वासवदत्ता (महाकवि सुबन्धु - श्लेष-प्रधान शास्त्रीय गद्यकाव्य सान्वय सटीक)

INTRODUCTION 9

disport», ««who devours not whom»»?—for Vikramāditya, like
a lake, hath passed away on earth.’ This has been taken,
particularly by Hall (Introd., p. 6), to imply that Subandhu
‘lived long posterior to the great Vikramāditya of Ujjayinī.’
Although some deny that this monarch, about whom cluster so
many legends, ever existed (see, for example, Macdonell, History
of Sanskrit Literature, pp. 323–324, London, 1900), such a view
can scarcely be supported, and there is good reason to believe
him to be identical with Candragupta II, who reigned from about
374 to 413 (Smith, Early History of India from 600 B.C. to the
Muhammadan Conquest, 2 ed., pp. 275–283, Oxford, 1908). It
would be most tempting, so far as the special problems of the Vāsa-
vadattā are concerned, could one accept the view, argued with
great learning by Hoernle (‘Some Problems of Ancient Indian
History,’ in JRAS. 1903, pp. 545–570, and ‘The Identity of
Yaśodharman and Vikramāditya, and some Corollaries,’ ib. 1909,
pp. 89–144 ; against this Fleet, ‘Dr. Hoernle’s Article on Some
Problems of Ancient Indian History,’ ib. 1904, pp. 164–166, and
Smith, ‘The Indian Kings named Śīlāditya, and the Kingdom
of Mo-la-p’o,’ in ZDMG. 58. 787–796), that Yaśōdharman (on
whom see also Smith, op. cit. pp. 301–302), whom he identifies
with the great Vikramāditya, ‘founded his Mālava empire about
533 A.D., and reigned up to about 583 A.D.’ Hoernle accord-
ingly dates Subandhu in the second half of the sixth century,
and holds that the Vāsavadattā was written before 606–612,
the latter year being that of Harṣa’s coronation. Attractive as is
this hypothesis, I am compelled to admit that it can scarcely be
used to determine the date of Subandhu, the whole evidence of
Indian history being against it.
The period following the death of Vikramāditya is described
in the stanza quoted above as one of degeneration, and there may
be a covert allusion to the same (or a similar) evil state of affairs
in the phrase navanṛpaticittavṛttibhir iva kulyāpamānakāriṇībhir,
‘as the disposition of new monarchs causes dishonour to the
honourable’ (ed. Hall, p. 220). Hoernle, holding that Vikra-
māditya’s successor was his son Śīlāditya, who was dethroned