History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c14.65

c14.65

Now the question naturally arises: Are these assertions mere fictions lacking foundation, or are they based on truth? In the absence of any other definite confirmatory evidence it would be presumptuous to give a certain answer, but we may indicate a few difficulties in the way of implicit reliance on these passages. In the first place, Dhāvaka as a poet is unknown to Sanskrit literature, and none of his verses have been quoted in the *Subhāṣitāvali*. Secondly, almost all the later doubting authors belong to the 16th or 17th century A. D., and this distance in time from Harṣa considerably essens the weight of their authority. Thirdly, it is not clear from Mammaṭa—probably the original source of the later authors—whether the money received by the poets of Harṣa’s court was an act of pure royal patronage, or was of the nature of a price for selling their authorship. The truth of the whole matter is that although we cannot be oversanguine about Harṣa’s authorship of these plays, there is nothing intrinsically improbable in such a view. Instances of royal literati are not wanting in history, and we may cite the names of Bhoja Paramāra of Dhārā, the Pallava king Mahendravikramavarman,¹ Vigraharāja Cāhamāna of Sākambharī,² Babar and Jahangir in this connection. But this does not exclude the possibility that some literary protégé of Harṣa may have lent an obliging hand in polishing his patron’s dramas, for as the proverb has it, royal authors are only half-authors.