|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
LITERARY HISTORY As regards Śāba Kautasa, inscription No. 11 below tells us that he was not only the Sāndhivigrahika of Chandragupta II but also a kavi. One characteristic of the Gupta period was that poets were immensely admired and appointed to big administrative posts. Poets are masters of diction. This gives enchantment to their composition whether it is in verse or in prose, whether it is a panegyric or a diplomatic document. It is, therefore, no wonder if the poets were selected as Sāndhivigrahikas. Kings themselves aspired to become poets. It has been pointed out above that Samudragupta himself has been styled Kavirāja in the Allahābād praśasti. Unfortunately, not a single verse or poem has yet been traced in anthologies which is attributed to this king by this name. His son, we have seen, was Chandragupta, known also as Vikramāditya, It is worthy of note in this connection that many verses have been attributed to Vikramāditya, singly and sometimes, jointly, in anthologies, such as Saduktikarṇāmṛita, Śārṅgadharapaddhati, Subhāshitāvali, and so forth. Who was this Vikramāditya ? It seems tempting to identify him with Chandragupta II. But it is worthy of note that this was also an epithet borne by Samduragupta.1 Further, we have to note that I n 1941 the Kathā-prastāvanā of a work called Kṛishṇacharitam was published by the well-known scholar Rājavaidya Jivaram Kalidas Shastri of Goṇḍal in Kāṭhiāwāṛ, which from its colophon appears to have been composed by Mahārājādhirāja Samudragupta, designated not only Parama-bhāgavata but also Vikramāṅka. Whether this work or, rather, its introductory part which is published is genuine or not is a question that need not trouble us here. But it is curious that one verse ascribed to Vikramāditya in the Subhāshitāvali is rujāsu nāthaḥ paramaṁ hi bhēshajam, which is placed under Śrī-Bhagavat-svarūpa-varṇana-paddhatiḥ (No. 3494). Kṛishṇa is known to be bhagavat. And it is not impossible to infer that this work of Kṛishṇacharitam is a production of the Gupta monarch, Samudragupta, who has been styled not only as Parama-bhāgavata but also a Vikrama. Whether, however, this work is a genuine one as a whole, or even in greater part cannot be determined unless more of the actual work has been found.
It is not the Gupta kings alone who were poets. They had matrimonial alliances with the Vākāṭakas of the former Berar and Central Provinces. Chandragupta II had a daughter named Prabhāvatiguptā who was married to the Vākāṭaka ruler, Rudrasēna (II), and had three sons, namely, Divākarasēna, Dāmōdarasēna and Pravarasēna. Divākarasēna has been called Yuvarāja, and it seems that he died without coming to the throne when his mother was queen-regent. The Saduktikarṇāmṛita2 of Śrīdharadāsa cites a Sanskrit verse which is attributed to Yuvarāja Divākara who presumably is this eldest son of Prabhāvatiguptā. As regards Pravarasēna, we have pointed out that he was the author of Rāvaṇavaho, also called Sētubandha, a well-known Prākṛit poem. Rāmadāsa, who wrote a commentary on this work, records a tradition that it was really composed by Kālidāsa at the bidding of his master Vikramāditya and ascribed to his grandson Pravarasēna of the Vākāṭaka dynasty. If we weigh these traditions properly, it seems that Chandra-Vikramāditya, Pravarasēna II and Kālidāsa alias Mātṛigupta were contemporaries of one another. This contemporaneity of three personages receives confirmation from a most unexpected quarter. Bhōjadēva, in his Śṛiṅgāraprakāśa (Prakaraṇa VIII) says that kālidāsa was sent as ambassador to the court of a Kuntala king, that on his return to the headquarters he was interrogated as to how the Kuntala prince was doing and that he gave the replay in the verse:3 ......................................asakala-hasitatvāt kshālitān=īva kāntyā 1 Jour. Numis. Soc. India, Vol. V, pp. 136 and 140.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|