[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 # History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c14: Chapter VIII. Harṣa as an Author and Patron of Letters History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c14 - **Language:** English ### Chapter VIII. Harṣa as an Author and Patron of Letters ### [c14.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.2) Harṣa’s claim to the remembrance of history rests not merely on the fact that he considerably enlarged the boundaries of the Kanauj kingdom, but still more on the enlightened character of his government and his liberal patronage of learning. According to Yuan Chwang, Harṣa used to earmark a fourth of the revenue from the crown lands for rewarding high intellectual eminence, and another fourth for gifts to various sects.¹ This official honour and attention paid to men of genius or literary distinction doubtless stimulated and encouraged them to devote “themselves to a thorough acquisition of knowledge,” as the pilgrim himself testifies elsewhere.² The \*Life\* further records Harṣa’s generous assignment of “the revenue of eighty large towns of Orissa” to a noted Buddhist scholar named Jayasena, who had become the admiration of the age on account of his piety and encyclopaedic learning. But inspired as the latter was by a lofty spirit of sacrifice and self-abnegation, he declined even this tempting offer.³ ### [c14.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.3) ¹ Watters, I, p. 176; Beal, I, p. 87. In this connection we may also recall Kauṭilya’s scheme of assigning land to spiritual guides and learned Brahmans (\*Arthaśāstra\*, Bk. II, Chaps. 1-2, pp. 45, 48). Such grants of land are called in an inscription “Vidyādhana” (\*Ind. Ant.\*, XII, pp. 193-94). ### [c14.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.4) ² Watters, I, p. 161; Beal, I, p. 80. ### [c14.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.5) ³ \*Life\*, p. 154. ### [c14.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.6) Harṣa also made munificent endowments to Nalanda, the great centre of Buddhist culture. One of his gifts to this University consisted in the construction of a magnificent \*Vihāra\* or temple covered with brass plates by the side of the principal monastery, about one hundred feet in height¹. Perhaps a few words about Nalanda may not be amiss here. It was at that time the most celebrated seat of learning, and the pride of the Buddhist world. Kings vied with one another in their liberality to patronise and endow this great institution. The \*Life\* tells us that its structures were added by no fewer than six rulers in connected succession, \*viz.\*, Śakrāditya, Budhagupta, Tathāgatagupta, Bālāditya, Vajra, and a king of “Mid-India.”² The sovereign of the country (i.e., Harṣa) had also “remitted the revenues of about 100 villages for the endowment of the convent.”³ Further, we learn that even the village householders contributed their mite towards supplying the four requisites of clothes, food, bedding, and medicine to the resident students.⁴ The whole establishment was surrounded on all sides by a lofty brick wall pierced by a big gate. The buildings inside were remarkable for their beauty and grandeur. To quote the picturesque language of the \*Life\*, “the richly adorned towers, and the fairy-like turrets, like pointed hill tops, are congregated together. The observatories seem to be lost in the vapours (of the morning) and the upper rooms tower above the clouds.”⁵ Nalanda counted on its rolls several thousand “Brethren” (according to the \*Life\* their number was 10,000),⁶ some of whom had even come from distant foreign countries “to put an end to their doubts.”¹ This high figure is no doubt striking if we take into consideration the fact that the University was meant for advanced studies, and it was not an easy matter to get admission into its portals. Yuan Chwang informs us that each candidate’s fitness and scholastic attainments were subjected to a searching examination by the method of discussion, on account of which many of them had often to return disappointed. Life at Nalanda was one of severe discipline and earnest endeavour. The “Brethren,” we are told, were very strict in observing the precepts and regulations of their order; they were looked upto as models by all India; learning and discussing they found the day too short; day and night they admonished each other, juniors and seniors mutually helping to perfection.² ### [c14.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.7) ¹ \*Life\*, p. 159; Watters, II, p. 171. ### [c14.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.8) ² \*Life\*, pp. 110-11. ### [c14.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.9) ³ \*Ibid.\*, p. 112. ### [c14.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.10) ⁴ \*Ibid.\*, pp. 112-13. ### [c14.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.11) ⁵ \*Ibid.\*, p. 111. ### [c14.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.12) ⁶ \*Ibid.\*, p. 112. ### [c14.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.13) ¹ Watters, II, p. 165. ### [c14.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.14) ² Watters, II, p. 165; Beal, II, p. 170. ### [c14.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.15) Lectures on various topics were delivered to them from about 100 pulpits every day, and these discourses were so important and instructive that none of the students ever thought of missing them “even for a minute.”³ There they studied the “Great Vehicle,” and also (the works belonging to) the eighteen sects, and not only so, but even ordinary works, such as the Vedas and other books, the Hetuvidyā, Śabdavidyā, the Cikitsāvidyā, the works on magic (Atharvaveda), the Sāṅkhya; besides these they thoroughly investigated the “miscellaneous” works.⁴ During his stay of five years at Nalanda Yuan Chwang himself received instruction in “all the collection (of Buddhist books), and the sacred books of the Brahmans.”⁵ Among the specific subjects, which he learnt under the guidance of Śīlabhadra, are mentioned the Yoga-Śāstra, the Nyāya-Anusāra-Śāstra, the Hetuvidyāśāstra, the Śabdavidyā, the Vyākaraṇa etc., besides such Buddhist works as Koṣa, Vibhāṣā and others.¹ Thus it appears from this comprehensive curriculum that the main object of the establishment was not so much to instruct the pupils in any barren and jejune system of dogmas and creeds, but to rouse them to mental activity and spiritual speculation. The success of Nalanda may best be shown by giving the names of some of its brilliant scholars—men "of model character and perspicacious intellect"—like Śīlabhadra, Jñānacandra, Dharmapāla, Candrapāla, Guṇamati, Sthiramati, Prabhāmitra and Jinamitra, the fame of whose abilities and learning had travelled abroad and attracted seekers after knowledge from all parts of the Buddhist world. Indeed, Nalanda had become so celebrated that "those who stole the name (of Nalanda Brother) were all treated with respect wherever they went."² ### [c14.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.16) ³ Life, p. 112. ### [c14.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.17) ⁴ Ibid. ### [c14.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.18) ⁵ Ibid., p. 125. ### [c14.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.19) ¹ Ibid., p. 121. ### [c14.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.20) ² Watters, II, p. 165; Beal, II, p. 170; see also "The University of Nalanda" by H. D. Sankalia, (Madras, 1934). Among other important centres of learning in the kingdom of Kanauj were the Ti-lo-shi-kia monastery where "scholars from distant countries flocked together in crowds" (Beal, II, p. 102); the Lo-to-wei-chi (Raktaviṭi) saṅghārāma in Karṇasuvarṇa, the rendezvous of learned celebrities; and the Bhadravihāra in Kānyakubja itself, where Yuan Chwang studied for sometime under Vīryasena. (See Supra). ### [c14.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.21) Harṣa’s interest in literature is further evident from his patronage of authors of repute and merit. The most shining light in his literary coterie was undoubtedly Bāṇa or Bāṇabhaṭṭa, who composed the well-known Harṣacarita devoted to the laboured and fulsome panegyric of his royal patron. It belongs to the domain of a writer on Sanskrit literature to discuss his writings, but suffice it here to say that among Bāṇa’s other works are (a) Caṇḍīśataka, (b) the Pārvatīpariṇaya,¹ (c) and the Kādambarī. Curiously enough, he left both the romances—the Harṣacarita and the Kādambarī—unfinished. The latter, however, was taken up by his son, Bhūṣaṇabhaṭṭa, in the midst of a speech in which Kādambarī’s sorrows are told, and the style of this later addition fortunately is an exact and skilful imitation of the first portion. The next member of this distinguished circle was Mayūra, whose chief contribution to the literature of the day was the Sūryaśataka. Chronologically antecedent to this was perhaps the Mayūraśataka, since in the legend the latter is said to have caused the leprosy which the former cured.² That Mayūra was in the court of Harṣa may be substantiated by the following stanza occurring in Sārangdhara’s Paddhati and other works : ### [c14.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.22) ¹ Its authorship is, however, doubtful. ### [c14.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.23) ² Some critics are of opinion that the Sūryaśataka and the Mayūraśataka are not separate works, but they are simply two different names of one and the same text. On the life and works of Mayūra see “The Sanskrit Poems of Mayūra,” edited by Quackenbos (Columbia University Series, Vol. 9). See Ibid., p. 60. ### [c14.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.24) “Aho prabhāvo Vāgdevyā yan Mātaṅga Divākaraḥ, Śrī-Harṣasyābhavat sabhyaḥ samo Bāṇa- Mayūrayoḥ.” ### [c14.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.25) i.e., “So great is the power of Saraswati that even the outcaste Divākara became a courtier of Harṣa on equal terms with Bāṇa and Mayūra.”³ This remarkable passage reveals to us yet another poet named Divākara. Nothing tangible has so far been brought to light concerning this shadowy bard, but his literary excellences and achievements must have sufficed to win him royal recognition and favour.¹ ### [c14.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.26) ³ Compare Peterson’s edition, Vol. I, Stanza 189, p. 30 (Bombay Sanskrit Series, No. 37). Also Parab’s Subhāṣitaratnabhāṇḍāgāra (5th ed., Bombay, 1911), p. 37, Stanza 37. See also the Sūktimuktāvali. ### [c14.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.27) ¹ Dr. Keith notes that some poems of this author are preserved (\*Classical Sanskrit Literature\*, p. 120). ### [c14.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.28) But Harṣa was not a mere detached patron of letters. He himself appears to have wielded the pen with no less dexterity and effect than the sword. There are three plays, viz., the \*Ratnāvalī\*, the \*Priyadarśikā\*, and the \*Nāgānanda\*, which are said to have been composed by a king named Harṣadeva. This royal author has been identified with Harṣa of Kanauj, since it is contended that no other sovereign of this name can meet the requirements of the case. Now, ancient Indian history knows of three kings, besides Śīlāditya of Kanauj, who bore the name Harṣa: (\*a\*) the tyrannical king of Kashmir, who flourished between 1089-1101 A. D., according to the \*Rājatarangiṇī\*.² (\*b\*) Harṣa, the grandfather of king Bhoja of Dhārā, (\*circa\* 947-972 A. D.). (\*c\*) Harṣa-Vikramāditya of Ujjain³, identified with Yaśodharman of Malwa by Dr. Hoernle⁴. Of these, the first two can easily be ruled out owing to chronological difficulties presented by these works being mentioned and quoted by earlier writers. Dāmodaragupta, who lived under Jayāpīḍa of Kashmir (779-810 A. D.) mentions in his work, the \*Kuṭṭanīmata\* (vv. 856f), the story and performance of the \*Ratnāvalī\*, which he ascribes to a king. Dr. Keith further points out that the poet Māgha, who may be assigned... to about A. D. 700, knew the \*Nāgānanda\*, "to which a reference is made in his Kāvya (xx, 44)."⁵ Regarding the claims of the third Harṣa mentioned above, we may say that according to Kalhaṇa, Harṣa was only his secondary name, and Vikramāditya was his title. It appears, therefore, improbable that if this Harṣa had been the author of these plays, he would have omitted to mention the prized title of Vikramāditya in the \*prastāvanā\*. Besides, he was not a Buddhist, and so he could not be associated with an almost Buddhistic play as the \*Nāgānanda\*. Thus applying the method of elimination, the only Harṣa left to hold the field is the Kanauj sovereign of that name.¹ Moreover, it is thought that the internal evidence of these plays also supports Harṣa’s claims to their authorship. In the first place, they appear to bear the stamp of a common authorship, as they not only exhibit innumerable parallelisms of thought, style, structure, and diction, but sometimes contain even identical phrases and stanzas.² All the three dramas, again, are considered to betray here and there some of the actual incidents in the life of Harṣa, as also his ideals and achievements.³ We must, however, urge caution against any undue reliance on conclusions based on such arguments only. That they are the work of one pen may probably be conceded by all critics; but it may as well be said—and such a charge has undoubtedly been made, as we shall presently see—that they were the productions of some literary protégé of Harṣa, who was thoroughly conversant with the religious tendencies and the chief events in his patron’s life and career. Perhaps they were written to provide entertainment for the Kanauj audience and for dedication to the king, but the poet in his gratitude for the munificent gifts received and to honour Harṣa, who appears to have been singularly ambitious, went a step further and ascribed the composition of the plays themselves to him. ### [c14.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.29) ² Stein, \*Rājat.\*, Bk. VII, p. 333 f. ### [c14.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.30) ³ \*Ibid.\*, Bk. III, verse 125, p. 83. ### [c14.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.31) ⁴ \*J. R. A. S.\*, 1909, p. 446 f. ### [c14.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.32) ⁵ \*Classical Sanskrit Literature\*, pp. 54-55 ### [c14.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.33) ¹ See also Dr. Keith’s \*Sanskrit Drama\* (1924), pp. 170-81. ### [c14.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.34) ² See for similarities in all the three plays : \*Priyadarśikā\*, edited by Nariman, Jackson, and Ogden (Columbia University Series, 1923) Introduction, Part VI, pp. lxxvii-lxxxvii, to which I owe some references given here. ### [c14.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.35) ³ See Dr. R. K. Mookerji, \*Harṣa\*, pp. 155-56. ### [c14.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.36) But our extraneous evidence for Harṣa’s literary attainments seems to be more definite and conclusive. Thus Bāṇa states eulogising Harṣa: “In poetical contests he poured out a nectar of his own which he had not received from any foreign source;”¹ and again “his poetical skill finds words fail.”² We must, however, note that Bāṇa’s testimony is always to be taken with a certain amount of reserve owing to his tendency to lavish all sorts of praise on his hero. Next, Soḍḍhala, who wrote in the 11th century A. D. mentions Harṣa in his \*Udaya-sundarī-kathā\* along with other literary monarchs, as an instance of a poet-king and patron of literature (cf. “kavīndraiśca Vikramāditya-Srī Harṣa-Muñja-Bhojadevādi-bhūpālaiḥ”—p. 150). And in another passage he punningly refers to him as the illustrious Harṣa, whose joy was in diction (gīr-harṣa). It runs thus: ### [c14.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.37) ¹ Hc. C. T., p. 58. Cf. “Kāvyakathāsva-pītamamṛtamudvamantam.” (Hc., Cal. ed., pp. 161-62). ### [c14.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.38) ² Ibid., p. 65. Cf. “Api cāsya... kavitvasya vācaḥ ... na paryāpto viṣayaḥ” (Ibid., p. 182). ### [c14.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.39) “Śrī-Harṣa ityavanivartiṣu pārthiveṣu Nāmnaiva kevalamajāyata vastutastu, Gīr-harṣa yeṣa nijasamsadi yena rājñā Sampūjitaḥ kanaka-koṭi-śatena Bāṇaḥ,”³ ### [c14.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.40) ³ C. D. Dalal and Krishnamacharya’s edition, p. 2 (Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, No. 11; Baroda, 1920). ### [c14.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.41) i.e., ### [c14.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.42) “There arose among the princes dwelling upon earth (One who was) Śrī-Harṣa merely by name, but, in reality, That one was speech-joy (or rejoicing in diction) in his own assembly— A king by whom Bāṇa was honoured with (a gift of) a hundred crores of gold.” ### [c14.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.43) The famous author Jayadeva, who flourished about the 12th century A. D., mentions Harṣa’s name in the following stanza of the \*Prasannarāghava\* along with the earlier Bhāsa and Kālidāsa, as well as his own literary favourites Bāṇa and Mayūra, and also the later Cora, as well-known authors: ### [c14.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.44) “Yaṣyāś-Coraścikuranikaraḥ karṇapūro Mayūro, Bhāso hāsaḥ kavikūlaguruḥ Kālidāso vilāsaḥ. Harṣo harṣo hṛdayavasatiḥ pañcabāṇaśca Bāṇaḥ, Keṣāṃ naiṣā kathaya kavitā kāminī kautukāya.”¹ ### [c14.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.45) ¹ \*Prasannarāghava\*, Act I, Stanza 22, p. 10, ed. Paranjpye and Panse (Poona, 1894). ### [c14.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.46) i.e., “Oh, say, to whom would not poetry as a mistress be an object of admiration, Since she has Cora (Bilhaṇa) as her mass of hair, Mayūra as her earrings, Bhāsa as her laughter, Kālidāsa, guru of the race of poets, as her grace, Harṣa as the joy dwelling in her heart, and Bāṇa as her god of love.” ### [c14.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.47) The \*Subhāṣitaratna-Bhāṇḍāgāra\*² also includes Harṣa’s name in a list of well-known writers, who “gladden this universe by their compositions.” To quote the passage: ### [c14.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.48) ² See Parab. 5th ed., Stanza 68, p. 38, (Bombay, 1911). The stanza is given here anonymously. ### [c14.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.49) “Māghaś-Coro Mayūro Muraripuraparo Bhā- raviḥ sāravidyaḥ, Śrī-Harṣaḥ Kālidāsaḥ kaviratha Bhavabhūtyā- hvayo Bhojarājaḥ. Śrī-Daṇḍi diṇḍimākhyaḥ śrutimukuṭa gurur Bhallaṭo Bhaṭṭa-Bāṇaḥ Khyātaścānye Subandhvādaya iha kṛtabhir- visvamālhādayanti.” ### [c14.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.50) i.e., “Māgha, Cora, Mayūra, the second Muraripu (i.e., Murāri), Bhāravi whose knowledge is renowned; ### [c14.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.51) The illustrious Harṣa, Kālidāsa and also the poet named Bhavabhūti, Bhojarāja; The illustrious Daṇḍin, called ‘the drum,’ Bhallaṭa, weighty with the diadem of fame, Bhaṭṭa-Bāṇa; And other celebrities, chief of whom is Subandhu, gladden the Universe here by (their) compositions.” ### [c14.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.52) Bühler further informs us that the \*Bhāvabodhini\* of Madhusūdana (17th century A. D.) contains the following passage: “Two eastern poets, called Bāṇa and Mayūra, lived at the court of Mahārāja Śrī-Harṣa, the chief of poets, the composer of the \*nāṭikā\* called the \*Ratnāvalī\* who was lord of Malwa, and whose capital was Ujjain.”\[1\] Madhusūdana’s account “learnt from the mouth of illustrious ancients” and written down a thousand years after Harṣa’s time, is no doubt a mere literary anecdote, wrongly associating Harṣa with Malwa and Ujjain, but the contemporaneity and literary gifts of Bāṇa, Mayūra, and Harṣa certainly seem to be the substratum of truth in this erroneous statement. ### [c14.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.53) Lastly, we are told on the authority of I-tsing that “king Śīlāditya versified the story of Bodhisattva Jīmūtavāhana, who surrendered himself in place of a Nāga. This version was set to music. He had it performed by a band accompanied by dancing and acting, and thus popularised it in his time.”\[2\] The record of I-tsing, who came to India just a quarter of a century after the death of Harṣa, seems to me by far the most important and reliable testimony regarding Harṣa’s literary attempts and attainments.\[3\] ### [c14.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.54) ¹ \*Ind. Ant.\*, Vol. II (1873), pp. 127-28. Compare “Mālavarājasyojjayinī rājadhānikasya kavijanamūrdhanyasya Ratnāvalyākhyanāṭikā kartur Mahārāja Śrī-Harṣasya.” ### [c14.55](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.55) ² I-tsing, \*A Record of the Buddhist Religion in India and the Malay Archipelago\*, translated by J. Takakusu, pp. 163-64 (Oxford, 1896). ### [c14.56](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.56) ³ Harṣa is also said to have composed the \*Suprabhātastotra\*, which mentions his name in the colophon (J. R. A. S., 1903, ### [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 ### [c14.58](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.58) ¹ See \*Kāvyaprakāśa\*, B. V. Jhalkīkara's edition, pp. 6-7 (Bombay, 1921); Gaṅgānātha Jhā's English Translation (1925), pp. 1-2. ### [c14.59](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.59) pp. 703-22). Dr. F. W. Thomas, however, ascribes it to king Harṣa of Kashmir (\*Ibid.\*, p. 704). Some lines in the Madhuban inscription as well probably bear the stamp of our Harṣa's authorship (Bühler, \*Ep. Ind.\*, Vol. I, p. 71). Besides, Yuan Chwang attributes the \*Aṣṭamahāśrīcaitya-saṃskṛta-stotra\* to an Indian king called "Sun of virtue," which is equivalent to Śīlāditya, the title given to Harṣa (see also Dr. Keith's \*History of Sanskrit Literature\* (1928), p. 215). It may not be out of place to add here that he was also a skilled calligraphist, as seems clear from his signature in the Banskhera charter (Cf. "Sva hasto mama Mahārājādhirājasya Śrī-Harṣasya"). ### [c14.60](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.60) evident from the \*Harṣacarita\* and the \*Kādambarī\*, was most extravagant and complicated, while the language of the plays is simple and unfettered by any artificiality and ornamentation. The plays are in no sense productions of a high order, and appear quite unworthy of a writer like Bāṇa. ### [c14.61](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.61) This doubt was shared by several scholiasts of the 17th century A. D., who affirm that the plays were composed by Dhāvaka in the name of Harṣa. Thus says Nāgoji in his \*Kāvyapradīpoddyota\*: "Dhāvaka was a poet, and having composed the \*Ratnāvalī\* in Śrī Harṣa's name obtained much wealth, such is the report" (Dhāvakaḥ kaviḥ sa hi Śrī-Harṣa-nāmnā Ratnāvalīm kritvā bahu dhanam labdhavān, iti prasiddham).¹ ### [c14.62](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.62) ¹ \*Ibid.\*, D. Chandorkar's edition, p. 5, (Poona, 1898). ### [c14.63](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.63) Another scholiast, Paramānanda, repeats a similar story that "a poet by name Dhāvaka having sold his own work, a play called \*Ratnāvalī\*, obtained much wealth from the king named Śrī-Harṣa, so it happened of old" (Dhāvaka-nāmā kaviḥ svakṛitim Ratnāvalīm nāma-nāṭikām vikrīya Śrī-Harṣa-nāmno rājñaḥ sakāsād bahudhanamavāpeti purāvṛittam).² ### [c14.64](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.64) ² Bhandarkar's \*Report\* for 1882 on Sanskrit Manuscripts, No. 208; Nariman, Jackson, and Ogden, \*Priyadarśikā\*, p. xlvii. See also Maheśvara's \*Prakāśādarśa\*. ### [c14.65](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.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. ### [c14.66](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.66) ¹ Dr. L. D. Barnett, \*Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies\*, 1920, pp. 37-38. ### [c14.67](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.67) ² See the \*Harakeli-Nāṭaka\*, \*Ind. Ant.\*, XX (1891), pp. 211-12, lines 32, 35, 37, 40. ### [c14.68](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14.68) PART III ## Linked texts (20) - [Rājataraṅgiṇī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.historical.kashmir.rajatarangini) — Kalhaṇa, Sanskrit - [Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kautilya) — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit - [Śiśupālavadha](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.mahakavya.krsna.sisupalavadha) — Māgha, Sanskrit - [Kuṭṭanīmata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.kama.kuttanimata) — Dāmodaragupta, Sanskrit - [Subhāṣitāvali](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.subhasita.subhasita.kosa.subhasitavali) — Vallabhadeva (anthologist), Sanskrit - [Harṣacarita](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.historical.harsacarita) — Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Sanskrit - [Nāgānanda](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.nagananda) — Harṣavardhana, Sanskrit - [Sūryaśataka](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.stotra.suryasataka) — Mayūra, Sanskrit - [Caṇḍīśataka](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.stotra.candisataka) — Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Sanskrit - [Kādambarī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.novels.prasiddha.kadambari) — Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Sanskrit - [Ratnāvalī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.udayana.ratnavali) — Harṣavardhana, Sanskrit - [Indian Antiquary](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.corpora.ia) - [Māgha](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.central.magha) - [Stotra-Kāvya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.stotra) — Sanskrit - [Śārṅgadharapaddhati](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.subhasita.subhasita.kosa.sarngadharapaddhati) — Śārṅgadhara, Sanskrit - [Prasannarāghava](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.rama.prasannaraghava) — Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa, Sanskrit - [Udayasundarīkathā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.campu.udayasundari) — Soḍḍhala, Sanskrit - [Pārvatīpariṇaya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.purana.parvatiparinaya) — Vāmanabhaṭṭa Bāṇa, Sanskrit - [Priyadarśikā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.natika.priyadarsika) — Śrīharṣa, Sanskrit - [Sūktamuktāvalī (Somaprabhasūri)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.subhasita.gnomic.jaina.suktamuktavali-somaprabha) — Somaprabhasūri, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.tripathi-1937.c14) · Pramāṇa