|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
THE KṚITA ERA Evidently this verse makes mention of Vikramāditya and refers to his munificent nature. And as Hāla, the author of the Gāthāsaptaśatī, is ordinarily spoken of as a Śātavāhana, and as this name occurs in the Purāṇas, and is placed there before that of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi who, we know, lived about 125 A.D., it is argued that the work was composed about the beginning of the first century after Christ. And when such a work alludes to Vikramāditya, it is concluded that there was really a king of this name living in the first century B.C., as reported by the tradition. Hence, both Vaidya and Haraprasad Shastri hold that the tradition gives a correct account of the origin of the Vikrama era and that it was, therefore, initiated by a king called Vikramāditya. Now, even supposing for the moment, that there was such a king as Vikramāditya living in circa 57 B.C., it does not necessarily follow that the era was founded by him. It is true that even in inscriptions the era is associated with the name of Vikramāditya. But these are records of a late period, and, in fact, it is in Amitagati’s Subhāshitaratnasaṁdōha composed in Vikrama Saṁvat 1050 that we hear for the first time of a prince Vikrama in connection with it;1 and from the actual wording of the date by this Jaina author it seems that the era was believed in his time not to have been founded by Vikramāditya but rather started to commemorate his death. All earlier inscriptions going back to the first quarter of the third century A.D. give an entirely different name for the era. What that name is has been stated above, namely Kṛita, and it is sufficient here to say that they give not even the least inkling of its being associated with Vikramāditya.If this is what epigraphy tells us, it is rash to assume that the era was known to be connected with this king even long prior to Vikrama year 1050. And if, as we know from epigraphy, this era had an altogether different name and had absolutely no connection with Vikramāditya it is not reasonable at all to infer that it was established by him.
But, is it a fact that the Gāthāsaptaśatī was such early work as has been assumed ? In
the first place, that its author, Hāla, was a Śātavāhana is a mere tradition and must be set
aside like all other traditions about the ancient litterateurs of India. Indroductory verse 13
of Bāṇa’s Harshacharita, no doubt, speaks of a Śātavāhana having composed a Kōśa of songs,
but there are no grounds to suppose that this Kōśa is Hāla’s Saptaśatī, as has been well pointed
out by Weber.2 The internal evidence afforded by the work points, on the other hand, to a
much later date for its composition. Only two points may be here noticed. The first is the
reference to Kṛishṇa and Rādhikā contained in verse 1. 89, and the second to a week-day,
Tuesday in 3. 61. The earliest mention of Rādhikā that we have been able to trace is in the
Pañchatantra3 which was compiled in the fifth century after Christ. Similarly, the practice
of citing the week-day in dates or for other general purposes came into vogue in the 9th
century4 though the earliest instance of its use is found in the Ēraṇ inscription (No. 39 below)
of Budhagupta dated 484 A.D. And we shall not be far wrong if we assing Hāla of the Gāthā-saptaśatī to the commencement of the 6th century. If we take this to be his period, there is
nothing strange in our finding a verse, in his anthology, descriptive of the liberality of Vikramāditya. Because, whether we take this Vikramāditya to be Chandragupta II of the gupta
dynasty with R. G. Bhandarkar5 or with his grandson Skandagupta with K. B. Pathak,6
he cannot be pushed later than 475 A.D. And it is quite possible that after the death of this
Vikramāditya, his generosity stuck to the memory of the people and became the subject of 1 R. G. Bhandarkar’s Second Report (1882-83), p. 228.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|