वासवदत्ता (महाकवि सुबन्धु - श्लेष-प्रधान शास्त्रीय गद्यकाव्य सान्वय सटीक)

10 VĀSAVADATTĀ

by his enemies (probably about 593 A. D.), being 'replaced in the kingdom of his father' (probably before 604 A. D.) only by the aid of the Hun, Pravarasēna II of Kashmir (Rājataraṅgiṇī 3. 330), has evolved a most ingenious theory which I was long inclined to adopt. Śīlāditya is, on this hypothesis, described as not only unfortunate, but cruel, as evidenced by his execution of the Māukharī Grahavarman, king of Kanauj, and the brutal fettering and imprisonment of the dead monarch’s young wife, Rājyaśrī (Harṣacarita, tr. Cowell and Thomas, p. 173, London, 1897); and as unpatriotic, this being shown by his acceptance of assistance from non-Aryan Huns. Despite his restoration by Pravarasēna, the reign of Śīlāditya, who, Hoernle maintains, succeeded his father, Vikramāditya, about 583 A. D., came to a disastrous end in 606 (or 605), when he was utterly defeated by Rājyavardhana II, the brother of the famous Harṣavardhana who is the hero of the Harṣacarita. Harṣavardhana himself succeeded to the throne of Thāṇēsar in 606, when Rājyavardhana was treacherously slain by the Gāuḍa king, Śaśāṅka, and reigned until 648 (on Harṣavardhana, in general, cf. Ettinghausen, Harṣa Vardhana, empereur et poète de l'Inde septentrionale, Paris, 1906). While holding this theory, I gave to it the pleasing embellish- ment of an hypothesis, without real basis, that the dynasties to which Vikramāditya and Harṣavardhana belonged were rivals, and that Bāṇa was the faithful eulogist of Harṣavardhana exactly as Subandhu was loyal to Vikramāditya. Since, moreover, Bāṇa's monarch had been victorious over the degenerate son of Subandhu's royal patron, I deemed that Bāṇa had deliberately set out to surpass Subandhu, so that Harṣavardhana's court might excel Vikramāditya's in literature as well as in arms. Thus, there would have been a deeper motive for Bāṇa to write the Harṣacarita than the mere incentive of literary emulation which is generally ascribed to him. History does not sustain this elaborate figment, which I have recorded mainly to keep others from possible pursuit of a false clue. Not only was Vikramāditya not identical with Yaśōdharman,