Indian Antiquary Vol 51

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 200

192
INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
(OOTOBEH, 1922
MR. D. BANERJI'S DATE FOR KALIDASA.
BY K. G. BANKARA. MB. D. BANERJI's article, in the Journal of the Mythic Society, Vol. X, pp. 75–96 and 384–71, in which he sets out to prove that Kalidasa lived in the first century B.o., has been brought to my notice. So many of his statements and arguments seem to me to be ofen to criticism that I propose to take them seriatim and point out where to my mind they are in error or untensble.
1. Statement.-KAlid&ea's date settles that of his patron Vikrama also. Remark. --This involves the assumption that Vikrama was his patron.
2. Statement.-ŠAlivậhana ruled from 78 A.D. i.e., from the foundation of the Saka era. Remark.-The Saka era was probably founded by Kanishka in the next centary and it was never used by the Andhras.
3. Statement.-If his second and third principal theories are refuted the first alone remains and there can be no others. Remark. There are however others.
4. Statement.-There was not time for Kalidea to become a classic in Båna's day. Remark.-Kalidasa was very widely known and 100 years is time enough.
6. Statement.-Mr. Banerji speaks of Bateavatti and Dharma-vardhana. Remark.Surely he means Vateabhatti and Vishņu-vardhana.
6. Statement.-KAlidAsa does not directly refer to himself or his patron, and therefore lived before the first century A.D., when such references became a practice, and inscriptions of the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D. prove the existence of the practice. Remark.-KAlidata does refer to himself in his dramas (see Introd.) Bhåravi, Viéêkhadatta and Bhavabhoti, who came after him, do not mention their patrons. And it may be argued that no analogy can properly be drawn between the practice of the poets and that of the hireling who composed the inscriptions.
7. Argument.-By describing the Avantf king in the Raghuvariéa as long-armed, broadhested, narrow-waisted and comparable to the sun, Kálidâea is hinting that his name was Vikramaditya. Remark.-If the poet wanted to do so, why should he not have done so more clearly? 2.g., by using aditya for ushna-tejáh, which by suitable change he could easily have managed without breach of metre.
8. Argument.-Indumati rejects the Avanti king because she, as the water-lily, cannot bear him, as the sun. This relegates Aja to the position of a moon (Ragh. VI, 36). Also Raghu omits to conquer Målva. Therefore the Avanti king was Kálidêea's patron.
Remark. --Both the Avanti king and Aja were but stars or planets before the moon, i.e., the Magadha king, whom alone the Earth owned as her lord, though there were thousands of other kings (Ragh. VI, 22). Raghu also omits to conquer Magadha as well as Mâlva. Magadha was therefore the greatest of Kalidasa's possible patrons.
9. Argument.-On this last point Mr. Banerji conterds thet Magadha being on Raghu's route must be included in his conquests and that the fact was omitted out of respect to the Magadha king. Remark.-Avanti was also on Raghu's route from Trikota to Pârasika by the land-route (Ragh. VI, 59, 60); and if the Magadha king was not Kaid&ea's patron, why should his defeat be omitted out of respect? Even suppoeing the Avanti king was Kalidasa's patron, it does not follow that he was Vikramaditya, who was not the only kirg of Målva.