Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Epigraphy c6.s3: 3. Historical Perspective

Indian Epigraphy c6.s3

Language
English

3. Historical Perspective

c6.s3.1

Fleet observed, “It is indeed very questionable whether the ancient Hindus ever possessed the true historical sense in the shape of the faculty of putting together genuine history on broad and critical lines.”² A study of such epigraphs as the Hathigumpha inscription³ (first century B. C.) of Khāravela, Junagadh rock inscription⁴ (150 A. D.) of Rudradāman, Aihole inscription⁵ (634 A. D.) of Pulakeśin II and official records of such royal families as the Coḷas, Eastern Cālukyas and Imperial Eastern Gaṅgas side by side with chronicles like Kalhaṇa’s *Rājatarangiṇī* (c. 1150 A.D.) and works like Bāṇa’s *Harṣacarita* (first quarter of the 7th century) and Bilhaṇa’s *Vikramāṅkadevacharita* (close of the 11th century) would suggest that the observation can only be regarded as partially justifiable.

c6.s3.2

² *Imp. Gaz. Ind.*, Vol. II, p. 5.

c6.s3.3

³ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XX, pp. 71 ff.

c6.s3.4

⁴ *Ibid.*, Vol. VIII, pp. 36 ff.

c6.s3.5

⁵ *Ibid.*, Vol. VI, pp. 1 ff.

c6.s3.6

It has to be remembered in this connection that many inscriptions as well as literary works of a historical character are lost. We know that, of no less than twelve chronicles dealing with the ancient history of Kashmir, including the works of Nilamuni, Helārāja, Chavillākara, Padmamihira, Suvrata and Kṣemendra (11th century), which were available to Kalhaṇa in the 12th century, only a part of Nilamuni’s chronicle has so far been discovered. It is well known that the Indian climate is not favourable for the preservation of manuscripts, written on leaves, birch-bark sheets and similar other perishable materials. Even first rate dramas of poets like Rāmila and Saumilla, which were widely popular in the days of Kālidāsa (4th-5th century A.D.), have not come down to us. Fortunately some of the documents were engraved on lasting materials like stone and metal and a large number of these has been discovered.

c6.s3.7

It is clear from the reference to numerous earlier chronicles in the *Rājatarangiṇī* (12th century) that works dealing with the activities of the ancient kings of Kashmir began to be written at a very early date, long before the secluded vale came into close contact with history-minded foreigners like the Musalmans. That chronicles at least of the *Vaṃśāvali* type were prepared and preserved at the courts of various royal families ruling over other parts of India is also suggested by several factors. In the 11th century, Al Bīrūnī referred to the ‘pedigree’ of the Śāhīs of Afghanistan and North-Western Bhāratavarṣa, written on silk, which is stated to have been preserved at the fortress of Nagarkot in the Punjab. What he says about the Śāhīs seems to indicate that this was a dynastic account of the Śāhī kings from the foundation of Kuṣāṇa power about the beginning of the Christian era down to the fall of the Brāhmaṇa Śāhīs in the 11th century. From about the 6th and 7th centuries A.D., official charters of most of the imperial families ruling over various parts of India began to incorporate historical accounts from their foundation to the date of the records. In many cases, such an account covers several centuries and it is impossible to believe that it could have been prepared without the help of earlier written records. It has to be noticed, for instance, that the reference to the 18 years' duration of Kubja-Viṣṇuvardhana's rule is found only in the Eastern Cālukya charters of the time of his distant descendants who ruled three centuries later.¹ That the practice of preparing dynastic annals was popular from very old times is suggested by the inclusion of many such accounts of ancient ruling families in the Purāṇas. It is well known that the Puranic *Vaṃśavalis* quote the names of the rulers of a family in a chronological order often with the duration of the rule of each king and his relation with his predecessor. Achievements of particular monarchs (e. g. the foundation of the city of Puṣpapura or Pāṭaliputra by Udayin of Magadha during the fourth year of his reign)² are mentioned only occasionally. Kālidāsa's *Raghuvamśa*, which is essentially a chronicle of the traditional rulers of the Ikṣvāku house, based on legends and dynastic accounts as those contained in the Purāṇas, would, however, suggest that the composition of bigger chronicles on the achievements of imperial families was not quite unknown or unpopular in ancient India.

c6.s3.8

¹ Cf. *SII*, Vol. I, p. 39, text lines 6-7.

c6.s3.9

² Cf. *Vāyu Purāṇa*, ch. 99, verse 319.

c6.s3.10

While describing the ideal historian in his *Rājatarangiṇī*,³ Kalhaṇa pays homage to the genius of a gifted poet, which immortalises the glory of the author as well as the subject of his narration and without which it is impossible to vivify before the reader's eyes the events of the bygone age. It is further said that the poet should possess divine perception so as to be able to show, through intuition, his awareness of the existences he is going to reveal to his readers. Above all, Kalhaṇa praises the poet of merit whose language, like that of the judge, has discarded love and hatred, i.e. bias or prejudice, in recounting he events of the past. The qualities of a historian emphasised here are the ability to see the facts in their proper perspective by linking one of them with others by means of intuition and to describe them in a pleasant and impartial manner so that the narrative becomes intelligible and agreeable to the readers and the presentation of facts true to the author's knowledge and belief. Kalhaṇa's conception of history may fall short of the modern western stadards; but the concluding sections of the Rājatarangiṇī would hardly suffer from a comparison with earlier historical works written in different parts of the world, especially those of the contemporary Muslim chroniclers.

c6.s3.11

³ I, verses 4 ff.

c6.s3.12

The author of the Rājatarangiṇī¹ had before him no less than twelve works of earlier authors; but he justifies his attempt to write a new chronicle by pointing out that the earlier works were defective, apparently because their authors did not strictly follow the principles postulated and followed by him. The sources consulted by Kalhaṇa to free his own composition from mistakes are referred to in a stanza saying, "By a scrutiny of the ordinances of former kings regarding religious foundations and grants, laudatory inscriptions as well as written records, all wearisome errors have been set at rest." Similarly, the author of the Kumbhalgadh inscription² of 1450 A.D. had before him both written and oral traditions of the Rajput bards, although he claims to quote the genealogy of the kings of Mewar after having examined numerous old inscriptions of the praśasti type. These authors therefore utilised epigraphic evidence for checking the details of the chronicles, as historians have to do in other countries for which written history is available. Unfortunately, modern writers on the early history of most parts of India are not as fortunate as the authors of the Rājatarangiṇī and the Kumbhalgadh inscription were. No early work even of the type of bardic chronicles is available for most of the other areas of India. Historians therefore have to depend often almost entirely on informations supplied by inscriptions, including legends on coins and seals.

c6.s3.13

¹ I, verses 9 ff.

c6.s3.14

² Ep. Ind., Vol. XXIV, p. 324.

c6.s3.15

We have no doubt what may be called historical *kāvyas* on the careers of some ancient Indian monarchs, such as Bāṇa’s *Harṣacarita* on the early life of the Puṣyabhūti king Harṣavardhana (606-47 A. D.) of Thanesar and Kanauj, Sandhyākarana-ndin’s *Rāmacarita* on the career of Rāmapāla (c. 1077-1120 A.D.) of Eastern India and Bilhaṇa’s *Vikramānkadevacarita* on the life of Cālukya Vikramāditya VI (1076-1126 A.D.) of Kalyāṇa. But the number of such works so far discovered is meagre. Another class of semi-historical works is represented by Viśākhadatta’s dramas, *Mudrārākṣasa* (on the life of Candragupta Maurya, c. 322-298 B.C.) and *Devīcandragupta* (on the career of the Gupta emperor Candragupta II, 376-414 A. D.), written in the 6th or 7th century A.D. Unfortunately, not only is their number few, but, in the absence of corroborative evidence from other sources, it is often extremely difficult to distinguish their historical substratum from imaginary elements. Kālidāsa’s *Mālavikāgnimitra*, Bhāsa’s *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa*, etc., are similar works written on the bases of historical traditions, although they obviously contain a good deal of what is legendary and imaginary. But even such compositions are not many. More important from the historian’s point of view are casual references to historical personages and events in works like Patañjali’s *Mahābhāṣya*, Rājaśekhara’s *Viddhaśālabhañjikā*, *Bālabhārata* (*Pracaṇḍa-Pāṇḍava*), etc., and others. Works of the type of Pampa’s *Vikramārjunavijaya* (Kannaḍa), and Jayaṅkoṇḍan’s *Kaliṅkattuparaṇi* (Tamil) dealing with the achievements of the Coḷa-cālukya king Kulottuṅga I (1070-1120 A. D.) are of some importance.

Linked texts (16)