गुप्त अभिलेख संग्रह (जे. एफ. फ्लीट - गुप्त सम्राटों एवं परवर्ती नरेशों के ऐतिहासिक पाषाण व ताम्रलेख)

32 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
Valabhî-Saṁvat 945, together with Vikrama-Saṁvat 1320, which is equivalent to A.D.
1263-64, and with the Hijra year 662, which ran¹ from the 4th November, A.D. 1263, to
the 23rd October, A.D. 1264.
So much was certain. But it was felt to be highly improbable that the Gupta era
should date from the extermination of the Guptas. And students of the subject divided
themselves, almost at once, into two schools.
The first, represented most publicly and with undeviating tenacity up to the last by
the late Mr. J. Fergusson, accepted Albêrûnî's statement as to the period of the com-
mencement of the era, but,—on the analogy of the statement which, on the authority of
Hindu tradition, he also makes, that the Śaka era, too, dated from the overthrow of the
Śakas; a statement which is certainly wrong,²—rejected the addition that it dated from the
downfall of the Guptas; and took A.D. 318 for the date of the rise of the dynasty, as well
as the establishment of the era; selecting this particular year on the theory that the era
did not date from the accession of a king, or from any particular historical event, but, for
convenience of comparison, was simply regulated by the completion of four of the Sixty-
Year Cycles of Jupiter from the commencement of the Śaka era.
The other school accepted A.D. 318, or thereabouts, for the downfall of the Guptas,
and took the Valabhî era of Arjunadêva's inscription, which indisputably began at that
period, as being separate altogether from the real Gupta era, and as having been established
in commemoration of the overthrow of the Gupta power; and began then to look about for
an earlier date for the rise of the Gupta dynasty, and for the starting-point of the era used
by the Gupta kings, and also,—as was maintained, with some inconsistency, by the
majority,—by the Kings of Valabhî, in preference to their own Valabhî era. The chief
exponents of this school have been—the late Mr. E. Thomas, who held that the era was
identical with that of the Śakas,³ with the epoch of A.D. 77-78;—General Sir Alexander
¹ See Indian Eras, p. 126. ² See Appendix I. below.
³ A curious instance of confusion between the Gupta and the Śaka eras, on the part of a Hindu
writer, is furnished by the following two passages from the commentary named Âchâraṭîkâ, by Śîlâ-
chârya, on the Jain work called Âchârâṅgasûtra; I have taken them from a manuscript, supposed to
be about three hundred years old, shewn to me in the early part of 1883 by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji.—
This first passage, on pp. 207b and 208a, is in metre, and runs—dvâsaptaty-adhikêshu hi śatêshu saptasu
gatêshu Guptânâṁ | saṁvatsarêshu mâsi cha Bh[â]drapadê śuklâ(kla)-paṁchamyâṁ || Śîlâchâryêṇa*
kṛitâ Gambhûtâyâṁ sthitêna ṭîk=aishâ | samyag-upayujya śôdhyâ mâtsarya-vimukritair=âryê (ryai)ḥ ||.
This passage gives Gupta-Saṁvat 772, expired, the fifth day of the bright fortnight of the month
Bhâdrapada, as the date on which this portion of the Commentary was completed by Śîlâchârya, at
Gambhûtâ (? Cambay).—The second passage, on p. 256b, at the end of the whole book, is in prose,
and runs — Śaka-nṛipa-kâl-âtîta-saṁvatsara-śatêsashu(read śatêshu) saptasu | ashṭânavaty-adhikêshu
Vaiśâkha-śuddha-paṁchamyâṁ Âchâraṭîkâ kṛit=êti || Ba || Saṁvat (page 256b ends here; and the
next page, containing the repetition of the date in figures, and the last final words of the author, is
lost). This passage gives Śaka-Saṁvat 798, expired, the fifth day of the bright fortnight of the month
Vaiśâkha, as the date of the completion of the whole Commentary.—The two passages, indicating, as