With reference to ancient Indian History, consider the following pairs : Literary work Author 1. · Devichandragupta : Bilhana 2. Hammira-Mahakavya : Nayachandra Suri 3. Milinda-panha : Nagarjuna 4. Nitivakyamrita : Somadeva Suri How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Explicitly lists 'El Devichandraguptam and Mudrarakshasa by Vishakadutta' as works that provide details about the Guptas, giving an attribution of Devichandraguptam to Vishakhadatta.

A student could treat this as a primary textbook attribution and compare with other standard lists of Sanskrit dramatists to see if Bilhana is ever named for this play.

States that Visakhadatta's works include 'Mudraraksasa and Devichandraguptam', reinforcing the pattern that scholarship/teaching attributes the play to Visakhadatta.

Use this repeated attribution as a basis to check chronological plausibility (e.g., Visakhadatta's era vs Bilhana's) using standard historical timelines.

Notes that many Sanskrit literary works from early periods have not survived and are known only through later mentions, indicating that attributions can be uncertain or preserved differently in later sources.

A student could use this rule to be cautious: seek multiple independent attributions (epigraphy, other authors, catalogues) before accepting Bilhana as author.

Shows that Jain authors (e.g., Jinasena, Gunabhadra) composed major Sanskrit/Jain works and were named as authors.

A student could use this pattern (Jain monks as named authors) and check whether Nayachandra Suri is a Jain author and whether Hammira-Mahakavya fits the genre/communities that produced such works.

Gives an example of works with clear author attribution (Bana and his Harshacharita), indicating texts from court or religious milieus often have known authors.

Apply the same expectation of author attribution to Hammira-Mahakavya — look for historical records or colophons naming Nayachandra Suri or another author.

Illustrates that later literary works (Mudrarakshasa) are dated/attributed in historical sources, suggesting chronology and attribution are used to assign authorship.

A student could compare the accepted date/period of Hammira-Mahakavya with the life-date of Nayachandra Suri to test plausibility of his authorship.

Lists major religious and regional literary traditions (Puranas, Buddhist, Jaina texts), implying that specific genres/communities produced specific works.

Determine which literary tradition Hammira-Mahakavya belongs to (e.g., court epic, regional prashasti, or Jain narrative) and see if Nayachandra Suri is associated with that tradition.

Notes that epics, dharmashastras and religious texts are key literary sources, implying that major works are usually catalogued and attributed in literary histories.

Use bibliographic or literary-historical lists (or colophons) to search for Hammira-Mahakavya and any authorial attribution to Nayachandra Suri.

States that Buddhist and Jain texts were primarily written in Pali and many literary works have not survived, implying transmission and language issues affect authorship attribution.

A student could check the language and manuscript tradition of Milinda-panha and compare with known works of Nagarjuna to see if linguistic/timeframes match.

Lists Buddhist texts (Tripitakas, Jatakas) as distinct literary categories used by historians, indicating there are recognized genres/sources within Buddhist literature.

A student could place Milinda-panha within these Buddhist literary categories and assess whether its genre and historical context align with Nagarjuna's known corpus.

Notes that reconstructing lives of historical figures often relies on Buddhist and Jain texts and later works, signalling that attributions may come from later tradition rather than contemporary evidence.

A student could look for contemporary (or near-contemporary) evidence for Nagarjuna's authorship of Milinda-panha versus later attributions mentioned in Buddhist traditions.

Gives an example where a literary work (Mudrarakshasa) was written much later than the events it describes, showing that date of composition can differ from subject-matter and complicate author identification.

A student might compare the composition date and internal references of Milinda-panha with the traditionally ascribed lifetime of Nagarjuna to test plausibility.

Explains historians use a mix of archaeological finds and contemporary works, while later Buddhist/Jaina literature is also used — implying stronger weight is given to contemporary evidence when attributing works.

A student could search for contemporary corroborating evidence (archaeological, inscriptions, foreign accounts) linking Nagarjuna to Milinda-panha to evaluate the claim's credibility.

Gives the pattern that works with 'Niti' in the title (e.g., Kamandaka's Nitisara) are recognized literary/political treatises with named authors.

A student could use this pattern to check whether 'Nitivakyamrita' fits the 'Niti' genre and therefore is plausibly attributed to a known author like Somadeva Suri in other lists or catalogues.

Shows that Jain authors (e.g., Jinasena, Gunabhadra) produced notable Sanskrit works under royal patronage.

One could infer that a Jain scholar named Somadeva Suri might plausibly have authored a Sanskrit ethical/political work and should be checked in Jain literary histories.

Lists Jaina texts among key literary sources for periods of Indian history, indicating Jaina authorship is a common source of preserved works.

Use this to justify checking catalogs of Jaina literature or compendia of literary sources for an attribution of 'Nitivakyamrita' to a Jain author.

States that many Sanskrit works are mentioned in later works but are not available, pointing to a common situation of lost or only-referenced texts.

A student could treat the absence of a surviving text as a reason to search later commentaries or bibliographies that might attribute 'Nitivakyamrita' to Somadeva Suri.