________________
194
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ Octoa
, 1993
dates preclude them, and of his use of them to show that tho Magadha king was not Kalidasa's patron. Incidentally he states that Båna lived in the sixth oentury A.D., a clear error for the seventh century A.D.
16. Argument.When Kalidasa refers to Raghu as a dharma-vijayt, mentions his for bearing to annex Kalinga, and lays stress on the Magadha king's sacrifices, he is thinking of Asoka. Remark.–Kalidasa's hero was Rama and Raghu was his ancestor. So the safest inference is that he says that Raghu was chivalrous, even to his fiercest enemy the Kalinga king, and lays stress on the Magadha king's sacrifices, because he is alluding to the emperor and his own patron of the sixth century A.D.
17. Argument.-The Magadha king's name Paran-tapa is significant in view of Adoka's effeminate title of Priyadarst. Remark.--Parantapa is a title properly applied to any Emperor.
18. Statement.-Gunadhya lived in the first century A.D. Remark. --This is true, but he was not the author of the Brhat-katha. He was only its mythical spokesman, just as the Rohis were of Smrtia. Somadeva says he has only summarised it. We can hence fix its date with the help of the Kathd-sarit-sågara. It relates miracles attributed to Satavahana and Nagarjuna (c. 200 A.D.) as having happened formerly (purd), and mentions the Hanas (Hung) unknown to Hindus before c. 450 A.D. while Ganga Durvinita translated itinto Sanskrit in c. 550 A.D. (Epigraphia Carnation XII, Tumkur, 23). This makes its date, 450-550 A.D. Bana (c.-630 A.D., mentions in the following order Satavahana, Pravarasena, Bhâsa, Káli. dåse, and the Brhat-katha (Harsha-carita, Introd. st. 13-7). This order must be by date not merit, for then Bhâss and Kalidasa would precede the others. This makes both Kálidasa and the Brhat-katha later than Satavahana (first century A.D.) and Pravarasena. Ramadása says that Kálidas a composed the Setu-bandha for Pravarasena by order of Vikrama. This at any rate shows that they were contemporaries. The author Pravarasena was a Kuntala king (Bharata carita). That is, he was Vakataka Pravarasena II, and Bhoja says that Vikrama sent Kalidasa to the Kuntala king (Songdra-prakdóa). All this means that in reality Kalidasa lived o. 500 A.D., and that the Brhat-katha must be later still. There fore Guņådhya was not its author. Båna and Dandin confirm this by omitting the name of the author of the Brhat-batha, even when the former mentions the names of all the other poets he refers to except the unknown author of the Akhydyika Vasavadalıd that Patanjali mentions (Mahabhdshya; IV, iii, 87; IV, ii, 60).
19. Statement.-The Gathå-sapta-sati distinguishes Vikrama's indiscriminate liberality from Salivahana's discriminate charity (VI, 64, 67). Remark.--There is in fact no such distinction drawn, as the two rulers are mentioned in different contexts. Thus, the story about Vikrama is connected with a reward to a servant for services rendered which does not imply indiscriminate liberality. Salivahana is referred to as the "living" refuge of declining families; and the statement does not attribute the limitation to his liberality to them alone or make his charity discriminate. Further, the Gathd only proves that there was a ruler named Vikrama before the first oentury A.D., and does not go to prove that this Vikrama was Kalidasa's patron.
20. Statement. The pun on dvanndym must have been suggested by Kalidasa's aparna. Remark. -Mr. Banerji does not show that this was necessarily the case.
21. Statement.--The Gatha (I. 43) gives an exception to a generalisation of Kálid Asa (Megh.9) and casts ridicule (I, 11) on Kalidasa's picture of the meeting of Sakuntalå and Dushyanta. Remark.--As a matter of fact the Gatha in the text quoted (I, 43) is not referring
