वासवदत्ता (महाकवि सुबन्धु - श्लेष-प्रधान शास्त्रीय गद्यकाव्य सान्वय सटीक)

INTRODUCTION 9

disport», ««who devours not whom»»?—for Vikramāditya, like a lake, hath passed away on earth.’ This has been taken, particularly by Hall (Introd., p. 6), to imply that Subandhu ‘lived long posterior to the great Vikramāditya of Ujjayinī.’ Although some deny that this monarch, about whom cluster so many legends, ever existed (see, for example, Macdonell, History of Sanskrit Literature, pp. 323–324, London, 1900), such a view can scarcely be supported, and there is good reason to believe him to be identical with Candragupta II, who reigned from about 374 to 413 (Smith, Early History of India from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, 2 ed., pp. 275–283, Oxford, 1908). It would be most tempting, so far as the special problems of the Vāsa- vadattā are concerned, could one accept the view, argued with great learning by Hoernle (‘Some Problems of Ancient Indian History,’ in JRAS. 1903, pp. 545–570, and ‘The Identity of Yaśodharman and Vikramāditya, and some Corollaries,’ ib. 1909, pp. 89–144 ; against this Fleet, ‘Dr. Hoernle’s Article on Some Problems of Ancient Indian History,’ ib. 1904, pp. 164–166, and Smith, ‘The Indian Kings named Śīlāditya, and the Kingdom of Mo-la-p’o,’ in ZDMG. 58. 787–796), that Yaśōdharman (on whom see also Smith, op. cit. pp. 301–302), whom he identifies with the great Vikramāditya, ‘founded his Mālava empire about 533 A.D., and reigned up to about 583 A.D.’ Hoernle accord- ingly dates Subandhu in the second half of the sixth century, and holds that the Vāsavadattā was written before 606–612, the latter year being that of Harṣa’s coronation. Attractive as is this hypothesis, I am compelled to admit that it can scarcely be used to determine the date of Subandhu, the whole evidence of Indian history being against it. The period following the death of Vikramāditya is described in the stanza quoted above as one of degeneration, and there may be a covert allusion to the same (or a similar) evil state of affairs in the phrase navanṛpaticittavṛttibhir iva kulyāpamānakāriṇībhir, ‘as the disposition of new monarchs causes dishonour to the honourable’ (ed. Hall, p. 220). Hoernle, holding that Vikra- māditya’s successor was his son Śīlāditya, who was dethroned