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,