In this blog post, I will cover the following points:

Sudraka’s Mrichchhakatika Summary

The play Mrichchhakatika by Sudraka follows the love story between a merchant Charudatta and a courtesan Vasantasena. Both are passionate about each other, but Sakara, the king’s brother-in-law, also desires Vasantasena. Therefore, he stands as a threat to the lovers. He first tries to woo Vasantasena, but when his wooing fails, he forcefully wants to seize her.

One day, he chases Vasantasena with his friend Vita and his servant Cheta. Vasantasena somehow saves herself by hiding in her lover’s house. She lies to Charudatta that Sakara follows for her gold ornaments. Therefore, she wants to deposit the ornaments in his house to keep them safe. Charudatta agrees and accompanies her to her house.

The casket does not last long because Sarvilaka steals the ornaments from Charudatta’s house. He does it to free his lover, Madanika, from the service of Vasantasena. Charudatta’s friend, Maitreya, gives it to Sarvilaka in his sleep. Hence, he makes it easy to steal the casket.

Sarvilaka goes to Vasantasena’s house and meets Madanika. He shows it to Madanika, not knowing that it belongs to her owner. Seeing it, Madanika finds it familiar and inquires about it. Sarvilaka tells her everything. Upon listening to him, she suggests he should be a messenger of Charudatta and return the ornamental box. Vasantasena overhears their conversation and is pleased with Madanika’s loyalty. Vasantasena asks Sarvilaka to take Madanika with him when Sarvilaka returns her casket. 

Soon Sarvilaka hears the news that the king has captured his friend, Aryaka. He keeps Madanika at the merchant Rebhila’s house and goes to rescue his friend. 

None in Charudatta’s house knows Vasantasena has received her box. Therefore, Charudatta’s wife, Dhuta, offers her necklace as a replacement for the lost casket. When Maitreya gives it to Vasantasena, she pretends to know nothing. However, when she visits her lover, she returns the same box for losing the necklace in gambling.

The following morning, Vasantasena finds Charudatta’s son, Rohasena, wailing for a golden cart. She fills his clay cart with her golden ornaments and tells him to make a golden cart. After that, she prepares to meet Charudatta in a garden. 

Unfortunately, Vasantasena mistakenly mounts Sakara’s carriage, and Aryaka mounts in place of Vasantasena. When he reaches the garden, he explains everything to Charudatta. Charudatta happily offers his carriage to the fugitive to get a safe place. Aryaka shows his gratitude and leaves.

Vasantasena also reaches the garden. Instead of Charudatta, she finds Sakara. Sakara becomes joyful when he sees Vasantasena and woos her. When he fails, in a fit of anger, he strangles her. He hides her beneath some dried leaves and leaves the place. However, a mendicant sees her and takes her to a nearby Buddhist monastery. 

Sakara files a case against him in court. With manipulation, he proves he is guilty and everyone, including the judge, believes in him. After his arrest, the king orders him to execute on account of killing Vasantasena. When the two executioners are about to behead him, Vasantasena appears at the place with the mendicant and saves Charudatta. The mendicant reveals he is Samvahaka, whom Vasantasena once saved by paying ten gold pieces to his creditors. Charudatta saves his wife Dhuta from her death.

Sarvilaka announces that Aryaka has defeated the tyrannical ruler of Ujjayini, and he becomes the new king. As a gesture of gratitude, Aryaka gives Charudatta the kingdom of Kusavati and confers on Vasantasena the title of a wedded wife. The guards catch Sakara, and he begs for mercy, and Charudatta forgives him. The play ends with a happy union of lovers and a restoration of peace and stability.

The Significance of the Title of the Play 

Bharata Muni lays some rules concerning the naming of a play. According to tradition, the name of a prakarana should be a combination of both male and female protagonists. For instance, Kalidasa’s play Malavikagnimitra is a combination of nayika Malavika and nayaka Agnimitra. 

Sudraka does not follow the tradition. Instead of using a combined name, he uses a name that bears a metaphorical meaning in it. He chooses Mrichchhakatika as the name of his play, which translated meaning is The Little Clay Cart. 

There is no reference to the clay cart till Act V of the play. In Act VI, Sudraka establishes the context of the clay cart. Rohasena demands to have a golden cart for playing. Vasantasena asks Radanika why he is wailing. She says that Rohasena was playing with a golden cart of the son of their neighbor. The boy takes the toy cart away from him and thus, making Rohasena sad.  

Radanika makes a clay cart to appease him, but he insists on the same cart. Upon hearing Rohasena’s condition, Vasantasena pacifies him he will play with a golden cart. Rohasena does not know Vasantasena, therefore Radanika introduces her to Rohasena as his mother. 

Rohasena asks, “if Her Ladyship is my mother, then why has she put on ornaments?” (150). He has not seen Dhuta or any other family member wearing costly ornaments. Therefore, he denies accepting her as his mother. 

This denial of Rohasena points out that she cannot be a part of them unless she renounces her wealth and comfortable life. Thus, Vasantasena removes her ornaments and says, “I have become your mother!” (150). She fills his toy cart with her gold and tells him to make a gold cart out of the ornaments. 

The clay cart and her ornaments symbolize the simple life of impoverished Charudatta and the life of a wealthy courtesan, respectively. It is a life where they are sometimes “false in their courtesy on account of their coming in contact with various sorts of men” (112). Her giving the ornaments away is evidence of her rejection of the life of a courtesan and acceptance of domestic life. 

Why does she want to renounce her prosperous life?

Unlike Charudatta, Vasantasena lives a life of luxury. We get an idea of Vasantasena’s large mansion when Maitreya goes to her mansion. Maitreya is awestruck after seeing the wonderful palace with its eight quadrangles and its numerous appurtenances. He feels he has seen the three worlds in one place and comments on it, “I have not the power of speech to praise it, as it deserves, whether it should be called a courtesan’s house, or a portion of Kubera’s palace,” (128).

Despite having a majestic mansion, she has no place that a woman like Dhuta enjoys in society. People do not see her beyond a courtesan. For instance, Vita’s comment on her exhibits the man’s notion of her. In Act I, while he with Sakara chase her, Vasantasena spurns Sakara’s intention. Having seen her rejection, Vita comments on her, “O Vasantasena, you have spoken in a manner contrary to your profession” (71).

This points out that a courtesan has no freedom; she is the slave of her men. The lack of individualism is further reflected in her comment on the Madanika’s liberty. She says, “If I myself was free, I would set free all my servants from their bondage, even without any money, whatever” (114).  

Therefore, she is wearied of such a lifestyle and desires to have a simple life of her own. We see evidence of her claim of individuality right at the beginning of the play during the chase. In Act IV, she disgustingly rejects Sakara’s gift of an ornament worth ten thousand gold pieces along with a carriage to take her. 

This assures that she wants to abandon the prosperous life that she is part of and yearns to be part of a domestic world where she can be a mother of a son and wife of a man. For this, she knows Charudatta is her perfect choice. By surrendering the gold to the clay cart, it is a metaphorical transformation from her flashy life to a life of purity. By proffering her ornaments, she metaphorically gets the status of a member of the family.

Before the incident, Charudatta’s allowance to let her spend the night in the interior quadrangle of his home stands for her acceptance in the house. However, it is difficult for Dhuta to accept her as a part of the family. For instance, Dhuta rejects Vasantasena’s gift of ornament by saying “my husband himself is my best ornament” (149). 

However, it is not only the life of Vasantasena blooms but her entry into Charudatta’s life also adds value to his life. We can prove the statement by referring to some major incidents in the play. If the exchange of the play had not occurred, then Charudatta would not have helped Aryaka. Since Charudatta helped Aryaka in his time of need, he exhibits his gratitude by bestowing the kingdom of Kusavati on him. This marks the flourishing of his life. 

Another meaning

We can also interpret the title as a cyclic motion of time. The wheels of the clay cart connote the spiral movement of time. It means nothing in life is permanent, neither happiness nor sorrow. We notice the change in the life of the characters in the play. For instance, Samvahaka’s life transforms from a gambler to a Buddhist mendicant who is in search of the ultimate truth. The reign of the wicked king Palaka ends after the successful overthrown of the king by Aryaka. 

Having discussed two possible meanings of the play, we can assert that the title of the play is rightly appropriate for the play. 

The difference between Nataka and Prakarana

The first difference between nataka and prakarana is the source of plot construction. The origin of the plot in nataka is usually epics and legends. For instance, Kalidasa’s Shakuntala is based on The Mahabharata. 

A prakarana is an imaginative creation of the playwright. Sudraka’s Mrichchhakatika is one of its finest examples. Unlike Shakuntala, Sudraka borrows nothing from other sources. Instead, he has created a society imitating his society, the time in which he was living. 

The second difference between these drama forms is the character. In nataka, the leading characters belong to the upper class. The characters are usually kings or royal persons. However, in prakarana, most characters belong to the middle or lower class. They are mostly ordinary people. 

The next difference is the language. The characters in nataka use Sanskrit. It is a crucial component of nataka. 

Characters use Prakrit as their primary language of communication in prakarana. The playwright uses Prakrit because it is the language of ordinary people. 

In the Mrichchhakatika, after the benediction, the Sutradhara announces the name of the prakarana. However, the play does not abandon the use of Sanskrit altogether. Sudraka uses poetic language in some places through Charudatta. 

The next difference between them is the former has one dominant theme, and the whole play revolves around the theme. Contrarily, the latter has many subthemes or subplots, along with the dominant theme or plot.  

The subplots in Mrichchhakatika are the love story of Sarvilaka and Vasantasena’s maid Madanika and the transformation of the monk. 

Video summary

For video summary, watch the video below on our YouTube channel.

👉 Watch the video on our YouTube channel.

Prologue

Sutradhara worships Nataraja in the prologue. Because Nataraja is like a Muse for dance in the Indian context. After the benediction, Sutradhara gives information about the playwright and the play. He informs the audience that Sudraka is an efficient trainer of elephants. Sutradhara is twice-born and has performed upanayana. He also has performed successfully the Ashvamedha (horse sacrifice) ritual. Sudraka is also a sagacious person who knows the Rigveda, the Samaveda. He died in 110 years. 

Sudraka sets the setting of the play in Ujjayini.

The Importance of the Prologue

The Prologue introduces the leading characters to the audience or the readers before Act I. Sutradhara introduces Charudatta and Vasantasena to the audience. He also introduces the theme of the play. 

Second Part of the Summary

Watch 👉 the video here.

Character Analysis

Charudatta  

A Generous Man

Charudatta is the hero of Mrichchhakatika. Charudatta is a generous man. We can sense his generosity by examining how he behaves with others. Unlike other masters, Charudatta behaves kindly with his servant, Vardhamanaka.

Other characters express his generosity in different situations. For instance, In Act IX (The Trial), Vasantasena’s mother intentionally decides to not recognize the ornaments of Vasantasena in the court. She probably tries to save Charudatta. She states clearly in the court that such a virtuous man cannot do such a heinous crime. When the judge orders the guards to arrest Charudatta, she again requests to everyone release him and pleads, “if my daughter has been killed, well, she has been killed. But let my long-lived one, Charudatta, live” (Sudraka 203).

In the next act, the Chandals also delay the act of execution. They perhaps know Charudatta is guiltless and hesitate to do their task. They elongate their task by talking over other things. These acts imply that they have high regard for Charudatta.

A Less Intelligent Person

Charudatta belongs to a merchant family, and he had wealth. But he lost his wealth by offering his wealth to where he had nothing left. At last, he becomes poor because of his charitable nature. 

In Act 1, we notice Charudatta broods over the loss of his financial status. When Vidushaka inquires about it, Charudatta expresses his grief about losing the attention of people on account of the loss of his wealth.

He gives the metaphor of cranes. Like cranes, they came to his house and received what he had offered them. Losing his relationships with friends makes him feel depressed. 

He cares about extremely and the theft of the ornament from his house reveals this. Instead of caring for the stolen casket, he becomes more conscious of what people will conceive of him. He seems to care for his reputation. At the beginning of the play, he shows himself as an attention seeker. He keeps repeating his status of being poor. 

He has a poetic personality. For instance, 

Charudatta acts like a dumb man. Though he has no wealth, he has not left the habit of offering to others. It makes no sense when he tries to be too generous when he is undergoing complicated times financially. Instead of accepting his reality, he gives the servant of Vasantasena, Karnapuraka, his gifted cloak in Act 2 on account of saving the monk from the mad elephant. The Brahmin touches his body where he should have ornaments and find nothing. He sighs and throws his cloak over the maid. Charudatta probably tries to show off his generosity to others. 

His past habit of offering things to others whenever someone brings good news to him never goes off his personality. In Act V, Vasantasena’s messenger Kumbhilaka informs Charudatta that Vasantasena is arriving at his house. Out of happiness, he says in Act V, “I have never let a welcome announcement go by without bestowing a reward” (Sudraka 137). He still is in a fool’s paradise and he is in a state of offering something. He again conceives of giving his ring to the maid of Vasantasena, but soon he realizes he has nothing to offer. 

He keeps repeating the same miserable situation. But he seems to lack intellect and he himself is responsible for his misery. If he keeps offering even when his financial condition is not stable, no one would consider it an act of prudence. 

His Hypocrisy 

He could have saved himself by telling a lie in the court that the ornaments belong to him after Vasantasena’s mother cannot recognize them. But he sticks to the truth. However, he lies he does not know Vasantasena when the judge inquires him if he knows the courtesan. This reveals the hypocrisy of his character. 

Later, his utter foolish is revealed when he forgives Sakara and lets him enjoy the same status he had before. We cannot accept this in reality. If not ordered to kill, at least, he could have taken off his power so that he cannot harm anyone with his power. 

He seems unrealistic after they know that a thief has intruded into his house. Instead of feeling angry or upset, his first reaction is an admiration for the round hole in the wall that Sarvilaka has made. He says, “Ah! It is a fine looking hole!” (108) Act III. Instead of becoming anxious, he appreciates the craftsmanship of the thief. 

He also shows regard for the thief who tried to rob him. Instead of feeling resentment for the thief, he finds satisfaction “That he went away satisfied” (109), This is the height of the unrealistic portrait of the Charudatta. He is too ideal to accept him in reality. He thinks it is pleasant news, despite knowing the casket of jewels has been stolen.

Charudatta refuses to lie when Maitreya suggests to him not to know anything about the jewels to cover up the truth. However, he does not hesitate to tell Vasantasena a lie about gambling. Gambling has always been a favorite pastime and is accepted favorably in society. In fact, we notice the same acceptance in The Dicing of The Mahabharata.

He thinks gambling would be a better excuse than telling the truth. He wants to project that he willingly gives the ornament. In theft, his inadequacy, and his manliness can be questioned. Therefore, he does not inform the police because it lowers his status and indicates him as a powerless man who cannot even his house. 

When she gives him her necklace in place of the ornaments, his male ego does not allow him to take it, even though he has hardly any other way to pay for the stolen things. 

Patriarchal 

His patriarchal comment after the theft in Act III suggests this. “Through the absence of money, a man becomes a woman; and she who is a woman becomes a man, by giving the money!” (111).

By accepting his wife’s necklace, he thinks his status of being the male in the house will be down.

He shows concern for the trust that Vasantasena shows him for the ornament. But he has no concern for that Dhuta’s only necklace from her mother. He feels hesitant to break Vasantasena’s trust but shows no gratitude to his wife that she has offered her precious jewel only to hold her husband’s reputation. 

Ignorance to the Wife

He has little regard for his wife. Otherwise, he would not be mad after Vasantasena despite being a father to a lovely son and husband to a lovely wife. He does not feel complete despite having a generous and loyal friend and wife. 

Charudatta is not completely a moral person. In Act I, when Vasantasena is in the temple, he shows his interest in another woman despite being a married man. We do not see any type of conflict in him regarding whether or not to advance into a relationship outside of his married life. 

Being a Brahman, he is supposed to have the understanding that bodily pleasure is fleeting and it deviates man from his main goal. He thinks it is proper to be passionate about a woman after having a wife. It suggests he is not a Brahman in its real sense. 

Sakara

An Abnormal

Sakara or Samsthanaka is the most wicked man in the play. He creates problems in the lives of Charudatta and Vasantasena because he feels jealous of Charudatta. He is passionate about her and he sees her lover as his threat. 

He madly falls in with Vasantasena even after Vasantasena clearly states her disinterest. He does not understand consent is important in a relationship. Later, he tries to please Vasantasena by sending a cart with an ornament worth ten thousand gold pieces. 

For Sakara, one could do anything with wealth. He is like those lovers who think money can buy happiness. For him, emotion and respect have no place in the relationship. Because of his lack of respect, his love turns into hatred. When Vasantasena hits him with her foot, he feels insulted. He immediately goes to kill her. He does not think much before strangling Vasantasena. 

His love is dangerous because of his strange behavior. He shows no emotion in killing Vasantasena. The abnormal behavior he possesses is called abnormal psychology. Having killed Vasantasena, he justifies her murder her, 

“Because she wouldn’t accept me who was courting her, I killed in my wrath that courtesan. Seeing that the Pushpakarandaka garden was lonely, I strangled her with the noose of my arms” (179-80).

He does not hesitate to strangle Vasantasena and after killing her, he also makes sure he has killed her. If not, he would hesitate to kill her. 

Arrogant

He is the brother-in-law of King Palaka. He shows off his power in the court. When the judge asks him his matter, He tells him he will whisper in his ear because he is born into a big family. 

He says, “My father’s the king’s father-in-law; the king is the son-in-law of my father. I myself am the king’s brother-in-law; while the king is the husband of my sister” (189).

He is also an attention seeker. He feels content when someone praises him. The repetition of his status as the brother-in-law of the king shows how prideful he is of his status. Sakara thinks everyone should praise him. He considers it an act of heroism. Sakara repents not for killing her but for killing her in the absence of nobody. He feels sad that his act of heroism has gone unnoticed. 

Insensitive 

Unlike Charudatta, Sakara behaves inhumanely with the other characters in the play who are below him in status. For instance, he misbehaves with the monk who comes to his old garden in Act VIII. In the same act, he does not care for his servant Cheta’s death if he dies while crossing the cart over the wall. He arrogantly says, 

 “I’m the king’s brother-in-law! If the bullocks die, I will buy others; if the carriage is smashed, I’ll get another built; and if you die, I’ll find another carriage-driver” (170).

A comic-villain

Sakara is the comic villain in the play. Though his deeds harm others, his remarks often amuse us and arouse the comic effect. Sakara often alludes to epics that are full of mismatches. He appears in Act I where he chases Vasantasena with the other two men in the darkness. He makes a blunder of his mythological reference and says, 

“You inflame my love, my passion, my lust, and forcibly deprive me of my sleep when lying on my bed at night; and you are running away stumbling and falling, being agitated by fear, now that you have come into power, like Kunti into that of Ravana” (68-9).

He probably refers to the abduction of Sita by Ravana. It shows that he does not know of the epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata. Because of his ignorance, he often mingles them and uses them. 

In Act VIII, when Sakara tries to drag her from his carriage, he says, “I shall forthwith drag down your lovely body from my carriage, just as Jatayu did the wife of Vali” (173-74).

He again incorrectly refers to Ramayana without realizing his mistake. His lack of knowledge of the epics gives the readers a comic effect amidst the serious action.

He has also an odd habit of pronouncing ‘s’ as ‘sh’, for which his statements often create a comic effect in the play.  

Cunning 

Though Sakara seems stupid at many points, he is cunning. Though he shows no repentance consciously for killing Vasantasena or other misdeeds. However, at some point, he shows a glance at his subconscious guilt. 

For instance, instead of sitting properly on the court, he sits on the grassy quadrangle. The judge invites him to take a proper place. He says since the place belongs to him, he can sit anywhere and he sits on the ground. He probably thinks he is not worthy of sitting like others after sinning. This could suggest his struggle with his double personality.