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

46 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM VOL. III.
“ Kushân Scythians, and consequently that their date could not possibly be later than the
“ first century of the Christian era.” And, on the grounds that the only scheme, as far
as he could see, that would suit all the known dates and other conditions of the dynasty,
was to make Chandragupta I. the founder of the era ; that Albêrûnî’s information was that
the Śaka era was established by a king named Vikramâditya, after a victory over the
Śakas ; that the name of Vikramâditya was found on coins which were properly assigned
to Chandragupta I. ; and that the Allahâbâd pillar inscription mentions Samudragupta,
the son of Chandragupta I., as receiving tribute from the Śakas,—he expressed
himself (id. p. 119) as “ inclined to adopt the Śaka era, which began in A.D. 79,
“ as the actual era of the Gupta dynasty and to attribute its establishment to Chandra-
“ gupta I.”
In 1870, in the Jour. R. As. Soc. N. S. Vol. IV. p. 81 ff., Mr. Fergusson published
his paper “ On Indian Chronology,” which had been read before the Society two years
earlier, in February, 1869. In this paper, the facts were dealt with in considerable detail,
and with a good deal of soundness, except for one serious and radical error, viz. that
the Early and Western Chalukyas and the Kings of Valabhî belonged to one and the same
family, of which the Chalukyas were the southern branch (id. pp. 89, 91) ; the grounds for
this assumption seem to be nothing except the supposition that (id. p. 94) it was
Dharasêna IV., the first paramount sovereign in the Valabhî family,¹ who overthrew the
Western Chalukya king Vikramâditya II., the son of Pulikêśin II. ; but this, again, is
a purely mistaken supposition, in support of which there is not the slightest evidence
whatever, and against which there is plenty, of the most conclusive kind. Setting aside
this, and other important mistakes,—such as his endorsement of Dr. Bhau Daji’s reading
of Guptasya kâlât in the Junâgaḍh inscription of Skandagupta, but his variation of the
translation, so as to make it mean, not “ from the era of Gupta,” but (id. p. 112) “ from
the era of the Guptas ;” such as his assumption (id. pp. 108, 126) that the Udayagiri cave
inscription of the year 82, and the Sâñchi inscription of the year 93, belong to the time
of Chandragupta I., with the result that his son Samudragupta could not have ascended
the throne before A.D. 411 ; and such as (id. p. 118) his identification of the Budhagupta
of the Êraṇ pillar inscription with the Buddhagupta of Magadha, mentioned by Hiuen
Tsiang,² -there is a good deal that is sound in the arguments employed and the results
¹ Mr. Fergusson says Dharasêna III. ; but this is an evident mistake.
² On this point, Mr. Fergusson wrote—“I do not think the difference of spelling here indicated, of any
importance. Hiuen Tsiang's name was translated first from Sanskrit into Chinese, and from Chinese
into French ; and might easily have been more changed in the process.”—The same mistake has been
made in more recent times. And I will, therefore, now point out that the two names are utterly dis-
tinct, and belong to totally different persons. In respect of the king mentioned by Hiuen Tsiang (Beal's
Buddh. Rec. West. World, Vol. II. p. 168 ff. ; Julien's Hiouen Thsang, Vol. I. p. 149 f., Vol. III. p. 41 ff.),
we are not dependent on the correctness of the restoration in the French or English translation. Hiuen
Tsiang gives, as the first component of this name, the well-known Fo-t'o, which he uses so habitually
for Buddha, the teacher, the holy Śâkya-Tathâgata, and in respect of which he could not possibly be