________________
14
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
927 of the Vikrama era at the end of the Kalpasutra Paintings and 1427 at the end of the Kalaka Katha (Plate XVIII, picture 68 to 72).
In connection with the date of the Kalpasutra portion viz. 927 V.S. a word might be said in passing. A view is held in certain quarters that this manuscript cannot be old and must be treated as a late copy of a manuscript which was written in this year i.e 927 V. S. This belief seemed to be based on the script and the technique of the paintings. It is also held that the script of this manuscript is of the fourteenth century and that the paintings found in this work are too fine to be of an earlier epoch, it was only in the 14th and the 15th centuries of the Christian era that such exquisite pictures were produced. In view of such considerations it is opined that this manuscript must be attributed to the 14th century, which is the date of the Kalaka Kathanaka portion. I must say: fanff :: The Devanagari script of the tenth and the late centuries became stereo-typed and no conclusion can be based on it, as regards the age of a work written in it. That the paintings are well executed and therefore must be of late origin, will be arguing in a circle It is not reasonable to believe that the art of painting in India reached perfection only under the Mohammedan influence or during Mohammedan rule only. Much finer paintings of considerably earlier days are known to us this is not the place to discuss such points.
now. But
The Kalpasutra portion of the manuscript under notice is entirely different from the Kalaka Kathanaka piece. The colour of the palmleaves in each case is also different. Both the works are written in different hand. The Kalaka Kathanaka portion is obviously later than the Kalpasutra. Besides, why did the copyist not say that it was a copy of an old work? The Jain writers were, as far as I am aware, very particular in such matters. They gave exact details and dates. I have got a manuscript of the Kalpasutra which shows the date when it was given to a monk. Such being the case there is no reason why we should not take the date given in the manuscript as the date of
