30.-THE DEVOTION OF A FISHERMAN'S WIFE.

There lived in a certain village a married couple. The husband went every day into the jungles and caught fish and crabs in the hillstreams. To avoid drenching his loincloth which was the only wearing apparel he possessed he used to keep it on the river-bank while engaged in fishing. While he was thus engaged one morning his hand was caught in a hole by a crab and while he was struggling to extricate it a huge tiger who was the king of the forest arrived there with his retinue consisting of a number of smaller tigers. The king beheld a pair of berries dangling from a stem and ordered one of his followers to go and examine them and to report if they were ripe. The follower carried out his command and reported that the berries would be ripe by the following morning. The king then departed with his cortege. As the fisherman was very late in returning home owing to this untoward event his wife grew anxious about his safety in a place known to be infested with wild animals and she went into the jungle to look for him. He met her on his way homet and told her that his end was near for the great tiger would come again next morning when he would be fishing in the river and would for a certainty devour him. "Be not anxious, my dear," said the devoted wife, "for I will find means for your deliverance". Next morning she volunteered to go into the jungle and catch fish in the river and prevailed upon her husband to stay at home. While she was catching fish in nature's garb there came the king of tigers with his myrmidons. Lashing his tail in fury the king of the forest turned on his followers and said :--" You have made a fool of me. The fruits were ripe but you did not let me taste them yesterday. Now they are gone and nothing remains but the stem. The king in his rage killed all his followers and went away from the place so that the fisherman's wife returned home in safety.*

• Another version has a different ending. The woman on being interrogated said that the berries, being overripe had dropped into the river and had been carried down stream by the current, and thereupon the king and his followers went in search of them along the course of the river and thus enabled the woman to get away.

MISCELLANEOUS CONTRIBUTIONS.

I.-Dates of Skanda-Gupta and His
Successors.

By H. Panday, B.A.

The January (1918) number of the Hindustan Review contains a very interesting and learned discussion on the dates of Skanda-Gupta and his successors by Mr. Panna Lall, M. A., B. Sc., L.L. B., I.C.S.

The chronology of the Imperial Gupta dynasty which was the accepted one as late as 19141 assigned a reign of some twenty-five years to Skanda-Gupta (455-480 A.C.) 2 and placed his successors, Pura-Gupta, Narasimha-Gupta and Kumara-Gupta II between 480 and 550 A.C. Since then, however, fresh discoveries have been made and a fresh adjustment of dates became necessary. In his Catalogue of Gupta coins in the British Museum Mr. Allan has proved that three more names must be added to the list of the known successors of Skanda-Gupta, namely, Prakāśāditya, Dvādaśāditya, and Ghatotkacha-Gupta ; but no change in the accepted date of Skanda-Gupta's death (480 A.C.) was proposed. So strong was the belief in the correctness of this chronology among scholars generally that when in the excavations at Sārnāth during 1914-15, a fresh discovery was made in the shape of an inscription of a Buddhist monk Abhayamitra mentioning the name of Kumāra-Gupta as the reigning sovereign and dated in the 154th year of the Gupta era, together with another of the same monk mentioning Buddha-Gupta as Ruler of the Land and dated in 157 G.E., it was explained away by expressing a belief or conjecture as to the existence of a third Kumāra-Gupta ! The

1 See V. Smith Early History of India (3rd Ed.) pp. 208-311.

2 Ibid

; also Allan, Catalogue of Gupta Coins, p. cxxvii.

importance of Mr. Panna Lall's paper lies in its independent and satisfactory solution of the problem raised by the last-mentioned discovery. It is a contribution to history of which any scholar may well be proud, inasmuch as the author has not had the monopoly of a chance 'find' but bases his conclusion on an examination of materials already available.

prove:

Mr. Panna Lall has tried in this paper to (1) That the reign of Skanda-Gupta ended in 467 A.C. and that he was followed by Pura-Gupta (167-469), NarasimhaGupta (469-473), Kumara-Gupta II (473-477) and BuddhaGupta (477-494); Prakāśāditya, Dvadaśāditya and GhatothkachaGupta being also relegated to the period between 469 and 477 A.C.

(2) That the Kumāra-Gupta of the Sarnath inscription is identical with (a) the Kumāra-Gupta, son of Narasimha-Gupta Bālāditya of the Bhitri Seal and (b) the Kumāra-Gupta mentioned in the Mandasor inscription of 529 M.E. (473 A.C.).

With regard to the first Mr. Panna Lall rests his arguments mainly on the following facts:

(a) the absence of any recorded date for Skanda-Gupta after 467 A.C.;

(6) the discovery of inscriptions dated in 474 and 477 A.C. at Sarnath, in the very heart of Gupta dominions, mentioning the names of other kings,

(c) the untrustworthiness of the legend recorded by Hiuen Tsang ascribing the defeat of Mihirgula to Bālāditya of Magadha.

3

It was due to a mistaken reading of the date on a silver coin of Skanda-Gupta (160 for 145 G.E) that this emperor was assigned a long reign extending to 480 A. C. The error was corrected by Allan' but its effect on the chronology of this period was not then recognized. The credibility of the legend recorded by Hiuen Tsang according to which the credit for the discomfiture of the Hūņa tyrant was given to Bālāditya, a Buddhist king J.R.A S., 1889, page 133.

Allan, Gupta, Coins, page 133.

of Magadha, was also doubted as far back as 1909, and by the very scholar who first advocated it. But historians like Mr. Vincent Smith persevered in their faith as to the legend being authentic and had to go to the length of conjuring up a confederacy of Indian kings to combat the Huna". It was due to the mistaken identification (on the basis of this legend) of the Magadhan Bālāditya with Bālāditya NarasimhaGupta and the confusing of both these with the destroyer of Mihirgula that the date 530A.C. for Narasimha-Gupta was arrived at. Mr. Panna Lall has brought together in his paper sufficient evidence to settle this point. As so ably proved by Mr. K. P. Jayaswal in the Indian Antiquary (July 1917, p. 153) the hero who annihilated Mihiragula was no other than Yasodharman of the Mandasor pillar inscriptions whom this scholar has identified with Kalki of the Puranas. In this matter, therefore, Mr. Panna Lall's thesis is supported by Mr. Jayaswal's examination of Puranic and Jaina datang to the subject. So this question has now been settled. The dates for Skanda-Gupta and his successors now suggested by Mr. Panna Lall will, therefore, be accepted and future discoveries-unless these be such as to weaken the literary, epigraphic and numismatic evidence collated by Mr. Panna Lall-may be expected to confirm his conclusion.

With regard to the second point, however, Mr. Panna Lall's proposition is not equally sound. So far as the identity of the Kumāra-Gupta of the Sarnath inscription and the KumāraGupta of the Bhitri seal is concerned the learned author has established his case. The chronology as now revised will not allow two Kumāra-Guptas in this period. The evidence of palæography and numismatics and of literature also leads to the same conclusion.

But when we come to the identification of the Kumāra-Gupta of the Sarnath inscription with the Kumāra-Gupta of the Mandasor inscription of M.E. 529, the case is entirely different. Mr. Panna Lall would interpret the Mand asor inscription to refer to the $ J.R.A.S., 1909, pp. 92-95.

Early History of India, page 318.

reign of Kumara-Gupta II. For this he has to put upon the text a construction which, though not opposed to Sanskrit syntax is obviously not the natural one. In this he has repeated the mistal e unfortunately made by the late Dr. Fleet, though differently. Both Dr. Fleet and Mr. Panna Lall would have us believe that the Mandasor inscription is a "eulogy". There is no word in the original inscription itself for this "eulogy". The composer of the text himself calls it "history".

श्र ण्यादेशेन भक्त्या च कारितं भवनं रवेः ।

yaf qa'sum̃a efgar aceufen 11

The most natural meaning of this verse would be :-

"This temple of the Sun was caused to be built by the command of the Śreni (corporation) and this history' (purvā stands for pūrvā kathā) was composed, out of devotion, by Vatsa Bhatti." Fleet's translation, "this (eulogy) that preceeds" is opposed to Sanskrit idiom and Mr. Panna Lall should have avoided this obvious error which is indirectly responsible for his identification of the Sarnath Kumara-Gupta with Kumara-Gupta (I) overlord of Viśvavarma of Western Malwa.

The Mandasor inscription is unique among the epigraphic records of India in that it gives the history of a temple commencing with its founders. The main facts of history preserved in this inscription may be briefly stated as follows :

The famous silk-weavers of Lata left their beautiful country and migrated to Daśapura with their families, where they settled; and as the city grew into importance in course of time, it became the "fore-head ornament of the Earth". Here they were admitted to all the privileges of citizenship and betook themselves to various honourable professions. Among them were archers, story-tellers, religiously-minded men, lecturers, astronomers and soldiers, while some of them retained their hereditary occupation of silk-weaving. Silk was a favourite article of clothing among 7 Compare for instance the different expressions found in the Gupta inscriptions,

शासन, सङ्घम्भ ख्यापन, प्रशस्ति, शिलाब ख, काव्य and नोक ।

It would be absurd to adopt a universal term "eulogy" for all these.