Devi-Chandraguptam (IAST: Devīcandraguptam) orDevi-Chandragupta is an IndianSanskrit-language political drama attributed to Vishakhadeva, who is generally identified withVishakhadatta. The complete text of the play is nowlost, but its portions survive in form of quotations in the later works. The plot also survives in form of aPersian language story, which appears to be an adaptation of the play, and is included in the 11th century textMajmal-ut-Tawarikh.
In the play, kingRamagupta decides to surrender his queenDhruvadevi ("Devi") to aShaka enemy when besieged. Ramagupta's younger brotherChandragupta enters the enemy camp disguised as the queen, and kills the enemy ruler. The rest of the story is not clear from the surviving passages, but based on other historical evidence, it appears that in the last part of the play, Chandragupta dethrones Ramagupta and marries Dhruvadevi.
The historicity of the play's narrative is disputed: some modern historians theorize that it is based on historical events, as several later sources refer to the events mentioned in the play. Other scholars argue that there these later sources may be based on the play itself, and no independent evidence corroborates its historicity.
The play is attributed to Vishakhadeva, whom modern scholars generally identify withVishakhadatta, the author of the Sanskrit playMudra-rakshasa.[1][2] His period is not certain but he probably flourished in or after the 6th century CE. Some scholars such asA. S. Altekar,K. P. Jayaswal andSten Konow theorized that Vishakhadatta was a contemporary of Chandragupta II, and lived in late 4th century to early 5th century. But this view has been challenged by other scholars, includingMoriz Winternitz andR. C. Majumdar.[3]
Based on the surviving fragments, the play appears to have opened in the Gupta military camp. King Ramagupta has been defeated by an unnamedShaka ruler, and his camp has been besieged by the enemy. The enemy has offered him peace if he surrenders his queen Dhruvadevi, and Ramagupta has reluctantly agreed to these terms after pressure from his ministers.[4]
In Act I, Ramagupta's younger brother Chandragupta tries to find an alternative to these dishonourable terms. He thinks of raising avetala (a mythical vampire-like creature), presumably to magically use it against the enemy. While he discusses this topic with the jester (vidushaka) Atreya, a maid arrives with the queen's robe. The maid is taking the robe to Madhavasena, a courtesan and a common friend of Chandragupta and the queen (presumably as a parting gift from the queen, before she is sent to the enemy camp). The maid asks Chandragupta where Madhavasena is, and goes away to find her. Chandragupta gets the idea of going to the enemy camp disguised as the queen, and killing the Shaka ruler. He goes off the stage to disguise himself as a woman. Later, as Chandragupta is about to depart for the enemy camp, Atreya is concerned about him going alone among the enemies.[4] Chandragupta declares that a single lion forces many deer to run away: a hero doesn't care about being outnumbered.[5]
In Act II, Ramagupta tries to dissuade Chandragupta from going to the enemy camp, stating that he would rather lose the queen than his brother.[6] The king says, "Abide by my words, I dare not abandon you for my love for you is too strong. I have decided to give away the queen like a straw." The queen, who overhears the conversation from a distance, thinks that her husband is talking to another woman, and misunderstands the conversation to believe that her husband is abandoning her for another woman.[7] She becomes angry with the king, which apparently forebodes evil for the king, although the exact sequel is not clear from the surviving fragments.[6]
In Act III, it is reported that Chandragupta has killed the Shaka king. In either Act III or Act IV (not clear from the surviving extracts), he observes Dhruvadevi's feelings: she no longer loves the king Ramagupta, and is "full of shame, anger, despair, fear and discontent".[6]
In Act IV, Chandragupta and Madhavasena share an intimate moment. He tells her that his heart is already "bound by her qualities", and asks her to bind him "with her arms, necklace and girdle". Perhaps, in the preceding scene (which is not part of the surviving fragments), she warns him that he is in danger of being literally bound, presumably as a result of a plot against him or on the orders of his brother Ramagupta.[6]
In Act V, the last act from which any quotations survive, Chandragupta is in some kind of danger.[6] To protect himself, he feigns madness on his way to the court (apparently that of king Ramagupta).[8] He tries to conceal the development of his love for someone (not clear who), and is slightly afraid of his rival (again, not clear who). This scene is accompanied by twoPrakrit-language songs in theArya metre. The first song describes the moonrise, portraying Chandragupta as the moon ("Chandra" in Sanskrit) who has destroyed the darkness.[9]
It is not clear from the surviving fragments who Chandragupta's rival in the last act is. But modern scholars theorize that the rival is his brother Ramagupta,[9] and the person he tries to conceal his love for is Dhruva-devi.[10] The rest of the plot may be reconstructed as follows: Ramagupta's public image suffers as a result of his decision to surrender his wife to an enemy, while Chandragupta is regarded as a hero by the subjects. Ramagupta grows jealous of his brother, and tries to persecute him. Chandragupta feigns madness to escape his brother's enmity, but ultimately kills him, becomes the new king, and marries Dhruva-devi (seeHistoricity below).[10]
The original text of the play is nowlost, but its extracts survive as quotations in the later works.[7] Thirteen passages from the play have been quoted in four different works ondramaturgy.[11] Some sources also refer to it without quoting passages from it.[12]
Six quotations from the play can be found inNatya-darpana, a work ondramaturgy authored by the Jain scholars Ramachandra and Gunachandra:[13]
Three passages from the play appear inBhoja'sShringara-Prakasha andSarasvati-kanthabharana.[14]
Abul Hasan Ali'sMajmal-ut-Tawarikh (1026 CE / 417AH) is thePersian language translation of anArabic language book.[17] The Arabic work itself is a translation of an unspecifiedSanskrit ("Hindwani") work. The text includes a story which appears to be based on the plot ofDevichandraguptam.[18] The story is about two royal brothers, Rawwal and Barkamaris: Rawwal succeeds their father as the king, and takes a princess who is attracted to Barkarmaris. When an enemy king besieges Rawwal's fort and demands him to surrender the princess, Barkarmis and his soldiers enter the enemy camp disguised as women, and kill the enemy king and nobles. Rawwal'swazir Safar instigates him against Barkamaris, forcing Barkamaris to feign insanity and become a mendicant. Later, Barkarmis kills Rawwal, takes back the princess, and becomes the king. The character Rawwal seems to be based onRamagupta, and Barkamaris seems to be based onChandragupta II alias Vikramaditya.[19]
After the death of king Ayand, his son Rasal succeeded him on the throne. Sometime later, a rebel usurped the throne, and expelled Rasal from the kingdom. Rasal migrated southwards, and established his authority there. He had two sons: Rawwal, who became the king after his death, and Barkamaris, who was very handsome and wise.[17]
A princess, who was famous for intelligence, was sought by all theHindu kings and princes, but she was attracted only to Barkamaris. When Barkamaris brought her home, Rawwal took her and herhandmaids instead. Barkamaris believed that the princess had chosen him for his wisdom, and therefore, decided that there was nothing better than pursuing wisdom. Over time, he became exceptionally wise by devoting himself to studies and interacting with the learned people.[17]
Meanwhile, the rebel who had expelled Rasal heard about the princess, and invaded Rawwal's territory. Rawwal fled to a strong hill fortress, accompanied by his brothers and nobles, but the enemy besieged the fort. Facing a certain defeat, Rawwal decided to negotiate a peace treaty. The enemy demanded the princess as well as one girl from each of Rawwal's chiefs, stating that he would give these girls to his own officers. Rawwal's blindwazir (chief advisor) Safar advised him to surrender the women, and live to fight the enemy another day. Rawwal agreed to the suggestion, but then Barkamaris arrived, and requested to be allowed to propose an alternative.[17]
After being informed of all the facts, Barkarmis proposed that he and sons of Rawwal's chiefs enter the enemy camp disguised as women.[20] Each youth would carry a concealed knife and trumpet. When the enemy king retires with Barkamaris (disguised as the princess), Barkamaris would kill him and sound the trumpet: on hearing this, the other youths would similarly kill the enemy chiefs, and blow their trumpets. On hearing these trumpets, Rawwal would attack the rival camp with his army, and exterminate the enemy forces.[21]
Rawwal agreed to the proposal, and the enemy was decisively defeated. As a result of this victory, Rawwal's power greatly increased. However, subsequently, the wazir Safar aroused the king's suspicions against Barkamaris, who feigned madness to escape the king's wrath.[21]
One hot day, Barkamaris — now disguised as a mendicant — came to the gate of Rawwal's palace, while wandering in the city. The palace was unguarded that day, and Barkamaris managed to enter it unopposed. He found Rawwal and the princess sitting on a throne, and sucking asugarcane. Rawwal offered a sugarcane to the mendicant, who took it and started scraping it with a shell of the cane. When Rawwal saw this, he asked the princess to give the mendicant a knife to scrape the sugarcane. Barkarmis took the knife, and killed Rawwal with it, dragging the king off the throne.[21]
Barkarmis then called the wazir and other people, and seated himself on the throne, applauded by the people. He burnt Rawwal's body, and took back the princess. He asked the wazir to continue to govern the kingdom on his behalf, as the wazir did on Rawwal's behalf. However, the wazir declared that he was loyal to Rawwal, and decided to commit suicide by burning himself.[21]
Barkamaris asked the wazir to write a book on governance: the wazir agreed to this request, and wroteAdabu-l Muluk ("Instruction of Kings"), which was admired by all the nobles. The wazir then committed suicide, and Barkarmis expanded his power to gain control of entire India.[19]
The official records of the Gupta dynasty mentionChandragupta II, but notRamagupta.[22] Dhruvadevi's historicity is attested by her royal seal which describes her as the wife of Chandragupta and the mother ofGovindagupta.[23]
Several modern historians believe that the play is based on true historical events. According to this theory, Ramagupta agreed to surrender his queen Dhruvadevi to theShaka king, alienating her as well as his subjects. However, Chandragupta heroically defeated the enemy, winning the admiration of the queen and the subjects. Chandragupta ultimately de-throned his brother, and married Dhruvadevi.[10] HistorianRomila Thapar theorizes that the play may have been written in the Gupta court, possibly during the reign of Chandragupta's successors. The author's intention may have been to justify Chandragupta's unorthodox act of killing his elder brother and marrying his predecessor's wife.[24]
The play's historicity is supported by the following evidence:
A few copper coins, bearing the legend "Ramaguta" (Prakrit form of "Ramagupta") have been found atEran and Vidisha inMadhya Pradesh. Some scholars, such as K. D. Bajpai, have attributed these coins to the Gupta ruler Ramagupta.[33] For example, Bajpai theorized that Samudragupta appointed his son Ramagupta as a governor in central India; Ramagupta was forced to stay there even after his father's death because of the war with the Shakas, and the events depicted inDevichandraguptam happened there. However, other scholars, such as historianD. C. Sircar, have disputed the attribution of these coins to an imperial Gupta ruler. Sircar theorizes that the issuer of these coins was a local chief who imitated Gupta coinage; other chiefs with names ending in -gupta (such as Harigupta and Indragupta) are known to have issued similar coinage.[34]
Arguments doubting the play's historicity include the following:
According to historian R. C. Majumdar, the existence of emperor Ramagupta is proved by the inscriptions that mention him, but this does not necessarily confirm the historicity of the events described inDevichandraguptam.[36]