Kāvya in the context of "Smṛti"

Harisena was a 4th-century Sanskrit poet, panegyrist and a court official. He was an important figure in the court of Gupta emperor, Samudragupta. His most famous poem, written c. 345 C.E., describes the bravery of Samudragupta and is inscribed on the Allahabad Pillar. At least one of his known inscriptions was written as a panegyric.

Harisena was an early writer of Kāvya poetry; Arthur Berriedale Keith says of it, "Harisena's poem bears expressly the title Kavya, though it consists both of prose and verse. Its structure is similar to the delineation of kings adopted in the prose romances of Subandhu and Bana". Other works attributed to either this author (or others by the same name) includes Apabramsa Dharmapariksa, Karpuraprakara (Suktavall), the medical treatise Jagatsundari-Yogamaladhikara, Yasodharacanta, Astahnikakatha and Brhatkathakosa. He was also the chief minister of Samudragupta's empire.Harishena had a great interest in playing the lute with his friend Samudragupta. Harishena had also played an important role in the marriage of Samudragupta with Dattadevi.

Kumārasambhavam (Sanskrit: कुमारसम्भवम् ) (transl. - "The Birth of Kumāra") is an epic poem by Kālidāsa. It is widely regarded as the finest work of Kalidasa as well as the greatest kāvya poem in Classical Sanskrit. The style of description of spring set the standard for nature metaphors pervading many centuries of Indian literary tradition. Kumārasaṃbhavam basically talks about the birth of Kumāra (Kārtikeya), the son of Shiva (Śiva) and Pārvatī (Umā). The period of composition is uncertain, although Kalidasa is thought to have lived in the 5th century.

A fierce debate has raged over the question as to whether the whole of the seventeen cantos came was penned by Kalidasa. Vitthala Śastrin, who in 1866, published Cantos VIII to XVII in The Paņdit, took them as genuine work of Kalidasa while scholars like Hermann Jacobi took Cantos IX to XVII as a later interpolation. Stylistic inferiority of these cantos, rarity of manuscripts, silence on the part of early commentators and lack of citation in Alaṃkārasutra are often presented as reasons for rejecting this latter cantos of the poem.