2023-02-23 18:48:29 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
57
most of his statements are entirely reasonable, nevertheless de-
scribes Mayūra's miraculous manner of recovery from leprosy,
and must therefore be regarded with suspicion.
Even if we cannot be sure as to the exact way in which Mayůūra
gained the emperor's favor, we stand on firmer ground in saying
that he actually became one of Harṣa's courtiers, for this is
attested for us not only by the commentator Madhusudana,
but also by the much more reliable statement of Rajasekhara to
the effect that Bāṇa, Mayūra, and Divākara were all in attendance
at Harṣa's sabha. There can also be no doubt that the king who
became Mayura's patron was Harșa, and not Bhoja of Dhārā, as
the Jain writers would have us believe. Bhoja may be elimi-
nated, because he belongs in the eleventh century, whereas Harsa,
besides being especially mentioned in the Harsacarita as the
patron of Bāṇa, belongs, as is certain, in the seventh. Still
further confirmatory evidence on this point, if any be needed,
may be found in the stanza quoted above (p. 13) from the
Navasähasänkacarita of Padmagupta, which speaks of intimate
relations existing between Harṣa and the poets Bāṇa and Mayūra.
The statement that Bāṇa and Mayūra were rivals in the literary
field is found in all three of the Jain accounts of our story,¹ as
well as in the commentary of Madhusudana, and is moreover con-
firmed by the stanza of Padmagupta just referred to in the pre-
ceding paragraph, where it is explicitly stated that Harṣa was the
cause of their rivalry in connection with disputes of a literary
nature. Nothing, indeed, seems more likely than a jealous
falling out between the two poets who were both striving for the
royal favor, and the existence of such a feeling in the case of
Bāṇa and Mayūra may, on the evidence adduced, be set down as
an accepted fact.
On the other hand, the tradition that one of the two rivals was
related by marriage to the other is not so well attested. One of
the Jain commentators, as already shown, states that Mayūra was
Bāṇa's father-in-law, and this is supported by a similar statement
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
¹ Yajñeśvara's version of the Prabandhacintamani (see above, p. 29),
however, represents Bāṇa and Mayura as the firmest of friends.
most of his statements are entirely reasonable, nevertheless de-
scribes Mayūra's miraculous manner of recovery from leprosy,
and must therefore be regarded with suspicion.
Even if we cannot be sure as to the exact way in which Mayůūra
gained the emperor's favor, we stand on firmer ground in saying
that he actually became one of Harṣa's courtiers, for this is
attested for us not only by the commentator Madhusudana,
but also by the much more reliable statement of Rajasekhara to
the effect that Bāṇa, Mayūra, and Divākara were all in attendance
at Harṣa's sabha. There can also be no doubt that the king who
became Mayura's patron was Harșa, and not Bhoja of Dhārā, as
the Jain writers would have us believe. Bhoja may be elimi-
nated, because he belongs in the eleventh century, whereas Harsa,
besides being especially mentioned in the Harsacarita as the
patron of Bāṇa, belongs, as is certain, in the seventh. Still
further confirmatory evidence on this point, if any be needed,
may be found in the stanza quoted above (p. 13) from the
Navasähasänkacarita of Padmagupta, which speaks of intimate
relations existing between Harṣa and the poets Bāṇa and Mayūra.
The statement that Bāṇa and Mayūra were rivals in the literary
field is found in all three of the Jain accounts of our story,¹ as
well as in the commentary of Madhusudana, and is moreover con-
firmed by the stanza of Padmagupta just referred to in the pre-
ceding paragraph, where it is explicitly stated that Harṣa was the
cause of their rivalry in connection with disputes of a literary
nature. Nothing, indeed, seems more likely than a jealous
falling out between the two poets who were both striving for the
royal favor, and the existence of such a feeling in the case of
Bāṇa and Mayūra may, on the evidence adduced, be set down as
an accepted fact.
On the other hand, the tradition that one of the two rivals was
related by marriage to the other is not so well attested. One of
the Jain commentators, as already shown, states that Mayūra was
Bāṇa's father-in-law, and this is supported by a similar statement
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
¹ Yajñeśvara's version of the Prabandhacintamani (see above, p. 29),
however, represents Bāṇa and Mayura as the firmest of friends.