Nobin Ch. Sen seems to have been the first to conceive the idea of a modern rendering of the character of Krishna; for he laid the project before some of his friends in 1882.[284] His famous epic trilogy, _Raivatak_, _Kurukshetra_ and _Prabhās_, are the result of this pregnant thought. But, while he and Shishir Kumar Ghose have done a great deal to popularize the movement, there can be no doubt that Bunkim Ch. Chatterji’s _Krishnacharitra_ has been by far the most influential volume in the whole of this literature. Gaur Gavinda Ray’s work, _Srikrishner Jivana O Dharma_, is a piece of excellent characterization, and has won the high regard of many thoughtful men. The books on our list fall into two classes, _Historical_ and _Traditional_. In the Historical class there are only two volumes, Tattvabhusan’s _Hindu Theism_, and the _Young Men’s Gītā_. These two frankly acknowledge that the _Gītā_ is a late book. In the _Young Men’s Gītā_[285] its date is said to be a century or two before, or a century or two after, the Christian era; while in _Hindu Theism_[286] the _Gītā_ is regarded as the point of transition from the old Vedānta to the religion of the Purānas. The standpoint of these two books is thus thoroughly historical, but it necessarily implies the abandonment of the divinity of Krishna. All the rest of the books on the list fall into the second class; for they hold the traditional position about Krishna. Most of them make no attempt at criticism of the sources, but treat the _Mahābhārata_, the _Gītā_, the _Harivansa_ and the Purānas as all historical and all equally trustworthy. A few of the authors, however, state plainly their own critical conclusions, and two or three enter into some discussion of the main problems. These attempts at criticism are the most pitiable parts of the whole literature. The talented author of _Srikrishner Jivana O Dharma_, by far too sincere and candid to ignore the Puranic elements in the sources, frankly confesses their presence; yet, believing these books to be genuine representatives of the age of Kurukshetra, he is driven to the extraordinary conclusion that the Vedic, the Vedantic, and the Puranic ages were contemporaneous.[287] The late Bulloram Mullick, in discussing the eighteen Purānas, goes so far as to say, “Whatever may be the views of European savants, there is indubitable proof that some of these Purānas existed in the eleventh or twelfth century before Christ.”[288] Even Bunkim Chundra Chatterji himself not only unhesitatingly adopts Goldstücker’s rash guess, that Pānini’s grammar was written before the Brāhmanas and the Upanishads, but on the basis of that unwise conjecture, pushes back Pānini’s date to the tenth or eleventh century B. C.,[289] _i.e._, four or five centuries earlier than the pre-Buddhistic date which Goldstücker[290] wished to establish. Dhirendra Nath Pal, seeing that Bunkim Babu found it so easy to leap over a few centuries, goes a little further and suggests the