May, 1873.]
127
AUTHORSHIP OF THE RATNAVALI.
ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE RATNAVALí. BY G. BüHLER, Ph. D. R. Fitz Edward HALL, in his introduction to the Văsavadattá,” has brought forward various arguments to show that the king named
H. H. Wilson supposed, King Šri hars had e va of Kashmir, but Sri harsh a of Kān o j,
tion seems at least to be strong on the side of D h a vaka, and weak on that of Bă m a. I say advisedly that it seems to be strong on D h fi v a ka’s side, as I think it highly probable that the three Pandits adduced by Dr. Hall are not independent witnesses. They belong apparently
otherwise called Harsh a v ar dh an a, and
to one and the same, viz. the Benares-Marātha,
that, consequently, the play dates, not from the 12th, but from the 7th century A. D. The sub stance of his argumentation is this. “While several commentators on the Kāvya
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 fur ther be urged that dh (q) for (a) v, and H+. (vaka) for n (T) are not uncommon clerical mis
in the Ratnāvali as its author is not, as Professor
prakāsa, viz. Vaidy an à tha, Näge ša, and Jaya rāma, + state, with reference to Mam m a ta's words, “D h a vaka and others re ceived wealth from Sri harsha and others,”
that Sri harsha or King Sri harsh a paid Dhā vak a highly for composing and selling
to him the Ratnācalt, another scholiast, Siti kantha, substitutes Bān a 's name for D ha vaka's. There are strong reasons for sup posing that Băn a rather than Dhā v aka is the correct reading in the passage from M a m m at a, and the real name of the poet who wrote
the Ratnávali for Sri harsha. For, firstly,
takes.
-
But I am now enabled to bring forward fur ther direct traditional evidence tending to weaken the story about Dh a va ka. I have lately obtained a copy of a commentary on the Mayitraśataka, which states in plain terms that
the Ratnávali belongs to that Sri harsh a who was the patron and friend of B an a. This work is the Bhāvabodhini of Madh us ( d an a of the Panchanada family, son of Mā dh a vabha t t a and pupil of Bà lakrishna,
no poet called Dhāvaka is mentioned in any of the ‘collections of elegant extracts' ac cessible (to Dr. Hall), while Bâ na is well
who wrote in Vikrama samvat 1711, or 1654
known. Secondly, a stanza from the Rutnávali
the Sūryasataka runs thus:—
A.D. at Surat. § The beginning of his account of the origin of
is found, word for word, in B fin a 's Harsha charita.
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 Băn a was patronised
by, and even an intimate friend of, a king called Śri harsha, whose history he wrote in the Harshacharita. This Sri harsha is the same as Harsh a v ar d h a na, 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 ºf will object to it, because tradi
Atha vidvadvindavinodiya Śrimadvriddha vadanid widitah Srisăryaśatakaprádurbhāva-. prasangastāvat prochyate I sa yathá mālava
rājasyojjayinirājadhānīkasya kavijanamárdha
nyasya
ratnāvalyākhyanātīkākarturmahārāja
Sri harsh a sy a sabhyau mahākavi pauras
tyau bâ na ma y á rà v astám | tayormadhye mayārabhattah $vašuro binabhattah kādam
barigranthakarti tasya jãmità | tayoh kavitva prasange parasparaſh spardhāsit I bānastu pār vam eva kadāchid rājasamipe samāgato rājñā mahatyā sambhāvanayā svanikate sthāpitah kutumbena sahojjayinyām sthitah I kiyatswapi divaseshvatiteshu kavitvaprasange tatpadyāni
Śrutvá mayārabhatto rājňā svadeśād akāritah | ityädi.
F
- P. 15 seq.
+ To these may be added N risimha T. h a kkura,
This has actually been done by Maheśachandra, the Calcutta editor of the Kāvyaprakóša; see Weber, Ind,
who says: Dh 8 v a kanāma kavih svakritiſh ratnävalim nāma nätikäin vikriya Śriharshanāmno rājñah sakāśād
Streifen, I. 357.
bahutaram dhanamavápeti pur&a vida uděharanti.
in
N risi in h a quotes N ge Ša and can hardly be called an independent witness.
§"º; Thecatalogue MS. in my hands is a copy of that mentioned of MSS. from Gujarát No. II. p. 94,
110, 149.
-