________________
MAY, 1873.]
AUTHORSHIP OF THE RATNÁVALI
ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE RATNAVALI. BY G. BÜHLER, PH. D.
R.
FITZ EDWARD HALL, in his introduction to the Vásavadattá, has brought forward various arguments to show that the king named in the Ratnavali as its author is not, as Professor H. H. Wilson supposed, King Sriharshadeva of Kashmir, but Sriharsha of Kanoj, otherwise called Harshavardhana, and that, consequently, the play dates, not from the 12th, but from the 7th century A. D. The substance of his argumentation is this.
While several commentators on the Kavyaprakása, viz. Vaidyanatha, Nâ gesa, and Jayarama, state, with reference to Mammata's words, "Dhâvaka and others re-. ceived wealth from Sriharsha and others," that Sriharsha or King Sriharsha paid Dhavaka highly for composing and selling to him the Ratnávali, another scholiast, Sitikantha, substitutes Bân a's name for D hâvaka's. There are strong reasons for supposing that B ân a rather than Dhavaka is the correct reading in the passage from Ma mmata, and the real name of the poet who wrote the Ratnávali for Sriharsha. For, firstly, no poet called Dhavaka is mentioned in any of the collections of elegant extracts' accessible (to Dr. Hall), while Bâņa is well known. Secondly, a stanza from the Ratnávali is found, word for word, in Bana's Harshacharita. It is certain that the verse is not an interpolation in either of the two works, and "downright plagiarism of one respectable author from another is unknown." Thirdly, we know for certain that Bâna was patronised by, and even an intimate friend of, a king called Sriharsha, whose history he wrote in the Harshacharita. This Sriharsha is the same as Harshavardhana, the cotemporary of Hiwen Thsang, who lived in the beginning of the 7th century.'
Though the force of Dr. Hall's arguments is undeniable, and I, for one, have always been inclined to accept his conclusion, still many 'conservatives' will object to it, because tradi
P. 15 seq.
To these may be added Nrisimha T hakkura, who says: Dhava kandma kavih svakṛitim ratnâvalim nama natikim vikriya sriharshan&mno rajnah sakáld bahutaram dhanamavipeti purana vida udaharanti.
Nrisimha quotes N&g esa and can hardly be called an independent witness.
127
tion seems at least to be strong on the side of Dhavaka, and weak on that of Bana. I say advisedly that it seems to be strong on Dhâvaka's side, as I think it highly probable that the three Pandits adduced by Dr. Hall are not independent witnesses. They belong apparently to one and the same, viz. the Benares-Marâtha, school. Besides, Dr. Hall has very justly pointed out how reckless modern Pandits are in repeating, without verification, statements or passages which they have read. It might further be urged that dh () for (a) v, and (vaka) for n (T) are not uncommon clerical mistakes.
But I am now enabled to bring forward further direct traditional evidence tending to weaken the story about Dhâvaka. I have lately obtained a copy of a commentary on the Mayurasataka, which states in plain terms that the Ratnávali belongs to that Sriharsha who was the patron and friend of Bâņa. This work is the Bhavabodhini of Madhus û. dana of the Panchanada family, son of Mâdhava bhatta and pupil of Balakrishna, who wrote in Vikrama samvat 1711, or 1654 A.D. at Surat.§
The beginning of his account of the origin of the Suryasataka runs thus:---
Atha vidvadvṛindavinodiya ilmsivriddhavadanid viditaḥ śrîsaryaśatakaprâdurbhivaprasangastavat prochyate sa yatha | milavarajasyojjayinîrajadhânîkasya kavijanamûrdha
nyasya ratnavalyâkhyanatikâkarturmahârâjaSriharshasya sabhyau mahikavî paurastyau bâna mayûrâv âstâm! tayormadhye mayûrabhattah évaśuro binabhaṭṭaḥ kâdambarigranthakarti tasya jâmità | tayoḥ kavitva prasange parasparam spardhâsît bânastu pûrvam eva kadichid rajasamîpe samâgato râjúâ mahatya sambhivanayà svanikate sthâpitaḥ kuṭumbena sahojjayinyâm sthitaḥ | kiyatsvapi divaseshvatiteshu kavitvaprasange tatpadyâni śrutva mayûrabhatto rajnâ svadeśad â kâritaḥ | ityâdi.
This has actually been done by Mahesachandra, the Calcutta editor of the Kavyaprakasa; see Weber, Ind. Streifen, I. 357.
§ The MS. in my hands is a copy of that mentioned in my catalogue of MSS. from Gujarat No. II. p. 94, no. 146.
