________________
244
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[SEPTEMBER, 1913.
part of the second half of the fourth century, Samudragupta-Parakramanka, was himself a poet, and received from bis admirers the title Kavirája. He supported several poets, who at the same time were l'audits, and put an end, as far as he could, to the old antagonism between the Muses and Platus. His- courtiers followed the example of their master, and the panegyric by Harisheņa, the minister of foreign affairs and the counsellor of the prince royal,' shows that Samudragupta bad at least one poet, of whom he had no reason to be ashamed.
Harishema's kavya is in every respect an artistically finished little work, which places its author in line with Kalidasa and Daņdin. Its style is that of the Vidarbha School. The very fact that Harishena himself belonged to the north-east of India shows that, there must have preceded his time, a period of literature, during which, poets from Berar in northern Deccan, accomplished much, and brought their particular taste to a high repute. Probably this full bloom of the Vaidarbhas will fall in the third century, or at the latest in the beginning of the fourth century. Under Samudragupta's successor, Chandragu ta II.- Vikramaditya, poetry must have similarly enjoyed the patronage of the court, inasmuch as even the king's minister took to himself the titly of a kari. The little proof of his art, banded down to us, discloses at any rate great cleverness, if not a real poetic taleut as such. Even this little composition is written in the style of the Vaidarbha School. The same holds good of the prasastis of the time of Kumâragupta and Skandagupta. The works in existence are, howerer, most insignificent, a phenomenon which is satisfactorily explained by the fact that they were all written by provincial writers. In the second half of the fourth centary, in Vatsabbatti's prasasti of the Sun-temple of Daśapnra-Mandaeor, we Eco traces of the existence of the school of the Gaucas, the poets of eastern India. This work should be called rather the exercise of a scholar who busied himself with the study of the kavya literature, than a product of an actual poet. We can see therein that its author had studied the kávyas and Rhetorics, but that, in spite of all the troubles he took to produce a real kávya, he possesso little of inborn talent. Small offences ngainst good taste, such as the use of expletives and tautologous words, are more frequently met with. In one place, the author is led to forget one of the most elementary rules of Grammar, by the exigencies of the metre; in another place, in his zeal to form long compounds, he is tempted to disregard the rule, always observed by good writers, according to which, the weak pause can nerer come at the end of a half-verse. In a third place, he jumblee together two ideas in a manner the least permissible; and his attempt to bring out a new comparison between the clonds and the houses leads in no way to a happy resolt.
These defects in Vatsabbatti's prasasti make it the more important for the historian of literature, inasmuch as they bear testimony to the fact that everything worthy of attoution, in the prasasti, is gathered from the literature of his time and compiled into a whole. Thus, on the one hand, we are assured of the fact that about the car 472 A. D., there was a rich Kavya literature in existence; and on the other band, greater weight is gained by the poiuts of acoordance with the works banded down to us, which the prošasti presents. It bas been already pointed out above that verse 10 of the prasasti only repeats, for the most part, the comparison contained in Verse 65 of Meghadita, with some new points added in a very forced way; while the remaining points contained in that verse of Kalidasa, find themselves repeated in verse 11 of the prasasti. Further it is to be noted that Vatrabhati, like Kalidasa, shows a special predilection for the word subhaga, and that he while describing the king Bandhuvarman, plays upon his nap o just in the same way as Kálidîsa does with the names of Raghus, whom he describes in the beginning of Sarga XVIII. of Raghuraika. These facts make the conjecture more probable, that Vatsabbatti knew and made nse of the works of Kalidasa. The same view is advocated by Prof. Kiel.orn in a publication just appearing. which reached me alter this treatise was nearly finhed. He reads in verse 31 of the prasasti :
रामासनाथभवनीवर भास्करांशु-वडिप्रतापसुभगे instead of
and shows that the verse sufficiently agrees with its thdra V. 2-3, in both words and thoughts, as there are only two new poiuts added. Although I am not in a position, withont examining a good impresion of the inscription, to give a definite opinion regarding the proposed, and no donbt very interesting alteration of the text, still the truth of his
11 The Mandasor-inscription of the Mainya year 629 (49 4. D.) and Kilidhea'. Pitucanhara' uittingos 1890, p. 951 ft.
