Here,?there&re involved two questions of importance :—
' i .''"'".'.'•'.'' '" 1 " • ' ' ' ' ' , - '. •
.• Was theresuch'a prince as Vikramaditya, the destroyer of tie Mlechas, the founder of the Samvat era, who reigned in tie ist century B. C.?
: i. The belief in a Vikrarnaditya rests on tradition. But it 3 also confirmed by the Pathavali of Merutunga, who says that
after Nabhovahana, G-ardhabhilla ruled at Ujjain for 13 yearsy |
irhen Sri Kulikacharya, on account of the violence offered to his ister Saraswati, uprooted him and established the Saka Kings Lt Ujjain, They ruled there for four years. His son Vikrama-litya regained the kingdom of Ujjain and commenced the teT'ikrama Samvat era. This took place 470 years after Vira's era. The Saka era began 605 years after Vira Nirvana." Thus it is jeen that a Vikramaditya ruled 135 years before the Saka era.
2. Some- antiquarians doubt the very historical existence :pf such a prince, saying there is absolutely no documentary-evidence, in the first century B. C. Fergusson however at-temped a theory. He arrives at the following conclusions :—
(i) That the Vikramaditya who conquered the Sakas at
the battle of Karur was Harsha of Ujjainj , -.: (ii). That he died about 550 A. D.;
(Hi) That before 1000 A, DM when the struggle with the/
Buddhists was over and a new era was opening for
• Hindu religion, the Hindus sought to establish s6me
new method of marking time-—to supersede the
, ;- •; B;uddhist Saka era of Kanishka; .,
w - (vi) That the Guptas and the Kings of Valabhi having
then passed- -away, in looking for some name orttled, it is the age of Kalidasa, whereinto the brightest light ofs enjoined quite in the