Sudraka, the author of the mrcchakatikam
By Biswanath Banerjee, Santiniketan
The Mrcchakatikam has been acclaimed as the most enjoyable drama in
Sanskrit literature because of the variety of incidents and quick-changing
suspenseful scenes, refreshingly unstereotyped characters and humour, -
the like of which we do not find in any other Sanskrit drama. A creation of
outstanding brilliance it is a real drama of life and not a narration of the
exploits of divine or semi-divine personalities. This unique dramatic com¬
position is traditionally attributed to Südraka, a king about whose life
and activity only some curious and scrappy details are available in the play
itself but nothing about his time and native place is discernible here. It is
well knowTi a fact that chronology in early Sanskrit literature, excepting
perhaps the cases like that of Bänabhatta, is a regrettably unsettled mat¬
ter and the question ofthe date or identity ofthe author ofthe Mrcchakatika is a vexed problem till today.
In the Prologue to the drama the author is referred to as a brave and
handsome ksatriya king named SCtdraka. He was well versed in the
sästras, a devotee of Siva and died at the ripe old age of 100 years and 10
days by entering into fire.
It has often been stressed that the Prologue is a later interpolation,
otherwise how could the author himself write about his own work in the
Perfect tense and with the indeclinable kila: cakära sarvaip kila Süd-
rako nrpah - King Südraka delineated all (this); and, again, refer to his
own death as: Südrako'gniip pravistah - Siidraka entered the fire.
It is to be noted in this connection that all the MSS ofthe text have the
same prologue and data found in works like the Avantisundarikathä of Dan¬
din do not generally disagree with the account of Südraka given in the
prologue. As this account has a long tradition and is not contradicted by
any ancient authority, it is indeed difficult to discard it by simply labelling
it as an interpolation or written by a later personality. To solve this prob¬
lem of the author referring to himself in the way it has been done in the Pro¬
logue it has been suggested that the author, an expert in Astronomy and
Mathematics, knew about the exact span ofhis life by astrological compu¬
tations and referred to his literary and other activities and incident of self-
immolation as past events in anticipation of the Sütradhära' s alluding to
him at a later time. The commentator Prthvidhara comments on this
problem asjätakädiganitadväräjüätvä: having known (the facts) with
the help of mathematical sciences of jätaka etc.
The question of interpolation also raises an important issue as to how
could a person who wrote the Prologue find any interest in deliberately con¬
necting King Südraka with this play. It could be possible that a court poet
of King Südraka wrote the play for his royal patron and allowed his own
name to pass into oblivion. Another possibility is that an unknown poet of
the name of Südraka wrote the drama and later on became identified with
the better known name of King Südraka.
286 B. Banerjee
Südraka, the royal poet, has been alluded to in various ancient and
mediaeval Sanskrit literature and his association with the Mrcchakatika is
of such a long standing in Indian tradition that it goes against the senti¬
ment to accept a theory that anybody else other than king Südraka has
been the real author ofthe play. But so many myths and legends have been
woven round the name that it becomes most confusing to recoin any truth
from them and a number of theories have been forwarded by distinguished
scholars to prove the identity of Südraka making the confusion worse
confounded.
We find traces of the apellation of Südraka as a surname of many kings
of North and South India. It seems reasonable to many to take the drama¬
tist as a southerner. The goddess Durgä or Sakti has been invoked in the
drama as "a dweller of soAya-mountain" ' which is in the south, Candanaka stages "a quarrel as in the Karnäta country",^ and refers to several south¬
ern peoples,^ peculiarities of the Prakrit dialects and some expressions in
the drama which are found in the south, all point to the possibility of the
same conclusion. The expression Rudro räjä in Act VIII may, according
to some, refer to Rudrasena I or II of the Väkätaka dynasty.
To ascertain whether any historical personality ofthe name of Südraka
wrote the drama or the Südraka with whom the drama has come to be
associated is a mythical king we have to ransack ancient history and litera¬
ture and examine carefully all the Südrakas whose existence is recorded.
The Kathäsaritsägara refers to Südraka and the Brhatkathämanjari of
K§EMENDRA Confirms the name ofa King Südraka who lived in Vidisä;
Bäna in his Kddambari describes Südraka, the King of Vidiöä and refers
to a king Südraka in his Harsacarita as well. But there is nothing in any of
these works to prove the identity of the dramatist.
Kälidäsa in his Mälavikägnimitra mentions Bhäsa and Saumilla as
the joint authors of Südraka 's Biography and Saumilla has been
claimed to have been a court poet of King Südraka." The adventures of
Südraka are found in three other works, viz., Vikräntaäüdraka quoted in
the Sarasvati-kanthäbharana, Südrakavadha referred to by Räyamukuta,
and Südrakacarita by an author named PaNcaöikha. Kalhana in his Rä-
jataraiigini speaks of a King Südraka who was a type of firmness and who
could be set beside the figure of Vikramäditya. VetälapaOcavirfisati refers
to King Südraka as having a longevity of a hundred years.
Vämana' mentions Südraka, the dramatist, by name and quotes a
verse and a passage attributed to him. While the verse quoted is also to be
found in the Cärudattam of Bhäsa the passage' could only be from the Mrc¬
chakatikam. Vämana's reference indicates Südraka as the author ofthe
' Mrkt. X.37.6.
' Mrkt. VI.20.21.
^ Mrkt. VI.20.8.
" Mrkt. Svapnaväsavadattä - Edn. Bhide - Intro.
' Mrkt. V.I.3.2.
« Mrkt. II.6.66.
Mrcchakatikam was known to Vämana who probably flourished in the 8th Century.
In the introduction to the Caturbhänf the editors have expressed the opi¬
nion that the writer ofthe bhäna entitled Padmapräbhrtaka is identical with
the author of the Mrcchakatika and works like Balacarita, Avimäraka and
Vatsaräjacarita are also attributed to the dramatist. A verse at the end of
the Padmapräbhrtaka says that bhäna could only be composed by Vara¬
ruci, IÖVARADATTA, Syämilaka and SiJDRAKA and obser\'es that even
Kälidäsa suffered from limitations in this field of literature. Sltdraka is
also said to have composed another drama Vinäväsavadattä based on
Udayana legends.*
The exploits ofa King Sxjdraka in various lives are found to be descri¬
bed in the Dasakumäracarita of Dandin. Some striking reseinblances in
thoughts and expressions between the Dasakumäracarita and the Mrccha¬
katika are observed and some common expressions are also found in the
Kävyädarsa and the Mrcchakatika. The society described in the Dasaku¬
märacarita strongly resembles the one reflected in the Mrcchakatika. The
occurrence ofthe verse limpativa tamo' iigäni in the Kävyädarsa and
the Mrcchakatika is noted by scholars in this coimection. All these facts
prompted a scholar like Pischel to formulate the theory that Dandin was
the author of the Mrcchakatika. He picked up this drama as the third work
of Dandin to prove the statement of RäjSekhara: trayo Dandipra-
bandhäsca trisu lokesu visrutäh^ - three compositions of Dandin are
famous in the three worlds: the other two being the Dasakumäracarita and
the Kävyädarsa.
The verse limpativa has since been found also in Bhäsa's work and it
would appear to have become a kind of floating subhäsita in ancient India.
The elaborate and other peculiar stage directions and the state of society as
reflected in the drama can well be found in the drama Nägänanda of the
time of Har^avardhana.
All these accounts lead many critics to believe that there was perhaps a
personality in ancient India worthy of the name of a King Südraka who
later became more or less a legendary figure and very little historical truth
can be gleaned now from such conflicting materials.
Efforts have been made, however, to establish King Südraka, the
author of the Mrcchakatika, as a historical figure.
To Keith Südraka is really clearly mythical"* but Sten Konow" recog¬
nises in him the Abhira Prince Sivadatta who ruled in the third century
A.D. and whose son Iövarasena, according to Fleet, overthrew the last
king ofthe Andhra dynasty and founded the cedi era. Konow arrived at this
' Edn. Madras, 1922.
* Ed. Kuppuswami & Kunhan Raja, Madras. 1931.
' Quoted in Särhgadhara-paddhati, Ed. Peterson. Bombay 1888.
'° Sanskrit Drama, 129-30.
" Ind. Drama 57. Konow's theory was subsequently discarded by scholars like Jolly, Jacobi, Charpentier and others.
288 B. Banerjee
conclusion on the basis of the incident referred to in the drama in which
Pälaka, the king of Ujjayini, is overthrown by Aryaka, the son of a herds¬
man who is essentially an abhira. The SkandapurätM}^ speaks ofa herioc
lung named Südraka, said to have reigned in 190 A.D. and has been iden¬
tified with Simuka, the founder ofthe Andhrabhrtya dynasty. The basis of
this identification is that the Bhägavatapuräna^^ mentions the first Andhra
king as a südra - commonly known as Südraka. The name Simuka is
variously referred to as Sindhuka, Sisuka, Sipraka indicating that the
form was not settled aright and could also be Südraka originally. The
date ofthe founder ofthe Andhrabhrtya dynasty has been put as 200 B.C.
and this does not agree with the date given by the Skandapuräna. But it
should be remembered that the chronology of the Skandapuräna was more
or less of a traditional type and can not be considered with a historical
accuracy in the modern sense. The Andhrabhrtyas belonged to the south
and we can-not deny the probability of the dramatist being a southerner.
Like ÄRYAKA the first of the Andhrabhrtyas became a king as a result of a
revolution. A strong case can be made on the basis of these facts to ascribe
this drama to the founder of the Andhrabhrtya dynasty who ruled about
200 B.C. We may take note ofthe fact that the comparatively respectable
position enjoyed by Sakära and vita as also the privileged status of the
ganikä-heroine exhibit an atmosphere of social existence as found in the
Kämasütra. The drama also refers to the flourishing state of Buddhism and
it is significant to note in this connection that Buddhism as a religion was in
a flourishing condition under the Andhrabhrtyas according to the early
history of the Deccan.
Attempts have been made to place the drama in the second century A.D.
by identifying'" Rudro räjä in Act VIII vrith king Rudradäman of the
Ksatrapa dynasty. The word nänaka (coin) in Act I which is supposed to
have come into vogue by the time of Kaniska is referred to by some to hold
that the drama is composed after the 1st century A.D.
The age and identity of king Südraka have been further examined in
detail and Südraka has been identified with King Sivakumära I, com¬
monly known as Siv amära I, who belonged "to the ancient Ganga royal
house, and was the younger brother of the gallant king Bhuvikrama"."
Like King Südraka as referred to in the Prologue to the Mrcchakatika
King Siv amära I "felt fascinated at the idea of a personal encounter with elephants", and a work on elephant lore has been ascribed to him." He is also said to have lived full one hundred years and recovered his eyesight."
The author ofthe Mrcchakatika thus identified has been assigned to the last
quarter ofthe seventh and the first quarter ofthe eighth century. Whatever
Kumärika-Khancja, 1-2.
XII.1.20.
Mrkt - Edn. Karmarkar, p. 468.
B. A. Saletore, Journal of the University of Bombay, Vol. XVI.
ibid. 7.
" loc. cit.
be the resemblances between the dramatist Südraka and the King of the
Decean ofthe 8th century the internal evidences ofthe drama do not allow
us to agree to such a later date being assigned to the drama. Nor it is pos¬
sible to accept him as a predecessor of Aövagho^a and Bhäsa and assign
him to second century B.C. The diseovery of Bhäsa's Cärudatia posed the
suggestion if Bhäsa could be recognised as the author of the Mrcchakatika
as well. An examination of the two works makes it possible for us to suggest
that the Cärudatta is perhaps an early version and forms the basis of the
Mrcchakatika. There is, however, no decisive evidence in any of the two
works in favour of a definite ascription or even to suggest a definite date for
either of them. It is nevertheless evident that the general literary style of
the Mrcchakatika represents the simple grace and beauty of earlier authors
like Bhäsa but neither as polished as that of Kälidäsa nor as elaborate
and artificial as to be found in Bhavabhüti or Harsa.
It may be confusing to note that a drama like the Mrcchakatika and its
author are never mentioned by Kälidäsa although in all probability the
dramatist is a predecessor of Kälidäsa. We may consider in this connec¬
tion that Kälidäsa is equally reticent about Aövaghosa who is generally
hailed as the first dramatist in Sanskrit and who must have flourished quite
before Kälidäsa.
Whether our Südraka was the founder of the Andhrabhrtya dynasty or
was the Ganga King Sivamära I or was a King of Ujjayini as told by Dan¬
din is extremely difficult to solve at the moment but it is also not possible
to brush aside the ancient and universal tradition of the existence of a poet
named Südraka as purely mythical or legendary. As we have examined
the problem it appears that the dramatist flourished between the first and
the second century of the Christian era and there seems to be no reason
why the drama should not be ascribed to a person named Südraka and
who was a king as well.
290
KARMA VORSTELLUNGEN EN EINIGEN NORDINDISCHEN
BHAKTIKULTEN (Resümee)
Von Peter Gaefike, Philadelphia
Innerhalb der nordindischen „Bkaktisekten" lassen sich drei verschie¬
dene Behandlungen der karma Lehren aufzeigen:
1. Wo, wie bei Tulsidäs, puränische Traditionen gewahrt sind, werden
strenge karma Vorstellungen in detaillierten Erzählungen und Beleh¬
rungen dargeboten. In ihnen hat der freie Wille einen genügend großen
Spielraum. Auf diese Weise sind die Kastenordnung erhalten, die Ver¬
haltensweisen innerhalb der Hindufamilie begrenzt und die Einhaltung
allgemeiner dharma Regeln ist erreicht.
2. Wenn eines Sekte, wie die Vallabhis, innerhalb des Hindutums eigene
karma Vorstellungen entwickelt, werden Handlungen mit karma Konse¬
quenzen den „anderen" vorbehalten, während der innere Zirkel der
Sekte durch Gottes Gnadenwahl von karma Prozessen ausgenommen
ist. Allerdings, Verhaltensweisen, die die Hindugesellschaft erhalten,
sind wenigstens indirekt zugegeben und damit akzeptiert.
3. Dort aber, wo Sekten den Boden des Hindutums verlassen haben,
wie die Sikhs oder Kabir und seine Jünger, wird der ganze Schrecken
der karma Vorstellungen in eine Waffe gegen Andersdenkende um¬
geschmiedet. Ihnen gebühren unmenschliche Qualen im Diesseits und
Höllenstrafen im Jenseits, wahrend die Gläubigen dem karma Prozeß
schon zu Lebzeiten entronnen sind.
Mit diesen drei Sichtweisen sind folgende Erlösungsvorstellungen ver¬
bunden:
1. Während die niedrigsten Kreaturen einfach ins Nichts entlassen wer¬
den, können die höchstentvrickelten bhaktas sich selbst einen Körper
zur Anbetung Gottes wählen.
2. Die Erlösung besteht in ästhetisch definierten Gefühlen, die unter
normalen Umständen zum karma Bereich gehören, jedoch wenn sie
zu dem angebeteten avatära in Beziehung gesetzt werden, zieht man
sie selbst dem mok^a vor.
3. Asketische Auffassungen zeigen den Erlösten als in Wirklichkeit Toten,
der nur scheinbar noch im Leben steht, mit Familie, Besitz etc.
Der Vortrag war eine Zusammenfassung eines längeren Beitrags zum
dritten Bande des „karma Projekts", der, herausgegeben von Guy R. Wel-
BON, im Erscheinen begriffen ist.
