ity 0f the language 1; 2° he calls the £aka-prince king of Ru ma, for which the Sanskrit equivalent, at least in form, would be Romaka; I subjoin the stanzas vvhere the word occurs:
Yo Rümadegadhipatim £akegvaram jitva grhïtvojjayinïm mahahave |
anïya sambhramya mumoca tam tv aho £rï-Vikramarkah samasahyavikramah ||
tasmin sada Vikramamedinïge virajamane sam Avantikayam |
babhüva sarvatra ca vedakarma || 2
The story told here of the £aka-king of Rüma reminds one strongly of what befell the Turkish emperor of Rum when defeated and captured by Timur. But to say that the fabrication is composed after that event, would give no adequate idea of its real date; the impression the reading of it makes upon me is, that it may have been written a hundred years ago, it can not be much more modern, for Wilford knew the work.
The Jyotirvidabharana then is the only work, as yet brought to public knowledge, which contains the information that Vikramadit\ a (Jakari lived before our era and was the founder of the sam vat. If there exist othei works giving the same information, they ought to be brought forward, the sooner the better.
The information we derive from the other sources, cited above, may be ' stated briefly to be this: as early as the time of Kalhana-Pandita and Albïrünï (the eleventh century), some held the opinion that there had been a king Vikramaditya before the Christian era, the historian of Kashmere identifying him with Pratapaditya, the Arab on the other hand calling him a king ofMalava; both assert that Vikramaditya, the conqueror of the £akas lived 78 A. D. So had Utpala done nearly a century before, 966 A. D. Three centuries before, about 640 A. D., Brahmagupta, one of the greatest of Hindu astronomers, places the defeat of the Qakas 78 A. D., and HiuenThsang places Vikramaditya, a mighty conqueror whose sway extended even over foreign countries, in the first half of the second century of our era. It must be admitted that the authority of all these men is not sufficiënt to render the epoch of Vikramaditya's reign and his chief achievements, historically certain, for not one of them is a contemporary witness. At the
1 The poetaster is very partial to the word sam, which he uses as an adverb, foisting it in wherever he has to fill up a gap in the metre. Did he suppose, that beeause sam in composition is paraphrased with samyak, it could stand alone in that sense?
2 The word babhüva to denote a present action is very amusing.