Indian Antiquary Vol 48

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 180

176
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
image inscription18 discovered by Mr. Banerji furnishes earlier testimony, because it mentions the Saivat 3 of Lakshmanasena, which shows that the first year of the era falls within the reign of that king.. But, I am afraid, it is by no means the only conclusion It can also mean deducible from the expression Srimal-Lakshmanasenasya saivat 3. simply "in the third regnal year of the king" without necessarily having any reference to the era started by him. Therefore, we do not get any definite clue as to the origin of the era from this inscription. Let us turn, therefore, our attention to the colophons of MSS. dated in this era. Now, in one of them we find the expression: abde Lakshmanasena-bhupati-mate, 19 which can only mean, "in the era which was approved (mata), -A.D. 1412. i.e., started by king Lakshmanasena." 20 The date of this MS. is La-san 293It is thus a century and a half earlier than Abul Fazl and is therefore, the earliest known evidence about the origin of the era. And, according to this also, Lakshmanasena is regarded as its founder. I have shown before that the theory that the era was started after the reign of Lakshmanasena he: no ground to stand upon. Likewise, as we now see, it could not have originated in any reign previous to his own.
Thus, what I have set forth in this paper will all go to support Kielhorn and those scholars who share in his opinion. I have shown(1) that there is absolutely no need of assuming two Lakshmanasena eras; (2) that the era of A.D. 1119 was not a later innovation having nothing to do with Lakshmanasena; (3) that it was not started to fill up the place of an imaginary 'death-ere' of the king; (4) that the expression atitâ-rajye Sam which has been incorrectly taken to yield the sense of a death-era is but the only natural form of fully expressing a post-regnal date; (5) that even if we imagine the existence of such an era it cannot, at any rate, be counted from A.D. 1200, because this cannot be supported on astronomical grounds; and (6) that the earliest tradition about the origin of the era, handed down to us through manuscripts, points to Lakshmanasena as its founder, and there is no evidence for fathering it on any one of his predecessors.
[SEPT., 1919
BOOK-NOTICE.
THE DREAM QUEEN, a translation of the Svapna-specimen we quote the following soliloquy of Vidushaka (the original of which is in prose) :vasa vadatta of Bhasa, by A. G. SHIRREFF AND PANNA LALL. The Indian Press, Allahabad, 1918.
I thank my lucky stars that I have seen This rare old time of mirth and merry-making For the long-wished for wedding of my lord, The Vatsa king. Why, bless me ! who'd have thought it? When we had been soused over head and ears In such a whirlpool of calamity, Who would have thought we ever should emerge? And now, I bask on palace balconies, Loll by the fountains in the ladies' court, Eat the most toothsome and delicious dainties,In short, I live in an elysium,
With nothing missing but the heavenly nymphs But there's one drawback, and a dreadful one : . This diet plays the deuce with my digestion. I cannot sleep upon a bed of down For these distempered humours in my vitals, Ugh! 'Tis no joke, I tell you, to endure These griping pains. I can't enjoy my breakfast. (Act IV, pp. 21-2). As a S. SASTRI.. 18 JASB. (N. S.), Vol. IV, p. 290. 19 Cat. of Palm-leaf and Selected paper MSS., Pt I, p. 22 20 Cf. expressions like Saka-nṛipati-mate, ibid, Pt. II, p. 66.
This is a metrical translation of one of Bhasa's best plays, the discovery of which has made famous the name of M. M. Pandit Ganapati Sastri of Trivandrum. The short introduction of the translators gives a summary of the discoverer's arguments as to the date of the author and touches briefly or the plot, and compares it with the earliest romantic drama of the West, the Alcestis of Euripides.
Though the translation is a metrical one, it is generally faithful. But the translators have followed an English model and not that of the original in so far as they omitted the Prastavaná and rendered even the prose portions of the original in verse. Thus they have presented this old Sanskrit play in a modern English garb; and credit must be given to them for their success.