Indian Antiquary Vol 51

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

Page 201

OCTOBER, 1922]
MR. BANERJI'S DATE FOR KALIDASA.
193
10. Argument.-In the words Babandha 88 n-ottama-Saukumdryd kumudvati bhanumat-fva bhavam (Ragh. VI, 36) there is a reference to Vikrama's traditional queen Bhånumati by construing the text as kumudvali ad Bhanumatt iva. Remark.-Bhanumatt iva would naturally mean that “Bhânumatí, like Indumati, rejected the Avanti king” and not that "Indumati, unlike Bhânumati, rejected him." Also Kumudvali, taken with uttama-saukumdryd and applied to 8d, is redundant, and if Kumudvalt be applied to Bhanumat it is meaningless. It may be remarked also that the commentators, who saw a reference in st. 14 of the Meghadata to Dingnåga and Nicula, could not see any allusion to Bhånumati in the text under discussion.
11. Argument.-The tradition as to Bhânumati can be carried as far back as the Gathasapta-sall. Remark.-There is no reference in the Gathd-sapta-salt to Bhanumati.
12. Argument.-Buddhist kings from Asoka's time used to praise their own acts in pillar-inscriptions. Kalidtea condemns such self-praise in the words ding-någánam sthalahast-dvalepan, the Buddhist missionaries being called Ding-nagas. Remark.-In Apte's Dictionary "writing" is not found as a sense of lêpa. Excepting perhaps Asoka himself, no Buddhist king is guilty of self-praise in inscriptions. Even Asoka's inscriptions were cut to emphasize his teaching by personal example rather than in self-praise. If, too, ding-ndgândm refers to Buddhist missionaries, 8thula-hast-dvalepán must refer to their acts and not to the Asoka pillars, nor does Mr. Banerji say why the poet should ask the cloud to avoid the pillars.
13. Argument.-The Asoka pillars being inscribed in the Four Quarters can be them. selves termed ding-ndgas. Remark. --The Asoka pillars were set up not in the Four Quarters only, but in every part of his Empire.
14. Argument. The secondary meaning attributed by Mallinatha to Megha-dútd, st. 14, cannot be credited for want of corroboration. If Kalidasa wanted to cast a slur on Dingnåga, he would not have used the honorifio plural and would not have asked the cloud to avoid Dingnåga's writings. Remark.-The Sabd-arnava gives Nicula as a poet's name, and both Mallinåtha and Dakshiņåvarta, whom Mallinåtha mentions as a previous commentator (Ragh. Introd.), quote a verse by Nicula. Dingnaga was a famous Buddhist Scholar, who, according to Mallinâtha criticised Kalidasa, and it was Nicula, a co-pupil of Kalidasa, who defended him. Dakshiņåvarta confirms this and adds that Dingnåga acoused Kalidasa of plagiarism. Kalidasa, in fact, had no desire to cast a slur on Dingnaga, but only defended himself against his criticism by citing Nicula's opinion. The plural form Dingnágånám, though respectful, was not necessarily used to express mere respeot, as it would imply that the criticism of any number of such scholars as Dingnânga could not weigh against the taste of Nicula. In the allegorical sense of the words the poet addresses not the cloud (megha) but the poem with that title (Megha). All this goes to show that Kalidasa was a contemporary of Dingnaga, c. 500 A.D., thus upsetting the theory of his date as before the first century B.C. 1 15. Argument.-When Kalidasa speaks of the Magadha king pleasing his subjects and performing sacrifices, he has Pushyamitra in mind, and when he speaks of Raghu's forbearing to annex Kalinga he is referring to Asoka of that country. Remark.-The references in the first case fit Aditya-varman of the seventh century A.D. equally well, and in the second case Kulottunga's conquest of Kalinga, in spite of Mr. Banerji's objection that their very
.