________________
178
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(JUNE, 1913.
Brihaspati, we have spoken above on page 144. As for the statement that Samudragupta was a better musician than the well-known Gandharva and the sage of gods who invented the rind, an explanation is furnished by the coins, as Mr. Fleet has pertiner
e coins, as Mr. Fleet has pertinently remarked, on which Samuidragupta is represented as a late-player. For the last climax of byperbolical representation, we also meet with analogies in the kdvyas. When Harishena says in l. 27-28, that his master is a god dwelling in this world, whose many marvellous and noble deeds deserve to be praised for a very long time and who is a man only in that he performs the acts necessary according to the conventions of the world,' we are reminded, in the first place, of Baņa's description of his patron, Harsha (SriHurshacharita, p. 207-208), where his deeds have been put on a level with those of Indra, Prajapati, Vishnu and Siva, and be bimself has been identified with these gods. A still more important parallel is provided by the statements of the Prakrit poet, Vák pati, about Yasovarman of Kanauj (Guiduoho, verses 167-181), according to which, the king is an incarnation of Balaka-Hari or Vishņu. As is to be expected of a poet of the eighth century, Vákpati expresses the idea with a greater elaboration of details.
Many more points of relationship with the kávya literature can be discovered in the individual expressions of our praázati. It would suffice if I only point to wpaguhya (for dalishya),46 hlana-nieuna. mlandnana. sneha-wudlulita, bdshpa-guru (All in verse 4). adbhulaoibhinna-harsha (verse 5), uohohapakdra, tosh-ottunga, sneh-phulla, and the frequent nse of sphuta. The parallel passages given in both the Petersburg lexicons spare me the trouble of giving here many new quotations. Whoever is familiar with the diction of the kedvyas, will not require any special proof, but will at once recognise the affinity of these and other modes of expreseion to those used by claesical poets.
Now, wo have to notice a number of cases, especially in the prose part, where Harishena obviously tried to surpass his rivals in the composition of prasustis. To this category belong most of the long compounds in lines 17-24, in which the closing part especiaily comes now and then as a surprise and deviates very much from the usual track. Thus, in line 21, for instance, instead of saying that Samudragupta had acquired great power through the forcible extinction of many kings of Aryavarta, Harisbeņa represents his master as a prince who was great through his power which expanded itself through the forcible extinction of many kings of the land of the Aryas. Perbaps, the simple and natural expression T TSTYRETTYTTRI Appeare l too trivial to the poet, and, for that reason, he went in for the more artificial one Ter
r a:. So also the last parts of the following compound phrases are unusual and deliberately sought :
1 (1-22-23)—whose fierce sovereignty (the neighbouring kings) propitiated, by means of the Payment of all the taxes (levied), the carrying out of his orders, salutations and visits,' 2 (1. 25)-the mighty bravery of his arm which held the whole earth in bondage, received homage from the inbabitants of all countries, in various ways, such as causing themselves to be presented to him, offering daughters and other presents, and requesting him for a decree with the Garuda seal for the possession of their country, 3 (1.26)— whose heart had willingly received the formula and the consecration for the deliverance of the poor, the miserable, the helpless and the sick'. Whoever will take the trouble of reading through other published prasastis, will easily see the originality of these modes of expression and judge of them according to their worth. The fact, however, that Harisheņa makes use of deliberately sought modes of expression is to be explained by the existence of many other similar panegyrics whose simple and unadorned diction he tried to surpass.
The most clear proof, horrerer, for the fact that Harishena's composition does not at all belong to the beginning of the karya period, is provided by those passages in which he speaks of the king's peculiar poetic activity. In this connection, we should refer above all to what we have of the eighth verse, wherein the poet declares :
He alone is worthy of the thonghts of the learned ! Because what excellence is there, which would not be his? le bas made firm the barrier of law, his is the sprouting fame that shines purely like the rays of the moon, his the wisdom which pierces down to the truth, his the selfcontrol ......, his the poetic style which is worthy of study, and his are the poetic works which multiply the spiritual treasures of poets.'
In the second part of his composition, Harisheņa again refers to the last point when he says in 1.27 that Samudragupta's' title as the prince of Poets was well established by the composition of many poems worthy of the imitation of the learned. If one adds to this, verse 3 spoken of above on page 176 and the expressions used by Harisheņa about his person, it naturally follows that, during the reign of Samudragupta, the karya literature was in full bloom, and that the conditions at bis court were absolutely similar to those which are reported to have prevailed in later times at the courts of Kauauj, Kasmir, Ujjain, Dhârâ and Kalyani, and which are found to exist even to this day, here and there in India. The cultivators of Sanskrit poetry, who were called by the names of kavi or budha or vidrus, were not born or self-taught poets, but were professional learned
* The deification of the king is already found in old times ; 6.9., in Manava-dharmasastra VII, .. * See abovo p. 143.
