date, viz. Dinakara,' to be Samvat 1441, or A.D. 1385. And though the dates of some of the others are not known with precision, there are very weighty grounds for my holding that one of them, i.e. Châritravardhana, was the source from which Dinakara borrowed wholesale in compiling his commentary. This Châritravardhana must, therefore, be placed considerably prior to the date of Dinakara, and that would take us back to the thirteenth and possibly to the twelfth century. Neither Dinakara nor Châritravardhana are, however, the oldest commentators we know of on the Raghuvamsa. Both refer to older commentators in numerous places, and sometimes refute and sometimes follow them. Châritravardhana names Vistarakára and Krishnabhaṭṭa, and Dinakara names Krishnabhatta among those they refer to. That a large number of older commentaries existed in the time of Dinakara, i.e. nearly 500 years ago, is stated by Dinakara himself, who says in his Introduction, that "although there already exist various commentaries on the poem, nevertheless, as he hopes to show a difference in interpretation, he therefore takes the trouble of writing a new one.' The references to older commentators in Châritravardhana are even more numerous than in Dinakara. Now if these, or any of these various commentators who preceded Dinakara and Charitravardhana, had attributed the poem to a Kâlidâsa other than the great Kâlidâsa of the dramas, Dinakara or Châritravardhana would certainly have noticed the fact, and would have even refuted the ascription before themselves ascribing it in the clearest possible terms to the great Kâlidâsa. "To write a commentary," says Dinakara, "on the Raghuvamsa, is for me, a humble man of human abilities, to aspire to the glory of learned men. May, therefore, the Goddess of Speech confer her favour upon me." The following shows in what estimation Dinakara holds Kâlidâsa, the author of the Raghuvamsa: "The light," says he, "of the moon excites the ocean though inanimate. In the same strange manner 1 वर्षेस्मिन्वैक्रमार्के शशियुगमनुभिश्चिह्निते सूक्तिमुक्तां टीकामेतां सुबोधां व्यतनुत कमलाकुचिजन्मा दिनेशः । 2 ' यद्यपि सन्ति विचित्राष्टीकाबन्धास्तथापि कुत्रापि । एषा विशेषजननी भविष्यतीति श्रमो मेच ॥ the poetry of Sri Kâlidâsa enriches my mind with the wealth of light." 1 We have then the distinct statement of Mallinâtha, in his Introduction to his commentary on the Raghuvamsa, that "he has undertaken to write commentaries on the entire three Kâvyas of Kâlidâsa," where the words व्याचष्टे कालिदासीयं काव्यत्रयम् are more definite than कालिदासस्य त्रीणि काव्यानि would have been, and appear to me to mean "the well-known three Kâvyas of Kâlidâsa." Mallinâtha hereby assigns the Raghuvamsa, the Kumârasambhava, and the Meghadûta to Kâlidâsa. To Mallinâtha there is no doubt who that Kâlidâsa was. It was, namely, that Kâlidâsa," "the real purport of whose poetry is known to Kâlidâsa alone, or to the goddess Sarasvati, or to the four-mouthed god Brahmâ himself, but not to others like me." Now the age of Mallinâtha has not yet been ascertained with certainty. The late Dr. Bhau Dâji opines that "he lived some time after the fourteenth century." This limit is probably correct, as he quotes the Haimakośa. At the same time, he can hardly be much later, as MSS. of his commentaries are met with in India as old as three and four centuries. Mallinâtha refers in numerous places to older commentators, and names especially Nátha and Dakshinâvarta, who are both referred to under their names by Dinakara and Châritravardhana also. Now if either Nátha or Dakshinávarta had attributed the Raghuvamsa to a Kâlidâsa other than the great one, Châritravardhana, Dinakara, or Mallinâtha would have noticed the fact. We have thus a tradition, more than six or seven centuries old, that the Raghuvamsa is the work of the great Kâlidâsa—a tradition that does not recognize another Kâlidâsa. That the Raghuvamsa and the Kumârasambhava were composed avifa fayfågat fafurâ agıfaard acutcute: 1 देयादतो वागधिदैवतं मे सदुक्तिमुक्ताः करणैकधाम ॥ सौधाकरैककिरणा वलिरम्बुराशिमुल्लासयत्यतिजडं विपरीतमेतत् । श्रीकालिदासकवितैव पर मनो मे वैदुष्यसंपदमलं विपुलीकरोति । 2 anfagrafaret art afazıa: acoĈI चतुर्मुखोथवा साचाद्विदुर्नान्ये तु मादृशाः ॥ Introduction 3, 4. Introduction 6. by the same Kâlidâsa we are told both by Dinakara and by Châritravardhana, who, while commenting on Ragh. vii. 15, and referring to the eleven stanzas that precede it, observe, "Though these stanzas are also found in the Kumârasambhava, nevertheless, as they are intended to show that the same author wrote both the poems, no blemish attaches to the fact." 1 But the internal evidence from both the three poems, as also the dramas, tending to prove their common origin, is so abundant that we cannot escape the conclusion that either one and the same author wrote them all, or that there were two individuals in one living in the same place at different times. For it is impossible to suppose that a plagiarist who had borrowed wholesale from an extensively read, most celebrated, and generally admired author, who feigned his master's modesty, copied his thoughts, expressions, virtues, and defects, was able so far to impose upon a host of keen-sighted critics, that they were unable to see him in his proper light, and regarded his productions as those of his master whom he had robbed, and quoted them as models of correctness, elegance, beauty, and originality in their treatises on glossaries, poetry, and drama. To the readers of the three works the Raghuvamsa, the Kumârasambhava, and the Meghadûta-the same unaffected simplicity of expression, the same lively imagination, the same richness of illustration, the same fondness for the scenery of the Himâlaya, the Vindhya, and the banks of the Ganges, the same love of dwelling upon the peacefulness of rural and hermitage life, the same fondness for field sports, the same intimate acquaintance with court life, that prevail throughout them, is so striking that certain passages require only to be put side by side to show their common origin. The analogies between the dramas and the poems are necessarily fewer than those between the poems themselves, owing to the difference between the kinds of composition of the poems and the dramas. But as far as this difference can admit of analogies, these are quite numerous and characteristic of Kâlidâsa. Between the Raghuvam̃śa containing nineteen cantos of verse, and the Sâkuntala consisting of ' यद्यप्येते श्लोकाः कुमारसंभवेपि सन्ति तथाप्यचैककर्तृत्वद्योतनायोक्तत्वान्न दोषः Dinakara ad loc. यद्यप्येते श्लोकाः कुमारोत्पत्तावपि विद्यन्ते तथाप्येककर्तृकत्वान्न दोष: Charitravardhana ibid. seven acts, of which the greater part is prose, there cannot be much that is analogous. The necessity of confining himself to the story of love of one man and his mistress in the dramas affords little latitude to the poet to indulge in dwelling upon some of his favourite ideas. But where such scope is afforded, as, for instance, in the two poems of Raghuvamsa and Kumârasambhava, the analogous and even identical passages are quite numerous-perhaps too numerous. So also where between one drama and another the analogies may be expected to be greater than between a drama and a Kâvya, the Sâkuntala, the Vikramorvasi, and the Mâlavikâgnimitra fully answer the expectation. The repetition of thought and expression being therefore conspicuous throughout the poems and the dramas, and the theory of plagiarism being untenable, because of their having been quoted for many centuries as works of the same Kâlidâsa, it only remains to admit their common origin. Let us see what analogies the Kumârasambhava presents to the Raghuvamsa. We will first quote some of the passages, where the analogy or identity is at once striking, and then refer to such as, though analogous, nevertheless differ in their expression. तच्छासनात्काननमेव सर्वम् सा दुष्प्रधर्षा मनसापि हिंस्रैः ii. 27. पश्यन्नदूरान्मनसाप्यधृष्यम् iii. 51. सक्ताङ्गुलिः सायकपुङ्ख एवं चित्रार्पितारम्भ द्वावतस्थे . 31. भोगोव मन्त्रौषधिरुद्धवीर्यः 16. 32. चित्रार्पितारम्भमिवावतस्थे iii. 42. मन्त्रेण हतवीर्यस्य फणिनो दैन्यमाश्रितः ii. 21. उपस्थिता शोणितपारणा मे 2. 39. विरोधिनां शोणितपारणैषिणीम् । गदाम् xiv. 11. गुहाशयानां सिंहानां परिवृत्याव- सुरेन्द्रशैलेन्द्रमहागुहाशयाः लोकितम् i6. 72. नचत्रताराग्रहसंकुलापि ज्योतिष्मती चन्द्रमसैव रात्रिः vi.22. अध्यास्य चाम्भःपृषतोचितानि शैलेयगन्धीनि शिलातलानि 1. 51. रिपुत्रियां * वन्दीकृतानामिव * ib. 55. सिंहा महास्वप्नसुखं न तत्यजुः xiv. 26. नक्षत्रताराग्रहमण्डलानाम् |