i i 
Vol. IV, No. 6.] The Age of Kalidasa, 335 
[N.S. ] 
saa: faact’| This simile is again seen in Kumara “aadfaa utc 
Bra TwAAeS” | 
Yet anomalous grammatical forms are common in his writings. 
In Kumara, Canto III, he writes: faaa Gufadtzew i He was not 
unaware of the usual form, for he writes qalaya VaRTSZe 
and elsewhere sgtaaeaqaatads etc. Nor was the anomaly 
necessitated by the metre ; for fawtraat dafad ezvt agrees with the 
metre and avoids the anomaly. He knew that fawrea was a 
name of Siva as he writes ieaionaia ea a; How then are we 
to explain this apparently wanton violation of grammar ? 
one answer seems reasonable. Kalidasa clint that 1 he had the 
option to write faqara or SaqaH. In other words, faq came to be 
restricted to the Vedas after the time of Kalidasa. 
In another place he writes “aT earnataa fea FSA faurfa aver 
CIM TAAR SIT a=zata yareq 1 We cannot say he did not know 
that the usual oes was wet and not aeat. Compare 
“ wat aaa ‘aeatat causatag” etc. Nor was the metre 
in his way, for he could have easily written a¥T Try:TaaHest 
fradta setzqi As before, here too he thought it was legitimate 
to write w=eat or wegaAt | 
Again we find him writing “ax a= aefa vam” | Usually 
the duplicated form a= w=q is treated lies a WaVcy compound, 
and takes the shape H@H=<q. Our poet knew this, for he writes 
also “fafernaaeag: aa aaa’ “gecfy ay aaarad ara’ ete. 
The explanation is the same as before, viz., the poet thought he 
had the right to treat or not to treat the duplicated form like a 
RAYITA compound. 
- Here is another instance. Kalidasa writes “@ qraat JaaaTs” 
instead of the usual form qraarara ; in place of WHRATSare he has 
SeNA a asi ware; for ditsrarare he writes datsrat fafweers | 
As before the explanation is that he believed the aawT#t between 
the Sra and the wagata was legitimate. 
Before quoting more instances I may note that the examples 
given above seem unmistakably to pa to the inference that the 
rigour of P&anini’s gra was not yet adopted in popular 
mmar 
writings when Kalidasa flourished. It is very important to re- 
member that not a single one of the above is an example of 
grammatically incorrect usage. They are instances of faaeg, of 
usages which Panini denies to =tfaa writers, but to which fea 
writers are fully entitled. The Mahabhashya recognises the 
