North Indian Inscriptions

THE KṚITA ERA

aditya, which was the epithet, apparently of Chandragupta II of the Imperial Gupta dynasty. And the era was now generally known as Śrīmad-Vikrama-nṛipa-kāla, Śrī-nṛipa-Vikrama-saṁvat, Vikrama-saṁvat and so forth. But what is meant by these expressions ? Exactly what was denoted by Mālav-ēśa ? Thus, the copper-plates of the Chaulukya king Bhīmadēva II give one explanation, as follows: śrīmad-Vikramādity-ōtpādita-saṁvatsara-, “the year (of the era) originated by the illustrious Vikramāditya.” But that was not the only tradition prevalent about the association of Vikrama with the era. Because we meet with such expressions as Śrī-Vikramatō gatēshu, gatēshu-abdēshu Vikramāt, Vikramārka-gatē kālē, and so forth. If any doubt arises about the correct interpretation of these expressions, it is set at rest by what Amitagati says in setting forth the date of this work the Subhāshitaratnasaṁdōha as follows: samārūḍhē pūta-tridaśa-vasatiṁ Vikrama-nṛipē, “after king Vikrama had ascended to the pure dwelling of the immortals.” There can, therefore, be no doubt as to this era having been established to commemorate the passing away of the eponymous founder of the era.

>

But what were these traditions in their incipient stage ? In the case of the Mālavēśa traditions, we have seen that their inchoate form was indicated by the wording Mālava-vaṁśa which is found in the epigraphic record of Prabhākara. Mālava-vaṁśa developed, on the one hand, into Mālavēśa-gata-vatsara-śataiḥ, and, on the other, into saṁvatsara-śatair=yātaiḥ . . . Mālavēśānāṁ. What was the inchoate form in the case of Śrīmad-Vikramādity-ōtpādita-saṁvatsara and gatēshv=abdēshu Vikramāt ? The incipient form of these traditions seems to be preserved in the wording of the Dhōlpur inscription¹ as follows : vasu nav= āshṭau varshā gatasya kālasya Vikram-ākhyasya, “when the time called Vikrama had gone by, namely, the years 898.” This Kielhorn explains as follows:² “autumn (śarad) in India was pre-eminently the Vikrama-kāla” or war-time. And it is only one step further that Vikrama-kāla should be connected with the year (śarad) itself, as that term has also the sense of ‘the year.’Afterwards, when the origin and the true meaning of the after the manner of their own age, and Vikrama being a well-known name of famous kings, they naturally connected the era with a king of that name who would be supposed, either, like their own kings to have counted the years from his accession or to have otherwise given occasion for the establishment of the era. Had it been founded by a king Vikramāditya in 58 B.C., it is strange that no allusion should ever have been made to this for more than a thousand years afterwards. Again, had it been invented in momory of some great king, the name of that king would surely have been prominently mentioned many a time before vikrama year 1050, the date of Amitagati’s Subhāshitaratnasaṁdōha. Besides, nothing has yet been brought to prove the existence of a king Vikramāditya in the century preceding the birth of Christ. An attempt was no doubt, sometime ago, made to revive this theory, and proof was adduced to show that there was a king of the name of Vikramāditya in the first century before Christ. It was first broached by C. V. Vaidya in an article pulished in the Indian Review, December 1909. The same view has been put forth by Haraprasad Shastri in his paper on the Mandasōr inscription of Naravarman,³ forgetting, however, to mention the name of Vaidya. It has, therefore, become necessary to reconsider this question and find out how far their evidence is trustworthy. They both rely on a verse from Hāla’s Gāthā-saptaśatī (verse 64) which runs thus:

....................Saṁvāhaṇa-suha-rasa-tōsiēṇa dentēṇa tuha karē lakkham /
....................chalaṇēna Vikkamāichcha-chariam=aṇusikkhiaṁ tissā //
________________________________________________________

¹ ȤDMG., Vol. XL, pp. 39 ff.
² Ind. Ant., Vol. XX, pp. 407 and ff.
³ Ep. Ind., Vol. XII, p. 320.