the author himself would have been guilty of the plagiarism. It is true that the author of the Kávya-prakáśa, in his enumeration of the advantages of poetry, after mentioning Kálidása as an instance of its procuring fame, brings forward, as an instance of its procuring wealth, Dhávaka in his relation with King Śrí Harsha; and most of his commentators add that this poet composed the Ratnávalí under that king's name. Dr Hall, however, has shown that one commentator reads Bána instead of Dhávaka; and I need hardly add that these oral traditions, like those current about Kálidása, Vararuchi, and Chaura, are of but little historical value. The author of the Sáhitya Sára improves upon his predecessors by relating that Dhávaka was excessively poor, in spite of the learning which he had obtained by the virtue of a certain Mantra; at last, however, he composed the Naishadhíya, in one hundred cantos, and on showing it to King Śrí Harsha, received a large jágír as his reward.[1] But the Naishadhíya, as will be seen in the sequel, belongs to a different Śrí Harsha. The story no doubt has a certain foundation of truth, but its exact details, as in all popular legends, waver and dissolve into mist directly we touch them.
The Ratnávalí and the Nágánanda would at first sight seem to belong to the same author; half the prologue is the same in each, as also the stanza where the manager says that Śrí Harsha is a clever poet, and the subject of the play attractive; but there is little similarity in the plays themselves. Of course their subjects
- ↑ The author adds as his authority—iti vriddhair upákhyáyate, "thus it is related by the elders."
