Mudrarakshasa (literary study)
by Antara Chakravarty | 2015 | 58,556 words
This page relates ‘Conclusion� of the English study on the Mudrarakshasa: an ancient Sanskrit dramatic play (Nataka) authored by Vishakhadatta which deals with the life of king Chandragupta. This study investigates the Mudra Rakshasa from a literary perspective, such as metrics, themes, rhetorics and other poetical elements. Chandragupta ruled the Mauryan Empire during the 4th century BCE, hence this text can also be studied as a historical textbook of ancient India.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
4. Conclusion
It is difficult to determine the exact number of ṃk used in the ѳܻṣa, as scholars are of varied opinion regarding the employment of ṃk in many verses of the very drama. As for example, the first verse (Ի徱 verse), wherein scholars are of various opinion whether it is a ղǰپ or Vakrokti. վśٳ supports where in a verse there remains more than one ṃk mixed up with one another than there may occur Saṃsṛṣṭi or ṅk-ṃk.[1] Rhetoricians are of opinion that these types of ṃk are like those ornaments, created by amalgamation of two popular ornaments, increase the beauty of the person worn, even double. Thus following this, վś岹ٳٲ also has used a vast number of such amalgamated ṃk in most of the verses and the first verse also is an example of such amalgamation.
Moreover, վś岹ٳٲ not merely used the ṃk just for the sake of decoration of the art piece; he knows the proper timing of the implication in the proper place. As for example if we again take the Ի徱 verse, the use of ṃk like Vakrokti can be seen. This, not only helps to make the speech of Ś a tricky one, but also indicates the trickery of ṇaⲹ in whole of the drama. In this drama extensive use of 屹ⲹṅg-ṃk by the dramatist in his writings leads to the inference of author’s predilection for the same. On the other hand, վś岹ٳٲ has used Śleṣālaṃkāra in only a few places. To unravel the real meaning hidden in the Śleṣālaṃkāra is the job of the scholarly minds, and according to the dramaturgy, as the drama is meant for the common people; hence the dramatist generally refrains from using such ṃk in his work. Apart from these, ٱṣ� symbolizes the imaginative powers of a writer. In the drama ѳܻṣa the dramatist վś岹ٳٲ’s ample usage of this ٱṣ�-ṃk stands testimony to the strong imaginative powers of the dramatist.
Ѳṭa has said in his 屹ⲹś that ṃk are like those ornaments which enhance the beauty of a body part and thus enhancing the beauty of the whole body.[2] Like that, the ṃk that has been used by վś岹ٳٲ have enhanced the beauty of the verses leading to the enhancement of the beauty of the drama. Now, from the above discussion we can come to the conclusion that վś岹ٳٲ has shown his expertise in the employment of ṃk in the ѳܻṣa. He has touched almost every type of ṃk. Yet, the use of Yamaka and ʳܲԲܰٲ types of Śṃk, and, the Śṛnkhalāmulakālaṃkāra type of Arthālamkaras are hardly been observed in this dramatic composition. This fact supports that վś岹ٳٲ has used those ṃk that are worth to be used in a particular situation and avoided the extensive use of the same. As rhetoricians like Kuntaka has observed that too much use of ṃk also can make a piece of work unpleasant. Alaṃkāras should be used only there, where it is necessary.[3]
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
yadyeta evālaṃkārā� parasparavimiśritā�/ ٲ pṛthagṃku saṃsṛṣṭi� saṃkarastathā// sahityadarpana, X.97