dissociate them wholly impossible. The question of their actual authorship was raised in antiquity; for, while Mammaṭa in his Kāvyaprakāça[1] merely refers to the gift of gold to Bāṇa – or Dhāvaka in some manuscripts – by Harṣa, the commentators explain this of the Ratnāvali, which was passed off in Harṣa's name. This is, however, not in any way borne out by early tradition; I-Tsing[2] clearly refers to the dramatization of the subject of the Nāgānanda by Harṣa and its performance, and in the Kuṭṭanīmata[3] of Dāmodaragupta, who lived under Jayāpida of Kashmir (A.D. 779-813), a performance of the Ratnāvali, ascribed to a king, is mentioned. The ascription to Bāṇa has nothing even plausible in it, so disparate are the styles of the dramas and the Harṣacarita, and we have the option of believing that Harṣa wrote them himself with such aid as his Paṇḍits might give, or of accepting them as the work of some unknown dramatist, who allowed the king to claim the credit for them.
3. The Three Dramas
The Ratnāvali and the Priyadarçikā are closely connected both in subject-matter and form; they are Nāṭikās, each in four Acts; their common hero is Udayana, whom Bhāsa already celebrated, and the common theme one of his numerous amourettes. The Ratnāvali,[4] in special, has found favour in the text-books of the drama, and has served to illustrate the technical rules.
The ubiquitous Yaugandharāyaṇa, insatiable in seeking his master's welfare, has planned marriage for him with the daughter of the king of Ceylon, but to attain this end has been difficult; to avoid vexing the queen Vāsavadattā, he has kept her in the dark, and has spread a rumour which he has had conveyed by Bābhravya, the king's chamberlain, of the death of Vāsavadattā in a fire at Lāvāṇaka. The king of Ceylon then yields the hand of his daughter, and dispatches her in the care of the chamberlain and his minister Vasubhūti to Vatsa, but, wrecked at sea, she is rescued by a merchant of Kauçāmbī, taken there, and handed
