my little bride-mother had better continue staying with her uncle for a time."
"Why, mother?" asked Mahendra.
"Well, you see, your examination is coming on and you might be disturbed in your studies."
"Do you take me for a child, mother? Can't I be trusted to take care of myself?"
"What does it matter? It's only a year more now."
"If she had her own parents, there could have been no objection to sending her to them, but I can't keep her with her uncle."
"Oh heavens!" thought Rajlakshmi to herself, "so he is the master, and her mother-in-law a nobody! How tenderly thoughtful, all in a day! Once upon a time our husbands had also married us, but such shameless henpecked behaviour was not to be seen in those days."
"Have no fear, mother," said Mahendra with decision, "my examination shall not suffer."
(To be continued.)
Translated by
Surendranath Tagore.
THE VIKRAMA ERA
IN the last issue of the Modern Review (Vikramaditya and Nahapana) I have pointed out the course of the transformation of Viḷava into Vikrama. The Jaina philology is perfectly correct as far as the restoration is concerned, for क्र (kra) does change into ड़ (ḷ), e. g.—
| Sams. | संक्रमक = सड़क | (Hindi, road) |
| Sams.„ | संकृ = सड़् | (H., to rot) |
| Sams.„ | सकृत् = सड़ | (H., at once) |
| Sams.„ | अक्र = अड़् | (H., to get restive) |
| Sams.„ | अक्रम = अड़ाव | (H., obstacle) |
| Sams.„ | विक्रम = विलम् | (H., to walk slowly) |
So the ड़ of the विड़व was restored into क्र and the व according to the well-known rule into म.
I give also the calculation by which I arrived at 58-57 B. C. as the accession-year of Vilavaya. The Sarasvati-Gachchha of the Jainas give in their Pattavalis (ed. Dr. Hoernle, Indian Antiquary, XX) the date of the death of Mahavira as 546 B. C. according to the following chronology: the Nirvana happened 470 years before the birth of Vikrama,
Vikrama ascended the throne in his 18th year, i. e., the Vikrama era is counted, according to the Jainas, from the (470 + 18) 488th year after Mahavira's death. In other words Mahavira's death falls in (488 + 58/57) 546–545 B.C. Likewise Nahapana's date works out to be (546 − 413) 113–93 B. C. which may be c. 133–94 B. C. as fractions of a year have been treated as whole numbers.
Now we gather from Nasik inscriptions that Nahapana was killed by Satakarni II in the 18th year of his (Satakarni's) reign. The accession of Satakarni II would thus be c. (94 B.C. + 18) 112 B.C. Satakarni II has been given a reign of 56 years in the Puranas, 56 years being circa 56 years because of the treatment of fractions. Thus (112−56 or 55) c. 57 B.C. is the date for Satakarni II's death and the accession of
