________________
OCTOBER, 1874.]
CORRESPONDENCE AND MISCELLANEA.
303
To the Editor of the Indian Antiquary. believe they did not use it; for if they did, it would SIR, -Allow me to say a few words with regard be necessary to assign 272 or 330 years to the to the charge of misquotation brought against
six reigns on the only rational suppositions about me by Mr. Fergusson. He himsell quotes the pas- its initial date, stated above. But if they did use sage in my article, on which he founds the charge, the so-called Valabhi era, that era could not have in a mutilated form ; for he omits an important been theirs. But of this moro below. clause at the end, which is calculated to throw
The period of 120 years assigned by Mr. Ferlight on my real meaning. The whole passage
gusson to these six reigns appears to me to be too is "Mr. Fergusson refers the dates in the grants
long : for though the reigns are six, the generato the Valabhi era, but it is difficult to conceive how it should have escaped his notice that 272
tions are really only three, for the sixth indivi.
dual, Gahasena, was the grandson of the first, years, or according to the old reading 330 years,
Bhatarka, and the usual average of twenty years is far too long a time for the reigns of Bhatarka,
is held applicable in these cases, in which the his four sons, and his grandson Guhasena, sup
reigns represent so many generations. Bhatarka posing even that the era began from the date of the original founder of the dynasty, and not from that
must have been a middle-aged man when he of Drona Sinha's coronation. The words in italics
founded the kingdom; and the period between the have not been given by Mr. Fergusson.
time when a man arrives at that age and the death It would, I think, appear from this that my
of his grandson is in very rare cases so long as 120
years. The tradition which Mr. Fergusson adduces meaning is as follows:-On the supposition that
in support of his view is very vague. Supposing the era of the Valabhi dynasty began with the founder of the dynasty, or with Droga Sinha's
it to be trustworthy in every way-which it is not,
as I will give reasons to believe-Skandagupta may coronation, the only rational suppositions that can be made.- it would be necessary to assign 272
have reigned even for 20 or 30 years after 141, and
- Sri Dharasena may have begun his reign even 20 or 330 years or thereabouts to the six reigns,
years before 272, in which case the duration & period which is too long, if the dates in the
of the six roigns would be reduced to 91 or 81 Valabhi plates were taken to refer to the Valabhi
years. But the tradition itself, though interesting era. This necessity has "escaped Mr. Fergusson's notice;" i. e. he has left out of sight the fact
as giving the truth generally, cannot be considered that the only rational hypothesis is that the era
to be true in the particulars. For in the first place should have derived its initial date from either of
it makes Chakrapani the son of Prandat, who is
certainly the Chakra pâlita son of Parnndatta of those two events; and also the consequences of that fact, viz. that it would be necessary to assign
the Junagadh inscription, + viceroy of the father too long a period, i.e. 272 or 330 years, to these
of Kumaragupta and grandfather of Skandagupta, six reigns. This is my meaning. I have not
while the inscription represents Parnadatta as said categorically that Mr. Fergusson assigns 272
Skandagupta's viceroy, and Chakrapalita as or 330 years to th: six reigns. It was thoroughly
governor of a certain town, appointed to that place immaterial to my argument how many years he
by his own father. Again, Skandagupta is repreactually assigned to those reigns, which assign
sented as a weak king in the tradition; whilo his ment must be quito arbitrary. My object was to
inscriptions, magniloqucnt though they are, do give reasons why the Valabhi dates should not be
show that he must have been a powerful monarch. referred to the era of the dynasty, and this I have
Lastly, Bhatarka is mentioned as having assumed done in the sentence complained of by Mr. Fer
the title of King, while tho Valabht copperplates gusson. I think the gist of my paper as a whole,
spenk of him as Senapati, and represent Drona and the concluding clause I have italicized, ought
Sinha, his second son, to have first assumed that to have saved me from being misunderstood ;
title. The tradition, therefore, is not entitled but since they have not proved adequate to the
to any reliance as regards the particulars. It task, I see I ought not to have been so brief as
simply gives us what was known before, that the I was at the end of the article. I have so little Valabhis succeeded the Guptas. succeeded in making myself understood that Mr. Now as to the general question of Valabhi Fergusson still says that no one has a given any chronology, and of the era to which the dates in reason why the Valabhi kings should use any other the copperplate grants are to be referred, I have era than that that bears their name." I cannot recen+ly seen reason to modify the opinion I ex. say why they should not have used their era, but I pressed more than two years ago. Even then the • Vol. III. p. 335.
Jour. Bon. Br. R. As. Soc. vol. VII. pp. 122, 123. I Mr. Wathen's plate, Jour. B. 4. 8. vol. IV. and another in my possession containing a grant by Guhasona, not yet translated.
