Skip to content
Browse articles

Kalidasa in China

By Sten Konow

Vol. 10 · No. 3September - 1934pp. 566–570English

Summary

The author reassesses Louis Finot’s claim that the Sanskrit poet Kalidasa was known in China. Finot based his argument on an unnumbered palm‑leaf page found in a Buddhist monastery in Zhejiang province which contains a story about Kalidasa and the opening stanza of his three kavyas. The present article argues that no firm inference can be drawn from this single leaf: the page was written in Bengal in the thirteenth century and accidentally inserted into a Chinese manuscript. It therefore indicates Bengali knowledge of Kalidasa, not Chinese reception. The author summarises the story, which recounts how Vararuci tricked a princess into marrying a cowherd who later became the poet Kalidasa after receiving a divine pill. Versions of this tale appear in Taranatha’s history and the Prabandhacintamani and are set in the courts of Bhimagukla or Bhojadeva. The article argues that the palm‑leaf version mentioning Bhojadeva is more original. It concludes that although Kalidasa’s legends were widespread in India, there is no evidence that they were known in China; the leaf merely shows that an itinerant Bengali manuscript ended up in a Chinese collection.

AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.

Conclusion

By re‑examining the evidence, the article refutes the claim that Kalidasa was known in China. The stray palm leaf from a Chinese monastery is a misplaced Bengali page that tells a well‑known Indian story about Kalidasa’s origins. While the tale itself offers insight into medieval folklore, it cannot be used to prove Chinese familiarity with Kalidasa.

Key passages

Chosen by AI from the article's text. Each one is checked word for word against the text before it is shown.

  • “It seems to me that no such inference can he drawn from the single deaf in question. I+ has heen inserted in a Buddhist palm-leaf manus crip t, and it must, as shown by the late Professor Kielhorn,’ have been written in Bengal in the 13th century A.D.”
  • “It is evident that the palm-leaf mainly agrees with this version, and not with that of Taranaitha, only the names of the king and his daughter are different.”
  • “Instead of Taranatha’s wéetera and the reading wsamtera of the’ palm-leaf, Merutunga has, as we have seen, «seérata, but it is evideut that he lad no idea of the meaning of these aksaras, a fact which seems to prove that he drew on older sources, which were culy partly intelligible”

Works cited in this article

  1. 7ndian Historical Quarterly, vol. IX, pp. 829 ff.
  2. Taranitba
  3. Bhojapra-bandha
  4. Ravaji Vasudeva Tullu, Znd. Ant., VII, 115
  5. Merutunge’s Prabandhacintamani, which was finished in A.D. 1306, (vide pp. 6 ff. of the edition, Bombay 1888)

Discussed in this article

People

AI guide

Discuss this record

Ask about the article, its topics, issue context, selected passages, or reading strategy.

Start with the record

I can unpack the summary, turn it into study questions, explain a selected passage, or compare it with the other articles in this issue.

Original PDF

Inline viewer

Checking source PDF

The viewer will load here if the archive file is reachable.

Same author

More by Sten Konow

All articles →
The Indian Historical Quarterly

Remarks on the Khotanese Jatakastava

By Sten Konow

June - 1940
The Indian Historical Quarterly

Banerji on Sakas and Kusanas

By Sten Konow

March - 1938
The Indian Historical Quarterly

Note on Toramana

By Sten Konow

September - 1936
The Indian Historical Quarterly

A Note on the Girdharpur Brahmi Inscription of the Year 28

By Sten Konow

March - 1933