Geen zoekvraag opgegeven

Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

throne of Kashmere, tries to controvert this statement, firstly by referring to the arguments we have disposed of, and secondly by the following remarks:

«The first objection to his (Kalhana's) assertion is its being in conflict with the perfectly certain(.fzc)chronology after the Vikramaditya era, which in itself {sic) would be sufficiënt to raise an objection against it. A second, and not less mighty one, has to be added. If namely we adopt his premises and reason upon them, and test them by historical facts anterior and posterior, we shall find contradictions to established facts.»

Here I shall only stop to observe, that the expression «perfectly certain chronology after the Vikramaditya era» is no argument, but again what is called begging the question. It is beyond dispute, indeed, that there is an Indian era, commonly called Samvat, dating from 57 B. C., but that the era was founded by a Vikramaditya, and that moreover the founder was contemporary with its beginning, is an assertion which rests upon an extremely frail base, as will appear in the sequel. What now are the contradictions to established historical facts, in which Kalhana-Pandita involves himself?

«If the patron of Matrgupta had lived in the second half of the first century bef ore Christ, Pratapaditya would have commenced to reign two hundred and eighty years before him, i. e. somewhat before 40 B. C.; at this time, however, Kashmere was under the sway of Agoka.» 1

It is difficult to see what this reasoning can have to do with KalhanaPandita, or how far it invalidates his statements, for he does not assert at all, that the patron of Matrgupta lived in the second half of the first century before Christ, but after Christ, (or more strictly speaking at the beginning of the second century of our era). As consequently the attack might be levelled against some imaginary author, who holds the view that Vikramaditya, the patron of Matrgupta, lived in the second half of the first century before Christ, but does not touch Kalhana-Pandita, we might dismiss here all further discussion. But les us go to the end of the passage, that it may appear how little conviction the other arguments carry with them.

If Vikramaditya (the imaginary one) had lived in the second half of the first century before Christ, say 50 B. C. till 1 A. D., Pratapaditya would have commenced his reign 280 years before him, consequently 40 B. C,, that is according to a calculation beyond my comprehension 280 B. C. -f50 B. C. is equal to 40 B. C., instead of 330 B. C.! That is not all. It is said that about «that time», *'.*■. 40B.C. Agoka was master of Kashmere! Nobody knows better than Lassen that Agoka reigned 263—226 B. C. To such

1 See Lassen, 1. o.