« PreviousContinue »
Bane’: Hlzrsha-ckarita, Kddambari, and Chagall’-s’ataka as was remarked near the beginning of this essay, were composed at Kanauj, and when its sceptre was wielded by Harshavardhana. Contemporaneous in publication were the Ratnévali and the Négdnanda, dramas held in high esteem by the Hindus.
The Ratmivali I was once disposed to adjudge to Bana; and this adjudication, as against that of the late Professor Wilson, has not, I believe, been contested. . But, on closer inspection of materials which are accessible to no one but myself, I have struck upon a consideration partially adverse to what may have been regarded as an irreversible award.*
In the Ratndvali there is a stanza which is read, word for word, in the Harsha-charita as well.1“ It may be translated thus ; “ Destiny, when favourable, fetches, even from another continent, or even from the midst of the sea, or even from the bounds of space, that which is desired, and instantly brings it to pass.” Hindu poets not unfrequently repeat themselves ; but downright plagiarism, among them, of one respectable author from another, is unknown. That‘ the verses in discussion are not interpolated, is sufficiently clear from the fact of their being altogether apposite to both the connexions in which they occur. Are they, then, an unacknowledged quotation ?
But, again, the Ratmivali contains a stanza which is embodied, with the change of a single word, in the Ndgénanda likewise. In a literal version its meaning is : “ Om‘ able poet is the fortunate Harsha. Moreover, this auditory appreciates merit ; and the achievements of the Vatsa prince; are taking with the people ; and we are skilful in dramatic representation. Any one particular of these is a source for the attainment of whatsoever aspiration. What, then, can be said, when, owing to my affluent good fortune, this entire category of excellencies is presented in combination i‘’’* For Vatsawija we have, in the Ndyénanda, »S'idalhm'é_ja, a descriptive epithet of the hero of the play, Jimiitavzihana.
On finishing the Naishadkiya, S’:-iharsha showed it to his maternal uncle, Mammata Bllatta, author of the Kaivya-_1varaka'.s"a. The critic, after.-_ perusal, expressed a regret, that he had not seen it sooner. In compiling his chapter on blemishes, he had been put to the trouble of travelling through number-less volumes, in search of illustrations. Had he only known of the Naishad/u'_ya in time, he might have drawn cf»; 1;, he declared, without going further, to exem~ plify every possible species 0 e ect.
' See the preface to the Véxavadatté, pp. 12-16, foot-note.
1- In the fifth chapter. And see the Calcutta edition of the Ratmivali, p. 3.
The original words are these :
This is quoted, as from the Ratmivali, in the Saraswali-kaqithdbharazm. 1; Professor Wilson everywhere errs in assuming Vaisartija to mean “King Vatsa." Udayana is intended. The city of Kaus'émbi is styled Vatsa-paitcmam,
“ the capital of Vatsa :" and Vatsa denoted in people, and perhaps a region also,
Now, both the Ratnévali and the Négdnanda are dedicated to Harsha: for so we are to understand their being attributed to him, as if he were author of them ; a custom by no means unprecedented in the annals of Indian literature. The writer of the Ratnévall was a Hindu; that of the lVri_qdnamla,1" a. Bauddha. The latter may
but not a man. See the preface to the Vrisavadatiri, p. 4, foot-note; and the Haima-k0s'a, lV., 41.
* iliiii i‘=r'1v1= ==F’r‘H= w'r‘<w<riiwr_ petites”!
See the printed Ratmivali, p. 2. My text, for which I have collated several manuscripts, punctually agrees with it, as concerns this extract. The manager is here conciliating the favour of the audience on behalf of the troop of players, himself, &c.
Professor Wilson says, respecting his English rec-ension—as it really is—of the Ratnévali, that it may “ serve to convey some idea, how far the translator may be suspected of widely deviating from his text in the preceding dramas ;” where verse is rendered in verse. The passage just given is professedly reproduced, by him, in this strange manner: “ S'ri Harsha is an eminent poet; the audience are judges of merit ; the story of Vatsa is current in the world; and we, the actors, are experienced in the histrionic art; and 1 hope, therefore, that, with so precious a poem, and such means of doing it justice, the opportunity afforded me of appearing before so distinguished an assembly will yield me the fruit of all my desires." Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus, second edition, Vol. 11., pp. 261 and 265.
'1' It is somewhat singular, that this play should have escaped the questing of Professor Wilson ; as it is not very extraordinarily rare, and as it is more than once referred to, and extracted from, in the Da.s"ar1ipa’rvaloka. I have, among my private manuscripts, two copies of it, a complete one, and one broken. It is in five acts, and is of no great length. Its fable is the story of Jimiitavsihana, now rendered familiar by the publication of the first volume of the Katha'-sarz't0a are.
gOf its two benedictory stanzas the first is subjoined:
wrflszrsiwgfiwz fsmufe smgsflei sr-3" we
“ ‘ Witll eyes unclosed for a moment, on what female art thou ruminating, under pretext of pious contemplation? Behold these persons, 0m'se?ves, vexed
have borrowed a couplet from the former; or the former, from the latter: and Bzina may have introduced, quotationwise, into his Ha1'sha-charita, from a work not his own, the fatalistic verses of the Ratmivali. However all this may have been, it is scarcely questionable, that the Randvali, the Nzigénanda, and the Harsha-charita, were produced in the seventh century, and at the court of Harsha of Kanauj ; and it will, perhaps, still be proved, that the first and the third were from the pen of one and the same person.’*
“ The mere question,” observes Dr. Rowland Williams, “ whether the court at which Kélidésa flourished is that of Vikramaditya, at [in] Mélava, 56 B. C., or that of another prince, at Ujjayini, [?] nearly a thousand years later, shows the uncertainty of most things in Indian literature/’1” A Kélidasa, and indubitably the greater Kailidésa, being noted with eulogy by B:ina,1 it will not answer, any longer, to think of bringing him down to the days of Bhoja of Dhz’1r:i.§ Indeed, no good cause has as yet been produced for rejecting the Indian tradition, that Kélidasa antedated the Christian era.
One poet more remains, whose connexion with Kanauj may be counted a. certainty. I mean Ra'\_jas’ekhara, author of the Viddhaflila-bhanjikri, of the Prackagwrgla-pézzzglava, or Béla-bhérafa, of theBélaniméya2_1a,H and of the Karp121'a-manjari. In all four works, he speaks of
his patron as being Mahendrapéla, of the city of Mahodaya. Mahendra- .
pzila is also called Mahipala. ; and his father, Nirbhayanarendra. To the
by the shafts of Ananga. Albeit a guardian in name, thou dost not defend. Hypocritically art thou compassionate. Who is more extremely cruel than thou?’ May the Buddha, victorious over his passions, who was thus enviously addressed by the mistresses of Mara, protect you."
Jina is the generic appellation of any Buddha; but here, I think, the word is the subject of a paronomasia_
4' S'itikar_1tha, in his commentary on the Kévya-praka's’a, the Ka'vya-pmka's'am'dars'ana, gives Béna, not Dhivaka, as Mamm-ata’s name of the poet who was enriched by Harsha. He does not speak of the Ratnaivali as being the work which brought gain to the poet; but the omission is supplied by other annotators, such as Vaidyanétha, J ayaréma, and Nziges'a. See the Preface to the Vnisavadattli, p. 16, foot-note.
1' P. 287 of Christianity and Hinduism. Cambridge: 1856.
I See the Preface to the Va'savadatfé, pp. 14, 15, foot-note.
§ It is high time to give up speaking of this prince as a great patron 0fliterature. His pretensions to be so considered rest on the fruilest foundation possible.
|| Professor Wilson knew it by a reference only. I have seen a complete copy ; the property of Esobé S'éstrin, of Saugor. It is in ten acts.
first the poet was preceptor.* If Nirbhayanarendra was the title of the Bhoja I. of the Kanauj copper-plate, whose son was Mahendrapzila, it cannot be that this Rajasekhara compiled and supplemented the Bilahari inscriptionfl’ which I have assigned, but with much hesitation, to the early part of the twelfth century.
"‘ In the Viddha-srila-bhanjilai, Maliendraprila is called _i/uvarzija; and the terms :1/a',ya'vara and dauhilci, perhaps “ maintainer of a sacrificial hearth” and “ son of Duhika," are there applied to B.a_jiis’ekhara.
OfRé_jas'ekliara, Professor Wilson has said, with the Prachanqla-pdnqlava before him : “ He is here described as a poet who occupies that rank in the literature of the day which Vélmiki, Vyiisa, Bhiirtrihari, and Bliavabliiiti, have severally filled. * * * * * The siitradhtira observes, of the assembly, that it is formed of the learned men of the great city of Muhodaya, or the great Udaya; possibly Udayapur, the princes of which city affect to trace their descent from Rama. The modern city of Udayapur, however, was not founded before the sixteenth century; and the name must be applied to some other place, unless it be no more than a title meaning the very splendid or fortunate. We cannot doubt the long prior existence of the drama, from the mention made of it, or of its author, in the works to which reference is made in the preceding article, and to which we may add the Ka'uya-prakli-s"a, a work probably anterior to the foundation of the modern Udayupur. Mahodaya may be the origin of the name of Mahoba, a city of which extensive ruins remain, and of which the history is little known.” Select Specimens of the Theatre qf the Hindus, second edition,
Karpiira-snanjart is. As for Mahodaya, and its identity with Kaiiauj, the Professor forgot here to look into his own dictionary. Further, he has foisted in Vyésa ; and he has arbitrarily altered Bliartriinentlia into Bhartrihari :
quently lie became Bliartriinentlia; and, again, he existed as Bhavabhiiti. The
same is now Rajas'ekliai-a."
Journal, for 1852, pp. 494.-498.'_
paddhati; with two specimens of Mentl_ia’s,
-I" See p. 321 of the preceding volume of this Journal.
1', The visarga, as obviously being required, has been supplied. The "Q has been inserted by conjecture: but the conjunct in ‘WW1 0011111 110% but Bl? Once suggest it.
' Instead of this, the former decipherment has qqqzqrU
I Here I have converted a sibilant into a visarga.
§ Of the gotra of Darbhin mention is frequent. For Dzirbhya, see the Indiache Studien, Vol. I-, pp. 209, 255; and Vol. IL, pp. 308, 309 : for Darbhyu, Professor Max M1'iller’s History of Ancient Sanskrit Lilerature, first edition, p. 283 : and, for Darbha, Professor Weber’s Catalogue of the Berlin Sanskrit
Manuscripts, p. 56, line 7. _ [1 Here is an error, but of easy correction. There should have been, of course,
ting a dynastic year, and an indistinct compound character of unknown significance. Further on, the day of the semi-lunation is expressed by a. single numeral. It is the same as the first of the two just spoken of.