improbable that only the second is left. Let us apply it to the case ofUtpala; and we shall find that the only, notpreposterous, conclusion is, thatUtpala places Vikramaditya 78 A. D., not 57 B. C. VVhat is apriori the only admissible conclusion, becomes a posteriori quite certain, because happily Utpala gives us his own date, and in so doing afïfords us the means of ascertaining what he means by the Qaka era. At the end of his commentary on Varaha-mihira's Brhaj-jataka we read:
Caitramasasya pancamyam sitayam Guruvasare | Vasvastastamite Qake krteyam vivrtir maya ||
«This commentary was finished by me on the 5th day of the light half of Caitra, on a Thursday, in the year 888 Qaka.» Now the specified date falls on a Thursday and could only do so, if the Qaka era is taken as the era which Anglice, not in Sanskrit, is called Qalivahana era. 1
I have assumed throughout, for argument's sake, that Utpala was wrong in making Vikramaditya the founder of the Qaka era because I had to show that, whether rightly or wrongly, he placed Vikramaditya 78 A. D., not 57 B. C. Whether he is right in doing so is a question apart which we shall discuss afterwards; first we have to revert to Lassen's remarks concerning Brahmagupta. This astronomer, says Lassen, reckons from the £alivahana era; that is true, but apt to mislead; he reckons from the £aka era, which Europeans persist in calling (^alivahana era. Moreover, not only does Brahmagupta reckon from the £aka era, but all other astronomers do so. The only inference from the facts, that Brahmagupta reckons from 78 A. D. and that the same Brahmagupta places in that year the end of the Qaka kings, is that his testimony agrees with that ofUtpala, barring that he does not give the name of their conqueror. The stricture upon the commentator, who erroneously brings forward Vikramaditya, is begging the question; it ought precisely to be shown that Vikramaditya did not live at that time. Arguments of a different kind are required, before the authority of the Hindu astronomers is shaken.
As harmiess as this attack upon them, is the attack upon Kalhana-Pandita, the historian of Kashmere. Let us see what charges are brought against him.
Lassen 2 , after premising that Kalhana-Pandita sees the real conqueror of the Qakas, not in Pratapaditya, who is said to have reigned 167—135 B. C., but in the king, who placed Matrgupta from 118—123 A. D. on the
1 Not trusting myself only in calculating back the given date, I had it also calculated by the well known mathematician and astronomer Bapu-Deva Qastrï, one of the ornaments of India.
s Indische Alterthumskunde, Vol. II (1852), p. 399, sq.