DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9541#0736
712
A ITEM)IX.
three monarch*, who reigned daring the space of six thousand and
forty-two years."
The first part of this statement is eminently satisfactory, as it
seems clear from it that we possess in the Puranas the same lists as
were submitted to the Greeks in the 4th century B.C. In the Solar
lists, we have in the Treta Yng sixty-two reigns, from Ixwaku to
Kama.1 There is no complete Lunar list in that age. For the Dwapar
age we have three Solar lists : one for Kusha to Vrihadsana, thirty-
five reigns; another from Dishta to Janamejaya, thirty-three reigns;
and a third, from the sun of Swadhaja, the father of Sita, wife of
llama, to Mahabasi, thirty-four reigns. In the Kali Yug we have no
complete Solar list, but the Lunar list gives fifty descents from Jara-
sandha to the last Nanda. This gives 145 or 146 reigns, or rather too
few. But the Lunar lists, from the Dwapar Yug, give forty-four
from Puru to Yudhishihira, and fifty from Yadu to Krishna, so that
the average is as nearly as may be that stated by Megasthenes.
The second part of the statement, giving these kings' reigns an
average duration of nearly forty years, must of course be rejected, but
it is satisfactory to find that, at that early age, the falsification of the
chronology had only gone to the extent of duplication, and that the
monstrous system of Yugs, with all their attendant absurdities, had
not then been invented.
Though it may not at present be capable of direct proof, I have
myself no doubt that the date assigned by the Hindus for the Kali
Yug (3101 B.C.) is a true date, though misapplied. It either was the
date when the Aryans assumed that their ancestors had first crossed
the Indus, or when they had first settled on the banks of the Saraswati
or the Ghoghra. It forms no part of any subsequently invented system,
and seems the only one fixed point in a sea of falsification. Assuming
it for the present, and deducting Chandragupta's date from it, we
have 3101—325 = 2776 years from Ixwaku to Chandragupta, which,
divided by 153, gives the reasonable number of eighteen years
for the duration of each king's reign. Of course it is not contended
that these lists are absolutely to be depended upon—many names may
be lost, and many misplaced, from the carelessness of copyists, or
from other causes; but, on the whole, when treated in this manner,
they afford a reasonable framework for the reconstruction of the
ancient history of India, and one that accords perfectly with all we
at present know about the ancient history of the immigrant Aryans.
1 The lists used lor this statement of
pre-Buddhist chronology are those com-
piled by James Prinsep, and published
in his ' Useful Tables' in 183b'. They were
afterwards revised and republished by
Ed. Thomas, in his edition of Prinsep'*
works, in 18.r>8. In a regular treatise on
chronology it would be indispensable to
refer to the Puranas themselves ; in a
mere statement of results these tables
are amply sufficient.
A ITEM)IX.
three monarch*, who reigned daring the space of six thousand and
forty-two years."
The first part of this statement is eminently satisfactory, as it
seems clear from it that we possess in the Puranas the same lists as
were submitted to the Greeks in the 4th century B.C. In the Solar
lists, we have in the Treta Yng sixty-two reigns, from Ixwaku to
Kama.1 There is no complete Lunar list in that age. For the Dwapar
age we have three Solar lists : one for Kusha to Vrihadsana, thirty-
five reigns; another from Dishta to Janamejaya, thirty-three reigns;
and a third, from the sun of Swadhaja, the father of Sita, wife of
llama, to Mahabasi, thirty-four reigns. In the Kali Yug we have no
complete Solar list, but the Lunar list gives fifty descents from Jara-
sandha to the last Nanda. This gives 145 or 146 reigns, or rather too
few. But the Lunar lists, from the Dwapar Yug, give forty-four
from Puru to Yudhishihira, and fifty from Yadu to Krishna, so that
the average is as nearly as may be that stated by Megasthenes.
The second part of the statement, giving these kings' reigns an
average duration of nearly forty years, must of course be rejected, but
it is satisfactory to find that, at that early age, the falsification of the
chronology had only gone to the extent of duplication, and that the
monstrous system of Yugs, with all their attendant absurdities, had
not then been invented.
Though it may not at present be capable of direct proof, I have
myself no doubt that the date assigned by the Hindus for the Kali
Yug (3101 B.C.) is a true date, though misapplied. It either was the
date when the Aryans assumed that their ancestors had first crossed
the Indus, or when they had first settled on the banks of the Saraswati
or the Ghoghra. It forms no part of any subsequently invented system,
and seems the only one fixed point in a sea of falsification. Assuming
it for the present, and deducting Chandragupta's date from it, we
have 3101—325 = 2776 years from Ixwaku to Chandragupta, which,
divided by 153, gives the reasonable number of eighteen years
for the duration of each king's reign. Of course it is not contended
that these lists are absolutely to be depended upon—many names may
be lost, and many misplaced, from the carelessness of copyists, or
from other causes; but, on the whole, when treated in this manner,
they afford a reasonable framework for the reconstruction of the
ancient history of India, and one that accords perfectly with all we
at present know about the ancient history of the immigrant Aryans.
1 The lists used lor this statement of
pre-Buddhist chronology are those com-
piled by James Prinsep, and published
in his ' Useful Tables' in 183b'. They were
afterwards revised and republished by
Ed. Thomas, in his edition of Prinsep'*
works, in 18.r>8. In a regular treatise on
chronology it would be indispensable to
refer to the Puranas themselves ; in a
mere statement of results these tables
are amply sufficient.