Misplaced Pages

#250749

48-460: In the play, king Ramagupta decides to surrender his queen Dhruvadevi ("Devi") to a Shaka enemy when besieged. Ramagupta's younger brother Chandragupta 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

96-487: A vetala (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

144-458: A fictional character, and hoped that his existence would be proved by discovery of his coins in future. Subsequently, some scholars such as K. D. Bajpai attributed a few copper coins discovered in central India to Ramagupta, but others, such as D. C. Sircar disputed this attribution (see Coinage ) below. Later, three Jain statue inscriptions referring to Maharajadhiraja Ramagupta were discovered at Durjanpur, and have been cited as proof for

192-601: A garuda, and imitate the gold coins of Chandragupta II. Coins of another such imitator, named Indragupta, have been discovered at Kumhrar . Sircar also notes that other Gupta emperors are known to have issued gold coins, but no gold coins issued by Ramagupta have been discovered. Lost literary work A lost literary work (referred throughout this article just as a lost work) is a document, literary work, or piece of multimedia, produced of which no surviving copies are known to exist, meaning it can be known only through reference. This term most commonly applies to works from

240-630: A library, as a lost or mislabeled codex , or as a part of another book or codex. Well known but not recovered works are described by compilations that did survive, such as the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder or the De architectura of Vitruvius . Sometimes authors will destroy their own works. On other occasions, authors instruct others to destroy their work after their deaths. Such instructions are not always followed: Virgil 's Aeneid

288-420: A result of a plot against him or on the orders of his brother Ramagupta. In Act V, the last act from which any quotations survive, Chandragupta is in some kind of danger. To protect himself, he feigns madness on his way to the court (apparently that of king Ramagupta). 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

336-426: 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. 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

384-407: Is "full of shame, anger, despair, fear and discontent". 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

432-474: Is Dhruva-devi. 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 (see Historicity below). The original text of

480-627: Is a later Gupta king, not the brother of Chandragupta II. Historian D. C. Sircar has dated these records to a later period, based on a comparison of letters and signs that occur in these inscriptions and the Sanchi inscriptions of Chandragupta II. A few copper coins, bearing the legend "Ramaguta" (Prakrit form of "Ramagupta") on the obverse, and the figure of a lion or a garuda on the reverse, have been found at Eran and Vidisha in Madhya Pradesh . Some scholars have attributed these coins to

528-458: Is abandoning her for another woman. She becomes angry with the king, which apparently forebodes evil for the king, although the exact sequel is not clear from the surviving fragments. 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

SECTION 10

#1732765694251

576-514: Is accompanied by two Prakrit -language songs in the Arya metre . The first song describes the moonrise, portraying Chandragupta as the moon ("Chandra" in Sanskrit) who has destroyed the darkness. 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, and the person he tries to conceal his love for

624-475: Is imperfectly erased so the substrate on which it was written can be reused. The discovery, in 1822, of Cicero 's De re publica was one of the first major recoveries of a lost ancient text from a palimpsest. Another famous example is the discovery of the Archimedes Palimpsest , which was used to make a prayer book almost 300 years after the original work was written. A work may be recovered in

672-559: Is possible that the records of Ramagupta's successors omit his name from genealogical lists because he was not their ancestor. Ramagupta is mentioned in the Sanskrit-language play Devichandraguptam . The original text of the play is now lost , but its extracts survive in other works. Several later literary and epigraphic sources corroborate the narrative of Devichandraguptam , although they do not mention Ramagupta by name (see Devichandraguptam § Historicity ). After

720-511: Is supported by the following evidence: A few copper coins, bearing the legend "Ramaguta" (Prakrit form of "Ramagupta") have been found at Eran and Vidisha in Madhya Pradesh . Some scholars, such as K. D. Bajpai, have attributed these coins to the Gupta ruler Ramagupta. 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

768-565: The Devichandraguptam narrative is debated. Several other sources refer to the events mentioned in the play, but these sources do not mention Ramagupta by name, and may be based on the play itself. Three undated inscriptions, written in a variety of the Gupta script and discovered in central India, mention a king called Ramagupta: this seems to attest the existence of a Gupta emperor named Ramagupta, although it does not conclusively prove

816-602: The classical world , although it is increasingly used in relation to modern works. A work may be lost to history through the destruction of an original manuscript and all later copies. Works—or, commonly, small fragments of works—have survived by being found by archaeologists during investigations, or accidentally by anybody, such as, for example, the Nag Hammadi library scrolls. Works also survived when they were reused as bookbinding materials, quoted or included in other works, or as palimpsests , where an original document

864-519: The Gupta dynasty mention Chandragupta II , but not Ramagupta . Dhruvadevi's historicity is attested by her royal seal which describes her as the wife of Chandragupta and the mother of Govindagupta . 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 the Shaka king, alienating her as well as his subjects. However, Chandragupta heroically defeated

912-444: The Gupta ruler Ramagupta, but others believe him to be a distinct, local ruler. Since Garuda was the emblem of the imperial Gupta dynasty, numismatist K. D. Bajpai asserted that these coins were indeed issued by the Gupta emperor Ramagupta. Bajpai speculated that Samudragupta appointed his son Ramagupta as a governor of the eastern Malwa region in central India; Ramagupta was forced to stay there even after his father's death because of

960-739: The Jain statue inscriptions (see #Inscriptions below), historian Tej Ram Sharma speculates that Ramagupta may have adopted "a peaceful style of life" after his humiliation by the Shaka enemy, which may explain his inclination towards Jainism . Later, Chandragputa appears to have killed Ramagupta and married Dhruvadevi, who is mentioned as Chandragupta's queen in the Gupta records. भगवतोर्हतः चन्द्रप्रभस्य प्रतिमेऽयं कारिता महाराजाधिराज-श्री-रामगुप्तेन उपदेशात् पाणिपात्रिक-चन्द्रक्षमाचार्य्य-क्षमण-श्रमण-प्रशिष्य-आचार्य्य सर्प्पसेन-क्षमण-शिष्यस्य गोलक्यान्त्या-सत्पुत्रस्य चेलु-क्षमणस्येति The Ramagupta Inscription found near Vidisha The theory that Ramagupta

1008-500: The author of the Sanskrit play Mudra-rakshasa . His period is not certain but he probably flourished in or after the 6th century CE. Some scholars such as A. S. Altekar , K. P. Jayaswal and Sten 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, including Moriz Winternitz and R. C. Majumdar . Based on

SECTION 20

#1732765694251

1056-401: The bulldozer. Based on the reconstructed text, all three inscriptions appear to contain same text except the name of the tirthankara. They state that emperor Ramagupta caused the statues to be built at the behest of a mendicant. The mendicant was named Chella Kshamana or Chelu-kshamana ( IAST : Celū-kṣamaṇa), who was a son Golakyanti and a pupil of Acharya Sarppasena-kshamana, who in turn,

1104-508: The enemy camp disguised as the queen, and killed the enemy. According to the Devichandraguptam passage quoted in Bhoja 's Shringara-Prakasha , the enemy camp was located at Alipura. Bana 's Harsha-charita calls the place "Aripura" (literally "enemy's city"); one manuscript of Harsha-charita calls the place "Nalinapura". The identity of Ramagupta's " Shaka " ( IAST : Śaka) enemy is not certain. Proposed identifications include: Based on

1152-399: The enemy camp, stating that he would rather lose the queen than his brother. 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

1200-453: The enemy, winning the admiration of the queen and the subjects. Chandragupta ultimately de-throned his brother, and married Dhruvadevi. Historian Romila 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. The play's historicity

1248-455: The existence of the king mentioned in the Devichandraguptam (see Inscriptions below). Based on the surviving passages of Devichandraguptam and other supporting evidence, modern scholars theorize that Ramagupta was the elder son and successor of the Gupta emperor Samudragupta . According to the play, Ramagupta decided to surrender his wife Dhruva-devi (or Dhruva-svamini) to a Shaka enemy, but his younger brother Chandragupta went to

1296-454: The extracts of Devichandraguptam were first discovered by Sylvain Levi and R. Saraswati in 1923, Ramagupta's historicity became a matter of debate among historians. Some scholars, including Levi, dismissed Devichandraguptam as unreliable for the purposes of history. Others, such as RD Banerji and Henry Heras argued that the additional literary evidence was too strong to dismiss Ramagupta as

1344-414: The historicity of the Devichandraguptam story. Some coins discovered in central India have also been attributed to Ramagupta, but this attribution has not been unanimously accepted by modern historians. Ramagupta's name does not appear in the official records of the Gupta dynasty. According to the official Gupta genealogy, Samudragupta 's successor was Chandragupta II , whose queen was Dhruvadevi . It

1392-449: 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. Chandragupta declares that a single lion forces many deer to run away: a hero doesn't care about being outnumbered. In Act II, Ramagupta tries to dissuade Chandragupta from going to

1440-577: The king after his death, and Barkamaris, who was very handsome and wise. A princess, who was famous for intelligence, was sought by all the Hindu kings and princes, but she was attracted only to Barkamaris. When Barkamaris brought her home, Rawwal took her and her handmaids 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

1488-413: 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's wazir Safar instigates him against Barkamaris, forcing Barkamaris to feign insanity and become a mendicant. Later, Barkarmis kills Rawwal, takes back

Devichandraguptam - Misplaced Pages Continue

1536-516: The learned people. 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 blind wazir (chief advisor) Safar advised him to surrender

1584-535: The play appear in Bhoja 's Shringara-Prakasha and Sarasvati-kanthabharana . Abul Hasan Ali's Majmal-ut-Tawarikh (1026 CE / 417 AH ) is the Persian language translation of an Arabic language book. The Arabic work itself is a translation of an unspecified Sanskrit ("Hindwani") work. The text includes a story which appears to be based on the plot of Devichandraguptam . The story is about two royal brothers, Rawwal and Barkamaris: Rawwal succeeds their father as

1632-466: The play is now lost , but its extracts survive as quotations in the later works. Thirteen passages from the play have been quoted in four different works on dramaturgy . Some sources also refer to it without quoting passages from it. Six quotations from the play can be found in Natya-darpana , a work on dramaturgy authored by the Jain scholars Ramachandra and Gunachandra: Three passages from

1680-468: 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 in Devichandraguptam . Ramagupta Ramagupta ( IAST : Rāma-gupta; r. c. late 4th century CE), according to the Sanskrit play Devichandraguptam ,

1728-419: 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 with Vishakhadatta ,

1776-430: 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. Rawwal agreed to the proposal, and the enemy was decisively defeated. As a result of this victory, Rawwal's power greatly increased. However, subsequently,

1824-421: The princess, and becomes the king. The character Rawwal seems to be based on Ramagupta , and Barkamaris seems to be based on Chandragupta II alias Vikramaditya. 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

1872-534: 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. Barkamaris asked the wazir to write a book on governance: the wazir agreed to this request, and wrote Adabu-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. The official records of

1920-482: The surviving fragments, the play appears to have opened in the Gupta military camp. King Ramagupta has been defeated by an unnamed Shaka 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. In Act I, Ramagupta's younger brother Chandragupta tries to find an alternative to these dishonourable terms. He thinks of raising

1968-486: The war with the Shakas, and the events depicted in Devichandraguptam happened there. However, historian D. C. Sircar doesn't find Bajpai's theory convincing, and states that the issuer of these coins may have been a local chief of imitated Gupta coinage after the decline of the Gupta dynast in the late 5th century CE. Sircar points out that a non-Gupta ruler named Harigupta is known to have issued copper coins that feature

Devichandraguptam - Misplaced Pages Continue

2016-452: The war with the Shakas, and the events depicted in Devichandraguptam happened there. However, other scholars, such as historian D. 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. Arguments doubting

2064-415: The wazir Safar aroused the king's suspicions against Barkamaris, who feigned madness to escape the king's wrath. 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 a sugarcane . Rawwal offered

2112-417: 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. After being informed of all the facts, Barkarmis proposed that he and sons of Rawwal's chiefs enter the enemy camp disguised as women. Each youth would carry a concealed knife and trumpet. When the enemy king retires with Barkamaris (disguised as

2160-417: Was a historical person is supported by the following points: Two stone statues of Jain tirthankaras , discovered at Durjanpur (or Durjanpura) near Vidisha , bear inscriptions that mention Maharajadhiraja Ramagupta; the partially-damaged inscription on another similar statue also appears to mention his name. The statues were discovered while clearing a field with a bulldozer, and were partially damaged by

2208-530: Was a pupil's pupil of Chandra-kshamana. These inscriptions do not mention that Ramagupta belonged to the Gupta dynasty, and do not mention any date. However, following arguments can be made to date them to the 4th century, and to support the identification of the Ramagupta mentioned in these inscriptions as a Gupta emperor: However, according to another theory, the Ramagupta of the Durjanpur inscriptions

2256-412: Was an emperor of the Gupta dynasty of northern India. The surviving fragments of the play, combined with other literary evidence, suggest that he agreed to surrender his wife Dhruvadevi to a Shaka enemy: However, his brother Chandragupta II killed the Shaka enemy, and later dethroned him, marrying Dhruvadevi. The official Gupta genealogy does not mention Ramagupta, and therefore, the historicity of

2304-484: Was saved by Augustus , and Kafka 's novels by Max Brod . Handwritten copies of manuscripts existed in limited numbers before the era of printing. The destruction of ancient libraries , whether by intent, chance or neglect, resulted in the loss of numerous works. Works to which no subsequent reference is preserved remain unknown. Deliberate destruction of works may be termed literary crime or literary vandalism (see book burning ). The Middle-Persian literature had

#250749