|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
POLITICAL HISTORY rendered into Persian in 1026 A.D., from which is quoted ad verbatim this story of Rawwāl and Barkamāris by Abul Hassan ‘Ali.1 The Muhammadan version is thus older than even 1026 A.D. This story has such a close resemblance to the plot of the Dēvīchandraguptam that it may be safely and judiciously used to fill in the details on which the extracts shed no light.2 Sylvain Levi does not believe in the historicity of the Dēvīchandraguptam, because the Gupta inscriptions do not speak of any Rāmagupta intervening between Samudragupta and Chandragupta II. Besides, they mention Dhruvadēvī as the wife of this last Gupta king only. But grounds will be adduced in the course of this account, showing that Sylvain Levi’s arguments are not convincing. Winternitz, on the other hand, believes in the truth of the story, but assigns its author Viśākhadatta, not to the fourth century A.D., as he did formerly, but to the sixth, that is to say, not to the reign of the Gupta sovereign Chandragupta II but to that of the Maukhari king Avantivarman. This suits excellently, because there was an interval of just two centuries between the incident dramatised in the Dēvīchandraguptam and its composer Viśākhadatta. There is thus every likelihood of the events narrated in the play being correctly reported and being therefore worthy of all credence. Such does not, however, appear to be the case in regard to the Mudrārākshasa, the events recorded in which came off in the third century B.C., that is, at least eight hundred years before the time of the same author. And, as a matter of fact, much of the plot of that drama is incongruous with the history of the Maurya king Chandragupta such as has been compiled from reliable sources, and does not seem to have made much impression upon posterity. On the other hand, the sensetional events connected with Chandragupta II and Dhruvadēvī made such a deep impression upon the people living in the eighth century, that is, in the period of the Rāshṭrakūṭas of Mānyakhēṭa that they are referred to even in their copper-plate charters, as we shall see later on. All things considered, the plot of the Dēvīchandraguptam, may be taken as being drawn from actual history.
Let us, first of all, see what we know from the Indian sources. It seems that hostilities
were going on between Rāmagupta (Kāchagupta) and a Śaka ruler, or rather, the Śaka
preceptor at a place called Aḷipura, in which the former was worsted. The enemy at first
wanted Rāmagupta to surrender his younger brother, Chandragupta, but the Gupta king
refused to comply with the demand for fear of causing grave dissatisfaction among his people.3
This led to the idea of the compromise of the queen Dhruvasvāminī being handed over to the
enemy. Chandragupta, however, did not like the compromise and hit upon the expedient of
meeting the enemy in the garb of the queen and killing him. Accordingly, at dead of night,
he retired to a solitary place where, by previous arrangement, a dress worn by Dhruvasvāminī
was waiting for him. This he put on, and he saw his elder brother before his departure. In
spite, however, of the remonstrances of Rāmagupta, Chandragupta left for the enemy’s camp,
but, not without a female retinue, consisting of males dressed as female attendants. Further
light is thrown on this point by the Tawārīkh referred to above. From this account it appears
that Rawwāl’s (Rāmagupta’s) officers dressed their sons in like manner as damsels. Every
one of them concealed a knife in his hair, and Chandragupta, besides, carried a trumpet also
concealed. When they reached the enemy’s camp, they distributed themselves as previously
settled, Chandragupta to the rebel king and his attendants to the latter’s officers. When the 1 Elliot, History of India, Vol. I, pp. 100 ff.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|