Mricchakattikam

Clay Sanskrit Library

by Shudraka

An Excerpt from the book-



Concerning the life, the date, and the very identity[2] of
King Shudraka, the reputed author of The Little Clay Cart,
we are curiously ignorant. No other work is ascribed to him, and
we have no direct information about him, beyond the somewhat
fanciful statements of the Prologue to this play. There are, to be
sure, many tales which cluster about the name of King Shudraka,
but none of them represents him as an author. Yet our very lack of
information may prove, to some extent at least, a disguised blessing.
For our ignorance of external fact compels a closer study of
the text, if we would find out what manner of man it was who
wrote the play. And the case of King Shudraka is by no means
unique in India; in regard to every great Sanskrit writer,--so bare
is Sanskrit literature of biography,--we are forced to concentrate
attention on the man as he reveals himself in his works. First, however,
it may be worth while to compare Shudraka with two other
great dramatists of India, and thus to discover, if we may, in what
ways he excels them or is excelled by them.

Genres: Plays, Classics, India, Theatre, Drama, Indian Literature, School

338 pages

First published January 1, 401

About the author

Shudraka (IAST: Śūdraka) was an Indian king and playwright.[1] Three Sanskrit plays are ascribed to him - Mrichchhakatika (The Little Clay Cart), Vinavasavadatta, and a bhana (short one-act monologue), Padmaprabhritaka.

Reviews

[Adem Yüce · Rating 4 out of 5]

"İçimi yakan,insanların zenginlik durumuna göre sevgilerini göstermeleri. Ayrıca,
Yoksul olan utanç duyar,utanan kendini kaybeder.Kendini kaybeden küçümsenir ,küçümseme dışlamayı doğurur dışlanan üzüntü duyar.Kedere boğulan,mantığını yitirir,mantığını yitiren mahvolur.Ah!
Parasızlık her türlü felaketin nedenidir."
. 🍁

4.yy'da yazıldığı tahmin edilen bu eser bize insanın tabiatında olan zayıflıklarını göstermeye yardımcı olmaktadır aradan 17 yy geçmesine rağmen kadına olan bakış açısının ölçüsü değişime uğramamış zenginliğin kibir kaynağı oluşu daha da önem kazanmıştır özellikle zayıf insanların iktidar tutkusu gittikçe artmış ve adaletsiz kararlar iktidar sahiplerinin en güçlü silahı olmuştur. .
🍁 .
Şudraka şöyle der: Karganın beyaz olduğuna inanan böyle insanlar kralın yargısını da beş paralık edip binlerce masum insanı ölüme gönderirler. Şuan karganın beyaz olduğuna inanan insanların hükmü geçiyor ve bir körlük salgınının gelmesinden başka çaremiz yok o körlük vaktinde o insanlar en azından bir gerçeğe de olsa ulaşabilir.

[Anne · Rating 2 out of 5]

While admittedly beautifully poetically written, can we please all agree that this is a pretty boring play, and that the super long monologues (although admittedly beautifully poetically written) made the plot(s) drag so much that we all lost interest about 10% of the way through?

I am so sorry, Sanskrit drama. You are beautifully poetically written, but you are just not for me.

If this was a collection of poems, yes. But as a story? No, thank you.

[Jackson Cyril · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Sanskrit play which eloquently challenges the legitimacy of power structures, including class and caste, and with its rather positive take on regicide (in this case the ruler is a scoundrel, but regicide is regicide) shows itself to be decidedly modern. Goethe would've loved it.

[Tuba Kılıç · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Aileden kime ne? İnsanı insan yapan karakteridir. Büyük ve verimli tarlalarda dikenli ağaçlar da yetişir. “

[Keith · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Little Clay Cart is a good play with suspenseful plot twists, a lot of humor, a fair amount of on-stage action and reasonably well-drawn characters. If nothing else, it is entertaining. (And I don’t say that dismissively. Entertaining plays are rare.)

Despite the effusive praise it receives (i.e., it’s “Shakespearian”), it is a light romantic tale of love between a married man and his prostitute. (It’s ok. His wife approves.) While it has a strong moral center, the play is unencumbered by ethical, political or psychological complexities or ambiguities.

I found it reminiscent of 14th century Chinese theatre with asides or conscious intensifications of language separate from the rest of the language. Several layers of language mingle throughout the play, with the use of different languages, different dialects and different levels of poetry flowing in and out of the action. Like the Chinese plays (i.e., The Lute), the poetic “asides” cause the plot to unwind a bit slowly for Western tastes.

So, is it Shakespearian? Not in the sense of Macbeth or King Lear, but more in the sense of the Merchant of Venice or As You Like It in that it has a romantic plot, some suspense and adventure and some reasonably well-drawn characters. The Little Clay Cart does not display Shakespeare’s mind buckling use of metaphor, or his incisive understanding of human psychology and motivation. (I might describe this play as more Beaumont-Fletcherian.)

Again, this is a lively, entertaining play with a satisfying ending. You will not glimpse s deeper truth about human life, nor will you soar on new heights of poetic beauty, nor will you meet complex characters you’ll recall long afterward. But if you want entertained, this is a very good play.

The Clay Sanskrit Library edition is a good translation. It’s very nice that it has the original Sanskrit on the facing page. (I can’t read it, but it is interesting.) The introduction and notes are also very good. What was missing was an overview of third century CE life/culture in India. What was the caste system as it relates to these characters? What was a courtesan’s life? If she got married, did she stop being a courtesan? Were polygamous marriages normal? What were the rules of slavery and how was freedom purchased?

Random note: I found it interesting that the play (and its characters) celebrate the overthrow of the king. This would be frowned upon in Western literature. In no way was the overthrow of a legitimate king made a positive thing to celebrate – even if they were corrupt. We don’t want people getting ideas, you know.

[Ananya · Rating 3 out of 5]

the wife and the mistress are so chill they even hug at the end

[Alekhya Bhat · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cute and shenanigan-filled with a happily-ever-after ending. Very Shakespearean comedy-like.

[Rehana · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Clay Toy-Cart is a beautiful, heart-rending story translated from Shudraka's most famous Sanskrit classical play, Mrchchakatikam. I didn’t know what to expect from the book when I opened it at first, but it took me by surprise from the very beginning. After reading a Shakespearean novel years ago, I have now returned to reading drama. And it felt so good to read something apart from regular fiction.

The beautiful and rich courtesan Vasantasena is bewitched by the smart and compassionate Charudatta, even though he is married and very much in love with his wife, Dhuta. While everyone in the town tries their luck pursuing Vasantasena, she rejects every advance, openly displaying her love for Charudatta. Everything seems to unfold well like a fairy tale, until one mess up that lands both of them in unexpected trouble. But will love prevail over evil? That is the moral of this memorable tale.

Firstly, this is one of the most flawless and well-written plays I have read in a long while. Though it was originally written in Sanskrit, the story feels comparable to classic literature from anywhere in the world. The female characters are headstrong and very well portrayed. While the concept of taking multiple wives didn’t appeal to me much, given the period in which it was written, it didn’t feel so awkward. I just wish the relationship between Charudatta and Dhuta had been given equal limelight as well, if not more.

There were moments of fun and banter, wit and sarcasm, love and longing and only during the last two acts the story takes a disastrous turn. I loved how every seemingly insignificant moment snowballed into a bigger issue, with all the dots connecting at the end. The translation is one of the best and you should definitely try this book.

[Madelein]

what happened? (the fault is mine for cramming this play in before a quiz) ((which is why no rating since i mostly tried to absorb the words through osmosis))

beautiful writing and i'm sure a visual treat to see live, but a twelve hour play and ten acts? i don't think the modern mind can handle that much.

[Emma Hailey · Rating 1 out of 5]

still on a streak of having to read the worst plays ever written for my degree…

[Rüçhan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hint Kültürü, hiçbir zaman yakından tanıdığımız ya da tanımaya tenezzül ettiğimiz bir alan olmamış. Fakat, bazı cesur yayınevlerinin cesur adımlarıyla önümüze geliyor ve bizler de deneyimleme fırsatı buluyoruz. Türkiye İş Bankası'nın bu dizisini gerçekten takdir ediyorum bu bakımdan. Klasik deyince Batı edebiyatının yanısıra Doğu edebiyatının da aklımıza gelmesine vesile oldular.

Toprak Arabacık'ın hikaye olarak çok özgün, dil olarak benzersiz bir yapıt olduğunu söyleyemem kendi açımdan. Ama bundan daha önemlisini kattı bana bu kitap. Hiç tanımadığım Hint toplumunun yaşama bakış açısını, değerlerini, geleneklerini öğretti. Bir kitap için bundan daha iyi bir işlev olabilir mi?

[Will · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Madanikā. Whence are you, sir? or who are you, sir? or whose son are you, sir? or what is your business, sir? or what are you afraid of?

Shampooer. Listen, madam. My birthplace is Pātaliputra, madam. I am the son of a householder. I practise the trade of a shampooer.

Vasantasenā. It is a very dainty art, sir, which you have mastered.

Shampooer. Madam, as an art I mastered it. It has now become a mere trade.

Madanikā. Your answers are most disconsolate, sir. Pray continue.

Shampooer. Yes, madam. When I was at home, I used to hear travelers tell tales, and I wanted to see new countries, and so I came here. And when I had come here to Ujjayinī, I became the servant of a noble gentleman. Such a handsome, courteous gentleman! When he gave money away, he did not boast; when he was injured, he forgot it. To cut a long story short: he was so courteous that he regarded his own person as the possession of others, and had compassion on all who sought his protection.

Madanikā. Who may it be that adorns Ujjayinī with the virtues which he has stolen from the object of my mistress' desires?

Vasantasenā. Good, girl, good! I had the same thought in mind.

Madanikā. But to continue, sir—

Shampooer. Madam, he was so compassionate and so generous that now—

Vasantasenā. His riches have vanished?

Shampooer. I didn't say it. How did you guess it, madam?

Vasantasenā. What was there to guess? Virtue and money seldom keep company. In the pools from which men cannot drink there is so much the more water.

Madanikā. But sir, what is his name?

Shampooer. Madam, who does not know the name of this moon of the whole world? He lives in the merchants' quarter. He whose name is worthy of all honor is named Chārudatta."

[MollieVX · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is hard to review this book. The play in itself is not the most intriguing story you will ever read. It can be hard to read at times because of the dramatic poetic language or simply the various characters with similar sounding names. But the experience of reading this books is what makes it a 4 star read for me. The translator has gone to great lengths to provide a plenty of historical context for this play, the time period it is set in and the language it uses. Her long introductory chapter and the numerous footnotes throughout the text are as important a part of this book as Shudraka's play. Trying to thread together the pieces of culture and tradition that have survived through the centuries and those that have not was a very unique experience. This is the first of, I hope, the many texts from the long Indian history that I get to explore. I will definitely be picking up anything translated by Ms. Rajappa.

[Srikanth · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short and sweet play, albeit a really old one probably composed in the B.Cs.

The play's hero is Charudatta, a merchant who is poor now since he gave a lot of wealth to others.
The heroine is a rich courtesan, Vasantasena, is in love with him and she goes to him on the pretext of giving him a jewel box for safe-keeping.
The villain is the king's brother-in-law, who lusts after Vasantasena. He also manages to put blame on Charudatta for Vasantasena's murder.

The play has most of the stock characters which we encounter in plays.
It reads like modern plays. Also, the hero is not a warrior or prince like in the epics and all. He is just an urban merchant down on his luck.

Overall, a pleasant and short read.

[Tiyas · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was enjoyable to say the least. Padmini Rajappa's accessible translation and helpful supplementary material really enhances the overall experience.

Although, do steer clear of the introduction before reading the actual text. It gets quite spoilerfic.

[Shashank Goyal · Rating 4 out of 5]

A back to back reading of Antigone and Mrchchakatikam helped me understand the differences between a typical Greek tragedy and an ancient Sanskrit drama. Definitely will be reading more of these.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

In The Mrichchhakatika, the hero is a dignified righteous Brahman, a merchant of eminence, who has impoverished himself not by any slackness in his character or any attachment to vices, but by his superior and charitable temperament. He is blameless by nature and never spares in his acts of benevolence and munificence to other people in anguish or suffering.

Consequently, he spends away his assets and reduces himself almost to poverty.

He is married and has a son called Rohasena, by his wife Dhuta. But he is so inopportune that he fails to have fulfilled his little son's desire to have a little gold cart like his other rich friends rather than his own little clay cart given by his nurse.

Charudatta is, however, loved by a lady of rare beauty, Vasantasena, a quite well off courtesan.

After her meeting with Charudatta in a temple of Kamadeva, she becomes extremely amorous of Charudatta. He, too, feels love for her and they meet and spend a night together in the latter's house. But the course of their love doesn't run silky as a criminal Sansthanaka, a brother-in-law of the tyrannous king Palaka intervenes in their love and tries to seduce Vasantasena.

The dignified lady, however, refuses impudently and straight. Thereafter, the clownish criminal, becoming vengeful and nurtures a grudge against both the lovers. Sansthanaka, in due course, suddenly gets a chance to slay Vasantasena and arranges situations to purport Charudatta as her murderer.

Due to a benign error, Vasantasena gets into the cart of the villain, thinking it to be Charudatta's whom she is to meet at a flower-garden, outside the town.

Charudatta unproductively waits for Vasantasena and when her cart comes. A rebel, Aryaka, is found therein. Out of his good nature, Charudatta allows that rebel to use his cart and he leaves the place.

As Vasantasena arrives, Sansthanaka gets hold of her and eventually strangulates her. She becomes cataleptic and drops down on the ground. Taking her as deceased, he leaves her body in a bush. Vasantasena, however, remains alive and is nursed and brought back to her full strength by a Buddhist monk in a close by monastery.

In the interim, Charudatta is accused of killing Vasantasena for her riches. Enough evidence, as available, is put by Sansthanaka for his punishment. The king passes a death sentence against Charudatta. But before the execution of Charudatta, Vasantasena appears alive along with the Buddhist monk. The entire situation now totally changes. Charudatta is released while Sansthanaka is arrested.

There is also a political change in the city and King Pal aka was dismissed and killed by the rebels. Aryaka, their leader, becomes the new king. He restores Charudatta to his former position of fortune and eminence, and also pardons the villain Sansthanaka who had already been arrested.

Thereafter, there is the union of the solemn lovers-Charudatta and Vasantasena. Charudatta's first wife has no avowal to have another wife for her husband. Vasantasena is permitted to relinquish her position as a courtesan and embrace the life of a legally sanctioned wife.

Thus, the play shows the happy amalgamation of love and the eventual success of virtue over vice. The triumph of true love and profound virtue make the entire theme of the play, showing that vice and iniquitous demeanour do not finally pay.

The Mrichchhakatika, supposed to be written by Sudraka, is for the most part regarded as the symbol of Prakarana plays. This is, in effect a play not based on some ancient classical story or the performances of classical heroes or gods and goddesses. The Mrichchhakatika, as a Prakarana play, is concerned with general life led in a society and the characters involved are fairly familiar and pragmatic in the milieu of the age the play belongs to.

[Ritwika Chakraborty · Rating 5 out of 5]

পড়লাম যদিও উৎপল ভট্টাচার্যের অনুবাদ, বেশ ভালো লাগলো। খুবই সাবলীল ভাষায় অনুবাদিত। কিন্তু কিছু কিছু ঘটনা এবং কথোপকথন বাদ দিয়েছেন মাননীয় লেখক, হয়তো অপ্রাসঙ্গিক মনে করে।
ব্যাপারটা পছন্দ হলো না আমার। সেই কারণেই ডক্টর সুকুমারী ভট্টাচার্যের অনুবাদ পড়বো।

আর বইটি পড়ার পর পারলে সুকুমারী ভট্টাচার্যের সাহিত্য-বিশ্লেষণ অবশ্যই পড়বেন মৃচ্ছকটিক নিয়ে। ওনার 'প্রবন্ধ সমগ্র volume 1' এ পেয়ে যাবেন।

প্রসঙ্গত বলে রাখি সারাবিশ্বে বিপুলভাবে সমাদৃত দশ অঙ্কের এই সংস্কৃত নাটকটি। বিভিন্ন ভাষায় অনুবাদিত হয়েছে। ফরাসী ভাষায় এই বইয়ের ওপর ভিত্তি করে একটি নাটকও আছে।
তবে কাহিনীর নামকরণ এবং শূদ্রকের সময়কাল এখনও পন্ডিতদের মধ্যে বহুচর্চিত।

[Taylor Swift Scholar · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was beautiful -- definitely my favorite Sanskrit drama that I've read so far. I don't usually like stories where the moralizing is so overt, but it was very satisfying to follow how every character got what was coming to them and how all of the various threads came together at the end.

[liam donovan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honestly this is fire, and suspenseful as heck

[Rene · Rating 2 out of 5]

*1.5, read for theatre literature class

[Claire · Rating 2 out of 5]

Honestly I've been having a really hard time getting into these ancient plays, and this one being 10 acts long didn't help! Maybe if I saw it I'd like it better

[cecil · Rating 3 out of 5]

i love sanskrit drama! but why do they have 10 acts. going back in time to say we gotta edit.

[prutha]

what..

[Marty Reeder · Rating 3 out of 5]

When reading Will Durant’s Story of Civilization series (volume one, in this case), you are apt to be thrown off track by interesting little details and new areas to explore or discover--which is why a part of me despairs of ever finishing Durant’s (and later his and Ariel’s) works. But it’s the kind of despair with a grin on its face because if your fate is to not learn something completely because you’ve been learning other, unexpected, things along the way … well, there are worse ways to fail, I guess.

In this case, Durant mentioned The Little Clay Cart as one of the earliest still-existing plays from the ancient history of the civilization of India. Plus, he observed that it was pretty entertaining too! Not that Durant lacked in the entertainment department at the time of his recommendation (he did … it’s been grueling to get through the India and China sections--though they definitely have their moments), but I had been needing to expand my play-reading collection (I was stuck on, pretty much, Shakespeare’s works and time frame), and this was a great opportunity.

Setting aside all the “drama” (thank you) it took to be led to this play, how was the play itself? Long. But good.

I have to admit that there was a lot going on in this play that was foreign to me. The names, for instance, are one of those things. They reflect the length of the play, and I usually found myself starting to read a name and then thinking, “Okay this is the ‘sh’ person,” and then moving on. A couple of times that caused some problems when other “sh” characters came into the play, but on the whole it saved me from a lot of trouble and allowed me to actually finish the play itself before the rise and fall of our current civilization … so tuck that strategy away for your own reading experience.

Other foreign things: the casual mention of the protagonist’s wife every now and then. Usually not an issue, but in this case the protagonist is devoutly and even sweetly in love with and courting another woman. That would be problematic in any western play, but in a polygamous society I guess it just means that you can have more middle-aged heroes, since they can continue the romantic period of their lives past their first marriages.

There are some other awkward transitions or phrasings or scenes that I am unsure of whether it’s just poorly written, or a result of the age of the play itself, or if it is a cultural thing (probably a mixture of the two latter ones). And it can be difficult to have the patience for a play that is both long and has wide stretches confusion interrupting the experience.

Besides the off-kilter stuff, there are also moments or language of suspicious clarity, as if the translator decided to convert more than word meanings but also wanted to translate a foreign culture into the modern, twentieth-century, British culture. It is hard for me to determine how much of the play has been corrupted by modern hands and so I’m forced to be skeptical by a lot of the viewpoints it shows, especially those that line up dubiously well with twentieth-century literature.

In spite of these distractions, on the whole, Mr. Durant is right. The Little Clay Cart is entertaining. There are some memorable and distinct characters (even if their names aren’t!). Towards the end, there are some mix ups that are worthy of a high-quality comedy of errors script of any age. And maybe most importantly, the main character--Charudattake2xkcvnawwhatever--is someone you genuinely care about and root for. So read it for the history, for the mystic translation, for the culture … but don’t be surprised if you are also entertained and maybe even inspired at the end.

[Powervati · Rating 4 out of 5]

Arthur William Ryder, the translator, in his notes states that the reason he liked translating this book is because it has very modern themes and is not merely a love story with ornamental prose. Although the play has poetry, running allegories and metaphors as was the style. This book has a love story and it is not central to the plot. Perhaps that is the reason this author’s work is not as known as works of other playwrights. Not much is known about the author either, he just identifies himself as King Shudraka. How did he come to write such a political play? Why did he not continue to write?

The book focuses on modern day issues like bureaucracy, role of judiciary and the idea of classes. But there are some issues which must be regular for that society but don’t work in ours, such as the protagonist proclaiming love for other woman, when he has a wife. There seems some betrayal of embarrassment when he has to confess this in public so we know even then society did not look comfortable with the idea but it is a polygamous society where it is okay to have several wives, it only frowns at the idea of affairs.

The play has a good pace, despite the redundancy of poetry. But this is definitely a masterpiece for its time. I will definitely have more thoughts on this once I read plays by Kalidas and I will post my thoughts here.

[Devi Charan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A poetic play written about 1500 years ago. Set in the ancient city of Ujjaini, this play tells the love story between a wealthy courtesan named Vasantasena and a 'poor' and 'noble' Brahman named Charudatta, who is happily married and has a son. The plot gives a glimpse of some social practices of those times like Polygamy and respectable practice of courtesans, caste and class hierarchy in the society. Even after all the dramatisation of poverty by the 'poor' Charudatta, we find he still has servants at his home! The play gets boring at times but it must have entertained the masses in those times so much that it survived several centuries.

[H Keith Lyons · Rating 2 out of 5]

This drama full of exposition, which detracted from my overall enjoyment of the story. I've been involved in audiodramas that had much less exposition and still managed to move the narrative forward better than this story.

[Ramya · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have to believe the Sanskrit version when performed probably had power and interest to it than this poor translation!

[Mark Kluever · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very Boring