May, 1873.] AUTHORSHIP OP THE RATNAVALf. 127 ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE RATNAVALI. BY G. BUHLER, Ph. D. R. Fitz Edward Hall, in his introduction to the Vasavadattd* has brought forward Tarioua arguments to show that the king named in the Ratnavali as its author is not, as Professor H. H. Wilson supposed, King Sriharshade- va of Kashmir, but £r i har sh a ofKanoj, otherwise called Harshavardhana, and that, consequently, the play dates, not from the 12th, but from the 7th century A. D. The sub¬ stance of his argumentation is this. 1 While several commentators on the Kdvya- prakdsa, viz. Vaidyanatha, Nagesa, and Jayarama,t state, with reference to Mam¬ ma t a * s words, “Dhavaka and others re¬ ceived wealth from Sriharsha and others,” that Sriharshaor King Sriharsha paid Dhavaka highly for composing and selling to him the RatndvaU, another scholiast, Siti- k a nt h a, substitutes Bana’s name for Dha- vaka’s. There are strong reasons for sup¬ posing that Bana rather than Dhavaka is the correct reading in the passage from Mam¬ ma t a, and the real name of the poet who wrote the Batndvali for Sriharsha. For, firstly, no poet called Dhavaka is mentioned in any of the ‘ collections of elegant extracts’ ac¬ cessible (to Dr. Hall), while Bana is well known. Secondly, a stanza from the RatndvaU is found, word for word, in Bina’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 Bana 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 4 conservatives ’J will object to it, because tradi¬ • P. 16 seq. fTo these may be added Njrisimha T hakkura, who Bays : D h ft v a k an&ma kavil? svakptim ratn&valim nftma nAtik&m vikrTya srfharshan&mno rftjhah sak&s&d babntaram dhanamavapoti pur Ana vida udAharanti. N yisimha quotes N ftgesa and can hardly be called an independent witness. 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 onDha- v a k a ’ 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-Maratha? 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 (>*■) for (^) v, and ^ (vaka) for n (q-) are not uncommon clerical mis¬ takes. But I am now enabled to bring forward fur¬ ther direct traditional evidence tending to weaken the story about Dhavaka. I have lately obtained a copy of a commentary on the Mayurasataha, which states in plain terms that the RatndvaU belongs to that Sriharsha who was the patron and friend of Bana. This work is the Bhdvabodhini o/Madhusfi- d a n a of the Panchanada family, son of M a - dhavabhatta and pupil ofBalakrishna, who wrote in Vikrama s am vat 1711, or 1654 A.D. at Surat.§ The beginning of his account of the origin of the SuryasataJca runs thus:— Atha vidvadvrindavinodiya srimadvriddha- vaianid viditah srlsftryasitakaprftdarbhftva- prasangastavat prochyate | sa yatha | mftlava- rftj asyojj ayinirftjadhanlkasya ka vijanamurdha- nyasya ratnavalyftkhyanatikftkarturmaharftja- Sriharshasya sabhyau mahakavi pauras- tyau banamayfirav astam | tayormadhye mayfirabhattah svasuro bftnabhatfcah kadam- barigranthakarta tasya jftmatft | tayoh kavitva prasange parasparam spardhftsit | banastu pfir- vam eva kadftchid rftjasamipe samagato raj n ft mahatyft sambhavanayft svanikate sthftpitah kutumbena sahojjayinyftm sthitah | kiyatsvapi divaseshvatifceshu kavitvaprasange tatpadyftni Srutvft mayfirabhatto rftjna svadesad akaritah I ityftdi. 1 This has actually been done by Maheeachandra, the Calcutta editor of the K&vyaprakaSa; Bee Weber, Ind. Streifen, I. 357. § The MS. in my hands is a copy of that mentioned in my catalogue of MSS. from Gujar&t No. II. p. 94, no. 146.
