[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937) › c14.57 # History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c14.57 History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c14.57 - **Language:** English ### [c14.57](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.57) In spite of these corroborative allusions occurring in later and contemporary literature, Sanskrit authors seem to have entertained doubts regarding the authorship of these plays from quite early times. The first to express such scepticism was Mammaṭa, a Kashmiri writer of the 11th century A. D., who speaks in his \*Kāvyaprakāśa\* of gains accruing from the art of writing poetry. It is claimed that poetry "redounds to fame and makes for wealth" (kāvyam yaśase arthakrite), and the author himself illustrates this statement by saying: "Fame—in case of Kālidāsa and others; wealth—as to Dhāvaka and other poets, from Śrī-Harṣa and other kings" (Kālidāsādīnāmiva yaśaḥ Śrī-Harṣāder Dhāvakādīnāmiva dhanam).¹ It was presumably due to the composition of the above three dramatic works that Dhāvaka received handsome rewards from Harṣa. On the other hand, Bühler points out that some manuscripts of the \*Kāvyaprakāśa\*, found in Kashmir, read Bāṇa instead of Dhāvaka. This is no doubt confirmed by Soḍḍhala, who, as noted above, alludes to the fact that Harṣa honoured Bāṇa with a gift of a hundred crores of gold. Bāṇa's authorship of these dramas, however, seems out of the question. His style, as is - [Previous: c14.56](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.56) - [Next: c14.58](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.58) - [Up: c14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.57](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.57) · Pramāṇa