________________
JANUARY, 1874.]
MISCELLANEA AND CORRESPONDENCE.
29
garu. Not until the rayat placed his wife's tali or mdñgalya in the scales did the beam kick, and in this manner all the gold in the realm found its way to the public treasury.
Râma relented afterwards, and asked the rayats to bring their children. They were, however, very suspicious, and took to his presence the children of Koramaru, Dom baru, Kora charu, &c., instead. Rama at once divined the truth, and pronounced the following curse (dpa) :
ಬೀದಿ ಮಕ್ಕಳು ಬೆಳೆಯಲಿ, Bidi Makkaļu belê yali. ಕೋಣೆ ಮಕ್ಕಳು ಕೋಳಿಯಲಿ, Körê makkaļu Koliyali. Let the children of the streets grow.
Let the children of the rooms rot. Some time after, Râma wanted the rayats to bring the seeds of the various kinds of corn, promising to make them grow spontaneously. The rayats, remembering Rama's former artifices, brought in lieu the seed of grass. He, however,
detected the trick, and bade the grass grow without cultivation, and the cereals to flourish only when cultivated. Rama's order, passed so long ago, is still current in the order of nature, and the 'Vakkaligaru do not cultivate the grey pumpkin, or taste it, even to this day, as it was the means of their ruin."
The foregoing is a correct version of the tradition which prevails amongst the cultivators of this part of India. No portion of it is Brahmanical. It may be taken for what it is worth, but some strange ideas are started by it. The most important of them are:-(1) Rama's character is made to appear here the reverse of that ascribed to him by the Brâhmans; (2) the division of crops (batdyi) was the true ancient system of land revenue in India ; (3) the former general idea that the common woal was incompatible with the affluence of the rayats.
The Badigumbalakdyi is not contemptible eating, and as a vegetable all other classes, includ. ing Tigaļaru gardeners, like it. It possesses also undoubted medicinal virtues.
MISCELLANEA AND CORRESPONDENCE. THE DATE OF ŚRE HARSHA.
3. Gardorvishaktlaprašasti. It seems proper, in conducting our investiga
4. Arnavavarnana. tions into this subject, first of all to collect all the 5. Chhandaprasasti. information which the author of the Naishadhiya 6. Sivasaktisiddhi or Sivasaktisadhana, and has given of himself. His autobiographical ac- 7. Sáhasänka Charita. counts, so far as they relate to his parentage, are,
If, as in the case of his Naishadhiya, he has, in of course, of no avail for our present purpose, each of his other works, given some accounts of because they are so very scanty. But it is not himself, these, however trifling they may be when impossible to turn to some account the other independently considered, mny, if taken together, notices of himself which he has made in several afford strong circumstantial evidence for arriving places in his Naishadhiya, though at very long in- at the object of our rescarches with tolerable actervals. In addition to what has been already curacy. All of these, without any exception, have mentioned in the previous articles on the subject, been inaccessible to us, and it is left to those who as to his being honoured with a couple of betel are fortunate in this respect to satisfy themselves leaves at the court of the King of Kanyakubja,* and enlighten us. For the present, it is only inwe learn from these notices that he was treated tended to offer a remark or two which suggest with a similar mark of distinction in Kashmir, themselves from the fact of Sri Harsha being the his work being highly admired as perfect, after author of Såhasanka Charita, and which seem to close scrutiny by the savans of that country. bear upon the subject. We are further enlightened as to the extent of his We must premise, however, that while Dr. authorship. We are told that besides his Naisha- Bühler fixes the latter half of the 12th centuryll dha Charita he wrote the following workst:- as the age when the poet flourished, basing 1. Vijayapraśasti.
his conclusion on Rajasekhara's Prabhandhakośa, 2. Khandanakhandana.
Kasinath Trimbak Telang cleverly contends that,
* See p. 30, Ind. Ant., Vol. I.; also p. 241, Vol. II.
See Canto XV1., verse 131 ; Uttara Naishadhiya, with Narayana's commentary, Calcutta edn.
I Vide Canto V., stanza 138, Telugu edn., Madras; Canto VI., stanza 113, ibid. ; Canto VII., stanza 108: Cantos VII. -X. inclusive are not printed. References made are to MS. copies on palmyra leaves in my possession.
Canto IX., stanza 133, ibid.
Canto XVII., stanza 222, Calcutta. Canto XVIII., stanza 155, ibid. Canto XXII., stanza 151, ibid.
$ According to Ram Das Sen, it is Gaurorvishakulaprakasti (Inul. Ant., vol. II., p. 241). But this is given here as found in a Telugu MS. with me with Mallinath's commentary. It is quite possible, however, that these two may be entirely disticct works. Ind. Ant., vol. I., p. 30.
