ADOPTION OF STYLE AND LANGUAGE IN MUDRĀRĀKṢASA

Transcription

1 CHAPTER V ADOPTION OF STYLE AND LANGUAGE IN MUDRĀRĀKṢASA A. Guṇa : It s classification and components : kāvyaśobhāyāḥ kartāro dharmā guṇāḥ// 1 - With these words for the first time Vāmana defined guṇa, denoting, the qualities that generates the beauty of a literary creation. He differentiated alaṁkāra from guṇa by saying that, alaṁkāras are those objects which only enhance the beauty of a kāvya- tadatiśayahetavastvalaṁkārāḥ. 2 He further stated in his vṛtti that these guṇas are eternal qualities of a kāvya, and not the alaṁkāras, without which a kāvya cannot be graceful- pūrve gunā nityāḥ / tairvinā kāvyaśobhānupapatteḥ. 3 In Agnipurāṇa also guṇa is defined as an element which imparts great charm to poetry. 4 While dealing with alaṁkāra, Agnipurāṇa incorporated a sub- chapter for kāvyaguṇa. Therein, the kāvyalaṁkāras are compared with the ornaments worn by a beautiful lady and the guṇas with the beauty itself. According to it, the necklace is expressively burdensome to women if their bodies are bereft of beauty. 5 Formerly Vāmana mentioned guṇas as the qualities reliant on śabda and artha. 6 But Ānandavardhana described guṇas as the properties of the soul of kāvya, 1. Kāvyālaṁkārasūtravṛtti, III Ibid., III Ibid., p yaḥ kāvye mahatīṁ chāyāmanugṛhnādatyasauguṇaḥ/agnipurāna, III Ibid., X.2 6. ye khalu śabdārthayordhamāḥ kāvyaśobhāṁ kurvanti te guṇāḥ/ Kāvyālaṁkārasūtravṛtti, p

2 i.e., rasa. 7 The later writers like Mammaṭa etc. also supported the similar perception. Mammaṭa said that as virtues like heroism are related to the soul of a man, so as the guṇas related to the rasa. The verbal expressions produce the excellences only as a means; the actual cause is the rasa. Cf. ye rasasyāṅgino dharmāḥ śauryādaya ivātmanaḥ/ utkarṣa hetavaste syuracalasthitayo guṇāḥ// 8 Viśvanātha also anticipated the same idea saying, rasasyāṅgitvamāptasya dharmāḥ śauryādayo yathā/ gunāḥ etc 9. Therefore, it is clear that all the rhetoricians are unanimous in admitting guṇas as poetic excellence. Now, though Vāmana is accredited as the first person who defined guṇa, the concept has been present from the time of Bharata. In the Nāṭyaśāstra, after the discussions on doṣa, Bharata described guṇas. He characterized guṇas only as the negation of doṣas having sweetness and depth of meaning. 10 Bharata divided guṇas into ten in number, which, he has enumerated as- Cf. śleṣaḥ prasādaḥ samatā samādhir mādhuryaṁ ojoṣ pada-saukumāryaṁ/ arthasya ca vyaktir udāratā ca kāntiśca kāvyasya guṇā daśaite// ye tamarthaṁ rasādilakṣanamaṅginaṁ santamavalambante te guṇāḥ śauryādivat Dhvanyāloka, II.6 (vṛtti), p Kāvyaprakāśa, VIII Sāhityadarpaṇa, VIII ete doṣā hi kāvyasya yathāsamyak prakīrtitāḥ/ guṇā viparyayādeṣāṁ mādhuryaudāryalakṣaṇāḥ Nāṭyaśāstra, XVII Nāṭyaśāstra, XVII

3 This means the ten guṇas according to Bharata are Śleṣaḥ, Prasādaḥ, Samatā, Samādhi, Mādhurya, Oja, Saukumāryaṁ, Arthavyakti, Udāratā and Kānti. Bharata has given a detailed description of these ten guṇas which are as follows- 1. Śleṣaḥ: It is the union of words connected through meanings intended. 2. Prasādaḥ: When an incomprehensible word or sense is comprehended, through the use of easily assumed words and senses, it is an instance of Prasādaḥ. 3. Samatā: When a composition contains too many uncompounded words, and when it is devoid of redundant expressions and words difficult to understand, it is Samatā. 4. Samādhi: A composition possessing some special sense, which a man of genius can find out, is called the Samādhi. 5. Mādhurya: When a sentence though heard or uttered many times, does not tire our digest, it is an instance of Mādhurya. 6. Oja: If a composition consists of varied and many compounded words, noble in sense and agreeable in sound, then it is Oja. 7. Saukumārya: When a composition consists of words, easy to pronounce, euphonically combined, and giving agreeable impression, it is Saukumārya. 8. Arthavyakti: If, there is any subject or action, relating to the events occurring in the world gets expressed by means of well-known predicates, it becomes Arthavyakti. 9. Udāratā: When in a composition superhuman characters are described in connection with the heroic and marvelous sentiments and the various states, it is Udāratā. 10. Kānti: That which in a composition, while describing the sportive movement (līlā) of a character delights the ear and the mind, just as the moon pleases us is nothing but Kānti Nāṭyaśāstra, XVII

4 In this context Bhāmaha followed Bharata who however, observes only three guṇas, viz. Mādhurya, Oja and Prasāda as against the ten of Bharata; while Dandin imitated Bharata in this regard considering the same ten guṇas. 13 Dandin enumerated Ślesa, Samatā, Sukumāratā and Oja into the category of Śabdaguṇa; Prasāda, Arthavykti, Udāratā, Kānti and Samādhi into Arthaguṇa and Mādhurya as the Ubhayaguṇa. 14 Vāmana is the first writer to have given a broader classification of the ten guṇas of Bharata splitting them into those of śabda and artha while retaining same names thus doubling the number of guṇas to twenty. Bharata expressed guṇas as mere negation of doṣas, therefore, taking them as abhāva padārthas; but Vāmana laid emphasis on the absence of doṣas as well as convey a positive significance of guṇas making the later one as bhāva padārtha and doṣas as the viparyaya of guṇa. Ānadavardhana opened a new horizon in this field by acknowledging only the three guṇas- Mādhurya, Oja and Prasāda, depending on the nature of rasas, viz. melting (druti), manifesting (dipti) and expanding (prasāra). He associated Mādhurya-guṇa with Vipralambhaśṛṅgāra and Karunarasa; Oja with Raudrarasa ;and Prasādaguṇa with all the rasas. These guṇas contribute towards the enrichment of the concerned rasas. 15 After Ānadavardhana the later writers like dhārānareśa Bhoja, Kuntaka, Jayadeva etc. also followed the same path. Amongst them the name of Mammaṭa is worth mentioning, who not only followed Ānadavardhana in this regard, but also laid emphasis in the point that there are only three guṇas. Because the other guṇas are 13. śleṣaḥ prasādaḥ samatā mādhuryo sukumāratā/ arthavyaktirudāratvamojaḥ kāṁti samādhayaḥ// Kāvyādarśa, I śleṣaḥ samatā sukumāratā ojaḥ iti catvāraḥ śabda guṇāḥ/ prasādaḥ abhivyakti udāratā kāntiḥ ete pañcārthaguṇāḥ mādhuryatūbhayaguṇa iti daṇḍino mataṁ/ Kāvyādarśa, I.43 (vṛtti) 15. Dhanyāloka, II.8,9,

5 either merged into these three guṇas or are just doṣābhāvas, or seems like doṣas themselves in some respect. Cf mādhuryaujaḥ prasādakhyāstrayaste na punardaśa/ 16 And, kecidantarbhavantyeṣu doṣatyāgātpare śritāḥ/ anye bhajanti doṣatvaṁ kutracinnatato daśa// 17 In this way the Bharata s tradition of ten guṇas merged into the above three guṇas in the writings of the later rhetoricians such as Viśvanātha etc. In the following, a description has been put forth of these three guṇas in the lights of the writings of Mammaṭa and Viśvanātha. i. Mādhuryaguṇa: The melting nature (ādratā) of the mind is called Mādhurya. Mādhurya guṇa is present in ascending degrees in the Sambhogaśṛṅgāra, Karuṇa, Vipralambhaśṛṅgāra and in Śāntarasa respectively. Cf. cittadravībhāvamayohlādo mādhuryamucyate/ saṁbhoge karuṇe vipralambheśānte dhikaṁ kramāt// 18 If in a composition the fifth consonants of a varga (ṅ, ña, ṇa, na, ma) remains conjoined with the sparśa vyañjana, from ka to ma; laghu ra and ṇa varṇa, bereft of ta varga, without samāsa or words having least samāsa are used, all these raises the brilliance of Mādhuryaguṇa. cf. mūrdhnivargānantyagāḥ sparśā aṭavargā raṇau laghū/ avṛttirmardhavṛttirvā mādhurye ghaṭanā tathā// Kāvyaprakāśa, VIII Ibid., VIII Sāhityadarpaṇa, VIII Kāvyaprakāśa, VIII

6 ii. Ojaguṇa: The brilliant expansion of mind is called Oja. This guṇa resides in the ascending degree in the sentiments, viz., Vīra, Bībhatsa and Raudra respectively. cf. ojaścittasya vistārarūpa dīptatvamukṣyate/ vīra vībhatsaraudreṣu krameṇādhikyamasya tu// 20 Here, in this guṇa the first and the third letter conjoined with the last one, repha, conjunction of the same letters, use of ṭa varga, letters like śa and ṣa, long compounded words and arrogant expressions are found. Cf. yoga ādyatṛtīyābhyāmantyayo reṇatulyayoḥ/ ṭādiḥ śaṣau vṛttirdairghyaṁ gumpha uddhata ojasi// 21 iii. Prasādaguṇa: Prasāda is the quality found in all the rasas, the cause of a quick apprehension of the sense, extending over the mind at once like a stream of water extends over a cloth, or like fire among dry fuel. Cf. śuṣkendhanāgnivat svacchajalavatsahasaiva yaḥ/ vyāpnotyanyatprasādo sau sarvatra vihitasthitiḥ// 22 The senses of the padas, vṛttis or varṇas that can be quickly apprehended are the properties of this guṇa. Cf. śrutimātrena śabdāttu yenārthapratyayo bhavet sādhāraṇaṁ samagrāṇāṁ sa prasādo guṇo mataḥ 23 Therefore, it can be said that guṇas are nothing but the qualities of the soul (rasa) of a kāvya. In the words of Mammaṭa -as the qualities like heroism etc., residing in the soul helps in enhancing the beauty of it, likewise the guṇas residing in the soul, i.e. rasa, augments the beauty of the kāvyaśarīra. 20. Sāhityadarpaṇa, VIII.4,5 21. Kāvyaprakāśa, VIII Ibid., VIII Ibid., VIII

7 Cf. ye rasasyāṅgino dharmāḥ śauryādaya ivātmanaḥ/ utkarṣa hetavaste syuracalasthitayo guṇāḥ// 24 B. The theory of rīti: The earliest scripture of India, i.e. Ṛgveda has been using the word rīti from time immemorial. This word has been employed in Ṛgveda denoting three different meanings, i.e. gati 25, dhārā 26 and mārga 27. Besides this, in other vedas and in different Brāhmaṇas also the word rīti was in vogue interpreting different meanings. Other than the śāstras, Bharata, Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin used the term mārga in their writings representing the same connotation with rīti, i.e.the way of wrīting. Bhoja, in his Sarasvatikaṇṭhābharaṇa has given the derivation of the word rīti as : rīṅgatāviti dhāto savyutpatyā rītirucyate. 28 This means that the term rīti has been originated from the root rīḍ with the pratyaya ṛn denoting the meaning- to go. It is Vāmana who considered rīti as the soul of poetry for the first timerītirātmā kāvyasya 29 Besides, Vāmana is the pioneer in defining rīti thus, viśiṣṭā padaracanā rītiḥ. 30 This viśiṣṭā according to him is adhering with poetic qualities- viśeṣo guṇātmā. 31 In this way guṇas became associated with rīti. Afterwards, following Vāmana, Rudraṭa also supported guṇas as the basis of rīti 24. Ibid., VIII mahāvarītiḥ śavasā sarat pṛthak/ Ṛgveda, vātevājuryā nadyeva rītiḥ/ṛgveda, tāmasyarītiparaśoriva/ Ibid., Sarasvatikaṇṭhābharaṇa, II Kāvyālaṁkārasūtravṛtti,I. II Ibid.,I. II Ibid.,I. II

8 etāśca rītayo nālaṁkārāḥ kiṁ tarhi śabdāśrayā guṇā iti. 32 Rājaśekhara defined rīti in the third chapter of Kāvyamīmāṁsā as the chronological order of the implementation of words: vacana vinyāsa kramau rīti. 33 Ānadavardhana accepts rīti as the pada saṁghaṭanā. He has stated clearly that as rasas are the residents of rīti, Being the residence, it helps in expressing the rasa concern. Cf.guṇānāśritya tiṣṭhantī mādhuryādīnvanakti sā rasān/ 34 Viśvanātha followed Ānadavardhana in this respect accepting rīti as the pada saṁghaṭanā like the formation of the limbs of a body. Cf. pada saṅghaṭanā rītiḥ aṅga saṁsthānaviśeṣavat/ 35 The earliest mention of the appellations of the rītis based on the geographical study comes through the writings of Bāṇa. At the very beginning of Bāṇa s Harṣacarita in one of its introductory verses he remarks that certain parts of the country create literature striking with certain characteristics thusśleṣa prāyamudīcyeṣu pratīcyeṣvarthamātrakam/ utprekṣādākṣiṇātyeṣu gauḍeṣvakṣaraḍambaraḥ// 36 -The northerners (udīcya) write nothing but double entendre; the westerners (praticya), only the bare idea; the southerners (dākṣinātya) roll in imaginative vanities while the easterners (gauḍa) make a display of words uproar. Bhāmaha is the first scholar to classify the rītis into two- Vaidarbhī and Gauḍī in his book Kāvyalaṁkāra, yet he has used the term mārga instead of rīti. He accepts 32. Kāvyālaṁkāra of Rudrata, p Kāvyamīmāṁsā, III,p Dhvanyāloka, III.2, Ed. By Sobhit Misra, Chaukhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi Sāhityadarpaṇa, IX Harṣacarita, I

9 Vaidarbha- mārga as the best and elegant one, assuming the Gauḍīyamārga as the opposite to it cf. vaidarbhāmanyadastīti manyate sudhiyo pare tadaiva ca kila jyāyaḥ sadarthamapi nāparam 37 Like Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin also used the term mārga. He mentioned about two mārgas called Vaidarbhī and Gauḍavartma. The ten guṇa s like Ślesa, Prasāda, Samatā etc are attributed as the soul of Vaidarbhī mārga whereas the reverse of it is the feature of Gauravartmamārga. Cf. iti vaidarbhamārgasya prāṇā daśaguṇāḥ smṛtāḥ/ eṣāṁ viparyayaḥ prāyodṛśyate gauḍavartman// 38 After Daṇḍin, comes the proponent of the rīti school, i.e. Vāmana. Vāmana supported three rītis called Vaidarbhī, Gauḍī and Pāñcālī. Cf. sātredhā vaidarbhī gauḍīya pāñcālī ceti/ 39 Rudraṭa also pointed out the divisions of rīti based on vṛttis. He stated that Pāñcālī, Lāṭiyā and Gauḍīyā are the three divisions of samāsavativṛtti. Cf. pāñcālī lāṭīyā gauḍīyā ceti nāmato bhihitāḥ 40 - and he acknowledged Vaidarbhī under asamāsavativṛtti- vṛtterasamāsāyā vaidarbhī rītirekaiva. 41 Rājaśekhara while showing the geographical differences of the applications of languages stated about Gauḍī, Pāñcālī and Vaidarbhī - these three rītis Kāvyālaṁkāra, I.31, as quoted in concepts of Rīti and Guṇa in Sanskrit Poetics by P.C. Lahiri, Munshiram Mohanlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd Kāvyādarśa, I Kāvyālaṁkārasūtravṛtti,I. II Kāvyālaṁkāra, II Kāvyālaṁkāra,II Kāvyamīmāṁsā, III

10 Contrary to the above writers, Bhoja considered six types of rītis viz., Vaidarbhī, Pāñcālī, Gauḍīya, Āvantikā, Lāṭīyā and Māgadhī 43 Kuntaka, using the word mārga instead of rīti, mentioned three divisions of it viz., Sukumāramārga, Vicitramārga and Madhyamamārga. 44 According to Ānadavardhana rītis are saṁghaṭanā. And these pada saṁghaṭanā has asamāsa, madhyama and dīrghasamāsa - these three divisions. Cf. asamāsā samāsena madhyasena ca bhūṣitā/ tathā dīrgha samāseti tridhā saṅghaṭanoditā// 45 Upanāgarikā, Paruṣā and Komalā- these three vṛttis according to Mammaṭa are the Vaidarbhī, Gauḍī and Pāñcālī rītis respectively- etāstisro vrttayaḥ vāmanādīnāṅ mate vaidarbhī, gauḍī pāñcālyākhyā rītayo matāḥ. 46 Latest Sanskrit rhetorician like Viśvanātha followed Ānadavardhana, accepting rītis as pada saṅghaṭanāvaidarbhī cātha gauḍī ca pāñcālī lāṭikā tathā/ 47 Thus it is seen that most of the rhetoricians are unanimous on the three rītis of Vāmana - Vaidarbhī, Gauḍī and Pāñcālī based on verbal expression. These three rītis are explained bellow:- i. Vaidarbhīrīti: Generally the appellation of this rīti comes from the writing style of the poets of Vidarbha. There are different names of this rīti given by different scholars. For Bhāmaha and Dandin it is Vaidarbhī-mārga; Vāmana, Rudraṭa, Bhoja and Viśvanātha called it Vaidarbhī -rīti; Kuntaka named it Sukumara -mārga; Ānadavardhana termed it asamāsā and Mammaṭa called it Upanāgarī-vṛtti. 43. Concept of Rīti and Guṇa in Sanskrit Poetics, p Vakroktijīvita, I Dhvanyāloka, III Kāvyaprakāśa, p Sāhityadarpaṇa, IX

11 It was Bhāmaha who for the first time mentioned about this rīti. According to Bhāmaha this is the best amongst the rītis having beautiful manifestation of words. Like this, for Daṇḍin all the ten guṇas are present in it. Cf. iti vaidarbhamārgasya prāṇā daśaguṇāsmṛtāḥ/ 48 But Vāmana is the pioneer who defined this rīti saying thussamagraguṇāvaidarbhī/ 49 While defining the rītis, Vāmana explained about Vaidarbhī as the rīti of being ornamented with all the guṇas, bereft of doṣas and as pleasing as the tune of Vīnā. Cf.aspṛṣṭā doṣamātrābhiḥ samagraguṇagumphitā/ vipañcī svara saubhāgyā vaidarbhī rītiriṣyate// 50 After Vāmana, Rudraṭa defined Vaidarbhī-rīti as the vṛtti which is bereft of compounded words. Cf.samāsarahitapadavṛtte vaidarbhīnāmarī rītirekaiva/ 51 In a similar way Rājaśekhara defined Vaidarbhī-rīti as the one used in appropriate places and bereft of samāsa and yogavṛtti (abhidhā vṛtti). Cf. sthānānuprāsavadasamāsaṁ yogavṛtti garvañca jagāda sā vaidarbhī rītiḥ/ 52 Again the vṛtti which possesses abhivyañjakavarṇa of Mādhurya has been considered as the Upanāgarī or Vaidarbhī-rīti by Mammaṭa. Cf. mādhuryavyañjakaivarṇairupanāgarikocyate/ Kāvyādarśa, I Kāvyālaṁkārasūtravṛtti,I.II Kāvyālaṁkārasūtravṛtti, p Kāvyālaṁkāra, p Kāvyamīmāṁsā, p Kāvyaprakāśa, IX

12 In the words of Viśvanātha, Vaidarbhī -rīti is the one such beautiful composition which has been composed of Mādhuryavyañjaka and bereft of compounded words. Cf. mādhurya vyañjakairvarṇaiḥ arcanā lalitātmikā/ avṛttiralpavṛttirvā vaidarbhī rīti riṣyate// 54 ii. Gauḍīya-rīti: This rīti has been for the first time elaborately defined by Vāmana. According to the definition, the rīti having the Oja as well as the Kānti- guṇa is called the Gauḍīya-rīti. Cf. ojaḥ kāntimayī gauḍīyā 55 Vāmana further clarifying the Gauḍīya rīti writes that the one containing Oja as well as the Kānti is commonly known as ojakāntimatī. This is nothing but the Gauḍīya- rīti itself. Due to the absence of Mādhurya and Saukumārya but abundant in compounded words this is called the Gauḍīya-rīti. Cf. ojaḥ kāntiśca vidyate yasyāṁ sā ojaḥ kāntimayī/ gauḍīyā nāma rīti/mādhuryasaukumāryayorabhāvāt samāsa bahulā atyulbaṇapadāca/ 56 Rājaśekhara considers those styles of composing a kāvya as Gauḍīya-rīti wherein the traditions or behaviour of long compounded words and anuprāsa as well as yogavṛtti (avidhā) are expressed or revealed. Cf. samāsavadanuprāsavadyogavṛtti paraṁparā garbha jagāda sā gauḍīyā rītiḥ/ 57 In a similar fashion, Bhoja believes the rīti having Oja and Kānti guṇa compounded with very peculiar words as the Gauḍīya-rīti. 54. Sāhityadarpaṇa, IX. 2,3 55. Kāvyālaṁkārasūtravṛtti,I.II Kāvyālaṁkārasūtravṛtti, p Kāvyamīmāṁsā, p

13 Cf. samastātyudbhaṭa padābhojaḥ kāntiguṇānvitām/ gauḍīyeti vijananti rītiṁ rīti vicakṣaṇāḥ// The vṛtti and the rīti in conjunction with varṇa that expresses the Oja-guṇa are considered as Paruṣā-vṛtti and Gauḍīya rīti respectively by Mammaṭa. Cf.. ojaḥ prakāśakaistaistu paruṣā/ 58 Viśvanātha again considers the compositions containing varṇa that expresses Oja-guṇa and bound with abundant compounded and exaggerated words (śabdāḍmbaro) as the Gauḍīya rīti. Cf. ojaḥ prakāśakavarṇebandhaḥ āḍambara punaḥ/ samāsa bahulā gauḍī/ 59 Therefore, sufficient unanimity can be observed amongst the Sanskrit scholars in their respective versions of definition of Gauḍīya-rīti. Summing up, the rītis bonded with varṇas having Oja and Kānti and abundant in compounded and exaggerated words are called Gauḍīya-rīti. iii. Pāñcālī-rīti:- Vāmana, the first proponent of Pāñcālī-rīti, defined it as the rīti that is conjoined with the Mdāhurya and Saukumarya-guṇa. Cf. mādhurya saukumāryopapannā Pāñcālī/ 60 While exhibiting the nature inaugurating the definition (swarupa) of Pāñcālī - rīti, he writes, due to the absence of Oja and Kānti-guṇa, devoid of long compounded words bound with Mādhurya and Saukumarya guṇas is called Pāñcālī rīti. Cf. mādhuryeṇa saukumāryeṇa ca guṅenopapannā pāñcālī nāma rītiḥ/ ojaḥ kāntyabhāvādanatabaṇapada/ vicchāyā c / Kāvyaprakāśa, IX.80,p Sāhityadarpaṇa, IX.3,4 60. Kāvyālaṁkārasūtravṛtti,I. II Ibid., p

14 Rudraṭa considers Pāñcālī-rīti as the one consisting of up to four compounded words. Cf. catvāri nā samāsavanti casyāṁ sā pāñcālī 62 Again, Rājaśekhara considers that the rīti wherein one observes the usage of short compounded as well as a alpaprāṇayukta words and sentences having secondary meaning are called Pāñcālī-rīti. Cf. īṣadasamāsaṁ īṣadanuprāsamupacāraṁ garbhañca jagāda sā pāñcālī rītiḥ/ 63 Viśvanātha considers the rīti having remnant letters of Vaidharvī and Gauḍīya rīti that indicates five or six compounded words as the Pāñcālī rīti. cf. varṇai śeṣaiḥ punardvayoḥ/ samastapañcaṣapado bandhaḥ pāñcālikā matā/ 64 Thus it is clear that almost all the scholars have given their definition of rīti similar with that of Vāmana. C. Guṇa and rīti applied by Viśākhadatta: Viśākhadatta has made a good use of all the three guṇas, viz. Mādhurya, Oja and Prasāda in his magnum opus Mudrārākṣasa. It is a drama having Vīra as its predominant sentiment. Therefore, it is obvious to find Oja-guṇa in abundance in this drama. Yet the inadequacy of other two guṇas can t be felt. The dramatist has applied the Oja-guṇa while delineating Vīrarasa as well as Raudra and Vībhatsa-rasa. The use of letters having Oja-guṇa in the case of Vīra-rasa can be exemplified as follows: āsvāditadviradaśoṇitaśoṇaśobhāṁ sandhyāruṇāmiva kalāṁ śaśalāñchanasya/ jṛmbhāvidāritamukhasya mukhātsphurantiṁ 62. Kāvyaprakāśa, II.5 (vṛtti) 63. Kāvyamīmāṁsā, p Sāhityadarpaṇa, IX

15 ko hartumicchati hareḥ paribhūya draṅṣṭrāṁ// 65 Herein, the terms like āsvāditadviradaśoṇitaśoṇaśobhāṁ, sandhyāruṇām, śaśalāñchanasya etc. are packed with long compounds. Moreover, the use of śa; conjoined letters ra, ṣa and ṭa has made the verse an instance of Oja-guṇa and thus stimulated the Vīrarasa. Likewise, in the following verse with the use of conjoined repha and dva and the letters like śa, ṣa, ṭa etc., which are the properties of oja guṇa, heightened the Vīra rasa of Rākṣasa: prākāraṁ paritaḥ śarāsanadharaiḥ kṣipraṁ parikramyatāṁ dvāreṣu dvuradaiḥ pratidvipaghaṭābhedakṣamaiḥ sthīyatām/ tyaktyvā mṛtyubhayaṁ prahartumanasaḥ śatrorbale durable te niryāntu mayā sahaikamanaso yeṣāmabhīṣṭaṁ yaśaḥ// 66 Again, there is a beautiful speech of Malayaketu, the long compounded words and letters of which are capable of illuminating the vigorous mood of any connoisseur. The verse is as followsuttuṅgāstuṅgakūlaṁ srutamadasalilāḥ prasyandisalilaṁ śyāmāḥ śyāmopakaṅṭadrumamatimukharāḥ kallolamukharam/ srotaḥkhātāvasīdattaṭamurudaśanairutsāditataṭāḥ śoṇaṁ sindūraśoṇā mama gajapatayo pāsyantu śataśaḥ// 67 The richness in long compounds, ample use of śa and the letters of ṭa varga have made this verse a masterpiece having Oja-guṇa. Apart from Vīrarasa, Viśākhadatta has showed his mastery over using the Ojaguṇa while exhibiting Raudra-rasa. 65. Mudrārākṣasa, I Ibid., II Ibid., IV

16 cf. śocayanto vanatairnarādhipabhayād dhikśabdagarbhairmukhairmāmagrāsanato vakṛṣṭamavaśaṁ ye dṛṣṭavantaḥ purā/ te paśyanti tathaiva samprati janā nandaṁ mayā sānvayaṁ siṁheneva gajendramadriśikharāt siṁhāsanāt pātitaṁ// 68 In Mudrārākṣasa, the use of Vībhatsa rasa is very less in number. Viśākhadatta has used this rasa only once. But there also he has employed this rasa with full grace. As mentioned earlier, Vībhats - rasa becomes more appealing where there is the implication of Oja-guṇa, likewise, following the norms, Viśākhadatta rightly implied Oja-guṇa in his only verse containing Vībhatsa-rasa which runs thus: gṛdhrairābaddhacakraṁ viyati vicalitairdīrghaniṣkampapakṣai rdhūmairdhvastārkabhāsāṁ saghanamiva diśāṁ maṇḍalaṁ darśayantaḥ/ nandairānandayantaḥ pitṛvananilayān prāṇinaḥ paśya caitān nirvāntyadyāpi naite snutabahalavasāvāhinā havyavāhāḥ// 69 In this way, the use of Oja-guṇa can be seen in the delineation of Vīra and Raudra rasa in many places all over the drama. Again in some other places Raudra-rasa is rather constructed with Prasāda - guṇa. For instance, a speech of Cāṇakya in the first act there is a verse, where the padas are very clear and easily understandable yet expressing potency of Raudra-rasa: ullaṅghayanmama samujjvalataḥ pratāpaṁ kopasya nandakulakānanadhūmaketoḥ/ sadyaḥ parātmaparimānavivekamūḍhaḥ kaḥ śālabhena vidhinā labhatāṁ vināśaṁ // Ibid., I Ibid., III Ibid., I

17 Prasāda is a guṇa that can cope with all kinds of rasas. In this drama we can also find ample use of Prasāda-guṇa maintaining the pace with Vira, Karuna, Raudra and Śānta rasa. Like that of Vībhatsa, Śṛṅgāra-rasa is used in the drama only once. Herein our dramatist got the chance to use Mādhurya-guṇa. Thus this is the only place in the entire drama where Mādhurya-guṇa is employed. cf. vāmāṁ bāhulatāṁ niveśya śithilaṁ kaṇṭhe vivṛttānanā skandhe dakṣinayā balānnihitayāpyaṅke patantyā muhuḥ/ gāḍhāliṅganasaṅgapīḍitamukhaṁ yasyodyamāśaṅkinī mauryasyorasi nādhunāpi kurute vāmetaraṁ śrīḥ stanaṁ// 71 Here in this verse the repeated use of conjugal letters like ṅka, ṅga, ṇṭha, ndha and short compounded words like gāḍhāliṅganasaṅgapīḍitamukhaṁ etc. indicated towards the employment of Mādhurya guṇa. Viśākhadatta has chosen Gauḍī rīti in the drama and given prime focus on it. All over the drama the adoption of Gauḍī rīti can be seen, as Viśākhadatta laid emphasis on using Oja guṇa. The above cited examples of Oja guṇa, such as, uttuṅgāstuṅgakūlaṁ, śocayanto vanatairnarādhipabhayād etc. are also marvelous instances of Gauḍī style. In the fifth act, the adoption of Vaidarbhī rīti is seen through the speech of Rākṣasa, where in a Svagatokti he appreciates the political intrigues of his enemycf. lekho yaṁ na mameti nottaramidaṁ mudra madīyā yataḥ sauhārdraṁ śakaṭena khaṇḍitamiti śraddheyametat katham? maurye bhūṣaṇavikrayaṁ narapatau ko nāma sambhāvayet? tasmāt sampratipattireva hi varaṁ na grāmyamatrottaram/ Ibid., II Ibid., V

18 Here the letters exhibiting Mādhurya-guṇa are found in plenty. Moreover, the verse is devoid of compounded words. Therefore, this is an instance of Vaidarbhī-rīti for sure. Over and above, in most of the places where Mādhurya-guṇa is employed by the dramatist, are also the examples of Vaidarbhī-rīti in the drama. Again in the third act when Cāṇakya prohibited Candragupta to perform the kaumudīmahotsava uttered a verse where the adoption of Gauḍī-rīti is worth noticeable. The verse runs thusambhodhīnāṁ tamālaprabhavakisalayasyāmavelāvanānāmāpārebhyaścaturṇāṁ caṭulatimikulakṣobhitāntarjalānām/ mālevājñā sapuṣpā tava nṛpatiśatairuhyate yā śirobhiḥ sā mayyeva skhalantī kathayati vinayālaṁkṛtaṁ te prabhutvam// 73 In this instance, the letters denoting Mādhurya-guṇa and Oja-guṇa cannot be found. Rather this verse consists of letters denoting prasāda guṇa. Moreover, in the expressions tamālaprabhavakisalayasyāmavelāvanānām and caṭulatimikulakṣobhitāntarjalānām sets of six compounded words are to be found. Thus this is an excellent example of Pāñcālī-rīti. Besides, Viśākhadatta does not even fail to give importance to Lāṭi-rīti. This rīti has got an opportunity to get associated with this drama due to the skills of our dramatist who used this rīti in describing the perplexity of Rākṣasa in the second act of the play. Rākṣasa while contemplating of the annihilation of Cāṇakya and Candragupta became perplexed with the result that his own intrigues bore and expressed thusvṛṣṇīnāmiva nītivikramaguṇavyāpāraśāntadviṣāṁ nandānāṁ vipule kule karuṇayā nīte niyatyākṣayam/ 73. Ibid., III

19 cintāveśasamākulena manasā rātrindiva jāgrataḥ saiveyaṁ mama citrakarmaracanā bhittiṁ vinā vartate// 74 This verse is a combination of Vīra and Karuṇa-rasa. Besides, it runs in the mid of Vaidarbhī and Pāñcālī. Therefore it is to be assumed as the example of Lāṭirīti. In this way Viśākhadatta has used all the rītis in this drama, and his expertise in adoption of all these rīti is worth praising. D. The entity of vṛtti and its use in Mudrārākṣasa: pravṛttirūpo netṛvyāpārasvabhāvo vṛttiḥ/ 75 The nature of the activities (vyāpāra) of the actors is called as vṛtti. The purport of netṛvyāpārsvabhāvaḥ is nāyakasya vyāpārānukūlaḥ svabhāvaḥ. Normally, the perspective of the performance of the actor is vṛtti. It s the diathesis of the nature of the actor. Here diathesis means: mental, oral and physical efforts. Usually, there are various characteristics of the activities of the actors as they use different languages and costumes for different places. These actors also attach to different form of work. But all the works cannot be included within vṛtti. Therefore, all the performances and the attire (veśavinyāsa) of the actors are not included in the nāṭyavṛtti. On the other hand, only the physical, oral and mental performances are known as the vṛtti of a play. Rājśekhara has mentioned the sequence of vilāsavinyāsa as vṛtti - vilāsavinyāsakramo vṛttiḥ/ Ibid., II Daśarūpaka (vṛtti), II Kāvyamīmāṁsa, III, p

20 The vṛttis have direct relations with the rasas. It is the poets who comprehend the vṛttis with the hearts as the rasas and hence these are also known as the mother of the nāṭyas. Cf. catasrovṛttayo hyetā sarvanāṭyasya mātṛkāḥ/ 77 In Nāṭyaśāstra such vṛttis have been considered as the mother of nāṭyaḥ. 78 The author of Nātyadarpaṇa has acknowledged the prominence of vṛtti as vṛttayo nāṭyamātaraḥ. 79 These vṛttis are classified into the following four types Kaiśikī, Sātvatī, Ārabhaṭī and Bhāratī. The basis for the mutual classification or differences of these vṛttis can be enumerated as follows: the Sātvatī-vṛtti is especially the mental activities whereas Bhāratī is basically oral performances and the rest i.e. Kaiśikī and Ārabhaṭī are the forms of physical activities. However, the difference of mental, oral and physical activities are not possible, because, though it be physical or oral, the both forms of endeavours are ultimately based on the mental endeavours. Based on this, therefore, the aforesaid classification of vṛttis seems to be inappropriate. However, based on the importance of any of the action, the classification of vṛtti invariably gets manifested just as in the Sāṁkhya philosophy though all the three guṇas of satva, rajas and tamas remain present in every object, yet the object with the importance of satva guṇa is called sātvika, rajas guṇa as rājasa and tamo guṇa as tāmasa. This is why the oral prominent activity is Bhāratī, mental prominent activity is Sātvatī and physical prominent activity is Kaiśikī and Ārabhaṭī vṛttis respectively. 80 Again, rasa and abhinaya are also considered as the differentiator (bhedaka) of vṛttis. Abhinavagupta has clearly mentioned the areas or fields of prominence of these vṛttis. 77. Sāhityadarpaṇa, VI Nāṭyaśāstra, XVIII Nāṭyadarpaṇa, III Nāṭyaśāstra, XX

21 According to him, in Bhāratī, reading (pāṭhya) is prominent, acting is prominent in Sātvatī, in Ārabhaṭī the rasas along with the anubhāvas are placed at the foremost, and in Kaiśikī songs, instruments, music etc. find prominence. 81 In a nāṭya all the actions are attached with the rasa, bhāva and abhinaya. Therefore, these vṛttis also follows the rasa, bhāva and abhinaya. In Śṛṅgārarasa there is Kaiśikī, in Vīrarasa Sātvatī, Raudra and Bībhatsa in Ārabhaṭī and in every other rasa one finds the Bhāratī-vṛtti. Cf. śṛṅgāre kaiśikī vīre sātvatyārabhaṭī punaḥ/ rase raudre ca bībhatse vṛttiḥ sarvatra bhāratī// 82 Herein, Hāsyarasa from Śṛṅgāra, Adbhuta from Vīra, Karuṇa from Raudra and Bhayaānaka from Vībhatsa-rasa are also accepted. Following Nāṭyaśāstra (20.25), Śiṅgabhupāla has established the relationship of the four Vedas with the four vṛttis in the following manner - Ṛgveda with Bhāratī, Yayurveda with Sātvatī-vṛtti, Sāmaveda with Kaiśikī and Artharveda with Ārabhaṭī. Cf.. ṛgvedācca yajurvedāt sāmavedādatharvaṇaḥ/ bhāratādyā kramājjātā ityanye tu pracakṣate// 83 i. Kaiśikī-vṛtti: The mode of conduct, which is associated with delightful vivacity and full of charming expression of love by means of songs and dance with a good numbers of females and in which dealings and attitudes proceed from the enjoyment 81. (a) na ca rasopayogilālityabhāgaśūnyaḥ ko pi nāṭye parispande ityanyonyaṁ saṁvalitā vṛttayaḥ kevalaṁ kvacitkiñcidadhikamiti prādhānyena vyapadeśaḥ kriyate/ Nāṭyaśāstra (Abhinavabhāratī), XX.25 (b) pāṭhyapradhānā bhāratī, abhinayapradhānā sātvatī anubhāvādyāveśamayarasapradhānārabhaṭī,gītavādyoparañjakapradhānā kaiśikīti// Ibid 82. Daśarūpaka, II Rasavarṇa Sudhākara, p

22 of leisure and which presents lively dalliances, is called Kaiśikī-vṛtti. It has four parts, namely (1) Narma (2) Narmasphurja (3) Narmasphota and (4) Narmagarbha. Though in Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa, all the four vṛttis should be assimilated but due to the non-presentation of Śṛṅgāra rasa in Mudrārākṣasa of Viśākhadatta this Kaiśikī-vṛtti is absent. In this Vīra-rasa dominant drama, the political intrigues of the characters provides no room for exhibiting the softer feelings of mankind. Therefore, Mudrārākṣasa seems to be a deviation or an exception from the general principles of dramaturgy which advocates the usage of all the vṛttis. Abhinavagupta has clearly mentioned this fact as tatra nāṭakaprakaraṇe sarvavṛttipurṇa iti niyamaḥ, na tu viparyayaḥ mudrārākṣasasya kaiśikīhīnasya kṛtyārāvanasya ca darṣanātat/ 84 In fact, in Mudrārākṣasa there is no special avenue for the employment of Śṛṅgāra-rasa. Only in the third Act where Candragupta presents a beautiful depiction of the autumn season one finds a brief existence of the Śṛṅgāra-rasa and Kaiśikī-vṛtti. ii. Sātvatī-vṛtti The vṛtti almost devoid of Śṛṅgāra and śoka, predominantly abound with vigour, strength, charity and simplicity having astonishing characteristics, is called Sātvatī. It has four types, namely (1) Utthāpaka (2) Sāṅghātya (3) Saṁlāpa and (4) Parivartakaa. 85 Where one character instigates another character for a war or battle then there is Utthāpaka variety of Sātvatī-vṛtti. 86 This division of Sātvatī-vṛtti is also absent in Mudrārākṣasa. This is so because in this drama the rival has been vanquished through 84. Nāṭyaśāstra (abhinavabharati), p sātvatī bahulā satvaśauryatyāgadayārjavaiḥ saharṣā kṣudraśṛṅgārā viśokā sādbhutā tathā/ utthāpako tha sāṅghātyaḥ saṁlāpaḥ parivartakaḥ/ viśeṣā iti catvāraḥ sātvatyāḥ parikīrtitāḥ/ Sāhityadarpaṇa, VI uttejanakarī śatrorvāgutthāpaka ucyate//sāhityadarpaṇa, VI

23 political maneuverings rather than a direct confrontation or war between the rivals thus negating the employment of Utthāpaka form of Sātvatī-vṛtti. Wherein one finds the serious dialogue mixed with various bhāvas and rasas therein lay the Saṁlāpa. 87 In this drama of Mudrārākṣasa the dramatist has once again refrained from the presentation of this variety too. In this drama, in the seventh Act the dramatist has employed the Parivartaka through the act of Rākṣasa who has relinquished the path of war and accepted the ministry in the empire of Candragupta to save the life of his dearest friend Candanadāsa. This is because this very behaviour of giving up of one task for another is called the Parivartaka varity of Sātvatī-vṛtti. 88 Wherein there is the attempt for breaking up of a league through the application of diplomacy, bribe or luck and the like etc. therein the presence of Sāṅghātya variety of Sātvatī vṛtti can be found. 89 In Mudrārākṣasa this can be found in application. Cāṇakya through the application of diplomacy (mantraśakti) has created difference amongst the followers and associates of Rākṣasa. Cāṇakya through his political intrigues has turned the once associate of Rākṣasa, Malayaketu and others into his (Rākṣasa) foes and succeeds in his ambition of compelling Rākṣasa into taking up the ministry in the kingdom of Candragupta., Dhanika, the commentator of Daśarūpaka has used this very example to elaborate the use of Sāṅghātya limb of Sātvatī vṛtti from the drama of Mudrārākṣasa. Cf..mantraśakatyā yathā mudrārākṣase rākṣasasahāyādīnāṁ cāṇakyana svabuddhyā vedanam/ saṁlāpaḥ syād gabhīroktirnānābhāvasamāśrayaḥ/ Ibid.,VI prārabdhādanyakāryāṇāṁ kāraṇaṁ parivartakaḥ/ Ibid., VI mantrārthadaivaśaktyādeḥ sāṅghātyaḥ saṅghabhedanaṁ/ Ibid., VI Daśarūpaka, vṛtti under II

24 In Mudrārākṣasa the example of using wealth (arthaśakti) to infuse mutual differences amongst the rivals can also be found. Cāṇakya has succeeded in infusing differences between his rivals Rākṣasa and his associate Malayaketu and others by maneuvering the course that led the ornaments of the Parvataka into the hands of Rākṣasa. Clarifying this incident Dhanika has written arthaśaktyā tattraiva yathā parvatakābharaṇasya rākṣasahastagamanena malayaketusahotthāyivedanaṁ/ 91 iii. Ārabhaṭī-vṛtti: According to Sāhityadarpaṇa, Ārabhaṭī-vṛtti is the fiery one replete with feats such as magic, jugglery, battles, anger, aimless movements and the like which abound with killing and capturing etc. It has again four sub-divisions, namely, (1) Vastūtthāpana (2) Saṁpheta (3) Saṁkṣipti and (4) Avapātana. 92 In Mudrārākṣasa however there s again no room for the employment of Vastūtthāpana. This variety is considered when the presentation of an object is made through the application of magic or jugglery. 93 But in this drama, our dramatist did not attempt to make any use of magic or jugglery. Saṁpheṭa can be defined as the mutual striking of two excited characters in quick succession. 94 In Mudrārākṣasa however there s no room for such a situation. However, in the first act of the play, the existence of infuriated speeches and counter speeches by Cāṇakya and Candanadāsa can be found. Saṁkṣipti has been described by Viśvanātha as, manufacturing of something or creation of something through art or any other way. It also occurs in the acceptance 91. Ibid. 92. māyendrajālasaṁgrāmakrodhodbhrāntādiceṣṭitaiḥ/ saṁyuktā vadhabandhādyairuddhatārabhaṭī matā/ vastutthāpanasaṁpheṭau saṁkṣiptiravapātanaṁ/ iti bhedāstu catvāra ārabhaṭyāḥ prakīrtitāḥ/ Sahityadarpana, VI, māyādyutthāpitaṁ vastu vastutthāpanamucyate/ Sahityadarpaṇa, VI saṁpheṭastu samāghātaḥ kruddhasatvarayordhvayoḥ/ Ibid, VI

25 of a dramatic character in place of one disappearing forever. 95 In Mudrārākṣasa the retirement of Rākṣasa from a state of war-prone to a state of patience accepting ministry shunning the path of war is a perfect example of this. Avapātana is a state of Pandemonium due to rush, fear, excitation, joy and flying away. In the play of Mudrārākṣasa this state is observed in the introductory verse when Naṭī and the Sūtradhāra were seemingly terrified by the entry of Cāṇakya. All the three vṛttis of Kaiśikī, Sātvatī and Ārabhaṭī are arthavṛttis. Though the followers of the Udbhaṭa community considers Arthavṛtti as a fifth form of vṛtti, but Dhanika differs from considering this as vṛtti because apart from Kaiśikī etc. no vṛtti by the name of arthavṛtti appears in the rūpaka and the depiction of all the rasas in the rūpaka comes within the purview of these four vṛttis. Thus, as per the explanation of Dhanika there is no place for any fifth vṛtti. 96 iv. Bhārtī -vṛtti: Often in Sanskrit language the oral style adopted by the actors of the play is called the Bhāratī vṛtti bhāratī saṁskṛtaprāya vāgvyāpāra naṭāśraya 97 It is clear from this definition that oral style of the actresses i.e. women characters are not included in the Bhāratī-vṛtti because in the Sanskrit dramas the most of the women characters uses Prākṛta language rather than the Sanskrit. The physical and mental styles are also not a part of this vṛtti. This is applicable to cultured male characters only and here oral style is prominent. Viśvanātha states that the sthāpaka after having pleased the audience with sweet verses relating to the subject matter of the play should announce the name of the play together with the name, the family name etc. of the dramatist and should describe very often a particular season with the 95. saṁkṣiptivasturacanā śilpairitarathāpi vā/ saṁkṣiptiḥ syānnivṛttau ca neturnetrantaragrahaḥ/ Ibid., VI Daśarūpaka and Avaloka, II Sāhityadarpaṇa, VI.19 and Daśarūpaka, III

26 help of the Bhāratī-vṛtti. 98 Bhāratī-vṛtti is of four types: Prarocanā, Vīthī, Prahasana and Āmukha. 99 In Mudrārākṣasa the use of Bhāratī-vṛtti has been made through the Prarocnā and Āmukha. A Prarocanā is the inviting attention of the audience to the play by way of praising the plot and other connected parts of the play. 100 Here, in this play, adya tvayā sāmantavaṭeśvaradattapautrasya mahārājapadabhākpṛthasunoḥ kaverviśākhādattasya kṛtirbhinavaṁ mudrārākṣasaṁ nāma nāṭakaṁ nāṭayitavyamiti, 101 in this part the Prarocanā aṅga of the Bhāratī-vṛtti has been presented. The actor has praised the dramatist as sāmantavaṭeśvaradattapautrasya and mahārājapadabhākpṛthasunoḥ signifying the origin of the dramatist of a high class. Again through the words kāvyaviśeṣavedinyāṁ 102 and satkṣetrpatitā 103 the kāvya and the audience have been praised. By denigrating own self as bāliśasyāpi, the naṭa has demonstrated his humility. Therefore, through this we can say that this part of the drama is a perfect example of Prarocanā. Āmukha or Prastāvanā (prologue) is that in which the naṭī (the main actress consort of the Sūtradhāra) or Viduṣaka or an attendant holds a conversation with the Sūtradhāra with interesting words which arise out of their own function and the points to the subjects matter which is to come next. Viśvanātha in the line of Bharata clearly states that Prastāvanā is called Āmukha. 98. Sāhityadarpaṇa, VI Ibid., VI aṅgānyatronmukhīkāraḥ praśaṁsātaḥ prarocanā/ Ibid 101. Mudrārākṣasa, p Ibid Ibid., p

27 Cf. naṭī vidūṣako vāpi pāripārśvika eva vā/ sutradhāreṇa sahitaḥ saṁlāpaṁ yatra kuryate// citrairvākyaiḥ svakāryotthaiḥ prastutākṣepībhirmithaḥ// āmukhaṁ tattu vijñeyaṁ nāmnā prastāvanāpi sā// 104 In Mudrārākṣasa at the beginning of the first act tadyāvadidānīṁ gṛhaṁ gatvā gṛhinīmāhūya gṛhajanena saha saṅgitakamanutiṣṭhāmi etc. are examples of Āmukha. In this drama the Sūtradhāra while conversing with his actress wife depicts the real subject of the drama. In this way it is seen that the dramatist has used almost all the vṛttis in his Mudrārākṣasa. This is a Vīra-rasa dominant drama, therefore, the Sātvatī has found more application whereas the usage of Śṛṅgāra -rasa and Kaiśikī -vṛtti have been next to nil. Bhāratī is the function of the speech therefore its application is obvious. Again Ārbhatī has also found its place in the play Mudrārākṣasa, as they are connected with Raudra and Vībhatsa- rasa. E. Pravṛtti: The traditions of the language, attire and activity etc. of the character, according to time and place is called pravṛtti. cf. deśabhāṣākriyāveṣalakṣaṇāḥ syuḥ pravṛttayaḥ/ lokādevāvagamyaitā yathaucityaṁ prayojayet// 105 Prabvṛtti, like vṛtti, is also a technical word, and like vṛtti this isalso connected to the activities of the actor. With the difference in the tradition of the land, the Nāyaka s character also differs in attire, language etc. and this very characteristic of a drama is the pravṛtti Sāhityadarpaṇa, VI Daśarūpaka, II

28 The difference between vṛtti and pravṛtti can also be clarified through the example that to make fun with words is an oral activity. It is included within Kaiśikīvṛtti whereas the decision as to which character will make fun in which language based on place, time and status will fall under pravṛtti. While clarifying the nature of pravṛtti, Bharatamuni in his Nāṭyaśāstra has stated - pravṛttiriti kasmāt? ucyate, prithivyāṁ nānādeśaveśabhāṣācāravārtāḥ khyāpayatīti 106 This means that the activity that reveals the attire, language, agriculture and nature in the various diverse lands of the universe is pravṛtti. A person from a particularly special country belonging to a particular category (varga) will behave similarly in dressing, speaking etc. with others of that category. In this form pravṛtti can be considered as the behaviour of the entire category of that country. A composer acquires the knowledge of various language, attire etc. by coming in contact with the domain and essays his composition in that form. Dhanañjaya has provided a detailed discussion of language related to pravṛtti. According to it one who is not of a lower status, therefore is a cultured person belonging to either higher or middle class, his language is Sanskrit. The language of the women with self-control also is Sanskrit. In some cases, the language of queens, daughters of ministers and prostitutes may also be Sanskrit. Cf.. pāṭhyaṁ tu saṁskṛtaṁ nṛṇāmanīcānāṁ kṛtātmanām/ liṅginīnāṁ mahādevyā mantrijāveśyayoḥ kvacit// 107 In this definition of Dhanañjaya whether the word kṛtātmānāṁ has been used as adjective or independently needs consideration. If it is considered as independent then its intent will be that the one who is kṛtātmā, his language will be Sanskrit. On 106. Nāṭyaśāstra, XIII.38 (prose) 107. Daśarūpaka, II

29 the other hand if it is accepted as an adjective it can be considered as the adjective of nṛnāṁ or liṅginīnāṁ. The intent of kṛtātmanāṁ liṅginīnāṁ is that the language of a lower class person with self-control (kṛtātmā) and is cultured, is Sanskrit. Sanskrit is not the language of one who is mad, ill-starred (grahagrasta) and poverty stricken. It is considered as the adjective of liṅginīnāṁ also. Its intent then becomes that the language of those women who are self-controlled or sanyāsīnis is Sanskrit. But women who are a beholder of chadmaveśa cannot have their language as Sanskrit. In addition to Sanskrit, Dhanañjaya has also given a detailed account of which language is to be used among the Prākṛta languages in dramas. Cf. strīṇāṁ tu Prākṛta ṁ prāyaḥ śaurasenyadhameṣu ca/ piśācātyantanīcādau paiśācaṁ māgadhaṁ tathā// yaddeśaṁ nīcapātraṁ yattaddeśaṁ tasya bhāṣitaṁ/ kāryataścottamādīnāṁ kāryo bhāṣāvyatikramaḥ// 108 This means that the language of womenfolk is Prākṛta whereas those male characters who belong to the lower class their language is Śaurasenī. Those characters who are either Piśāca or those with extremely low personality belong respectively to Paiśācī and Māgadhī Prākṛta. The low characters speak the language of their respective lands. However, only in some cases like due to the nature of his job or duty, the characters of high class speak language which is an exception or deviation from his own. In Mudrārākṣasa the language that has been used are Sanskrit and Mahārāṣṭrī along with Śaurasenī. In the drama the language of the characters belonging to the higher class like Rākṣasa, Cāṇakya, Candragupta, Malayaketu, Sūtradhāra etc is Sanskrit. In Mudrārākṣasa examples of changes in language can also be found due to 108. Ibid., II

30 attire (veśa vinyāsa). Rākṣasa s spy Virādhagupta in order to get the news of Kusumpura put on the attire of Ahituṇḍika. He has, in his soliloquy and when communicating with his master Rākṣasa, used Sanskrit as his language. But while communicating with general public (loka) he used Prākṛta language. The other characters of the drama also use Prākṛta language only. Even Nipunaka, the spy of Cāṇakya, who disguises as the exhibitor of the Yampaṭa to acquire information has to converse in Prākṛta. He however maintains his Prākṛta with his master too. This is perhaps to constantly maintain his disguised form much in contrast to the spy of Rākṣasa who rather prefers to express his origin by speaking Sanskrit. Therefore, Mudrārākṣasa seems to be a deviation or an exception from the general principles of dramaturgy in the usage of language. Chandasnadāsa is a kṛtātmā, a person of highest quality. But against the principles of dramaturgy Chandasnadāsa did not use Sanskrit as his language rather he used Prākṛta. Again in this drama the womenfolk and the other lower class characters use either Mahārāṣṭrī or Śaurasenī Prākṛta. However, the dramatist has used Mahārāṣṭrī in the poems whereas in the prose he used Śaurasenī Prākṛta. Chaṇḍāla is an extremely low-class character and in his speeches one finds Māgadhī Prākṛta. The following verses of Mudrārākṣasa are the examples of the application of the Mahārāṣṭrī Prākṛta in the drama cf. paṇamaha jamassa calaṇe kiṁ kajjaṁ devaehi aṇṇehiṁ/ eso khu aṇṇabhattāṇaṁ harai jīaṁ caḍaphaḍantaṁ// I.17 kamalāṇaṁ maṇaharāṇaṁ vi rūāhiṁto visambadai sīlaṁ/ sampuṇṇamaṇḍalammi vi jāiṁ cande viruddhāiṁ// I

31 Similarly, we can cite the following example from the first act as the application of the Śaurasenī Prākṛta in the drama suṇādu ajja/ paḍhamaṁ dāva ajjassa ripupakkhe baddhapakkhavādo khavanāoi. 109 The dramatist has given an exemplary evidence of the combined use of Śaurasenī and Mahārāṣṭrī Prākṛta in the following verse- Cf. purisassa jīvidavvaṁ visamādo hoi bhattigahiādo/ mārei sabbaloaṁ jo teṇa jameṇa jīāmo// 110 We can find the evidence of Śaurasenī as well as Mahārāṣṭrī in this verse through the use of da in lieu of ta as this is found only in case of Śaurasenī. In jīvidavvaṁ visamādo etc. instead of using ta the da has been used. In the 7 th act of the play Mudrārākṣasa, through the speeches of the extremely low-class character Chaṇḍāla one finds the use of Māgadhī as follows ajja chandasṇadāsa ṇikhāde śule tā sajjo hohi// 111 Here in this example, in śule the use of tālavya śa is found. Moreover, for prathamā eka vacana the dramatist has not used the o but e instead. Therefore, in Mudrārākṣasa based on the class of the characters, the dramatist has made use of language variations. In the purview of pravṛtti, one also finds the importance of the mode of address based on the class of the character. The mode of address for one character to another character is clearly stated by Dhanañjaya in his Daśarūpaka cf. bhagavanto varairvācyā vidvaddevarṣiliṅginaḥ/ viprāmātyāgrajāścāryā naṭīsūtrabhṛtau mithaḥ// rathī sūtena cāyuṣmān pūjyaiḥ śiṣyātmajānujāḥ/ 109. Mudrārākṣasa, p Mudrārākṣasa, I Ibid., VII.p

32 vatseti tātaḥ pūjyo pi sugṛhītābhidhastu taiḥ// bhāvo nugena sūtrī ca mārṣetyetena so pi ca/ devaḥ svāmīti nṛpatirbhṛtyairbhaṭṭeti cādhamaiḥ// 112 It means top-class character vidvāna (erudite), deva (god), ṛṣi (sage), sanyāsī (wandering mandicent) etc. are addressed as bhagavan, whereas brāhmana, amātya (minister) and elder brother as ārya. Similarly, the naṭī and sūtradhāra mutually address each other as ārya. Other examples of such befitting honorary addresses are the one like āyuṣman used by the charioteer for its master whereas addresses signifying love like vatsa are used by teachers or elders for his pupils, sons and younger brothers. While the Youngers addresse the elders or respected ones as tāta or sugṛhitanāma, the pāripārśvika addresses sūtradhāra as bhāva, sūtradhāra addresses the pāripārśvika back as mārṣa. Similarly, sevaka (attendents) refers their master i.e. the kings as deva or swāmī, while characters lower in class are addressed as bhaṭṭa. In the drama, different addresses apt with their respective characters of different class have been included beautifully by the dramatist. In Mudrārākṣasa, Candragupta, Cara, Siddhārthaka, Pratīhārī etc. for Cāṇakya, Malayaketu etc. for Rākṣasa, naṭī (actors) for Sūtradhāra and Sūtradhāra for naṭī, Rākṣasa for Kañcukī, Priyamvadaka for Ahituṇḍika, Kuṭumbinī for Candanadāsa and Candanadāsa for Kuṭumbinī uses the address ārya. In the same fashion, Cāṇakya addresses his disciple as vatsa, and son of Candandāsa uses to address Candandāsa as tāta. The dramatist has been very adept in judiciously choosing the correct addresses befitting the relationship between the characters and their classes. A very interesting address used here is vṛṣala, denoting love and 112. Daśarūpaka, II