Page images

"The latter (ete) are the 32 Future Brihadrathas. The rulo of the Brihadrathas (tesham) will indeed (cover) full thousand years." Tesham does not, as it cannot, refer to the 32 Future

Kings for them efe has been used.


The rare copy of the Matsya referred to above omits these two lines and gives the following ones instead :

घोड़शते न्टपा ज्ञेया भवितारो वृहद्रथाः । वयो विंशाधिक' तेषां राज्य च शतसप्तकम् ।

"The latter (ete) sixteen kings are known as the Future Brihadrathas. The reign of the above (tesham) (the post-MahāBharata Brihadrathas) is of seven centuries, and their (regnal) age over 20 years (each)".

The employment of the different pronouns ete and tesham in this case too shows that the two statements contained in the two lines refer to two independent subject-matters.

"Future Kings.”

3. Again, the post-Maha-Bharata Kings of the main dynasties have been divided into three classes: for instance, the post-Maha-Bhārata Brihadrathas are divided into the Past', the 'Present' and the Future' [=later] Brihadrathas. The dividing line between the Past and the Future (the former and latter) kings consists of the kings at present reigning. These 'present kings' lived some six or seven generations after the Mahā-Bhārata War. One of these kings was Adhisîma (or Adhisāma)-Krishṇa of the Paurava dynasty under whose patronage the Puranic data of what was then considered the past history, seem to have been originally collected." The contemporary of Adhisîma-Krishna in Magadha was Senājit, the 7th in my list of the post-Mahā-Bhārata Brihadrathas." The narration about the Kings before Senajit is put in the Purauas in the past tense and that of the latter ones in the future. Thus these kings who came after Senajit were the

[ocr errors]

ग्रधिसामकृष्ण धर्मात्मा साम्प तोय ं महायशः ।

afeną gmafa xet' gour'fufcearzJH || Vāyu, 37. 252.

J.B.Q.R.S., I. 112.

Future Brihadrathas. drathas proper, in the

15 or 16 Future Brihadrathas.

As to the number of these Future Briha-
list of the post-Maha-Bharata Brihad-

rathas I have given 15 kings (Nos. 822) after Senajit (the present 'king). One more name is further clearly traceable. A manuscript of the Vayu (Jones MS. W. 6 a, T37 in the India Ofice Library) places Satru-jayin after Subala (or Suchala, No. 18 of my list) : rajyam Suchālo bhokhshyati atha Satru-jayi tatah."

4. It seems that the writer of the rare datum of the Matsya had the data before him which occur in 700 years against 33 or 32 kings. every Purāṇa, viz., that the Brihad

rathas enjoyed sovereignty for full 1,000 years, that the figure
for the number of the kings which stood at the foot of the list
of the post-Maha-Bhārata Brihadrathas, including both the
Past and the Future ones, was 32 or 33, and that the whole lot of
the 32 or so had been called "the Future Brihadrathas". The
writer of our datum to be more accurate notes that the
Future Brihadrathas were only 16. Likewise he considered the
1,000 years (which really represents the period for the whole
Brihadratha dynasty), placed at the close of the post-Maha-
Bharata Brihadrathas, misleading. So he puts down the total
of the reigns of the post-Maha-Bhārata Brihadrathas as 'seven
centuries' of course, in round numbers. The writer seems to
have accepted that the total number of the post-Maha-Bharata
Brihadrathas-those who reigned before Senājit and those after
him, including Senäjit-was 32 or 33, for he gives the average
reign-period as "above 20 years" (=21.21).

5. My calculations as observed above based on the dates for the
War and the Śaiśunākas gave 697

697 years already found as against the 'seven centuries'.

years for the post-Maha-Bhārata Bri-
hadrathas. And if we took the least

figures for the individual reigns as they are to be found in the

* J.B.O.R.8., I. 112.

'Pargiter, P. T., 16, n. 83.

See infra. § 6.

• Compare it with the emphatic " a full thousand years" for the whole line.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Purāņas now before us, we also get 697 years, as shown in J.B. O.R.S., I, 42. Against this we have 700 of the Matsya MS. This might be taken as a complete confirmation, considering the looseness implied in Seven centuries' and the treatment of the fractions of a year by the Puranic chronicles. 697 might as well be treated as 698. In view of the fondness of the Hindu chroniclers for round numbers, it would be quite natural to express 697 or 698 as seven centuries '10.

6. Mr. Pargiter's explanation of the four lines of the above data might be considered before closing the

Criticism of Mr. Pargiter's subject. Both Mr. Pargiter 11 and myself 12 take the "full 1,000 years


[ocr errors]

to refer to the complete line of the Brihadrathas.13 But Mr. Pargiter says that the figure 32 for the kings refers to the whole dynasty (10 before and 22 after the War). This view is untenable for three reasons: (1) The pronoun ete ('these', 'the last spoken of,' 'the latter ') for the 32 can refer only to the post-Mahā-Bhārata kings who are just described above. With reference to 1,000 years altogether a distinctive pronoun (tesham) is used. According to the rules of Sanskrit grammar both cannot denote one and the same subject-matter. (2) It is possible to describe the post-Mahā-Bhārata Brihadrathas as the 'Future' (Later) Brihadrathas as they all come after the War and a very large number of them consists of the Future Brihadrathas proper. But it would be impossible to describe the kings who reigned before the Mahā-Bhārata War as 'Future Kings' as in the eye of the Puranic chronicler they pre-eminently belong to his Past History (his Modern History beginning with the Maha-Bharata War). (3) On Mr. Pargiter's explanation the two

10 Cf. 360 for the exact 362 of the dynastic total for the Śaśunākas. J.B.O.R.S., I, 69.

"Pargiter, P.T., 13.

13 J.B.O.R.S., I., 111.

13 That it must refer to the whole dynasty is further evident from the Puranic datum counting only 1,015 years from the birth of Parikshit to the coronation of Maha-Nanda who was about the last sovereign of the Saiśunāka dynasty and who flourished 318 years after the extinction of the Brihadrathas.

sets of statements in the text of the four lines quoted cannot be reconciled. 700 or 72314 years taken for the whole dynasty would discredit the full 1,000 years as recognized by Mr. Pargiter 15. Although the learned writer says that 'If we read rayo in jMt. with that construction (treating the sloka as containing two independent statements), the total periol woull be 700 years and would give an average reign of just under 22 years which would be "vimâ lhikam" (p. 13), he stops short. He is precluded from recognizing the obvious significance that the 700 refers to the post-Maha-Bharata kings and 1,000 to the whole dynasty, owing to his unfortunate supposition that the 32 future kings' included also the past Brihadrathas who are enumerated before the Mahā-Bhārata War.

The omitted kings.

IL-A Reconstruction.

7. As I have already pointed out, the present recension of the Puranas expressly indicate that they omit the unimportant names from the dynastic lists, although they preserve the periol by inclu ling them in the preceding or succeeding reiga.16 We do not know how many names from the post-Maha-Bharata Brihadrat has were originally omittel. The present lists give generally only 22: 7 up to Senajit (including him) and 15 after. The present list is thus short of at least 10 names (32-22). Three of them, without reigns, however, are clearly traceable.

The king next to Senijit is Satrunjaya. After Śatru ñjaya Mr. Pargiter gives Vibhu. But with Vibhu I gave in my list (J.B.O.R.S., I. 112) Mahaba'a which on the materials then before me appeared to me as a distinct name. Between Satrunjaya anl Vibhu the Brah ninda gives Ripuñjya; MSS. of the Vishnu also read Ripu and Ripuñjaya (Pargiter, p. 15, n. 43), and a copy of the Vayu here as well as a MS. of

14 This is obtained by Mr. Pargiter by reading vayo of the MS. as trayo. Apart from disregarding the actual reading, the proposal disregards the existence of the disjuactive eha. वयोविंशाधिकं तेषां राज्यच शत- सप्तकम् P. T. 17.

15 Pargiter, P. T., 13.

1 J.B.O.R.S., I. 67.

1483 A.c. at the India Office Library (No. 2103) suggests Mahābala as a distinct king. Both the Brahmānḍa and Vāyu do not give him any reign period although they describe him as a very great king (nahābuddhi, mahā-bala-parā krama). It seems therefore clear that one name Mahabala-Ripuñjaya has to come between Nos. 8 and 9 of my old list.

In the Vayu we have Nirvṛiti and Eman,17 58 years, while the Matsya omits Eman and retains only Nirvṛiti (No. 14 of my old list) and the Brahmaṇḍa omits Nirvṛiti and retains only 'King Eman. '18 The period, however, uniformly remains 58 years. This illustrates the method of pruning adopted by the Puranas. The third king who can be clearly traced is Satrunjayin who is given by the MS. dated in 1483 A.D., after Subala or Suchala (No. 18 of my old list): rājyam suchālo bhokshyati atha Satrunjayi tatah (Pargiter, p. 16, n. 83).


8. It has been already suggested (J.B.O.R.S., I., 112) that it is possible to find some of the missing names in the variants found in different Puranas. It is possible that each set might represent two names of the same monarch. An examination of each case might enable us to decile whether the different Purāņas have preserved different kings (as in the case of Nirvṛiti and Eman) or one and the same. There are three sets of variant names in the Brihadratha list, Nos. 13, 15, and 17 of my old list.

(1) Sunetra, 50, 25, 35, 25 or 50 years (different MSS. of the Matsya); Dharmanetra full 5 years' (Vayu, Brahmāṇḍa): Dharmakshetra in the Bhagavata and Dharma in the Garuda and Vishņu.

Here Dharmanetra and Sunetra seem to be identical. The pancha (five) which has been turned into panchās. t (50), occurs in an old MS. dated in 1525 (India Office Library, No. 1918). Two hundred years later we get it as Pañcha-trimsat and pañcha-vimsati. 19

17 Eman has been missed by Mr. Pargiter, P.T. 16, n. €6.
18 भोच्यते नृपतिपुचेमा ग्रष्टपञ्चाशतं समः: Br. 74. 117.
In the Vayu MSS. THI (AI), P. T. 16n. 66.
19 For a study of the misreadings see PT. 16, Ns.

« PreviousContinue »