________________
SEPT., 1919 )
THE LAKSHMANASENA ERA
175
expression of a regnal date in words would be, e.g., as follows: Lakshmanasenasya rájye. or pravarddhamana-vijaya-rajye San. But if we are asked to express fully a post-regnal year of the king, what have we to do? Surely, the above expression will not serve our purpose. There must undoubtedly be alteration of the wording of the date. Of course. pravarddhamana or some such phrase cannot be tolerated ; but, even if we score it out and retain only rajye it will also lead to a confusion. For, this might give rise to the idea that in both the years, regnal and post-regnal, the king was actually ruling! To avoid such a confusion it will be necessary to clearly indicate that the reign of the king had passed away, but that the era started from the date of his accession, was being continued. And we have already indicated that our intention is to express it in extenso. Hence the word rajya by itself will not do and we must use some other additional word to show that this rájya or reign had already passed away. The only appropriate phrase that can be employed in the circumstances is some such as atita-rajye. 11 It can only mean, in the past reign, i.e., in the reign (now) passed as Kielhorn suggested. It can never mean, as some scholars no doubt suppose, so many years elapsed since the atita-rajya which word being in the locative cannot give rise to the sense of ablative (since '):12 As regards the propriety of this expression the following words of Kielhorn may be well quoted: "During the reign of Lakshamarasena the years of his Lakshmanaséna's) reign would be described as Srimal-Lakshmanaséna-dévapadanám rdjye (or pravardhamana-vijaya-rájyé) samat : after his death the phrase would be retained, but atita prefixed to the word rájye, to show that, although the years were stil continued from the commencement of the reign of Lakshmanagêna, that reign itself was a thing of the past. In the course of time atita-rdjyé is apt to become a meaningless phrase, As may be seen from the Srimad Vikra-maditya-dérapádánam atita-rajyé Sam 18 1503 in Mr. Bendall's Catalogue of Buddh. Skr. M$8., p. 70"-ante, Vol. XIX, p. 2, note 3.
I shall now examine another theory, viz., that according to which the initial point of the era, though it is counted from A.D. 1119, does not fall in his reign, but in thet of his predecessor. According to some scholars it originated with the reign of Sâmantasena, 11 according to others with that of Hemantasena ;15 while there is yet a third view according to which we should look upon Vijayasena as the founder of the era 16 Mr. R. D. Banerji has already made a very relevant remark, that the era which was all along associated with his name, cannot be reasonably ascribed to the reign of any one of his predecessors,17 Hitherto, the earliest testimony of the origin of the era was believed to have been the Akbar-namah of Abul-Fazl which was compiled about the middle of the 16th century A.D. It records & current tradition that the era was started from the year of Lakshmanasena's accession. It may here be contended that the Dacca
11 In some seven manuscripts and one inscription we have similar phrases, e.g.. Govindapaladevana. mgata-rajye chaturlasa-samvalsare, to express the dates in which they were written, Mr. Banerji and others contend that these expressions should not be interpreted like the date-wordings of the Bodh Gaya inscriptions referred to above. I, however, cannot subscribe to it. My own views regarding them will be published in a subsequent instie of this Journal.
12 In the Sonpur plates of Kumara Somesvaradeva, Ep. Ind. Vol XII. p. 240, which were executed in his first regnal year, we have Abhimanyude (de)vasy=tita-rdjye by which it is evidently meant that they were issued in the passed reign of his predecessor Abhimanyudeva. This certainly lends support to Kielhorn's interpretation of atitardjye.
ja Cf. also (Vikramaditya devanam=atta-rajye varsha=$atatrayodasabda-satrin fatatamadhikam, etc. occurring in a copper plate noticed by Mr. Banerji. See JASB. (N. 8.), Vol. VII, p. 308.
14 JASB. (N.8.), Vol. I, p. 45. 15 R. G. Bhandarkar's Report on the Search for Sk. MSS., 1897, p. LXXXVII.
16 Smith's Early History of India, 3rd Ed., p. 418. 17 Banglar Itihasa, Vol. I, p. 300.
