cāṇakya summoned him inside his house. Next comes the narration of the report of the spy. As in a dramatic composition long narration may irritate the audience, Viśākhadatta has cleverly made Cāṇakya pass various remarks in various intervals which again serves to break the monotony of narration, on the other hand, disclose certain traits of Cāṇakya’s style of working. From their conversation we come to know how Cāṇakya takes care of his spies that they even don’t know each other. When Cāṇakya receives the seal ring of Rākṣasa from his spy, the quick decision of writing the fake letter and the future planning shows how Cāṇakya in no time look into the future very accurately. At this juncture enters the Pratihāri with a request from Candragupta to perform the death rites of Parvateśvara and give away his ornaments to the Brāhmaṇas, and the reply given to it by Cāṇakya bear ample evidence to Viśākhadatta’s dramatic skills and sense of economy. As from this incident Cāṇakya gets material for the later part of his fake letter. Quickness of judgment on the part of Cāṇakya can be seen when he gets the letter written by Śakaṭadāsa, seals it with the ring and gives detailed instruction to Siddhārthaka as to how he is to run away with Śakaṭadāsa after setting him free from the impaling ground and receiving a present from Rākṣasa to save his dear friend. Soon after that Cāṇakya tells something in the ear of Siddhārthaka for further instruction. This Viśākhadatta has done surely for heightening the curiosity of the audience which becomes satisfied at the very end of the drama. Then Cāṇakya passing the order through his pupil to banish Jīvasiddhi and to impale Śakaṭadāsa summoned Candanadāsa, the best friend of Rākṣasa. The importance of these orders sent by Cāṇakya through his pupil can be comprehended only after few minutes when we see how these are utilized to give a threat to Candanadāsa. Now Cāṇakya turns to Candanadāsa who strongly refused to surrender the family of his friend even at the cost of his own life. This portion of conversation between Cāṇakya and Candanadāsa is really a beautiful and interesting one that reveals Cāṇakya’s art of eliciting information from others in the art of questioning and also his austerity. The act ends with some pieces of news of absconding of some persons from the city. Though at the first look these incidents, i.e the refusal of Candanadāsa and the escaping of a number of people shows Cāṇakya’s failure but the dramatic comments of Cāṇakya that the sacrifice of Candanadāsa and the absconding of a large number of people would result in Rākṣasa’s capture, the spectator wonders that what Cāṇakya would do further with these incidents to be utilized in capturing Rākṣasa. Thus in the first act comes one after another breathtaking incidents resulting in the heightening the degree of curiosity of the spectators.

The second act seems like a striking parallel with act I in many respects. This act opens with the soliloquy and ākāśabhāṣita of Ahituṇḍika, a spy of Rākṣasa in the disguise of a snake charmer. In this scene of interaction between Rākṣasa and Ahituṇḍika, Viśākhadatta very skillfully exhibits the superiority of Cāṇakya than that of Rākṣasa by showing some blunders of the later. Unlike Cāṇakya, he fails to recognize his own spy here and the work assigned; calls in front of everyone by his real name and so on. But from the conversation between Rākṣasa and Virādhagupa (in the disguise of Ahituṇḍika) we also come to know about Rākṣasa’s various counter plans to vanquish Candragupta which prove that even Rākṣasa is a politician paramount. But it is the fate of Rākṣasa that he faces all failure in every respect. In this act, we also found Malayaketu sending some jewelry in the hands of Kañcukī to be worn by Rākṣasa. While narrating the failure of the plan by Virādhagupta to Rākṣasa, there arrive Śakaṭadāsa and Siddhārthaka being fled from Cāṇakya’s camp. Thus Siddhārthaka was awarded by Rākṣasa for rescuing Śakaṭadāsa with one of those jewelries presented by Malayaketu earlier. Siddhārthaka again, got the jewelry sealed and deposited the same to Rākṣasa. The seal that has been used is the ring that was given to him (Siddhārthaka) by Cāṇakya, which actually belonged to Rākṣasa.

After some conversation, Siddhārthaka and Śakaṭadāsa is seen leaving the stage to take some rest. But all this while Virādhagupta is kept idle on the stage which can be said to be a defect in Viśākhadatta’s workmanship. After that the narration, Virādhagupta again takes promptness and Rākṣasa comes to know about the widening relationship between Cāṇakya and Candragupta. Therefore, wasting no time, Rākṣasa resends Virādhagupta to Kusumapura to instruct a bard named Stavakalaśa to instigate Candragupta against Cāṇakya with suitable verses. At last, a man comes with some ornaments for sale. These are those ornaments of Parvateśvara given away by Candragupta to the Brāhmaṇas. Later on, the dramatic importance of this event will become clear to the audience when they will see how these very ornaments are used to convince Malayaketu that Rākṣasa has been secretly allying with Candragupta and plotting against his life. This act also exposes the emotional nature, political insight, tenderness of heart and dedication in friendship and such other qualities of Rākṣasa and also his blundering nature. Thus act II presents an exact analogous to act I, while act I reveals the plots and plans and the salient features of the character of Cāṇakya; act II does the same in the case of Rākṣasa.

The third act of Mudrārākṣasa is nothing but a drama inside the drama where the main role is played by Candragupta and Cāṇakya. It is Cāṇakya, who set up a sham quarrel amongst them to make Rākṣasa confident and relaxed. This is what Cāṇakya showed to Rākṣasa that he wants to see. The act begins with the appearance of the Kañcukī indulging in a ākāśabhāṣita. Viśākhadatta often used this devise (ākāśabhāṣita) to make the spectators acquainted with certain circumstances which they must know before following the events coming in the very act. From the monologue, we come to know that Candragupta wants to see the city celebrating kaumudīmahotsava. On the other hand, this celebration is prohibited by Cāṇakya without Candragupta’s knowledge. Thus Candragupta wants to see Cāṇakya and sends Kañcukī to call him upon. Here, Viśākhadatta thinks to give the audience some idea of the spirited nature of Cāṇakya by making the Kañcukī describe the abode of Cāṇakya and his utter selflessness. The scene again shifts to the Sugāṅga palace where the argument takes place. This was not just a quarrel, the art of the throwing of questions from both the sides, the accuracy of judgment of Cāṇakya and right grasp of the situation are to be worth praising. Only a writer like Viśākhadatta having deep knowledge of politics can portrait such a scene with shrewdness. After the quarrel, the concluding remark of Candragupta clearly indicates how devoted he was to his preceptor and feeling ashamed on account of the insult that he had to offer to his preceptor. Thus on the light of the third act we can have a sketch of the character of Candragupta, viz., his political spirit, devotion towards his preceptor, his sincerity and also simplicity.

In the first three acts Cāṇakya is seen setting the traps for Rākṣasa by various means which roused the interest and curiosity of the spectators and from this act, i.e. the fourth act begins the unraveling of the working of those means. Now the spectator comes to know about the mission entrusted to Bhāgurāyaṇa, Bhadrabhaṭa and others by Cāṇakya. In this act, the skill of the dramatist is seen in arranging the various incidents of his plots one after another very perfectly. Here arranged Viśākhadatta a bifocal scene where Rākṣasa and Karabhaka is found conversing inside the room and Malayaketu’s ear was constantly poisoning against Rākṣasa by Bhāgurāyaṇa standing outside the very room. However, there is again the same defect in the magnificently managed scene. Here Śakaṭadāsa is seen entered the stage along with Rākṣasa at the very beginning and throughout the conversation between Rākṣasa and Karabhaka he has to remain sitting ideal. This long silence of Śakaṭadāsa on the stage is taken as a defect in the workmanship of Viśākhadatta. In the bifocal scene Malayaketu’s ears being poisoned becomes suspicious towards Rākṣasa. The conversation between Rākṣasa and Malayaketu corresponds to a similar conversation between Cāṇakya and Candragupta in the preceding act, but the difference is; while in act III, though Candragupta is outwardly arguing with Cāṇakya yet at heart he is a devoted pupil, and the case is just reverse in the part of Malayaketu that though Malayaketu is seemingly friendly towards Rākṣasa yet at heart he had prejudice against the later. Thus every act of Mudrārākṣasa unveils the nature of one of the characters, and here it is Malayaketu’s.

The fifth act starts with an interlude. An interlude is a part of the play that makes the reader acquainted with the events that have already occurred and the knowledge of which is absolutely essential to follow the future events. Such interlude when wholly in Prarit is known as Praveśaka and if mixed with Sanskrit it is called viṣkambhaka. There is another interlude in act VI and both these are Praveśaka. Mudrārākṣasa has no Viṣkambhaka. The interlude let us know that the expedition has been started from the side of Malayaketu and hence nobody is allowed to leave the camp without passport. The fifth act is perhaps the most important act in the whole drama. Here the net woven by Cāṇakya in the previous acts successfully trapped the prey Rākṣasa. According to the previous plan Siddhārthaka clasped by Bhāgurāyaṇa with the sealed box full of ornaments and the letter that was written by Cāṇakya through Śakaṭadāsa which reveals some idea that Rākṣasa and allied princes becoming the supporter of Candragupta secretly acting against Malayaketu. This again results in the homicide of the five allied princes and the banishment of Rākṣasa by Malayaketu. In the last portion of this act when Rākṣasa finds that all his plans have ultimately led to the destruction of his own people he becomes completely broken, almost ready to commit suicide, but refrains from doing so only for the sake of his friend Candanadāsa. The letter, the ring and the jewelries that Viśākhadatta introduced in the first and the second acts serve their purposes in the fifth act and thus the curiosity of spectators are been satisfied by the dramatist. This act reminds us to the trial scene of the Mṛcchakaṭikam, where several circumstances go against Cārudatta one after another and lastly the ornaments shatter all his hopes of proving his innocence. So also here several circumstances one after other goes against Rākṣasa and ultimately the ornaments of Parvateśvara worn by him messed up the whole matter.

The sixth act starts with an even more important Praveśaka. This Praveśaka let us know through the conversation between Siddhārthaka and Samiddharthaka that the former arrived Pāṭaliputra after properly executing the plans of Cāṇakya. It also informs us that being disrespected by Malayaketu, Rākṣasa left his camp and is heading towards Pāṭaliputra. Therefore, both Siddhārthaka and Samiddharthaka are being ordered by Cāṇakya to led Candanadāsa to the place of execution and execute him immediately. Thus this Praveśaka prepares the spectators for what will happen in the execution ground with Candanadāsa and with Rākṣasa. The scene of sixth act is completely executed in an abandoned park, Jirṇodyāna. Rākṣasa came here to commit suicide. But here also, a spy of Cāṇakya followed him and played with his emotion by attempting fake suicide. Rākṣasa was misguided by the spy that Viṣṇudāsa was burning himself to death just before his friend Candanadāsa was put to death and therefore he himself (the spy) came here to hang own self. This tale of two persons attempting to give their lives moved Rākṣasa. Soon he realized that Candanadāsa is facing this calamity only to save the family of Rākṣasa. Thus Viśākhadatta very cleverly has shown how Cāṇakya’s policy worked out the whole situation and how ultimately Rākṣasa had no other path to follow except surrender himself for the sake of friend. Accordingly, Viśākhadatta brings the spectator towards the climax.

The sixth act falls into two scenes. The first scene is carried to an end by Rākṣasa’s surrender and one of the Caṇḍālas leaving the stage along with Candanadāsa, while rest of the act cover up by the second. Here, the first scene again reminds us to a similar scene of Mṛcchakaṭikam in the tenth act, where Cārudatta is being led by the Caṇḍālas to the execution ground. But our dramatist cut short the scene by quickly bringing Rākṣasa to the execution ground unlike Mṛcchakaṭikam. In the sixth act Viśākhadatta portrayed a very pathetic scene with Candanadāsa, his wife Kuṭumbiṇī along with his son and brought out the salient feature of these characters in only a few strokes. While Rākṣasa enters into the stage for saving his friend on behalf of his own life, Cāṇakya let him know in the clear terms that Candanadāsa’s life depends on Rākṣasa’s acceptance of Candragupta’s ministry only, not on behalf of his life. Rākṣasa also accepted to do so. Accordingly, Candanadāsa and Malayaketu set free by Cāṇakya and the drama ends with a bharatavākya.

Thus in the Character of Cāṇakya we found the shrewdness of politics of our dramatist. Only a person who from his childhood goes through the atmosphere and smells politics in the air all around can be able to write a drama like this.

From the point of view of dramaturgy, following the norms, he has chosen the Vīrarasa as the predominant sentiment. Likewise, he used Gaudi rīti by means of words having Ojaguṇa in abundance. The Sātvati and Ārabhati vrtti also find their rooms to embellish feelings of Vīrarasa very successfully. Though Viśākhadatta has made use of a good number of chandas-es (19 in number), most of them are seen favourable for Vīrarasa, such as Vasantatilakam, Sragdharā, Śārdūlavikrīḍitam etc. Viśākhadatta has used a vast number of alaṃkāras of both the Śabdālaṃkāra and Arthalaṃkāra types. The use of Saṅkara and Saṃsṛṣṭi alaṃkāra also can be seen. Thus Mudrārākṣasa can be said as a mine of alaṃkāras. Moreover, a nice collection of subhāṣitas also can be seen here. These subhāṣitas have made the drama all the more palatable.

The drama Mudrārākṣasa perfectly undergoes all the five arthapraṛtis, kāryāvasthās and hence the five junctures, i.e. the pañcasandhis. Besides he has used both the patākāsthānaka and ākāśabhāṣita differently in four different places of the drama.

Regarding characterization we can say that the sthāyibhava of Vīrarasa, i.e. Utsāha is presented to us by Viśākhadatta in a variety of combinations. In Cāṇakya, it is coupled with chivalrous admiration of enemy’s noble qualities. In Candragupta, it is blended with a dutiful reverence for his preceptor. In Malayaketu, it is strengthen by the action of filial love. In Rākṣasa, it is intensified by his unflinching fidelity to his late sovereign. In Bhāgurāyaṇa, Siddhārthaka and Samiddhārthaka it is accounted by a feeling of awe unto Cāṇakya. In Virādhagupta, it is emphasized by a sincere attachment to Rākṣasa. In Nipunaka and Karabhaka, it is characterized by a meek submission to the mandates of the master. In Candanadāsa, it is bound up with the spirit of self-sacrifice; in his devoted wife, with a stern sense of duty and in his young son, with a sacred regard for family traditions. These accessory feelings conspire to develop the heroic sentiment in his drama. Thus the characters of Mudrārākṣasa bring forth the sentiment therein.

In many respects, the Mudrārākṣasa of Viśākhadatta is quite different from other Sanskrit plays, as to be regarded as a class by itself in the realm of Sanskrit dramas.

Deshpande in his edition to Mudrārākṣasa has glorified Viśākhadatta as dramatist, comparing with others saying thus—

“Viśākhadatta did not undertake the delineation of the tenderest feeling in the human heart, since its inception to its almost divine perfection as is done by Kālidasa in his Śakuntalam. Nor did he, Bhavabhuti like, choose to hold before us the highest ideal of kings, who in order to ensure the gratification of his subjects is prepared to ignore even the most sacred duty he owed to his own beloved wife.

snehaṃ dayāṃ ca saukhyaṃ ca yadi vā jānakimapi/
ārādhanāya lokasya muñcato nāsti me vyathā//

Viśākhadatta felt not like depicting an unusual aspect of love viz. that of a beautiful young courtesan for a family man like Mṛcchakaṭikam. Nor did Viśākhadatta dramatise the vengeance of a hero who is ‘no love of peace for the sake of peace’ for the grossest injustice that was inflicted on his wife by his enemies hailing from the same family as his own. That was Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa’s choice of theme presented to us in the form of the Venīsaṃhāra. And yet Viśākhadatta’s play ranks so high in the group of Sanskrit plays as easily to find a place for itself in the first few best.”^[3]

Now, let us see what the specialties of the present play are and discuss them one by one—

The first and the foremost specialty of the drama is, “the absence of the heroine.” To Viśākhadatta, the absence of more female characters than one (Kuṭumbiṇī, the wife of Candragupta) is no worth a disability to the theme. Even the lady, who has succeeded in finding a place for herself in the dramatic personae of the Mudrārākṣasa, does not occupy the stage for more than a few minutes. In this context it should be pointed out that a tint of women hatred in the part of Viśākhadatta can be felt in some of the verses of Mudrārākṣasa.^[4]

As in the drama Mudrārākṣasa there is no heroine, the sentiment of love or the Śṛṅgārarasa is also absent in the drama.

Along with the sentiment of love, the drama is lack of Hāsyarasa or the sentiment of humour. As Viśākhadatta is a serious dramatist, the character of viduṣaka also is not found here.

Here, the predominant sentiment is Vīrarasa or heroic sentiment. But, the heroic sentiment has not been delineated here like that of other dramas. Here, there are no illuminating speeches thrown by the actors such as in that of the mouth of Bhīma in Venīsaṃhāra. Nor here can be found, the thundering sound of swords, roaring of gadās or dundubhis. Yet the drama entertains with a manly stain of sentiment.

The Mudrārākṣasa, unlike the majority of Sanskrit plays is purely a political drama. Pratijñā-Yaugandharāyaṇa is also a play having political intrigues but the theme here is not purely political. But in Mudrārākṣasa all actions and movements are made to serve political ends; and notions of right and wrong are subordinated to the fulfillment of political missions. Here even the friendship formed by Induśarmā, Bhāgurāyaṇa and Siddhārthaka with Rākṣasa, Malayaketu and Śakaṭadāsa are political friendships.

It can be said, without the least exaggeration that Viśākhadatta has shown his thorough mastery over a principle, so essential for the success of a literary artist i.e. the unity of action. It is evident to all readers of the play that all incidents, small or big, all measures, remedies or actions aim at only one object, i.e. winning over Rākṣasa and making him accept the responsibility of the prime minister of Candragupta.

The Signet ring, the forged letter, the ornaments given by Candragupta to Viśvāvasu and his two brothers, the receiving of an ornament from Rākṣasa by Siddhārthaka, Śakaṭadāsa’s being sent to the execution-ground, his miraculous rescue, the Kṣapanaka’s work, Bhāgurāyaṇa’s contribution, Candandāsa’s being taken to the execution ground, all these are made to focus themselves on just one thing, making Rākṣasa see the inevitability of the acceptance of the offer of the chief ministry of Candragupta.

A wonderful time of action in this play can be seen. The events represented in the play cover a period of about ten months. The theme of the play starts after the destruction of the Nandas, accession of Candragupta to the throne, the murder of Parvataka and the removal of Sarvārthasiddhi from the scene of action and flight of Rākṣasa to Malayaketu’s camp, and ends with the reclamation of Rākṣasa of Candragupta’s court.

The play closes only a few days after the time referred to in the speech of Malayaketu viz.—

adya daśamo māsastatasyoparatasya.^[5]

This play is again remarkable for its irony and contrast. Contrast between Cāṇakya and Rākṣasa and between Candragupta and Malayaketu can be seen. It is also remarkable that the principal characters are introduced in sequence–Cāṇakya in the first, Rākṣasa in the second, Candragupta in the third and Malayaketu in the fourth act. The entire plot seems to be built on the irony of fate.

Viśākhadatta has divided the acts according to the scenes. This is a unique characteristic of this play which cannot be found in any other play of Sanskrit literature.

Thus Mudrārākṣasa’s atmosphere is very different from the atmosphere of the general run of Sanskrit plays. Perhaps for this reason only the rhetoricians are not seen very interested in taking instances from Mudrārākṣasa for their books. Only Bhoja used two verses, one in the third and the other in the fifth chapter of his book Sarasvatikaṇṭābharaṇa; and Dhanañjaya and Dhanika mentioned about Mudrārākṣasa in four places as the instances of different dramaticall technicalities.

Viśākhadatta is not a dramatist who is domiciliated by the orthodox rules and conventions of dramaturgy. His work depicted the practical side of life. The protagonist of the drama, Cāṇakya, is not at all irrational. Viśākhadatta’s work is contemporary for every age and time. He brought renaissance in the field of Sanskrit literature. We must appreciate the audacity and defiant nature of such a revolutionary writer for setting new trends in literature. Despite the fact the Mudrārākṣasa, if measured on the scale of literary norms, does not seem to meet the conventions; yet, instead of gauging it based on the rules and regulations of dramaturgy, we must see how it has successfully continued to enchant the minds of the readers. Thus it is a drama per excellence in the field of Sanskrit literature.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Mudrārākṣasa, IV.3

[2]:

nāndiprayogārtha kṛte prito bhavati candramāḥ/ Nāṭyaśāstra, V.51

[3]:

Vide, Mudrārākṣasa,Ed. R.R. Deshpande, The Popular Book Store,Booksellers and &Educational Publishers, Surat,1948, pp. 155-158

[4]:

Mudrārākṣasa, I.15, II.7

[5]:

anugṛhanantvenaṃ prasannā devatāḥ / Ibid. p. 156