many centuries as works of the same Kâlidâsa, it only remains to admit their common origin.

Independently of the passages identical and analogous that we meet with in the works, and that show that the Raghuvamsa must be assigned to the author of the S'âkuntala and the Meghadûta, there is one important fact that not only confirms that conclusion, strengthened as it already is by a tradition more than six or seven centuries old, but also contributes in a measure to our being able to arrive at a sound conclusion regarding his age. I refer to the fact that Kshîrasvâmî, the celebrated commentator on the Amarakosa and a grammarian, quotes the Kumârasambhava under the name of Kâlidâsa, and cites numerous passages from the Raghuvams'a, and in a manner that shows that those poems were perfectly well known to be standard works in his time.

The Rajatarangini enables us to fix Kshîrasvâmî in the middle of the eighth century. It states that Jayâpîda, the mighty emperor of Kâsmîra, 'brought back learning to Kasmira, the country of its birth, from distant countries whither it had fled, and caused the Mahâbhâshya, that was well nigh lost, to be brought from other countries, and interpreting it caused it to be studied in his empire. Having received his knowledge from the Professor of the science of lexicography named Kshira Pandita, Jayâpîḍa was reckoned among the wise." Kshira for Kshirasvami does not interfere with the identification, as svâmî is merely an honorific affix like acharya in S'ankarâchârya and Hemâchárya. shorter Kshira was the real name, as is shown by the title of his work on grammar called Kshiratarangini. And as we know of no other Kshira who was both a grammarian and a lexicographer and also a teacher of lexicography, the Kshîra mentioned by the Rajatarangini is doubtless the celebrated commentator on the Amarakos'a. The date of Jayâpîda varies from A.D. 754 to A.D. 772, according to three different calculations.

The

Prof. Aufrecht, in an analysis of Kshîrasvâmî's commentary, published in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft for May, 1874, assigns Kshîrsvâmî between the eleventh and twelfth centuries, on the ground that he quotes under the name of S'rîbhoja a glossary attributed to Bhojadeva, the author of the Sarasvatîkanthâbharaṇa, and that he is quoted by Vardhamâna, the author of the Ganaratnamahodadhi. Bhojadeva of Dhârâ is believed to have lived in the middle of the eleventh century, which date will, I understand, shortly be confirmed by the recent discovery by Dr. Bühler, of Bombay, of Bhoja's Karaṇa, called Râjamrigânka, I which gives the date of its composition. Now, in the first place, it is not quite certain whether the real or reputed author of the Sarasvatikanthábharana is the same as the Bhojadeva of Dhârâ of the middle of the eleventh century; and then, no glossary is, as far as I know, attributed to Bhojadeva of Dhârâ. Thirdly, the S'ribhoja so often cited by Kshirasvami is evidently a petty commentator on the Amarakosa, who may perhaps have written a glossary of his own. is in his capacity of commentator of the Amarakos'a rather than as a lexicographer that he is generally referred to by Kshirasvâmî.

But it

In the second and the third Kâṇḍas er Books of the latter's commentary this S'ribhoja is cited twelve times, but only one of these twelve passages may perhaps refer to a glossary, the remaining ones being all references to what is doubtless a commentary on the Amarakosa. Now it is hard to believe, without any evidence of the fact, that the author of the Sarasvatikanthábharana, or such an eminent scholar as tradition says King Bhoja of Dhârâ was, could have stooped to write a commentary on the glossary of Amarasimha, or that he could have cared to think that he might immortalize. his name by purchasing the authorship of such a petty work. The authority of the Rajatarangini ought not to be lightly discarded, except on the evidence of indisputable facts. And as long as there is no evidence to identify the Sribhoja of Kshirasvami with the author of the Kanthabharana, or with the Bhoja Deva King of Dhârâ who flourished in the middle

of the eleventh century, except the partial coincidence of names, the Rajatarangini ought to decide the question of Kshirasvâmî's date.

Now from the manner in which Kshira quotes the Kumârasambhava and the Raghuvamsa, viz. with the simple introduction of "as," or "as may be seen, for example," generally without adding the name of the author of those works, it is clear that they were perfectly well known at the time, and known to be so authoritative that they might be quoted to support or refute the author whom he was interpreting. To obtain such celebrity and authority, the poems must have been written at least one or two centuries before. This takes us back to the middle of the sixth century.

From Kshira's quotations it is also clear that he knew only one Kâlidâsa. If the Kumarasambhava was a production of a Kâlidâsa more modern than or different from that who was the author of the dramas, he would, when quoting, either have named the poem itself, instead of its author, or the latter with a distinctive appellation, such as abhinava-Kâlidasa, as is usually done in such cases.

It is, therefore, beyond all doubt that in the middle of the eighth century of Christ the Raghuvamia and the Kumârasambhava were read as works written by the celebrated author of the S'akuntala.

Now the author of the S'akuntala is assigned to about the fifth century of Christ. The question then is, could an impostor, writing about a century later, succeed in fathering upon the great Kâlidâsa his own works, which appear to have been well known and admired during his lifetime, and quoted as models of good poetry and correct Sanskrit style soon after his death?

Some further evidence throwing light on Kâlidâsa's authorship of the Kumârasambhava, and therefore of the Raghuvamsa, as also on his date, is afforded by a certain passage in Prabhakara Indurâja's commentary on the Alankara of the celebrated Bhaṭṭodbhața. A MS. copy of the commentary has lately been found by Dr. Bühler of Bombay. This MS. is dated Samvat, 1160, corresponding to A.D. 1104, a date than which the commentary must, of course, be older. And the date of the original work interpreted by the commentary must be older still than that of the commentary. In the original work verses are quoted, which the commentator says are from Bhaṭṭodbhata's own Kumarasambhava, á statement that implies that there was in existence when Bhattodbhata wrote a Kumarasambhava which was not his own, and which, judging from the nature of the quotations in the Alankara, he appears to have taken as his model in writing his own Kumarasambhava. And as Bhaṭṭodbhața must be placed before the eleventh or tenth century, it is pretty clear that the Kumarasambhava of Kâlidâ sa existed in his time, i.e. before the eleventh or tenth century.

It may also be mentioned that in the Vikramânkacharita of Vihlana just published in Bombay by Dr. Bühler, a passage occurs to the effect that the author takes the Raghuvams'a for his model. Vihlana was, it appears from his own statements, a contemporary of Bhojadeva of Dhârâ. He names his contemporary poets and authors, but Kâlidâsa is not among them.

In connexion with the authorship of Kalidasa, it may also be mentioned here that by the commentary of Kshirasvâmi, the Meghadûta and the Vikramorvasi are also proved to be prior to his date, as he quotes them both. The same commentary further shows that the Maghakavya, the Kirâtârjuniya, the Uttararâmacharita, and probably the Venisamhara also, were as well known and read as standard works at that time as the Raghuvamsa and the Kumarasambhava.

The conclusions, then, to which the facts given above lead

úş are:

1. That the Kâlidâsa of the dramas was also the Kâlidâsa of the poems Raghuvamsa, Kumarasambhava, and Meghadûta. 2. That this Kâlidâsa is considerably prior to the middle of the eighth century.

3. That, therefore, all stories connecting him with a King Bhoja that reigned at Dhârâ in the eleventh century are to be rejected as without foundation.

emphatically a structure possessing harmony. The Alai Darwâza, on the contrary, has little of architectural ornament, and owes its beauty more to the carvings executed by Hindu work. men, the last expiring effort of Hindu art in Delhi, than to any remarkable harmony of arrangement. Indeed, on à priori grounds, we should expect this want of appreciation of truthful ornamentation among the Mahomedans, a barbarous and warlike people, whose religion narrowed their minds, naturally none of the most liberal, and demanded the suppression of æsthetic feelings. They could not be expected to reach a high standard in architecture within a short time; still less, then, could they be expected shortly after their conquest of India to produce structures worthy of admiration for harmony; and this is precisely what has happened, for, with all the aid of elaborate ornamentation, carved, be it remembered, by Hindu hands, they have not produced any structure which commands admiration independent of mere beauty of ornamentation (for which the Hindu workman deserves credit), or of sheer greatness of size, and as soon as they attempted to build without the aid of Hindu workmen, they produced what certainly is grand from sheer massiveness, but what is utterly devoid of that combination of qualities which produces in our minds the idea of beauty, independent of colour, carving, material, or mass. It is only after the Mughal conquest that Mahomedan architecture begins to be beautiful." I have not myself seen these buildings, though I trust to have done so before many months have gone by, and should like to hear what some of those present have to say about these criticisms. In the cold season of 1871-72 Mr. Beglar examined a number of places between the Jumna and the Nerbudda, to the south-east of Agra; but his report, if published, I have not yet seen, nor have I seen the result of Mr. Carlleyle's explorations in Rajpootana during the same period. In the cold season of 1873-74 the greater part of the Central Provinces was explored by General Cunningham and Mr. Beglar, the former of whom made, at a place called Bharahut, nine miles to the south-east of the Sutna Railway station, and 120 miles to the south-west of Allahabad, some very remarkable discoveries. When Prof. Max Müller. in the course of the noble address which he yesterday delivered to us (and which again and again forced me to think of a remark which the great Alexander von Humboldt made to me at Berlin rather more than 20 years ago-that, namely, it was an honour to England that she afforded a career to such men), approached the ubject of these discoveries. I confess I was somewhat horrified. Why, I said, here is the unhappy President of the Archæological Section going to be robbed of the most interesting fact which he had to state. Happily, however, my great Aryan colleague only alighted upon the fact for one moment-fertilizing it, no doubt, when he did so, like one of those insects to which Sir John Lubbock gave the other day, at Belfast, a new interest, as the hon. member for Maidstone is apt to do to everything he touches. And so, I dare say. it will not be amiss if I give some part of General Cunningham's own account of what he has found. In a memorandum published in the "Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal" for last May, General Cunningham observes:

"In our maps the place is called Bharaod, and I believe it may be identified with the Baodaotis of Ptolemy. It is the site of an old city, which only sixty years ago was covered with dense jungle. In the midst of this jungle stood a large brick stupa, 68 feet in diameter, surrounded by a stone railing 88 feet in diameter, and 9 feet in height. The whole of the stupa has been carried away to build the houses of the present village, although it has been prostrated by the weight of the rubbish thrown against it when the stupa was excavated When I first saw the place, only three of the railing pillars near the eastern gate were visible above the ground, but a shallow excavation soon brought to light some pillars of the south gate, from which I obtained the measurement of one quadrant of the circle. I was thus able to determine the diameter of the inclosure, the whole of which was afterwards excavated, partly by myself and partly by my assistant Mr. Beglar. In many places the accumulation of rubbish rose to eight feet in height, and as the stone pillars were lying flat, underneath this heap, the amount of excavation was necessarily rather great; but the whole work did not occupy more than six weeks, and all that now exists of this fine railing is now exposed to view."

And again:

"Among the scenes represented there are upwards of a dozen of the Buddhist legends called Jatakas, all of which relate to the former births of Buddha. Luckily these also have their appropriate inscriptions or descriptive labels, without which I am afraid that their identification would hardly have been possible. I look," continues General Cunningham, "upon the discovery of these curious sculptures as one of the most valuable acquisitions that has yet been made to our knowledge of ancient India. From them we can learn what was the dress of all classes of the people of India during the reign of Asoka, or about threequarters of a century after the death of Alexander the Great. We can see the Queen of India dressed out in all her finery, with a flowered shawl or muslin sheet over her head, with massive earrings and elaborate necklaces, and a petticoat reaching to the mid-leg, which is secured round the waist by a zone of seven strings, as well as by a broad and highly ornamental belt. Here we can see the soldier, with short, curly hair, clad in a long jacket or tunic, which is tied at the waist, and a dhoti reaching below the knees, with long boots, ornamented with a tassel in front, just like Hessians, and armed with a straight broad sword, of which the scabbard is three inches wide. Here we may see the standard-bearer on horseback, with a human-headed bird surmounting the pole. Here, too, we can see the King mounted on an elephant, escorting a casket of relics. The curious horse-trappings and elephant-housings of the time are given with full and elaborate detail. Everywhere we may see the peculiar Buddhist symbol which crowns the great stupa at

Sanchi used as a favourite ornament. It forms the drop of an earring, the clasp of a necklace, the support of a lamp, the crest of the Royal Standard, the decoration of the lady's broad belt, and of the soldier's scabbard."

In a recent paper in the Academy, Prof. Max Müller gave a warning on this subject, which he did not repeat yesterday, but which seems important. He said:

"Much depends on the date of these ruins, and here it is impossible to be too cautious. General Cunningham assigns them to the age of Asoka, 250 B.C., chiefly, it would seem, on account of the characters of the inscriptions, which are said to be the same as those found on the Sanchi stupa. But to fix the date of a building in India by the character of the inscriptions is a matter of extreme difficulty. The letters used for the earliest Buddhist inscriptions soon acquired a kind of sacred character, and were retained in later times, just as in Europe the old style of writing is preserved on architectural monuments of a later age. With all respect for the learning of those archæologists who unhesitatingly fix the date of any building in India by its architectural style, or by its sculptures and inscriptions, we sometimes wish that they might imbibe a little of that wholesome scepticism which Sanskrit scholars have acquired by sad experience. If, however, the date of the Bharahut ruins should prove beyond the reach of reasonable doubt, we should have in the sculptures and inscriptions there found a representation of what Buddhism really was in the third century B.C."

So much for the work of General Cunningham and his assistants; but their work did not stand alone In October, 1871, the Duke of Argyll called the attention of the Bombay Government to the importance of the production of a complete survey of the rock temples of Western India, and after some correspondence Mr. Burgess, the editor of the Indian Antiquary, was appointed to conduct an archæological survey in that Presidency. He entered on his duties in January of this year, and in three months had returned to Bombay, bringing 54 photograp s, between 25 and 30 inscriptions. about 40 ground plans sections, drawings of columns, &c., and 40 sketches of sculptures I understand that Mr. Burgess is at present engaged in drawing up a report upon these. If the results turn out satisfactory, as there is every reason to expect, I hope the Government of India may see its way to allotting more money than it has yet done to the investigation of the archæology of Western India by so active and competent an observer. Perhaps Mr. Burgess, who is in the room, will be prevailed on to address us to-day. These gentlemen, are the most recent doings of our official archæologists in India, and I am convinced that with every decade we shall have a better and better report to give of the care which is being bestowed by the present rulers of India on the works of their predecessors. We are fond of denouncing ourselves for want of proper attention to these matters. There are few things that Englishmen like so little as being denounced by other people, but there is nothing they like so much as denouncing themselves. Cool-headed observers, however, looking at the enormous amount of absolutely necessary work that had to be done before the first beginnings of a civilized polity were laid in India, which was rapidly going to utter ruin when we first grew strong there, will be inclined to condone our insufficient attention to the preservation and illustration of ancient monuments in the past, if we only now attend to them sufficiently; and having had the opportunity of seeing a good deal behind the scenes in matters Indian, I think I may say very positively that those who administer the Government of India consider themselves more and more in all things relating to science, art, and literature in India as trustees, not only for their own countrymen and for India, but for the whole civilized world. That is a view which I strongly hold myself, and which, should circumstances again place me in an influential position in connexion with the Government of India, I shall always do what I can to carry into eff ct. I had hoped at one time that a building which should have contained the India Museum, the great India Library and rooms for the Asiatic Society might have risen at Westminster, as a fitting monument of the presence in the India Office of the Duke of Argyll, the one man of high scientific attainment whom the conflicting tides of English politics ever carried into the great place of Secretary of State for India. The fall, however, of the Gladstone Government swept the Duke of Argyll away from the India Office, just as the great deficit of about six millions which he found upon attaining to power-a deficit for which I ought in justice to mention, hard times, and not his predecessors, were responsible-had under his auspices been filled. I trust that the realization of my hopes will be only deferred, and am well content that if the thing is done, the honour of doing it should belong to our successors in power. I hope some of our visitors from the other side of the water have taken, or will take, an opportunity of visiting the India Museum. They will find it under the care of Dr. Forbes Watson and Dr. Birdwood, although in an inconvenient locality, extremely full of interest. Among other things their attention should be directed to the system by which Dr. Forbes Watson has tried to diffuse among our manufacturers a knowledge of the beautiful textile fabrics of India, so incomparably superior from an æsthetic point of view to anything which the looms of Western Europe have yet produced. Before concluding, I wish to mention to our foreign visitors the paper which is published by the India Office every year, giving an account of the "Moral and Material Progress of India." It is very little known upon the continent of Europe, and its wider diffusion would, I think, correct many errors about our doings and not doings in the East which are rather widely prevalent. It can be obtained through any respectable bookseller in London, and is extremely cheap. Thanking you for the kindness with which you have listened to this address, I now declare the Section of Eastern Art and Archæology to be open.

ON THE INSCRIPTIONS

THE early chronology of the Dekhan was still in a very unsatisfactory condition, owing to the scantiness and untrustworthiness of literary documents-both Sanskrit and Vernacular-from which our present knowledge was chiefly derived. Under these circumstances the importance of inscriptions as in many cases the sole reliable evidence forced itself more and more strongly upon those who inquired into the ancient history of India; and it was therefore satisfactory to know that there were thousands of inscriptions, both on stone and copper-plates, scattered all over India, and especially the Dekhan, an examination of which might reasonably be expected to throw light on many a dark point of Hindu chronology. Prof. Eggeling proposed in his paper to present to the meeting a brief account of the inscriptions of two Southern dynasties, the Chera and the Chalukya, as far as they had been accessible to him, in an authentic form. For by far the greater part of his materials he was indebted to Sir Walter Elliot, who had brought home some twenty-five original copper-plate grants, besides a considerable number of impressions. On the Chera or Konga dynasty Prof. Dowson had published an essay in vol. viii. of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, chiefly based on a Tamil treatise called Kongadeṣacharitra. This work gave a list, with brief accounts, of twenty-eight kings, the seventh of which is stated to have ascended the throne in Şaka 100 (A.D. 178), whilst the last of them was conquered by the Chola king towards the end of the ninth century of our era. The treatise, besides, mentioned a number of dated grants made by various kings of this dynasty. These dates were rejected by Prof. Dowson as fanciful, on account of the very high average duration (about 32 years) of the reigns deduced from them; and an average of eighteen years being allowed by him to each king, the beginning of the fifth century was arrived at as the probable period at which the Chera dynasty may have arisen. Professor Lassen, on the contrary, in his Indische Alterthumskunde, boldly accepts the correctness of the dates mentioned in the treatise. This view was entirely confirmed by the inscriptions which had hitherto come to light. Two Chera inscriptions had been published by Mr. L. Rice, in the Indian Antiquary, dated respectively in Şaka 388 (A.D. 466), and Şaka 698 (A.D. 776). In Sir Walter Elliot's collection there were impressions of a third grant by the tenth king, Arivarman, dated in Şaka 169 (A. D. 247). Owing to its early date, this inscription was of great value from a palæographic point of view, its letters having retained a good deal of the original square type associated with the ancient lapidary style of writing. The dates of these inscriptions were quite in keeping with those mentioned by the Tamil writer, one of them being actually dated in the same year in which another grant was stated to have been made by the fifteenth king of this line. In Professor Eggeling's opinion we were therefore justified in accepting the statement of the Kongadesacharitra as to the accession of the seventh king having taken place in Saka 100 (A.D. 178). It might further be urged in favour of this view that the Kareoi mentioned by Ptolemy along with the Pandiones (Pandya) and Sorai or Soretai (Chola) were most probably intended for the Chera, and that conse quently the latter dynasty must have already flourished before the middle of the second century of our era.

Of the Chalukya dynasty-both the western and eastern branches-Sir Walter Elliot had brought home a considerable number of grants, both original copper-plates and impressions. The chronology of the Eastern or Vengi kingdom as obtained from these documents was highly satisfactory, owing to their praiseworthy habit of giving the duration of the reigns from the establishment of this

OF SOUTHERN INDIA.

line. The accession of Ammaraja, the twentieth king, being fixed by a grant in Şaka 867 (A.D. 945), the foundation of the Eastern kingdom by Vishnuvardhana the Hunchback appeared to have taken place about Şaka 529 (A.D. 607) or 526 (A.D. 604), there being some doubt as to whether the second king reigned for thirty or for thirtythree years. In the same way the dates of the later rulers were obtained, and altogether the grant afforded a complete, and, on the whole, very satisfactory record of the entire line. On the contrary, the chronology of the Western dynasty, including the time before the branching off of the Vengi line, still left much to be desired. The founder of the Kalyânî kingdom was Jayasinha. Of his grandson, Pulakesi, there was a grant in the British Museum, dated Şaka 411 (A.D. 489); but in Prof. Eggeling's opinion there was some doubt as to the genuineness of the document. Kirttivarman, the eldest son of Pulakeși, was succeeded by his brother Mangalișa, as had now been finally settled by a stone inscription in a Badami cave-temple, of which impressions had been brought home by Mr. James Burgess, Director of the Archæological Survey of the Bombay Presidency. This document was dated in the year 500 (from the inauguration of the king of the Sakas), the twelfth year of the king's reign accordingly Mangalîşa succeeded his brother in Şaka 488 (A.D. 566). He was succeeded by his nephew, Satyasraya (Pulakeși), who checked Harshavardhana (Silâditya), the patron of Hiouenthsang. The date of his accession was doubtful. An Iwulli inscription, published by the late Dr. Bhau Daji, showed that he was reigning in Şaka 506 (A.D. 584); but another grant in Sir Walter Elliot's collection was dated Şaka 534 (A.D. 612), the third year of the king's reign. This might possibly be a clerical error for thirty-third year; but there were other conflicting statements with regard to the succeeding kings which were even more perplexing, and could not be reconciled until fresh materials, with which the Carnatic was teeming, were made accessible to us. In conclusion, Prof. Eggeling expressed an earnest wish that some general and systematic plan might at last be adopted to render Indian inscriptions accessible to European scholars by means of faithful copies. By appointing General Cunningham and Mr. Burgess archæological surveyors, the Government of India had rendered a very great service to archæological students. It was to be hoped that a sufficient allowance would be made them for having all inscriptions within their reach photographed, and, if possible, impressions taken from them. The original copies should be deposited in the India Office in the same way as the Mackenzie collection, so as to enable students at any time to refer to them and check such as might have been published. Mere hand copies, or lithographs prepared from such, could no longer satisfy our requirements. The operations of Mr. Burgess during last season had been carried on in the neighbourhood of Badami in Belgaum, where a great many inscriptions were known to exist. Though copies of some of them were brought home by him, his attention was almost entirely directed to the architectural remains of the district, and want of time, funds and assistance prevented him from collecting or copying a greater number of those documents. When Chief Commissioner of Mysore, Mr. Lewin Bowring took a great interest in the subject, and induced Colonel Dixon to photograph a considerable number of inscriptions, chiefly on stone. By far the greater portion of them were unfortunately taken on too small a scale to be of use for our purposes. Hitherto it was to Sir Walter Elliot that our thanks were chiefly due for our knowledge of and materials for the history of Southern India.