are very different, and we might expect to find even the same author assuming different styles when treating an heroic legend like the Nágánanda, and a genteel comedy of domestic manners like the Ratnávalí. But the difference in the religion of the two plays is a strong argument against identity of authorship; and I can hardly believe that the same poet could have written the invocations to Buddha and to Śiva, though I hope to be able to show that the same king may have put them forth under his name. If I might be allowed to venture a conjecture amidst such uncertainty, I should claim (with Dr Hall) the Ratnávalí for Bána, the well-known author of the Kádambarí; but I should be inclined to attribute the Buddhist play to the Dhávaka mentioned in the Kávya-prakáśa. It is true that not a solitary fragment of poetry is attributed to an author of that name. "About a dozen unprinted collections, in which some five hundred names of authors are adduced, have been diligently explored in quest of Dhávaka, but without success.”[1] But Brahmanical memory might easily drop a Buddhist poet, or retain only a confused idea of his works. In this way the brief legend preserved in the Kávya-prakáśa may be light as to the poet's name, but the commentators may be wrong in their mention of the Ratnávalí instead of the Nágánanda.
Dr Hall has thrown considerable light on the time when Bána and the king who patronised him flourished, by his discovery of the Harsha-charitra. In this poem Bána celebrates the family and reign of his patron
- ↑ Dr Hall's Preface to Vásavadattá, p. 17. Cf. B.A.S. Journ. 1862.
