The positive
date of Vikramaditya, for instance, whose reign forms the starting point
of the Samvat era, is in reality unknown to them. With some,
Vikramaditya flourished "B.C." 56; with others, 86; with others again,
in the 6th century of the Christian era; while Mr. Fergusson will not
allow the Samvat era any beginning before the "10th century A.D." In
short, and in the words of Dr. Weber,* they "have absolutely no
authentic evidence to show whether the era of Vikramaditya dates from
the year of his birth, from some achievement, or from the year of his
death, or whether, in fine, it may not have been simply introduced by
him for astronomical reasons." There were several Vikramadityas and
Vikramas in Indian history, for it is not a name, but an honorary title,
as the Orientalists have now come to learn. How then can any
chronological deduction from such a shifting premise be anything but
untrustworthy, especially when, as in the instance of the Samvat, the
basic date is made to travel along, at the personal fancy of
Orientalists, between the 1st and the 10th century?
-----------
* "The History of Indian Literature," Trubner's Series, 1882, p.
Pages:
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482