The History of Indian Literature c9.72

c9.72

‖ See Lassen, *Zeitsch. für die Kunde des Morg.*, vii. 294 ff.; Colebrooke, ii. 462. According to Reinaud in the *Journ. Asiat.*, Sept. 1844, p. 250, Bhoja is mentioned some years earlier by Albírúní, who wrote in A.D. 1031, as his contemporary; and Otbí alludes to him earlier still, in A.D. 1018, as then reigning; see Reinaud, *Mém. sur l'Inde*, p. 261. According to a later Hindustání chronicler, he lived 542 years after Vikramáditya (see *Journ. Asiat.* Mai, 1844, p. 354), which would make the date of the latter about A.D. 476. Upon what this very precise statement rests is unfortunately uncertain; the Vikrama-charitra does not fix in this definite way the interval of time between Bhoja and Vikrama. Roth, at all events, in his analysis of the work (*Journ. Asiat.*, Sept. 1854, p. 281) merely says, “*bien des années après* (la mort *de Vikramáditya*) *Bhoja parvint au* *souverain pouvoir*.” [The text has simply: “*bahúni varsháṇi gatáni*.” Nor does any definite statement of the kind occur in any of the various other recensions of the Siṅhásanadvátriṅśiká, although a considerable interval is here regularly assumed to have elapsed between the rule of Vikrama at Avantí and that of Bhoja at Dhárá.]—To suppose two Bhojas, as Reinaud does, *l. c.*, and *Mém. sur l'Inde*, pp. 113, 114, is altogether arbitrary. We might determine the uncertain date of Vikramáditya by the certain date of Bhoja, but we cannot reverse the process. The date 3044 of Yudhishṭhira’s era is, *J. As.*, *l. c.*, p. 357, assigned to the accession of Vikramáditya; but it does not appear whether this is the actual tradition of the Hindustání chronicler, or merely an addition on the part of the translator. Even in the former case, it would still only prove that the chronicler, or the tradition he followed, mixed up the common assertion as to the date of Vikrama with the special statement above referred to. [To the statements of the Hindustání chronicler, Mir Cher i Ali Afsos, no great importance, probably, need be attached. They rest substantially on the recension attributed to Vararuchi of the Siṅhásana-dvátriṅśiká, which, however, in the MS. before me (Trin. Coll., Camb.), yields no definite chronological data. — After all, the assumption of several Bhojas has since turned out to be fully warranted; see, *e.g.*, Rájendralála Mitra in *Journ. A. S. Beng.* 1863, p. 91 ff., and my *I. Str.*, i. 312.] [^asterisk]: \* See Colebrooke, ii. 475; Lassen, *I. AK.*, ii. 49, 50, 398; Reinaud, *Mém. sur l'Inde*, pp. 68 ff., 79 ff.; Bertrand in the *Journ. Asiat.*, Mai, 1844, p. 357.