The Indian Analyst
 

North Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Introduction

Contents

Preface

List of Plates

Abbreviations

Additions and Corrections

Images

Introduction

Political History

Administration

Social History

Religious History

Literary History

Gupta Era

Krita Era

Texts and Translations

The Gupta Inscriptions

Index

Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27

Tiruvarur

Darasuram

Konerirajapuram

Tanjavur

Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Epigraphia
Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India

Pudukkottai

POLITICAL HISTORY

tion, is also applicable to this Chandragupta can scarcely be doubted, because we have pointed out above that Chandragupta II destroyed the power of the Kshatrapas who were Śakas. But the Śakāri of the tradition was also the founder of the Vikrama era. How could Chandragupta be connected with this era? In this connection it is worthy of note that most dates of the Gupta era can be worked out correctly even by taking them as Vikrama years. The necessary calculations involved in this supposition have already been set forth before us by Dhirendranath Mukhopadhyaya in the case of many dates of the Gupta era. How these Gupta dates can work out correctly even though they are treated as Vikrama years may appear somewhat singular and almost incredible at this stage, but this matter has been dealt with fully in a separate chapter. Here it is sufficient to note that this fact adequately explains why the name of a Gupta king, a (Chandragupta-) Vikramāditya above all, should be connected with the inauguration of an era starting from 57 B.C., which for that reason must have been called Vikrama Saṁvat. The third important point connected with the traditional Vikramāditya is that he was a patron of arts and sciences. And one tradition recorded in the Jyōtir-vidābharaṇa associated with him nine gems of litterateurs and scientists, the most resplendent of whom was Kālidāsa, the prince of poets. Most of the literates huddled together in a verse of this work were tenth-rate people and pertained again to different periods. The nine gems referred to therein could not thus have flourished in one age, or, for the matter of that, during the reign of Chandragupta II. Nevertheless, there is good reason to suppose that Kālidāsa lived and wrote in the fifth century A.D., and was a contemporary not only of Chandragupta II, but of Kumāragupta I, if not also of Skandagupta.

>

        The Rājataraṅgiṇī1 informs us that there lived at Ujjayanī as the sole sovereign of the world the glorious Vikramāditya who also bore the second name of Harsha and destroyed the Śakas. A poor poet, Mātṛigupta, sought the court of this Vikramāditya, and, after long futile endeavours, attracted the attention of the king who sent Mātṛigupta to Kashmir and had him installed there on the vacant throne. On the death of his patron and after a just rule of about five years Mātṛigupta abdicated in favour of Pravarasēna II and retired as a recluse to Banaras, where he died, supported to the end by the donations of his generous rival and successor. This account of Kalhaṇa is an amalgam of truth and fiction, as all traditions in India are bound to be. That this Vikramāditya is Chandragupta II can scarcely be seriously doubted; because Kalhaṇa represents him to be “the sole sovereign of the world”.2 It is true that Kalhaṇa further tells us that Pravarasēna II “replaced Śīlāditya-Pratāpaśīla, son of Vikramāditya, who had been dethroned by enemies, in the kingdom of his father”,3 the capital of which, we have seen above, was Ujjain. This Śīlāditya has been identified with a king of that name mentioned by Yuan Chwang as having ruled about 580 A.D. in Mālava, that is, sixty years before the time of the Chinese pilgrim.4 It is forgotten, however, that this Mālava was situated on the south-eastern side of the Mo-ho (verse 1, Mo-hi=Mahī) river and is distinghished from the country of Ujjayinī.5 Śīlāditya mentioned by Kalhaṇa as son of Vikramāditya, ruler of Ujjain, cannot possibly be identified with Śīlāditya referred to by Yuan Chwang as a ruler of Mālava whose capital was not Ujjain. On the other hand, we have pointed out above, on the strength of the Meharauli pillar inscription that Chandragupta made himself master of the country through which flowed the Sindhu with her seven mouths, that is, of the country which comprised not only the Panjab but also Kashnir. Whether tradition had in Kashmir
____________________________________________________

1 Book III, verses 129-320; Stein’s Trans, Intro., pp. 83-84.
2 Ibid., verse 125.
3 Ibid., verse 330.
4 Watters, On Yuan Chwang, Vol. II, p. 242; Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World, Vol. II, p. 261.
5 Watters, ibid., Vol. II, pp. 242 and 250; Beal, ibid., Vol. II, pp. 267 and 270-71.

>
>