INTRODUCTION 45 feeling highly diffident in handling such a vast and difficult theme as the Harivamsa. But then Sarasvati reassures him: 'Here I bestow on you keenness of mental faculties. Proceed with the composition". Hence it is very probable that after the composition of RC. up to 99 Sandhis Svayambhū felt tired in spirit and his literary activity thus interrupted was never resumed by him any more. It would follow from this that the Paümacariu and the Suddhayacariu were written before RC. and that the poet's life was cut short before he could complete the latter. The remaining portion of RC. was written by Tribhuvana after Svayambhū's death. In later times some new details and episodes came to be considered essential in the concluding portion of the Harivamsa narrative and their absence in RC. of Svayambhū and Tribhuvana induced Yaśaḥkirti to make requisite interpolations. We have an interesting parallel for this in the interpolations made by Gandharva in Puşpadanta's Jasaharacariu. Now let us take up the case of PC. Jain and Premi both sup- pose that from Svayambhu's point of view PC. was complete at 82. Sandhi and the additions of Tribhuvana were not desired by Svayambhū as the parts of his PC. For, they argue, in the case of PC. no calamity like death interrupted the poet's activity and L!cat would leave unexplained why Svayambhū left PC. incomplete. Secondly, PC. and RC were composed under the patronage of two differcri persors. If PC. was composed before RC., how can Svayambhū start writing another work under a different patronage without completing the work more than eight-ninths of which were already finished under the earlier patronage? Thirdly Tribhuvana calls his contribution to the Paümacariu by a special name, Paüma- cariya-scsa 'Supplement to the Paümacariya'. No such special name is given to his additions to RC. Fourthly the parts added by him are described by Tribhuvana as 'Sayambhuevassa kahavi uvvariya', which, according to Premi, means that which was somehow consi- rlered indesired (anipsita) or extra (adhika) by Svayambhudeva'. This implies that the matter added by Tribhuvana was unacceptable to Svavambhű. Fifthly the subject matter of the Sandhis written by Tribhuvana appears to be disgressive and unessential for the main narrative of the Rāmāyaṇa. Lastly it would appear quite singular that not one. not two, but altogether three works could have been left incomplete by Svayambhū. Now there is nothing inherently improbable in an author leaving more than one works incomplete behind him. Of the three works improved upon or completed by Tribhuvana, we do not know in which way did he 'repair' the Siri-pañcamikahā. Tribhuvana's statement does not necessarily imply the incomplete character of that work. As to RC., Svayambhū most probably passed away before he could finish it. And if we can establish on other grounds that PC. was left incomplete by Svayambhū, the other objections can be easily met with. It is not so unusual for an author to begin and continue to work on two works at a time or to embark upon another before the first is completed. We can assume that Svayambhū accepted the patronage of Dhavalaïya before completing PC. under the patronage of Dhananjaya for reasons unknown to us. He might have intended to complete PC, later on. And the meanings anīpsita (1) Appendix I, passage 57, lines 2-3, 5. (2) Appendix I, Stanza 68, 84 wherein Tribhuvana talks of 'rescuing' the poem and poetry of Svayambhú, and of carrying the paternal burden, piu-bhara- nivvahana.
