365bet娱乐

76
in the prologue to the Malavik膩gnimitra pays a tribute
to Bh膩sa of 'established renown'. His use of 啶掂ぐ啷嵿い啶�啶距�� 啶曕さ啶�
[vartam膩na kavi
] in describing himself in contradistinction to Bh膩sa and
other famous poets indicates the lapse of a considerable
period between the two. Further, there are to be seen
many faint Bh膩sa echoes in the works of K膩lid膩sa."
Court life of the kings in Bh膩sa is much simpler than in
the plays of K膩lid膩sa. These tend to show that Bh膩sa
was quite well known by the first century B. C. and hence
was considerably earlier.
2 Then comes 艢奴诲谤补办补,鲁
艢奴诲谤补办补,
the author of the
Mrcchakatika. There occur various similarities,
conceptual and verbal, between the Car and the Mrcch,
and in a later chapter we have attempted to prove the
priority of the Car to the M峁沜ch.
Finally, we come to Kautilya's Artha艣膩stra, which,
according to us, places us in possession of the later limit
for the date of Bh膩sa. We prefer to follow Prof. Kane,
all dates subsequent to the 5th century A. D. Prof. Shembavanekar's articles on the
subject (JUB, 1, pp. 232-246) sets many doubts at rest, and clearly shows the
existence of a Vikramaditya, son of Mahendr膩ditya, in the 1st century B. C.,
confirming the traditional date. Cowell's theory as to the indebtedness of K膩l墨d膩sa,
was vitiated by the presumption of the priority of Asvaghosa and the comparisons by
Prof. Chattopadhyaya (All. Univ. Studies, 2, pp.80-114) and Prof. Ray (Sakuntala,
Intr., pp. 19-28) conclusively proves K膩lid膩sa to be the model and fountain of
inspiration for Asvaghosa. Dr. Pathak's theory about the Hunas based on a wrong
variant, and again, it is shown that the H奴nas were known to the Indians from pretty
early times (JUB, 1, p. 245: All. Univ. Studies, pp. 126-133; JIH, 15, pp.93-102
Sakuntala, Intr., p.81. It is not necessary to take the Meghaduta as the work of
another Kalidasa as Prof. Dhruva argues (Parakramani Prasadi, Intr., pp.26鈥�27;
Thakkar Lecture, pp. 229鈥�236). Dinnaga theory is also untenable on various grounds
(Chattopadhyaya, All, Univ, Studies, pp. 164-167). Kaumudi Mahotsava (Dasaratha
Sarma, IHQ, 10, pp. 763-766; 11, pp. 147-148; OC, VIII, Summaries, pp. 25-26;
Mankad, ABI, 16, pp. 155-157) and Padyacu岣嵞乵ani (Intr. by K. Sastri) also confirm
the first century B. C. theory. The religious, social, political, astronomical etc..
conditions, as well as the language and Prakrit evidence (Ray, Sakuntala, Intr.,.
pp. 1-19; 28-30; Vaidya, Lokasik峁�ana, 7, pp. 9-17; K. Ray, Evolution of Gita, I
201-222, Dhruva, Thakkar Lectures, pp. 207-213; and Apte, Kane, Paranjape, etc. )
point to the same period. Prof. Shembavanekar's article further brings out the
hollowness of the Gupta theory in that the Guptas were avowed Vaisnavas (JUB, 1,
p: 238); Candragupta II was not the first Vikramaditya (Ib. p. 280); all the 艣膩stras
that Kalidasa was acquainted with belong to the pre-Gupta, even the pre-Christian
period (Ib. p. 241); beyond a few isolated inscriptions there is no literary composition
that can authoritatively be ascribed to the Gupta period, 'the Augustan period of
Sanskrit literature' (Ib. p. 242). Thus the first century B. C. theory must be
accepted, as stated by Prof. Shembavanekar, "until some historical evidence of an
unimpeachable character is brought to light" (Ib. p. 245).
pp.
1 G. Sastri, Critical Study, pp. 35-36, 40-47; Paranjape, Sahityasa峁僩raha,
1, pp. 157-160. 2 Winternitz, Problems, p. 122. 3 Many orientalists seem to
hold the opinion that S奴draka preceded K膩lid膩sa: cf. Belvalkar, OC, I, p. 204;
Konow, ID, p. 57; Winternitz, CR, Dec. 1924, p. 334; V. Smith, ERI. p. 324n;
Kavi, Avantisundarikatha, Intr, pp. 8-10; Caturbh膩ni, Intr., pp. i-iii; etc. The
view of some European orientalists that the Mroch was the earliest Sanskrit drama
also tells the same story.