A History of Sanskrit Literature c32.8

c32.8

The actual dating of the text of Vātsyāyana is difficult. Kālidāsa, like Açvaghoṣa, knew an early Kāmaçāstra, and we cannot prove that he actually used Vātsyāyana for his descriptions in his dramas, in the last canto of the *Raghuvaṁça*, or cantos vii and viii of the *Kumārasambhava*.¹ He is not in either of these two poems in perfect agreement with the rules of the science, as we have it in the *Kāmasūtra*. It is different with Subandhu, who actually refers to Mallanāga or Malanāga and his work, while his account of the hetairai of Kusumapura seems to follow the *Kāmasūtra*. It was certainly known to Māgha, to Bhavabhūti, and to Varāhamihira, whose *Bṛhatsaṁhitā* shows clear signs of using it. The effort² to use the mention of Andhras and Ābhīras as rulers to prove that the date must be later than A. D. 225, since before that the Andhras were paramount rulers, and not merely on the footing of the Ābhīras, may be dismissed as inconclusive, as is the reference to Kuntala Çātakarṇi Sātavāhana who accidentally killed his queen. The dating of the work in the fourth century A. D. is thus purely speculative, if it is perhaps not far from the truth. It may well be, however, that this is too high, and that A. D. 500 is a reasonable date, for the *Arthaçāstra* may not be earlier than *c.* A. D. 400, or even later.