Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c11.s3: Note B. Harṣa and the Far South

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c11.s3

Language
English

Note B. Harṣa and the Far South

c11.s3.2

In connection with the topic of the extent of the Kanauj kingdom, we may also take notice of the following lines in praise of Harṣa, attributed to Mayūra, who is reputed to have been the father-in-law of Bāṇa :

c11.s3.3

“Bhūpālāḥ Śaśibhāskarānvayabhuvaḥ ke nāma nāsāditaḥ,
Bhartāraṁ punar ekaṁ eva hi bhuvas tvāṁ deva manyāmahe,
Yenāṅgaṁ parimṛṣya Kuntalaṁ athākṛṣya vyudasyāyatam,
Colaṁ prāpya ca Madhyadeśaṁ adhunā Kāñcyāṁ karaḥ pātitah.”¹

c11.s3.4

¹ Vallabhadeva’s *Subhāṣitāvali*, ed, Peterson, (Bombay, 1886), stanza 2515, p. 429; J. R. A. S., 1926, p. 487; *Ind. Hist. Quart.*, Dec., 1927, p.788.

c11.s3.5

It is thought that reference is here made to the southern conquests of Harṣa as far as Kuntala, Coḷa, and Kāñcī.

c11.s3.6

Support for this view is further found in the Gaddemane inscription, in which we come across the following passage in characters of the 7th century :

c11.s3.7

“Svasti Śrī Śila-ādityan diśāṁ-bharggan ākevaḷan
aggaḷakaṇṭakan,
Péraḷke vare Peṭṭaṇi Satyāṅkan aṭṭuḷabhaṭaṁ bedare
Mahendran,
Beḍara rāyara Malappara Kalegaḍuḷe vividu svar-
ggālaya
Kkeridan beḷeya maḷa kādon kalyāṇaṁ akke aḷivon
pañc-ma.”

c11.s3.8

It mentions the death of one Peṭṭaṇi Satyāṅka, while engaged in a fight against some Beḍa chiefs, when Śilāditya invaded the south, and Mahendra took to flight. It is supposed that the name Śilāditya refers to Harṣa of Kanauj, and Mahendra to his Pallava contemporary Mahendravarman I.¹

c11.s3.9

¹ *Ann. Rep. Mysore Arch. Dept.*, 1923, p. 83; *Ind. Hist. Quart.* Dec., 1927, pp. 788-89.

c11.s3.10

The theory of Harṣa’s invasion of the south does not, however, seem to rest on solid foundations. Firstly, the identification of Śilāditya with Harṣa is far from certain. Dr. R. C. Majumdar identifies him with Yuvarāja Śryāśraya Śilāditya, who lived in the second half of the 7th century A. D., and Mahendra with Mahendravarman II, on the ground that there was “constant hostility between the Cālukyas and the Pallavas” about this period.² Secondly, it does not seem probable that Harṣa could play the rôle of a second Samudragupta, or that his victorious arms could penetrate so far south, when at the very frontiers of the Deccan he had to bear the humiliation of an ignominious defeat at the hands of Pulakeśi II, who also claims to have won a victory against the Pallava king. Thirdly, the passage of Mayūra has hardly any air of reality and appears as “praise in the conventional exaggerated style of a poet, given to punning, and without any reference to historical accuracy.”

c11.s3.11

² *Ind. Hist. Quart.*, V, 1929, p. 235.

Linked texts (3)