History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c90.230

v7.c90.230

The only points of difference are: in the drama Lakṣmī-svayamvara is said to have been composed by Sarasvatī, while Matsya does not say so. Besides, the Purāṇa says that Urvaśī was cursed by Bharata to be a creeper, while Kālidāsa says nothing of the kind and shows that her being reduced to the condition of a creeper was due to Kumāra (Kārtikeya). The decision depends on the exact dating of the Matsya from other evidence I am inclined to believe that Kālidāsa was familiar with the episode related in the Matsya There are scholars who believe that Kālidāsa flourished under Vikramāditya about 57 B C The present writer does not subscribe to this belief. There is hardly any reliable or positive evidence to show that a powerful ruler called Vikramāditya ruled Northern and Central India about 57 B C. The tradition of the nine jewels is of no use and if relied upon would make Vikramāditya rule about the 5th or 6th century A.D., since Amarasimha, Varāhamihira and Kālidāsa would be contemporaries. A coin of the Gupta Emperor Candragupta II (Allen's Catalogue of coins, pp. 35 ff) has क्षितिमवजित्य सुचरितैर्दिवं जयति विक्रमादित्यः. The present writer believes that the most probable date for Kālidāsa is between 350 to 450 A. D.