vi
approximately be proposed only in terms of centuries :
and even so the dates proposed by different scholars differ
by centuries ! Kālidāsa, according to some, might have
flourished in the First Century B. C., while, according to
others, he must have lived in the 4th Century A. D.
Kauțilya might be assigned either to the 4th century B. C.
or the 3rd century A. D.; and so on. For such a sad state
of affairs, the writers themselves are indeed responsible.
This aversion to autobiographical references on the part of
earlier writers like Kälidāsa seems to have been the
likely-
The task of settling their
chronology therefore becomes proportionately difficult.
result of their natural or-what is
more
conventional reticence.
It seems however that the tradition in this respect
underwent a wholesome change, for the later Sanskrit
authors do not show the aversion which their predecessors
did. 1'his modification has taken place early enough, for
we find Bāna making detailed personal references in his
हर्षचरित ; and also, to a certain extent, in कादम्बरी; and Bana
might well have been, as Mr. Kane suggests, the first to
bring about this wholesome change. Similarly, Sri
Harsa, the author of the Naişadhīya, who lived about the
close of the 12th century A. D., gives a tolerably good
account of himself and his works in the concluding stanza
of each Canto of his renowned Kārya. This convention
of making personal references attained greater and greater
vogue, as can only be expected; yet, with all this change
it is not possible to arrive at precise dates about the birth,
desth etc. even in the case of later writers from whatever
information they have left about themselves in their
works.
Fortunately, Jagannātha has been rather unstinting
in making personal references. In a verse in the Sānta-