1. Similarities (1): Men and Women

[Full title: Similarities between the Two Societies of the Kādambarī and the Harṣacarita (1): Men and Women]

The Kādambarī and the Harṣacarita are composed by the same author, Bāṇabhaṭṭa. Although, both the books are gadyakāvyas, the Kādambarī is a kathā, and the Harṣacarita is an ākhyāyikā respectively. According to Amarakoṣa the theme of a kathā^[1] is imaginary and fanciful, and hence has little historical value, but the theme of an ākhyāyikā^[2] is based on the matters of history and everyday experiences and reality of the writer. In the Kāvyādarśa, Daṇḍin^[3] suggests that in ākhyāyikā, the characters of the stories are related to the author’s actual experiences in life. Rudraṭa^[4] also remarks that the author of an ākhyāyikā should insert an account of himself and his family in his story.

Therefore, Mukund Lath rightly remarks—

“The Harṣacarita, despite excursions into romance and poetic fancy, is clearly designed to be anchored in reality. It is biography of the poet’s patron, king Harṣa. Kādambarī, on the other hand, is manifestly a fairytale.”^[5]

The author Bāṇa^[6] clearly stated about Kādambarī in the last introductory verse of this kāvya that this is a kathā and it is unsurpassed in excellences i.e., without an equivalent. Therefore, obviously the theme, character, society etc. show differences between the Kādambarī and the Harṣacarita.

Both the Kādambarī and the Harṣacarita are great creations of Bāṇa, therefore, many ideas and turns of experiences are common to both the gadyakāvyas.

In every society, both the good and bad men exist. It is difficult to find out an ideal and disciplined society, where all people are good, in all senses, honest, peace-loving etc. In every society, there are some unprincipled, harmful people by the side of good men and that type of people always disturbs the social order. In the time of 7^th century AD., too, both the good and bad people existed. The character of king Śūdraka^[7] and king Tārāpīḍa,^[8] ascetic Mahāśvetā,^[9] princess Kādambarī^[10] etc. represent the good and honest in the Kādambarī. Again, the character of Puṣpabhūti^[11] and Prabhākaravardhana^[12] shows the best kings in the then society. But Mālavarāja^[13] was projected as very cruel and wicked king, who killed Grahavarman, husband of princess Rājyaśrī. Bāṇa describes king of Gauḍa as wicked king,^[14] who killed prince Rājyavardhana. But emperor Harṣavardhana was the ideal son^[15] for his parents, ideal brother^[16] for Rājyaśrī and Rājyavardhana, ideal king^[17] for his citizen, one who could sacrifice his life for his family and citizen.

It is noted that women were engaged in various professions, such as-lady door-keepers known as pratīhārī,^[18] the female masseuse known as samvāhikā,^[19] the female beautician was known as sairandhrī^[20] or prasādhikā,^[21] kusumapālikā^[22] (i.e., the female in-charge of the bower of creepers), haṃsapālī,^[23] some maid-servants, known as dhātrī^[24] (mid-wife), tāmbūlakaraṅkavāhinī^[25] were employed to carry the betel-nut-box. Again, Mālatī, the messenger of king Dadhīca proves that they were engaged in various professions as men also.

Again, there were dancing-girls^[26] (bārayoṣitā), harlots^[27] (bāravilāsinī) in the court. Hāriṇikā was a well-known dancer (narttakī).^[28] There were many maidens in the inner-apartment who were experts in garland making,^[29] face-wash making,^[30] portrait-making^[31] and many more.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

pravandhakalpanākathā, Amarakoṣa,I.6.6

[2]:

ākhyāyikopalavdhārthā …, Ibid.,I.6.5

[3]:

vṛttamākhāyate yasyāṃ nāyakena svaceṣṭitam, Kāvyādarśa,1,26

[4]:

nijavaṃśaṃ svaṃ cāsyāmabhidadhyāt, Kāvyālaṅkāra, 16,26

[5]:

Ardhakathānaka, intro.,p.20

[6]:

dvijena tenākṣatakaṇṭhakauṇṭhayā…..|
…..dhiyā nibanddheyamatidvayī kathā || Kādambarī,v.20

[7]:

āsīdaśeṣanarapatiśiraḥsamabhyacitaśāsanaḥ pākaśāsana iva…….bhagīrathapathapravṛtto….sakalabhuvanopajīvyamānapādacchāyo……kartā mahāścāryāṇāmāhartā kratūnāṃ……rājā śūdrako nāma, Ibid.,p.8-10

[8]:

tasyāṃ caivamavidhāyāṃ nagaryāṃ nalanahuṣayayāti…..bhagīrathadaśarathapratimo….mahāmunijanasaṃsevitasya …..avatāra iva dharmasya…rājā tārāpīḍo nāmabhūt, Ibid.,p.92-93

[9]:

Ibid.,p.209-214

[10]:

Ibid.,p.282-288

[11]:

….tatra ca sākṣātsahasrākṣa iva sarvavarṇadharaṃ dhanurdadhānaḥ……dakṣaḥ prajākarmaṇi, …..rājā puṣpabhūtiriti nāmnā babhūva, Harṣacarita,III.p.43-44

[12]:

Ibid.,IV.p.56-57

[13]:

….devo grahavarmā durātmanā mālavarājena jīvalokakamātmanaḥ sukṛtena saha tyājitaḥ, Ibid.,VI.p.96

[14]:

tasmātcca helānirjitamālavānīkamapi gauḍādhipena mithyopacāropacitaviśvāsaṃ muktaśastramekākinaṃ…….bhrātaraṃ vyāpāditamaśrauṣīt, Ibid.,VI.p.98

[15]:

[a]. ….vatsa, jānāmi tvāṃ pitṛpriyamatimṛduhṛdayam, Ibid.,V.p.79
[b] …vatsa, nāsi na priyo nirguṇo vā parityāgārho vā, Ibid.,p.85

[16]:

sukhamanubhavatviti tvayaiva …., Ibid.,VI.p.97

[17]:

[a] sakalalokahṛdayasthitam…., Ibid.,p.32 [b] rājāsargasamāptya….sarvaprajāpatīnām, Ibid.,p.35

[18]:

[a] rājānāmāsthānamaṇḍapagatamanganājanavirudhena vāmapāścāvalmina kaukṣeyakena …..pratihāri…., Kādambarī,p.16
[b] Ibid.,p.33
[c] …. veleti nāmnā yasomatyāhā pratihājyājagāma, Harṣacarita,V.p.83

[19]:

[a] samvāhikā keralikā, Ibid.,II.p.75
[b] According to Saṅketa commentary-samvāhikā ya padādimardanam vidhaṭṭe, Ibid.,p.74.

[20]:

sairandhrī kurṅgikā, Ibid.

[21]:

Ibid.

[22]:

Kādambarī, p.346

[23]:

Ibid.,p.285

[24]:

dhātrīkarāṅgulilagne pañcaṣāṇi padāni prayacchati harṣe, Harṣacarita,IV.p.64

[25]:

[a] Ibid.,I.p.59
[b] Kādambarī,p.285-286

[26]:

nisṛtatāmbūladhūsaradharavārayoṣiti, Harṣacarita,V. p.77

[27]:

Kādambarī,p.29

[28]:

narttakī hariṇikā, Harṣacarita,II.p.75

[29]:

Ibid.,IV.p.221

[30]:

Ibid.,IV.p.244

[31]:

Ibid.