Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c15: Chapter XI [The Gupta Empire and After]

The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c15

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XI [The Gupta Empire and After]

c15.1

The Gupta Empire and After.

c15.2

In the fourth century A.D. the centripetal forces re-asserted themselves and an empire of the feudal-federal type embracing the greater part of North India and the Deccan came into existence. The famous Gupta dynasty was founded, as the Allâhâbâd Inscription of Samudragupta records, by a Râja named Gupta. His son was Ghaṭotkaca,¹ whose son and successor Candragupta I. married the Licchavi princess Kumâradevî about 308 A.D. and probably added her patrimony to his dominions. On the obverse of the coins of Candragupta the figure of the Licchavi queen appears along with that of the king himself, while the reverse bears the legend Licchavyaḥ. Probably the Licchavis were a power in eastern India and might have held Pâṭaliputra. The marriage-alliance between the Guptas and Licchavis seems to have resulted somehow in the union of the two principalities. After some additions by conquest, the dominions of Candragupta I. comprised Avadha (Oudh), Tirhut, south Bihâr and the adjoining districts. He assumed the title of Mahârâjâdhirâja and from his reign dates the Gupta era.² He was succeeded, in 330 or 335 A.D., by his

c15.3

¹ Bloch (Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv., 1903-4, p. 102) identifies this ruler with the Ghaṭotkacagupta whose name occurs on one of the Basâḍh seals. V. A. Smith (J.R.A.S., 1905, p. 153) supports the view. But see D. R. Bhandarkar, Ind. Ant., 1912, p. 3

c15.4

² Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. III, Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and their Successors, ed. and tr. Fleet, No. 1. V. A. Smith, Early History of India, 4th edition, pp. 295-96, also Revised Chronology of the Early or Imperial Gupta Dynasty, Ind. Ant., 1902, p. 257. Fleet, op. cit., p. 38, note 5, emphasises that the Gupta era, like other eras, simply grew out of the habit of dating in regnal years. On the calculation of the Gupta era, Ibid., Introduction.

c15.5

son Samudragupta who, in a series of brilliant campaigns, imposed his suzerainty on many northern Râjas, nine of whom are mentioned in the Allâhâbâd Inscription; on the frontier kingdoms, chiefships or oligarchies; on the chiefs of wild tribes, and on eleven rulers towards the south. He extinguished some of the old dynasties but allowed others to exist under his overlordship. Hariṣeṇa, the author of the Praśasti on the Allâhâbâd Pillar, boasts that his master conquered the whole earth. He signalised his achievements by celebrating the Aśvamedha sacrifice which seems to have been in abeyance for ages.¹ The range of his alliances extended from the Oxus to Ceylon. Siri Meghavanna or Meghavarṇa of Ceylon (c. A.D. 352–79) whom Sylvain Lévi, on the basis of evidence from Chinese sources, has proved to be a contemporary of Samudragupta, sent to the latter an embassy, laden with gems, with a view to facilitate the foundation of a monastery The northern emperor was pleased to consider the gifts as tribute.² About 375 A.D. Samudragupta was succeeded by his son Candragupta II, surnamed Vikramâditya, who added Mâlwâ, Gujrât and Kâthiâwâḍ to the empire. The Mathurâ Stone Inscription records his boast that he exterminated all kings. He ruled probably until 413 A.D.³ and was succeeded by Kumâragupta I. who, in spite of a temporary set-back, once again performed the Aśvamedha sacrifice and ruled until 455 A.D.⁴ Troubles thickened with the next king Skandagupta (c. A.D. 455—c. 467), who had to cope with a good deal of internal revolt and with swarms of Huns. The empire fell asunder but the dynasty or its branches continued far into the sixth century A.D.¹

c15.6

¹ Fleet, Nos. 1, 2, V. A. Smith, op. cit., 297–306. The Aśvamedha was marked by a special issue of gold coins which bear on the reverse the legend Aśvamedha Parâkrama, ‘the paramount prince of the horse-sacrifice’ and the figure of the queen Dattâdevî, while the obverse has an altar and the figure of the sacrificial horse. See Allan, Catalogue of the Coins of the Gupta Dynasties, etc. See also Rapson, J.R.A.S., 1901, p. 102, for a seal bearing the figure of a horse and the legend Parâkrama.

c15.7

² Sylvain Lévi, Ind. Ant., 1902, p. 192. Fleet, op. cit., No. 1.

c15.8

³ Fleet Nos. 3, 4. For an account of the reign of Candragupta II., V. A. Smith, op. cit., pp. 306–16.

c15.9

⁴ V. A. Smith, op. cit., pp. 316–17.

c15.10

¹ Ibid., pp. 326—32. A passage in the Jaina Harivaṁśa Purâṇa (Canto LX, 83—88) has the prophecy that Gupta rule will commence 720 years after the Nirvâṇa of Mahâvîra, that is, about 193-94 A.D., and that it will endure for 231 years. (K. B. Pathak, Ind. Ant., XV, 1886, p. 141.) On the Vâkâṭakas in Gupta history, see Krishnaswamy Aiyangar, Journal of the Mythic Society, Vol. XV, No. 2, pp. 153 et eq.; Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, Vol. V, Part I, pp. 31 et seq., Y. R. Gupte, Journal of Indian History, December, 1926, pp. 399 et seq.

c15.11

The administration of the Guptas is to be studied primarily from the inscriptions, supplemented by the coins, of the various kings of the dynasty. A few impressions and opinions are presented by the Chinese pilgrim, Fâ-hien, who travelled in India from 405 to 411 A.D., and who, though engrossed with Buddhist literature and tradition, has incidentally recorded some facts of secular interest. The great poet and dramatist, Kâlidâsa, who belongs most probably to this period, can be noticed in the same connection. So, too, a few other plays like the Mṛcchakaṭikâ and the Mudrârâkṣasa. But since an element of doubt attaches almost invariably to the dates of Hindu writers, this class of evidence is best set forth separately at the end.

c15.12

Fâ-hien’s observations are of an entirely general nature and may be noticed first of all. The country was well governed; order was maintained; life and property were secure; the roads were safe for travellers. The government did not interfere much in the life of the people; there were no pass-port regulations, and no registration of households. He remarks that slaughter of animals or drinking was unknown in the country, but he does not mention that either was interdicted by the government. The Guptas were Brahmanists but they observed the rule of toleration and generosity towards all sects. Fâ-hien notes that many Buddhist monasteries enjoyed royal grants of land. The criminal law was mild. Fines were the usual form of punishment. Rebellion or brigandage was punished by amputation of the hand. It may, however, be doubted if Fâ-hien is correct in the statement that capital punishment was altogether unknown. The revenue was derived chiefly from the crown-lands. Fâ-hien mentions free hospitals but only says that they had been founded by benevolent citizens. Those at Pâṭaliputra sheltered the destitute, cripple and diseased from any region. Medicine food, drink, and all comforts were provided free. There is an interesting notice that the kings of Gandhâra were Brâhmaṇas.¹

c15.13

¹ Travels of Fâ-hien, tr. Giles, Chs. XXVII, XXXVI, XXXVII. The pilgrim's observations on royal generosity and tolerance are borne out by indigenous evidence. Candragupta I. listened to the Buddhist sage Vasubandhu, to whom the prince Samudragupta was made over for education. Naragupta Bâlâditya endowed the Buddhist monastic university of Nâlanda with handsome buildings. The inscriptions which have survived testify abundantly to the generosity of courts. So frequent were the grants that a regular code of agrahâras had grown up. (For instance, see Ep. Ind., XI, Nos. 2, 21.)

c15.14

The most striking fact which emerges from the study of the Gupta inscriptions is that the empire was dominated by feudalism and that the very idea of a kingdom had become that of a feudal-federal organisation. Râja or even Mahârâja now means only a feudatory. Sâmanta or Mahâsâmanta has the same significance. The higher feudatories have sub-feudatories under them. The idea of a king, as distinct from a feudatory, is conveyed only by the grand title of Mahārājādhirāja. The suzerain generally assumes two other titles—Parameśvara and Paramabhaṭṭāraka. These are the titles applied to all independent kings in the Gupta as well as later inscriptions. It is significant that the first two rulers of the dynasty—Gupta and Ghaṭotkaca—are not given these high-sounding designations by their descendants and successors. They are only called Mahārājas.¹ Probably they were only feudatories of more powerful magnates. In Gupta and later inscriptions, feudatories, even when they do not expressly mention their suzerains, are content to call themselves Mahārājas or adopt a similar title. As soon as the Gupta line started on an independent career of its own and, as was almost inevitable in the political circumstances of the times, stood forth as itself the suzerain of some feudatories, it bedecked itself with titles denoting independence and empire. The inscriptions of the Vardhana dynasty which came into prominence in the first half of the seventh century A.D. tell an identical tale.² In this fashion every real kingdom is an empire. An empire or a kingdom is largely a feudal organism. As the internal autonomy of the various regions of an empire is respected, it partakes of the nature of a confederation. The working of this type of polity is well illustrated by the Gupta inscriptions.

c15.15

¹ Fleet, Nos. 1, 4.

c15.16

² For another similar instance, Fleet, No. 47.

c15.17

The Allāhābād Inscription states that Samudragupta captured and liberated many kings, while violently uprooting some others of the north. In the latter case is implied annexation, in the former mere imposition of suzerainty. In the same strain the inscription goes on to mention that many royal families which had fallen and had lost their sovereignty were re-established. Autonomy

c15.18

The composition of the Gupta Empire.

c15.19.1

carried with it the right to retain or develop different systems of organisation. Thus, the Mâla vas, Ârjunâyanas, Yaudheyas,¹ Mâdrakas, Âbhîras, Prârjunas, Sanakânikas, Kâkas, Kharaparikas and others mentioned in the inscription are clearly tribal oligarchies. The Prahalâdpur Stone Pillar Inscription² shows the suzerain appointing a chief as the leader of a tribe. The appointment may be only the recognition of a *de facto* ruler. In any case, the tribal oligarchies retain their individuality and internal self-government. Like other states, they issue coins. Indeed, the large number of punch-marked coins issued from various mints testifies to the large number of autonomous or semi-autonomous regions and groups.³ There is a notable passage in the Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghoṣa, who flourished about this time, to the effect that a money-changer could recognise from which village, town or capital and from what mint a particular coin was issued. Coinage was thus feudal and local and varied from place to place. So great was this variety that a regular science of coinage grew up as Buddhaghoṣa testifies.⁴ There are numerous coins issued by Nigamas or cities and Janapadas or districts, which testify to the existence of very small, partially autonomous areas. The coins, again, prove that some foreign dynasties were allowed to linger. These, however, were being rapidly assimilated to the Hindu tradition.

c15.19.2

Thus, the coins of the Sytho-Sassanian Varahan V have Śiva and a bull on the reverse.¹ The status of the feudatories shows great variations. In fact, there seem to have been several definite grades among them. In the Allâhâbâd Inscription Pratyantanṛipatis—frontier "kings" or chiefs—are higher than Sâmantas. Mahârâjas are obviously higher than Râjas. Mahârâjas and Mahâsâmantas seem to be of equal status. Both the titles are applied constantly to Samudrasena and his ancestors in an inscription² and to others elsewhere.³ A number of feudatories, in the grants issued by them on their own authority, refer to their feudatories who are therefore sub-feudatories of the emperor. The inscriptions of Mahârâja Hastin, for instance, expressly mention Gupta sovereignty and then proceed to address his own feudatories.⁴ It appears that only on acquiring a certain degree of importance could a feudatory be called a Mahârâja. One of the inscriptions makes it clear that after two generations in a family had extended the patrimony and consolidated their power, its third representative assumed the title of Mahârâja. The rise to such a position was duly signalised by a sort of consecration and blessed and acknowledged by the suzerain lord.

c15.19.3

The Mahârâja Droṇasiṁha was installed "by besprinkling" by his paramount sovereign, 'the sole lord of the circumference of the whole earth,' and the glory of his new position "was purified by his great liberality." Judging from the date of the inscription of his grandson (571-72 A.D.), this event must have taken place during the latter days of the Gupta Empire.⁵ It was probably on such occasions that feudatories sometimes ventured to celebrate a sort of Aśvamedha.¹ Vassals specially favoured of the suzerain were given further honorific titles such as Sâmanta-cûḍâmaṇi.² Whether these additional titles were hereditary during this period is not clear but the ordinary feudal designations are always transmitted from father to son. Smaller feudatories, those bearing only the title of Râja, also make grants, though, judging from the paucity of their inscriptions, not with the same frequency.³ It appears that feudatories were sometimes employed in positions of high trust under the suzerain.

c15.19.4

The Khoh Copper-plate Inscription of the Mahârâja Saṃkṣobha records that the Mahârâja Hastin was placed in charge of eighteen forest chiefships.⁴ The grant of Jayabhaṭa II mentions Sâmantas in the same breath with Bhogikas and Viṣayapatis who are undoubtedly government officers.⁵ The line between officers of state and feudatories sometimes grows faint and official and feudatory titles are indiscriminately applied to many personages.⁶ From another inscription it appears that boundary pillars were sometimes set up to mark off the territories of different feudatories.⁷ The king often entered into matrimonial relations with feudatories as with ministers.⁸ The feudatories sometimes attended upon the king. The Kahaum Stone Pillar Inscription of the year 460-61 A.D. speaks of the tranquil reign of Skandagupta whose hall of audience (Upasthânabhûmi) was shaken by the wind caused by the falling down (in the act of performing obeisance) of the heads of a hundred Nripatis or feudatory rulers.⁹ In the language of etiquette the relations between the suzerain and the vassal are summed up in the expression Pâdânudhyâta, “meditating on the feet of—,” which emphasises reverence and obedience. The same term is used to typify the attitude of a Mahârâja or Mahârâjâdhirâja towards his parents, preceptors or other superiors.¹ In almost all of the numerous “perpetual,” “eternal” grants of villages recorded in the inscriptions, the inhabitants concerned are commanded to obey the grantees.

c15.19.5

The grants being also expressly free from the entrance of government police and soldiers, it seems that the grantee was expected to arrange for defence and maintenance of order. Since most of the grantees were Brâhmaṇas, some of them might not have discharged these duties by themselves. Perhaps they left them to chief persons of the village. But in any case, this system of grants which are avowedly hereditary, which, in fact, are expected to last “until the sun and moon endure,” and the resumption of which is cursed with the heaviest imprecations, would introduce an element of feudalism at the bottom. These small landholders, however, could easily be controlled in the case of any untoward incidents. The great feudatories might have been more difficult to manage. Vassalage faded by insensible degrees into practical independence. It is significant that the Allâhâbâd Inscription counts the king of Ceylon, undoubtedly independent, as a sort of vassal.

c15.20

¹ On the basis of coin-finds, Cunningham placed the Yaudheyas between Delhi and Karnâl (Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv., XIV, p. 140; also Coins of Ancient India, p. 76).

c15.21

² Fleet, No. 57.

c15.22

³ On the significance of punch-marks see Spooner, Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv., 1905-6, p. 153; Ibid., 1913-14, p. 220; Walsh, J.B.O.R.S., 1919, pp. 18-19.

c15.23

⁴ D. R. Bhandarkar, Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv., 1913-14, p. 226. On Coinage see also S. B. E., XI, Mahâsudassana Sutta, pp. 252 et seq.

c15.24

¹ Rapson, Indian Coins, No. 15.

c15.25

² Fleet, No. 80.

c15.26

³ Ibid., Nos. 3, 10, 12.

c15.27

⁴ Ibid., Nos. 21, 22. See also Ind. Ant., XVII, 1888, p. 183.

c15.28

⁵ Fleet, No. 38.

c15.29

¹ Ibid., No. 56. Ep. Ind., X, No. 13.

c15.30

² Fleet, Nos. 48, 49, 50.

c15.31

³ Ibid., Nos. 40, 41.

c15.32

⁴ Fleet, No. 25, see also Nos. 16, 19.

c15.33

⁵ Ind. Ant., V, p. 114.

c15.34

⁶ Ind. Ant., V, 105; II, 114.

c15.35

⁷ Fleet, No. 22.

c15.36

⁸ Ibid., Nos. 12, 55. Ep. Ind., XV, No. 4.

c15.37

⁹ Fleet, No 14. Also Bhau Daji, J. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. VIII.

c15.38

¹ Fleet, Nos. 3, 26. Ep. Ind., X, No. 12. Ind. Ant., XII, p. 249.

c15.39

From the Gupta period onwards, an independent king—generally a real emperor—almost always styles himself Parameśvara, supreme lord, Mahârâjâdhirâja, supreme king of Mahârâjas, and Paramabhaṭṭâraka, the most worshipful one.² Sometimes he adds other equally imposing titles—Samrâṭ,³ Ekâdhirâja,⁴ Râjâdhirâja, Cakravartin,

c15.40

² For the Gupta period, *i.e.*, Fleet, Nos. 1, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 32, 46, etc.

c15.41

³ Ibid., No. 33.

c15.42

⁴ Ibid., No. 32.

c15.43

The Emperor's Titles.

c15.44

Paramadaivata.¹ The later Godval Plates of Vikramâditya I, A.D. 674, state that one of his ancestors Pulakeśin I acquired the title of Parameśvara by defeating Harṣavardhana but in the same sentence Pulakeśin’s father is also called Parameśvara. So in the Deccan, too, the title must be held to be the ordinary symbol of independence and suzerainty.² The Mankuwar Stone Inscription of Kumâragupta, of the Gupta year 129 (=448-49 A.D.), calls him only a Mahârâja.³ But this solitary instance hardly constitutes an exception to the general rule of titles. If it is not an error, it may mean that the Gupta ruler had been forced at the time to bow to his enemies who, as we know for certain from other inscriptions, assailed him on all sides and reduced him to a sorry plight. He might have been compelled temporarily to acknowledge the overlordship of others. The character of the imperial titles was so well recognised that the Hun ruler Torâmaṇa styled himself a Mahârâjâdhirâja.⁴ His son Mihirakula, however, does not style himself so, perhaps because at the time of the inscription in question, he did not retain his independence.⁵ Later, sometimes the shorter form Bhaṭṭâraka was coupled with Mahârâjâdhirâja.⁶ In point of titles, the practice of the north was the same as that of the Deccan and the south.⁷ In later times, the title Bhaṭṭâraka could be used of feudatories,⁸ but such instances are not common. One of the Basâḍh seals has Yuvarâja Bhaṭṭâraka, which may mean the chief minister of the heir-apparent but which may also imply that the title Bhaṭṭāraka was sometimes applied to the heir-apparent. The consort of a suzerain was called Mahâdevî but the title was occasionally applied also to the consort of a Mahârâja.¹

c15.45

¹ Ibid., No. 39. Kumâragupta's Dâmodarpur Copper-plate Inscriptions, Ep. Ind., XV, 113.

c15.46

² Ep. Ind., X, No. 2.

c15.47

³ Fleet, No. 11.

c15.48

⁴ Ibid., No. 36.

c15.49

⁵ Ibid., No. 37.

c15.50

⁶ Ind. Ant., III, p. 26; IX, p. 172.

c15.51

⁷ Ibid., X, p. 103, 189; XI, p. 124.

c15.52

⁸ Ibid., IX, p. 168; XIV, p. 98.

c15.53

¹ Fleet, Nos. 4, 10, 12, 26, 44, 45, 46, 47, 80. For the detailed treatment of the titles and feudal-federal conditions in later times, see infra.

c15.54

As usual, the king personally conducted the administration. He transacted the business of the state even on tours, when he was accompanied by some of his ministers.² Towards his subjects he adopts a paternal attitude. Most of the inscriptions discovered record grants to Brâhmaṇas, to groups of scholars or students, or to religious and charitable institutions. So numerous were the gifts that, as the Bihâr Stone Pillar Inscription of Skandagupta indicates, a special officer Agrahârika was deputed to arrange them.³ The example of the king was followed by his relations, ministers, feudatories and even ordinary subjects. The character of the endowments may be illustrated by a few typical instances. The Bhitârî Stone Pillar Inscription of Skandagupta records the allotment of a village for the maintenance of a temple in which the king had installed an image of Śârṅgin or Viṣṇu.⁴ There are gifts dedicated to Satras, charitable alms-houses or halls.⁵ Âdityasena's mother built a religious college or monastery.⁶ The Sâñchi Stone Inscription of Candragupta's reign records the grant of a village or an area of land and a sum of money to the Ârya Saṃgha at the Buddhist Vihâra of Kâkanâdaboṭa for the purpose of feeding mendicants or maintaining lamps.⁷ The

c15.55

² Fleet, No. 6.

c15.56

³ Ibid., No. 12.

c15.57

⁴ Ibid., No. 13.

c15.58

⁵ Ibid., No. 7. Also Nos. 8, 9, 10.

c15.59

⁶ Ibid., No. 42, also No. 43.

c15.60

⁷ Ibid., No. 5.

c15.61

Udayagiri Cave Inscription commemorates the excavation of a cave as a Śaiva temple.¹ A high personage, apparently a minister of Samudragupta, erected a Yūpa or sacrificial pillar.² Grants were sometimes made to groups as large as a thousand persons.³ Some of the endowments were permanently beneficial to the community at large. A queen caused a tank to be excavated.⁴ Mayûrâkṣa, a minister, built a temple of Viṣṇu, another of the Divine Mothers, and other temples and halls of the gods, and at the same time supplied the city of his residence with wells for drinking water, pleasure-gardens, irrigation wells, tanks and various kinds of causeways.⁵ A private person built a satra or charity-hall and a pillar.⁶ Other endowments would be mainly ornamental. Mâtriviṣṇu, a Mahârâja and his brother Dhanyaviṣṇu, erected a column called Dhvaja-stambha, flag-staff, of the God Viṣṇu.⁷ All the grants, whether by suzerains or feudatories, are meant to be eternal in duration. The grantor calls upon all his feudatories, officers and people to respect the endowment. He exhorts his descendants and successors to leave it unmolested. A few verses from Vyâsa are almost invariably quoted to consign all disturbers of grants to 60,000 years of hell and to promise their respecters an equal span of bliss in heaven. Every śâsana or charter, as the deed is called,⁸ is at pains to limit the boundaries of the areas of land-grants and to specify the accompanying privileges, in the most exact manner. Grants could be made out of any areas.¹ Sometimes only part of the revenue of the area alienated was assigned to the grantee.²

c15.62

¹ Ibid., No. 6.

c15.63

² Ibid., No. 12.

c15.64

³ Ibid., No. 55.

c15.65

⁴ Ibid., Nos. 44, 45.

c15.66

⁵ Ibid., No. 17.

c15.67

⁶ Ibid., No. 10.

c15.68

⁷ Ibid., No. 19. For other grants of feudatories, Nos. 16, 21, 22, 25, 27-31, 35, etc.

c15.69

⁸ Ibid., i.e., No. 21.

c15.70

¹ Ibid., No. 38.

c15.71

² Ibid., No. 31.

c15.72

The exigencies of endowments serve to give an idea of at least some of the chief officers under the Guptas. Numerous inscriptions mention Senāpati, Mahāsenāpati, Balādhyakṣa or Balādhikṛta,³ Mahābalādhyakṣa or Mahābalādhikṛta, who are all military officers and who perhaps represent four different grades of them. There are two other high military officers—Bhaṭāśvapati, commander of infantry and cavalry, and Kaṭuka, commander of the elephant corps. On the financial side of the military administration was the Raṇabhāṇḍāgārādhikaraṇa, chief of the treasury of the war office, who is mentioned in the Basāḍh seals. Another minister who had something to do with military policy was the Sandhivigrahika or Mahāsandhivigrahika, a sort of foreign secretary. It is not clear whether the two terms are used for the same officer or whether the addition of the adjective Mahā indicates superiority of rank. In the latter case, the Sandhivigrahika is the assistant of the Mahāsandhivigrahika. Three other variations in this designation are met with—sandhivigrahin, sandhivgrahādhikṛta, sandhivigrahādhikaraṇādhikṛta. Camūpa is another military officer, perhaps lower than those mentioned above.

c15.73

³ The Basāḍh seals also mention the form Balādhikaraṇa (Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv., 1903-4, pp. 101 et seq.).

c15.74

In the Gupta age, as in other periods of ancient Indian history, the same officers might perform various functions. There was no real separation of civil and military, executive, judicial and revenue functions. But there were officials who were occupied predominantly with only one side of the administration. The chief judicial officers are designated Daṇḍanāyaka, Mahādaṇḍanāyaka, Sarvadaṇḍanāyaka or Mahāsarvadaṇḍanāyaka. Other variations of the designation are Daṇḍādhipa, Daṇḍanātha, Daṇḍābhinātha, Daṇḍādhipati, Daṇḍeśa, Daṇḍeśvara. Daṇḍa also means an army in Sanskrit literature. There are inscriptions which equate Daṇḍābhinātha with Camūpa and thus make him undoubtedly a military commander. But, on the whole, judicial officers are meant. Possibly, Daṇḍanāyaka, Mahādaṇḍanāyaka, Sarvadaṇḍanāyaka and Mahāsarvadaṇḍanāyaka represent different grades in the judicial hierarchy.

c15.75

One of the inscriptions (Fleet, No. 55) mentions Sarvādhyakṣas, Superintendents of all, but it is not clear whether they are central or provincial officers. The Basāḍh seals mention Daṇḍapāśādhikaraṇa who is probably the chief of police. Numerous inscriptions mention Dūtaka, Dūta or Ājñādāpaka who communicates royal commands to officers and people concerned. But this office seems often to have been combined with others. In the Gupta Inscriptions the Mahāsaṃdhivigrahika generally acts as the Dūtaka. On some occasions the Dūtaka is dispensed with. The king may declare his commands to officers through his own mouth (svamukhājñā).¹

c15.76

¹ All these officers are mentioned frequently in the Gupta Inscriptions (Fleet). The other authorities are the Basāḍh seals (Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv., 1903-4, pp. 101-20). The spot of the finds probably represents the home of seals as D. R. Bhandarkar conjectured from the large number of officials, prominent personages and communities whose seals were made (Ind. Ant., 1912, p. 3). On the official designations see also Ind. Ant., IV, p. 175; VII, p. 70; VIII, p. 20; X, p.

c15.77

Other chief officers.

c15.78

²⁵² The Dūtaka or Ājñādāpaka is also designated Ājñāmahāmahattara or by similar other titles (Ind. Ant., VI, p. 124; XIII, p. 128; XIV, pp. 160-61).

c15.79

There are a number of household officers. The Pratīhāra or the Mahāpratīhāra was the chief guard or usher of the palace. The Vinayāsura announced and conducted visitors to the king. The functions of the sthapālisamrāṭ are not clear but he seems to have been the Superintendent of the host of employees in the women's apartments, that is, in the harem. The Pratinartaka was the bard or herald.¹

c15.80

¹ Fleet, Nos. 26, 39. Basāḍh seals, Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv., 1908, pp. 102 et seq.

c15.81

The king's territory was divided into a number of Bhuktis or provinces, a Bhukti into Viṣayas or districts, a Viṣaya into Grāmas or villages. The governor of a Bhukti bears various designations in the epigrahic records—Bhogika, Bhogapati, Goptṛ, Uparika-mahārāja, Rājasthānīya²—which convey some idea of his duties. Bhukti or Bhogika has fiscal implications and shows that the provinces were also meant to be fiscal divisions. Uparika-mahārāja has even a more pronounced fiscal significance. Goptṛ means protector and, doubtless, the governor was expected to protect the people under his charge. The term Rājasthānīya shows that the governor was considered to be a viceroy, representative of the king. Royal princes were sometimes appointed to this office.³ The officer called Kumārāmātya was most probably the minister of a prince-viceroy. Mahākumārāmātya may be an honorific synonym thereof, or a higher grade in the same office.

c15.82

² Fleet, No. 14. Dāmodarpur Copper Plates, Ep. Ind., XV, No. 7. Fleet, No. 14, mentions the qualities desirable in a governor of a province or a ruler of a city. The grants of Dadda II (477-78 A.D.—495 A.D.) from Bharukaccha, modern Baronch, substitute Rāṣṭrapati for Bhogika. Rāṣṭra had now acquired partially a fiscal significance (Ind. Ant., XVII, 1888, p. 183).

c15.83

³ Fleet, No. 14.

c15.84

The provincial governor had a number of subordinates called Tanniyuktakas. A province had a number of revenue officers. The Basāḍh seals mention the chief of the Uparikas of Tirabhukti.

c15.85

The Dâmodarpur Copper Plates indicate that the king appointed provincial governors and that the latter selected Viṣayapatis or heads of districts. The Sûrat Plates of Vyâghrasena, of the year 490-91 A.D., indicate that âhâra was another name for Viṣaya.¹ In a slightly later record, the Copper Plate Grant of Budhagupta, an Âyukta is mentioned as a Viṣayapati.² It seems to imply that an inferior officer had risen by merit or favour to the headship of a district. A district officer had his Adhiṣṭhâna or headquarters in a town. In the Adhiṣṭhâna he had his Adhikaraṇa—office and probably court. He had a large secretariat, consisting of Kâyasthas or scribes, headed by the Prathama Kâyastha. It seems he was expected to maintain close touch with important sections of the people. The Dâmodarpur Copper Plate Inscriptions seem to refer to a sort of advisory council which included a Nagaraśreṣṭhin, a principal citizen; Prathamakulika, representing the craft-guilds, and Sârthavâha, probably representing the trade-guilds

c15.86

¹ Ep. Ind., XI, No. 21.

c15.87

² Ep. Ind., XV, p. 138.

c15.88

The lowest administrative division, the village, was under a Grâmika.³ How he was appointed we are not told. Probably, heredity, informal village opinion and government approval were jointly responsible for his selection. Henceforward, the inscriptions constantly mention Mahattaras, elders of a village, who are addressed in the grants. It is possible, but there is only negative evidence to support the hypothesis, that this represents a fresh development in village administration. There is no evidence of any village councils in the north. But the Mahattaras seem to be associated in an informal manner with the Grâmika in the administration of village affairs. The Dâmodarpur Plates mention Aṣṭakulâdhikaraṇa, which is difficult to explain but which probably refers to representatives of families, who are likely to have been consulted. There seems to have been a village accountant called Talvâṭaka.¹

c15.89

³ Fleet, No. 22.

c15.90

¹ Fleet, e.g., Nos. 46, 38. Ep. Ind., XV, No. 7.

c15.91

Towns seem to have had an administrative machinery of their own. The officer in charge of a town is called Drâṅgika.² The term, derived from Udranga, has fiscal associations. It is possible that the Drâṅgika was supposed to be as much a fiscal officer as anything else and collected the dues from merchants and others. The town-officer seems to have been appointed by the provincial governor. In one of the inscriptions a viceroy appoints his own son to the charge of a city.³ Here the young officer becomes very popular with his wards, thanks to his smiling countenance, freedom of conversation, inquiries about welfare and to his habit of conferring honours and presents on the people. On the bursting of a lake, he offered sacrifices to the gods, and built an embankment 100 cubits in length, 68 in breadth and of seven(?) men's height, after "an immeasurable expenditure of wealth." The city-officer is expected to be the leader of the people. Besides these sets of officials whose location is clear, there are numerous others who seem to be associated indiscriminately with the central, provincial and district administrations.

c15.92

² Fleet, No. 38.

c15.93

³ Ibid., No. 14.

c15.94

There are many police officers in evidence—Daṇḍapāśika (policeman), Daṇḍika (chastiser), Cauroddharaṇika (officer apprehending thieves).¹ Cāṭas and Bhāṭas also investigated crime. Thus the Sūrat plates of Mahārāja Vyāghrasena, of the year 490-91 A.D., lay down that the small piece of land granted is not to be entered by Cāṭas or Bhaṭas unless in order to arrest robbers or persons guilty of high treason.² On the other hand, a later writer Lallā Dikṣita, commenting on the Mṛcchakaṭika,³ explains Cāṭa as Kṣudraviṣayabhoktā—the officer of a small district. It will appear that the term had different meanings at different places. Later it came to mean a thief or a bad character.

c15.95

¹ Fleet, Nos. 38, 46.

c15.96

² Ep. Ind., XI, No. 21.

c15.97

³ Ed. Godbole, Bombay, 1896, p. 223.

c15.98

The inscriptions yield some details about the fiscal administration. The land seems to have been surveyed and measured and the holdings, their boundaries and occupants recorded. The surveyors and measurers were called Pramātṛ, and those who fixed boundaries were designated Sīmāpradātṛ. The cases arising from these processes seem to come before officers called Nyāyakaraṇikas.⁴ The Uparika mentioned in the Bihār Stone Pillar Inscription of Skandagupta⁵ seems to be another revenue officer concerned probably with the tax called Uparikara.⁶ The Dhruvādhikaraṇa seems to be a revenue superintendent.⁷ The Utkhetayitā is a similar dignitary.⁸ The exigencies of land-revenue seem to be chiefly responsible for the growth of an elaborate record department. The Pustapâla who is mentioned in the Dâmodarpur Plates is the protector, that is, the keeper of books. Akṣapaṭalika or keeper of records and Mahâkṣapaṭalika or great keeper of records seem to be higher officers in the same class.¹ Karaṇika who has charge of Karaṇas or documents seems to be a registrar.² The draftsmen are called Kartṛi or Śâsayitṛi.³ In the Dâmodarpur Copper Plates I—III, they are expected to be familiar with holdings and boundaries and ever ready to report to the government.

c15.99

⁴ Fleet, No. 38. Ep. Ind., XII, p. 75.

c15.100

⁵ Fleet, No. 12.

c15.101

⁶ Infra.

c15.102

⁷ Fleet, Nos. 38, 12.

c15.103

⁸ Ep. Ind., XII, p. 75.

c15.104

¹ Fleet, Nos. 39, 60.

c15.105

² Ibid., No. 55.

c15.106

³ Ibid., No. 88.

c15.107

Besides those chiefly concerned with land-revenue there were officers who managed other heads of the income of the state. The Śaulkika seems to be in charge of customs and tolls.⁴ The Gaulmika seems to be entrusted with forests and the income therefrom and perhaps also forts.⁵

c15.108

⁴ Ibid., No. 12.

c15.109

⁵ Ibid.

c15.110

The royal treasure seems to be in charge of a class of officers called Bhâṇḍâgârâdhikṛitas.⁶ There are a large number of subordinate employees such as Âyuktapuruṣas⁷ and Viniyuktakas, the latter being inferior to the former in status.⁸ Diviras and Lekhakas are the terms applied to clerks. Perhaps there were several grades of them.⁹

c15.111

⁶ Ep. Ind., XII, p. 75.

c15.112

⁷ Fleet, No. 1.

c15.113

⁸ Ibid., No. 38.

c15.114

⁹ Ibid., Nos. 27, 80.

c15.115

It appears that from the fiscal point of view the land was divided, broadly speaking, into that fit for cultivation and otherwise. Grants are generally made according to the Bhûmichidra Nyâya. Bühler discovered that the term occurs in the Vaiśyâdhyâya of Yâdavaprakâśa's Vaijayantî, verse 18, where it is explained as Kṛṣya yogyâbhûḥ—lands fit for agriculture. It appears that there was a recognised fiscal code applicable to land of one or both the descriptions and that it prescribed the amount of the various dues.¹

c15.116

¹ For the occurrence of Bhûmichidra Nyâya, Fleet, No. 31.

c15.117.1

The Gupta Inscriptions bear out the inference suggested by the Dharma Śâstras and Arthaśâstras that the number of taxes was very large in ancient India. Unfortunately, some of the terms used are obscure. The inscriptions seem to assume that they were familiar to all. But they occur rarely in literature. The dictionaries are sometimes silent on them and sometimes contradict one another. Almost every grant is made with the Udraṅga (Sodraṅga). Some scholars have taken it to mean boundary or something like it. But the context supports the view that it was a species of revenue. Bühler drew attention to the fact that in the Śâśvatakoṣa (ed. Zachariaes, pp. xxix, 260) Udraṅga is explained as Uddhâra and Udgrantha (Udgrâha) and thus seems to mean the share of the produce usually collected by the king.² It is generally mentioned at the head of all dues in the inscriptions. Probably, it refers to the chief tax. Another term which is mentioned quite as frequently and, in general, immediately after Udraṅga, is Uparikara. A grant of land is usually made Soparikara (with the Uparikara). A few scholars have taken it to refer to a boundary or some variety of land but, most probably, it refers to another species of dues. Fleet held it to be a tax levied on cultivators who had no proprietary rights in the soil. Miscellaneous dues were levied under numerous heads.

c15.117.2

Thus the Poonâ Plates of the Vâkâṭaka Queen Prabhâvati Guptâ, daughter of Candragupta II and wife of Rudrasena II, speak of the claims of the state on pasturage, hides, charcoal, mines, purchase of fermenting drugs, hidden treasures, deposits, abundance of milk and flowers, succession of cattle.¹ In several inscriptions reference is made to Dhânya and Hiraṇya as heads of state dues. The former seems to be some special kind of contribution in grain, while the latter, which means gold, undoubtedly pertains to right of the state to gold and probably also other mines. Vâta, another due, defies explanation but Bhûta, which is often mentioned with it, is probably a tax on what is withered. Another source of revenue was the occasional contributions for the royal army, militia or police. Along with the enumeration of exemptions from taxation, it is stated in grant after grant that the plots of land in question are not to be entered by Câṭas and Bhâṭas. Fleet interpreted the last two terms to mean irregular and regular troops. Others have taken Câṭa to mean a thief or robber but it makes no sense to state that particular pieces of land are not to be entered by thieves or robbers. That command would be of universal application. In no case could there be any ground for making such a statement along with exemptions from taxation. Câṭa probably refers to a sort of police force.

c15.117.3

From the fiscal point of view, the importance of these provisions is that they indicate a distinct source of revenue in the form of levies. It will appear that the petty dues, particularly, those in kind, charged from a village went to pay the village headman and other local officers. Manu (VII, 199) says that the salary of a village headman should ordinarily be those articles which the villagers ought to furnish daily to the king such as food, drink, fuel.² Viṣṭika is forced labour which was counted among the regular royal dues. One of the commonest features of ancient Indian grants is that the pieces of land granted are declared free from the obligation of supplying forced labour. The grants of feudatories, too, contain that provision.¹ Daśāparādhāḥ refers to fines levied for ten offences, viz., (a) three offences of the body—theft, murder and adultery, (b) four offences of speech—harsh, untruthful, libellous, and pointless words, and (c) three offences of mind—coveting other's property, thinking of wrong, and devotion to what is not true. This traditional classification throws little light on the actual administration of justice. Thinking could hardly have been punished. Murder would have carried a higher penalty than fines. The term daśāparādhāḥ is only a generic name for sins and in its administrative sense, only means judicial fines in general.

c15.117.4

However, it definitely proves that justice was one of the recognised sources of revenue and, as such, could be alienated to favourite grantees.

c15.118

² Ind. Ant., XII, p. 189, note.

c15.119

¹ Ep. Ind., XV, No. 4.

c15.120

² For the occurrence of fiscal terms, Fleet, Nos. 3, 8, 21, 22, 31, etc.

c15.121

¹ Ep. Ind., XI, No. 21.

c15.122

Tribute and presents from some of the feudatories must be reckoned among the sources of the suzerain's income. Samudragupta's Allāhābād Inscription records in a tone of pride that feudatories sought to gratify the emperor by paying various 'taxes' to him.²

c15.123

² Fleet, No. 1.

c15.124

The internal government of the feudatories themselves resembled that of the suzerain. Several inscriptions show that hereditary Mahārājas like Hastin had their own Amātyas or ministers, Sandhivigrahikas, Dūtakas, Bhogikas, Viṣayapatis, Uparikas, etc.³

c15.125

³ Fleet, Nos. 21-23, 27-31. These inscriptions expressly mention Gupta suzerainty.

c15.126

Numerous inscriptions show that in the government of the suzerain, as in that of feudatories, two or more offices were often combined in the same hands. The Kumārāmātya, Saṃdhivigrahika and Dūtaka, for instance, might be the same person.¹ In the inscription of a feudatory Bhogika and Amātya are the same man.² On the other hand, an office could be split up between two persons. Sometimes the same ruler has more than one Dūtaka at the same time.³

c15.127

¹ Fleet, *en passant*.

c15.128

² Ibid., No. 28.

c15.129

³ Ibid., No. 30.

c15.130

Another fact which epigraphic testimony establishes beyond doubt is that officials were often chosen from the same families and that offices sometimes became hereditary under the suzerain as well as under the feudatories. In the Karmadaṇḍa Inscription of Kumāragupta of the year 436-37 A.D., Pṛthiviṣeṇa, the Kumārāmātya and subsequently the Mahābalādhikṛta of the king is the son of Śikharasvāmin who was the Kumārāmātya of Candragupta II.⁴ In another inscription a son succeeds his father in office.⁵ The sons of high officers could be well provided for at court. Hariṣeṇa, the author of the Praśasti on the Allāhābād Inscription and a favourite of the king, was the son of a Mahādaṇḍanāyaka.⁶ In an inscription of Mahārāja Hastin a Saṃdhivigrahika is the son of a Bhogika who himself was the son of a Bhogika.⁷

c15.131

⁴ Ep. Ind., X, No. 15.

c15.132

⁵ Fleet, No. 6.

c15.133

⁶ Ibid., No. 1.

c15.134

⁷ Ibid., No. 21.

c15.135

As in the previous epoch, the economic life of the community was partly regulated by guilds. The Mandasor Stone Inscription of Kumāragupta and Bandhuvarman records that a number of silk weavers migrated from the Lāṭa Viṣaya (central and southern Gujarāt) into the centre of Daśapura. Some of them adopted other occupations while those who adhered to their original craft constituted themselves into a guild which attained great prosperity. During the governorship of Bandhuvarman this guild built a temple of the sun (437-38 A.D.) and a generation later (473-74 A.D.) the same guild repaired it. We are told that the kings treated the guilds like their sons.¹ Another inscription refers to a guild of oilmen and hints at the possibility of their moving away elsewhere.² The Basâḍh seals show that many guilds had seals of their own.³

c15.136

¹ Fleet, No. 18.

c15.137

² Ibid., No. 6.

c15.138

³ Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv., 1903-4, pp. 102 et seq.

c15.139.1

The system of administration which prevailed under the Imperial Guptas persisted throughout the days of the decline of the empire and also after its fall. Here and there were some variations in titles and administrative details but the framework remained exactly the same. A few of the important inscriptions of the interval between the Guptas and the Vardhanas may be passed in rapid review. The Khoh Copper Plate Inscription shows how offices might rotate in the same families. The father and grandfather of the Mahâsandhivigrahika had been Bhogikas. The grandfather is also given the title of Amâtya or minister. Here are two Dûtakas, one of them being the Mahâbalâdhikṛita.⁴ Another inscription of the same feudatory, of the year 533-34 A.D., mentions the usual offices and fiscal arrangements. Like others, it emphasises that the inhabitants should obey the grantees.⁵ The Betul Plates of Saṃkṣobha, of the year 518-19 A.D., from the modern Central Provinces show a line of hereditary Parivrâjaka Mahârâjas, who owed allegiance to Guptas, exercising overlordship over a number of forest chiefships. One of the Mahârâjas prides himself on establishing the Varṇâśramadharma.¹ In the Mandasor Stone Inscription of Yaśodharman, the members of a single family occupy several high offices and one of them constructs a large well for popular use.

c15.139.2

Here, curiously enough, Yaśodharman is only called Janendra.² Another stone-pillar inscription records that a column was erected for the purpose of inscribing a laudation of Yaśodharman’s power and glory.³ The Chamnak Copper Plate Inscription of the Mahârâja Pravarasena II shows how suzerains and feudatories intermarried. Here the charter is written by the Senâpati.⁴ The Siwâni Copper Plate Inscription of the same ruler records that he performed four Aśvamedha sacrifices. Evidently, the ceremony was now losing its supreme significance. The privileges conferred with the grant are specific and throw light on contemporary fiscal arrangements. The village granted to some priests “is not to be entered by the regular troops or by the umbrella-bearers; it does not carry with it (the right to) cows and bulls in succession (of production), or to the abundance of flowers and milk, or to the pasturage, hides and charcoal, or to the mines for the purchase of salt in a moist state; it is entirely free from all (obligation of) forced labour; it carries with it the hidden treasures and deposits, and the klripta and upaklripta.” The last two terms are obscure. But the inscription suffices to give an idea of the petty dues levied, probably in kind, and the state monopolies. Needless to say, the grant is to be eternal and hereditary.

c15.139.3

All protection was to be extended to its holders, no hindrance of any kind was to be offered to them.⁵ In the Ganeśgaḍ Plates of Dhruvasena I, of the year 526-27 A.D., from Bhâvanagara state, two brothers are big feudatories,—Mahârâja and Mahâsâmanta—and a third one holds the post of Senâpati which he passes on to his son. The feudal dominion has the usual administrative machinery. Drângikas are the town-officers with whom are associated Mahattaras, elders. It appears that, as in the village, the elders were informally consulted on administrative matters in towns. Sthânâdhikaraṇikas are the police-officers in charge of Sthânas (police stations), from which the medieval and modern term thânâ is derived. The nomenclature is interesting. In this inscription the fiscal officers and arrangements are the same as in the foregoing ones.¹ Two other grants of Dhruvasena I from Pâlitânâ introduce big feudatories, Mahâsâmanta Mahârâjas.² In the Pâlitânâ Plates of Siṃhâditya, of the year 574 A.D., also appears a line of hereditary Sâmanta Mahârâjas—big feudatories. Among those to whom the Śâsana is addressed are Râjasthânîyas, Drângikas, Mahattaras, riders on elephants and horses who seem to form part of the army.³ The Pâlitânâ Plates of Dharasena II of the year 571 A.D. mention a few other officers but none which has not been already noticed.⁴ These grants prove that Kâṭhiâwâḍ had the same system of administration as the north. Gujarât was quite in line.

c15.139.4

The Sunao Kala Plates of Saṅgamasimha of the year 540-41 A.D., from Bharukaccha, modern Baronch, in Gujarât, furnish an illustration. The Mahâsâmanta Mahârâja, though a feudatory, has a regular administrative system of the usual type. His Śâsana is addressed to Râjasthânîyas, Uparikas, Kumârâmâtyas, Viṣayapatis, Drângikas, Câṭas, Bhaṭas and others. Ârakṣikas and Kulaputrakas are also mentioned. The former are probably police-officers. Kulaputrakas are probably not regular officials but merely representatives of families who were consulted by village and town-officers. There is a chamberlain Mahâpratihâra, while the Samdhivigrahika acts as Dûtaka. The fiscal system is the same as that of the Guptas. One of the privileges conferred on the grantee is that his area will not be entered by Câṭas and Bhaṭas whose presence, obviously, was felt as a burden.¹ The foreign rulers who established themselves in India adapted themselves to the Hindu system. In the Eraṇ Stone Boar Inscription Torâmaṇa is called Mahârâjâdhirâja.² Elsewhere Torâmaṇa has the titles Śâhi and Jauval as well as Râjâdhirâja.³ Some of the coins of Mihirakula have the bull-emblem of Siva and the legend Jayatu Vṛiṣaḥ on the reverse.⁴

c15.140

⁴ Fleet, No. 30.

c15.141

⁵ Ibid., No. 31.

c15.142

¹ Ep. Ind., VIII, No. 28.

c15.143

² Fleet, No. 35. On Yaśodharman’s Exploits against the Huns, J. J. Modi, J. B. R. A. S., XXIV. pp. 539-92; also Asiatic Papers, pp. 293-349.

c15.144

³ Fleet, No. 33.

c15.145

⁴ Ibid., No. 55.

c15.146

⁵ Ibid., No. 56

c15.147

¹ Ep. Ind., III, No. 46.

c15.148

² Ep. Ind., XVII, 7.

c15.149

³ Ibid., XI, No. 2.

c15.150

⁴ Ibid., XI, No. 5. See also No. 9.

c15.151

¹ Ep. Ind., X, No. 16.

c15.152

² Fleet, No. 36.

c15.153

³ Ep. Ind., I, 29. See also Fleet, Coins and History of Torâmaṇa, Ind. Ant., XVIII, 1889, p. 225.

c15.154

⁴ Catalogue of Coins in the Indian Museum, p. 236.

c15.155

The shape which the Hindu administrative system assumed under the Guptas never left it afterwards. In the next seven centuries we meet with variations from place to place and time to time but the essentials are the same. From the administrative point of view the Gupta empire stands at the centre of ancient Indian history.

c15.156

It is probably the institutions of the Gupta age which are reflected in the works of Kâlidâsa, the Kâlidâsa. greatest of Hindu classical poets and dramatists. His date has long been a matter of acute controversy. There are still a few scholars who argue for the correctness of the tradition that he lived in the first century B.C. Again, a few are still inclined to place him in the sixth century A.D. But the general consensus of opinion, relying on internal literary and astronomical evidence, favours the 4th century A.D. as the earliest and the 5th as the latest date of the poet. This, at any rate, is at present the soundest working hypothesis. Kâlidâsa is claimed by Kashmir, the Gangetic plains, Bengâl, the Deccan and even Ceylon. But if, as appears probable, his Raghuvamśa contains some veiled references to Gupta emperors, he may be presumed to have enjoyed the patronage of the Gupta court or at any rate to have come into contact with it. It may be that he spent some time at Ujjayinî, the capital of Mâlwâ. Bhoja in his Śringâraprakâśikâ says that Kâlidâsa was sent on a political embassy to the Kuntala king. There is no contemporary record to check the statement but internal evidence certainly suggests that the poet lived in intimate touch with men and affairs at a court and was by no means a man of the cloister.¹

c15.157

¹ On the date and locale of Kâlidâsa, see Macdonell, History of Sanskrit Literature, pp. 323—25; Keith, Classical Sanskrit Literature, pp. 31-32, Sanskrit Drama, pp. 143-47, also J.R.A.S., 1909, pp. 433 et, seq. Vikramâditya, the traditional patron of Kâlidâsa, is identified with Candragupta II by R. G. Bhandarkar (J. B. B. R. A. S., XX, p. 399) and with Skandagupta by D. R. Bhandarkar (Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, 1926-27, Vol. VIII, Part II, pp. 200-204). Hoernle, J. R. A. S., 1909, pp. 108 et seq., and H. P. Śâstrî, J. B. O. R. S., 1916, p. 391, argue that Kâlidâsa was a contemporary of Yaśodharman. R. D. Banerji, Journal of the Mythic Society, X, pp. 75-96, 364-71; K. G. Shankar (altering his former opinion), Indian Historical Quarterly, I, pp. 309-16; K. Caṭṭopâdhyâya, Allâhâbâd University Studies, II, 1926, pp. 79-170, argue for the first century B.C. On the subject see also K. B. Pathak, J. B. B. R. A. S., XIX, pp. 39 et seq., Ind. Ant., 1912, pp. 266-67; K. G. Shankar, Journal of the Mythic Society, VIII, pp. 278-92, IX, pp. 17-56; Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, II, pp. 189-91; Ind. Ant., LI, pp. 192-98; J. B. O. R. S., 1920, p. 327; H. P. Śâstrî, J. B. O. R. S., 1915, pp. 197 et seq.

First 167 of 226 passages. Read on

Linked texts (26)