Date of the Mudra-Raksasa
Summary
The debate centers on dating the Sanskrit drama *Mudraraksasa*, traditionally attributed to the Gupta period (6th century CE) rather than the 9th century. Dr. Jacobi (1883) proposed 860 CE, citing a lunar eclipse on 2 December 860, but this conflicts with the play’s timeline. The final verse mentions a king named Dantivarman, Avantivarman, or Rantivarman, with three historical figures matching these names: two Rashtrakutas (600–754 CE) and a Pallava (775–830 CE). However, the author’s familiarity with Pataliputra’s topography and references to Mlecchas (barbarians) suggest a northern Indian origin, making a southern Pallava king unlikely. The eclipse in the play occurs during Kartika Purnima, not the 11th day of Margashirsha (as Jacobi claimed). No eclipse was recorded on 2 December 860, and the drama’s timeline (concluding by Kartika Purnima) allows only a 3–4 day delay, not two months. The last verse, possibly spoken by Candragupta, implies the king was a contemporary of the playwright. Topographical details and references to the Ganges’ destruction of Pataliputra (recorded in Jaina texts as 472 CE) align with the Gupta period. The Gupta lineage is likened to gods in the text, and coins of Candragupta Vikramaditya (c. 4th–5th century CE) include titles like *Avikrama* and *Devarija*. The Sakas mentioned likely refer
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This analysis challenges Jacobi's 860 A.D. dating of the Mudrarakshasa, proposing instead a Gupta-period origin (c. 6th century). By examining the play's astronomical references, topographical details of Pataliputra, and the use of regional dialects, the study argues for an author deeply familiar with northern India, particularly the Magadha region. The eclipse described aligns more plausibly with Kartika month timelines (c. 550-600 A.D.) than Jacobi's disputed 860 date, supported by seasonal markers like the Koumudi festival and Kojagart observance. The text's geopolitical context—referencing Mleccha territories and regional kingdoms—further corroborates a pre-9th century setting. This re-dating underscores the play's historical significance as a reflection of Gupta-era political intrigue and cultural dynamics.