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

' Kings : for them ete has been used.

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

घोड़ते स्टपा जेया भवितारो वृहद्रथाः। वयो विशाधिक तेषां राज्यच शतसप्तकम्। "The latter (ete) sixteen kings are known as the Future Brıkadrathas. The reign of the above (tesham) (the post-MahaBhārata Bșihadrathas) is of seven centuries, and their (regnal) age over 20 years (each)”. The employment of the different pronouns ete and teshūm in this case too shows that the two statements contained in the two lines refer to two in lependent subject matters. 3. Again, the post-Mahā-Bhārata Kings of the main dynasties

have been divided into three classes : for " Futare Kings."

instance, the post-Mahā-Bhārata Brihadrathas are divided into the Past', the ‘Present and the Future' [= later] Bșihadrathas. 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 Adhisāına). Krishņa of the Paurava dynasty under whose patronage the Puraņic data of what was then considered the past history, seem to have been originally collected." The contemporary of Adhisîuna-Kșishṇa in Magadba was Senājit, the 7th in my list of the post-Mahā-Bhārata Bļihadrathas. The narration about the Kings before Senājit is put in the Purāṇas in the past tense and that of the latter ones in the future. Thus these kings who came after Senäjit were the 'अधिसामकृष्ण धर्मात्मा साम्प तोयं महायशः । यस्मिन् प्रशामति मही युष्मा भिरिदमाहृतम् ॥ Vayu, 37. 252.

:

.

Future Brihadrathas. As to the number of these Future Brihadrathas proper, in the list of the post-Mahā-Bhārata Bșihad

ratbas I have given 15 kings (Nos. 8– 15 or 16 Future Bțihad. rathas.

22)* after Senājit (the present 'king). One more name is further clearly traceable. A manuscript of the Vāyu (Jones MS. W. 6 a, T37 in the India Ofice Library) places S'atru-j ryin after Subala (or Suchzla, No. 18 of my list) rājyam Suchālo bhokhshyati atha Satru-jayi tatah.?

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

every Purāņa, viz., that the Brihadrathas enjoyed sovereignty for full 1,000 yeirs, that the figure for the number of the kings which stood at the foot of the list of the post-Maha-Bhārata Bșihadrathas, 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 Bșiha:Irathas were only 16. Likewise he considered the 1,000 years (which really represents the period for the whole Brihadratha dynasty),8 placed at the close of the post-MahaBhārata Bșihadrathas, misleading. So he puts down the total of the reigns of the post-Mahā-Bhārata Bșiha lrathas as 'seven centuries' of course, in round nunbers. The writer seems to have accepted that the total number of the post-Mahā-Bhārata Bţibadrathas -those who reigned before Senājit and those after him, including Senājit—was 32 or 33, for he gives the average reign-period as "above 20 years (3939=21:21). 5. My calculations as observed above based on the dates for the

War and the Śaisunākas gave 697 697 years already found

years for the post-Mahā-Bhārata Bțias against the seven centuries '.

hadrathas. And if we took the least figures for the individual reigns as they are to be found in the

12

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 Purānic 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 608 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 explanation.

myself 19 take the “full 1,000 years” 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-Maha-Bhārata kings who are just described above. With reference to 1,000 years altogether a distinctive pronoun (teskām) 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-Maha-Bhārata Bțihadrathas as the 'Future' (Later) Bșihadratbas as they all come after the War and a very large number of them consists of the Future Bșihadrathas 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 Purāņic chronicler they pre-eminently belong to his Past History (his Modern History beginning with the Maha-Bhārata War). (3) On Mr. Pargiter's explanation the two

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

sets of statements in the text of the four lines quoted cannot be reconciled. 700 or 72314 years taken for the whole dynasty would diseredit the full 1,0.99 yours as recoznized by Mr. Pargiter 16. Although the learned writer says that 'If we read rayo in jMt. with that construction (treating the sloka as containing two independent state nints), th: totul periol wɔall b3 700 years and woald give an average reign of just under 22 years which would be “viņšâ lhikım”(p. 13), he stops short. clu led from recožnizing 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 Bșiha rathas who are enumerated before the Maha-Bhārata War.

He is pre

II-A Reconstruction. 7. As I have already pointed out, the present recension of the

Purāṇas exprezzly indicate that they omit The omitted kings.

the unimportant names from the dynastic lists, although they preserve the perio l by inela ling them in the preceding or succeeding reiga. 18 We do not know how many names from the post-Mahā-Bhārata Briha Irathas were originally o:nittel. The present lists give generally only 22: 7 up to Senājit (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 Senījit is Satrunjaya. After Satru ñjaya Mr. Pargiter gives l'ibh. But with Vibhu [ gave in my list (J.B.O.R.S., I. 112) Alarūbzło which on the materials then before me appeared to me as a distinct name. Between Śatruñjaya and Vibhu the Brah nindz gives Ripuñjya ; MSS. of the Vishņu also read Ripu an1 Ripunjaya (Pargiter, p. 15, n. 43), and a copy of the Vayu here as well as a MS. of

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

In the Vayu we have Nirorili and Eman, 17 58 years, while the Matsya omits Eman and retains only Nirvșiti (No. 14 of my old list) and the Brahmãoda omits Nirvșiti and retains only ‘King Eman. '18

The period, however, uniformly remains 58 years. This illustrates the method of pruning adopted by the Purāņas.

The third king who can be clearly traced is S'atrunjayin who is given by the MS. dated in 1483 A.D., after Subala or Sucbala ( No. 18 of my old list) : rājyam sucrālo bhokshyati atkı Satru ijayi tatuh (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 missVariante,

ing names in the variants found in different Parāṇas. It is possible that each set might represent two names of the same monarch. An examination of each case might enable us to deci.le whether the different Purāṇas have preserved different kings (as in the case of Nirvșiti and Eman) or one and the same. There are three sets of variant names in the Bțihadratha list, No3. 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’ (Vāyu, Brahmāņda) : : Dharmakshetra in the Bhagavata and Dharma in the Garuda and Vishnu.

Here Dharmanetra and Sunetra seem to be identical. The cha (five) which has been turned into panchāś 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 puñchu-rimsati. 19

17 Eman has been inissed by Mr. Pargiter, P.T. 16, n. €6.
18 भोक्ष्यो तृपतिप्चेमा अरपञ्चाशत समःः, Br. 74. 117.
In the Vaya MSS. THT (AT), P. T. 16n. 66.
1 For a study of the misreadingo see PT. 16, Ns.

paña

चैमा