There can be no doubt, I think, that the King Śrí Harsha Deva of our two plays is a different person from the Śrí Harsha who wrote the Naishadha and the Khandana-Khanda-Khádya, as the latter, in the closing verses of both works, speaks of himself as the dependant of the king of Kanouj, and boasts of the allowance of betel granted him at the court. His age is uncertain. Bábú Rájendra lál Mitra (B.A.S. Journ. 1864) has conjectured that he may have been the Śrí Harsha, who, according to tradition, was one of the five Kanouj Brahmans who were invited into Bengal by Ádi Śúr, in the tenth century. His chief arguments are that the author of the Naishadha names among his works a "description of the sea," and "a history of the kings of Bengal." But I find, from a notice in the first number of the "Indian Antiquary," that Dr Bühler of Bombay has recently fixed his date in the twelfth century.
The story of the Nágánanda is no doubt a Buddhist legend. It is found twice in the Kathá-sarit-ságara, in which are incorporated so many legends of Buddhist origin. In chapter xxii., we have a version which gives the latter part of the story as it is told in the two last acts, but the earlier acts are only alluded to; but in chapter xc., in the Vetála book, we have a second version, which follows the whole play very closely. Thus Malayavatí's singing at the temple is described as in the first act; the love-scenes of the second are
erroneous interpretations of Ding-nága and others. Ding-nága was a celebrated Buddhist teacher, and his logical works are still extant, see Prof. Weber's Note, Zeitschrift d. Morgenl. Gesellschaft, xxii. 727.
