North Indian Inscriptions

POLITICAL HISTORY

confused Chandragupta II with Harsha of Kanauj it is difficult to say. But as the latter ruler has not yet been adverted to at all by Kalhaṇa, it looks probably that the second name Harsha had clung to Vikramāditya perhaps through the mistake of the scribe. It seems that originally he was known as Chandra-Vikramāditya. And just as Kācha, the name of his elder brother, was corrupted into Rāma, his own name, that is, Chandra, because Harsha. But who was Mātṛigupta, the poet of the court of Vikramāditya, who was placed in charge of Kashmir? It is true that the existence of a poet, Mātṛigupta, is attested by the verses cited from his compositions by Kshēmēndra and other Kashmirian litterateurs. But how is it that he is unknown outside Kashmir? In this connection it is impossible not to take cognisance of an ingenious theory of the late Bhau Daji which identifies Mātṛigupta with the great poet Kālidāsa.¹ His arguments are principally based on the two names being practically synonymous (Kālī=Mātṛi; dāsa=gupta) ; on the absence of any mention of Kālidāsa in the Rājataraṅgiṇī, which, however, speaks of Bhavabhūti, Vākpati and others; and on the ascription to Kālidāsa of the composition of Sētubandhu at the bidding of a king Pravarasēna. Now even if we do not accept that Mātṛigupta is exactly synonymous with Kālidāsa, it may certainly be another name for Kālidāsa. Another well-known dramatist was Bhavabhūti who, we are told in the prastāvanā of all his dramas, had the other appellation of Śrīkaṇṭha. It is quite possible that Mātṛigupta was similarly another appellation of Kālidāsa. Again, it is a point worthy of note that one work of Kālidāsa has been styled Vikramōrvaśīya and another Kumārasaṁbhava. This gives rise to the presumption that the first components of these names, namely, Vikrama and Kumāra are respectively Chandragupta II and his son Kumāragupta I, whose contemporary he was. The presumption becomes strong when we consider impartially some of the contents of his renowned Raghuvaṁśa.

>

This poem speaks of the Hūṇas, not simply as situated at a long distance from India, but as settled on the Sindhu and quite on the confines of this country.² Skandagupta, son of Kumāragupta I, was the first Gupta sovereign to meet and repel them in a well-pitched battle. The Raghuvaṁśa may thus rightly be taken as being composed in the time of this Gupta monarch. Many allusions to the kings of this royal line have been traced, some of which are more imaginary than real. Some most likely allusions have not been even thought of. One such relates to the Raghus, at the very commencement of the work, who are “a race emanating from the sun” (sūrya-prabhavō vaṁśaḥ). It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Guptas were a solar race and that the Raghuvaṁśa in the course of the description of many of its princes may contain some covert references to the Gupta princes and this sovereignty enjoyed by them. Thus when at the very outset of the poem we are told that it intends giving an account of the Raghus who pertained to the solar race, the presumption is raised that the Guptas also claimed to be descended from the sun. Now, if we study the coins of this dynasty, we find that most of the Gupta kings had epithets ending in āditya which means ‘the sun’. Thus Chandragupta is called Vikramāditya; Kumāragupta I, Mahēndrāditya; Skandagupta, both Kramāditya and Vikramāditya; Narasiṁhagupta, Bālāditya; Kumāragupta II, Kramāditya; Chandragupta III, Dvādaśāditya; and so on.³ What does the term āditya in these epithets signify? To begin from the beginning, Vikramāditya is generally taken in the sense of ‘the sun of valour’. But how will this translation suit, e.g., Mahēndrāditya or Bālāditya ? The first of these is an epithet of Kumāragupta I. But what is meant by saying that he was Mahēndrāditya if Mahēndrā-ditya is taken in the sense of ‘the sun of the great Indra’? In fact, this rendering is not only
________________________________________________

¹ JBBRAS., Vol. VI, 1861, pp. 218 ff.
² This view was first insisted upon by K. B. Pathak in JBBRAS., Vol. XIX, pp. 35 ff. and also in Introduction to his Kālidāsa’s Mēghadūta, pp. vii ff.
³ Allan, Catalogue of the Coins of the Gupta Dynasty, pp. 34 ff.; pp. 89 ff.; pp. 117 ff.; pp. 122 ff.; pp. 137 ff.; pp. 140 ff.; and p. 144.