Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c11.46

c11.46

and call her son Māndhātṛ Gaurika.¹ But the Brahma, Harivaṃśa and Śiva say Gaurī was Prasenajit’s wife, thus making her Māndhātṛ’s grandmother.² The question arises, which of these accounts is right? Now there was in the Paurava line an early king whose name is given as Matināra,³ Antināra⁴ and Ratināra,⁵ and we may adopt Matināra as the form most often found, though Atināra may be the true original. The Vāyu, Matsya, and Harivaṃśa itself say he had a daughter Gaurī and she was mother of Māndhātṛ;⁶ the Harivaṃśa thus contradicting its statement in the former passage. It is clear then that she was wife of Yuvanāśva and not of Prasenajit; and the phrase atyanta-dhārmikā in the above line supplies an interesting corroboration of this. This phrase is the general reading in the Brahmāṇḍa and Vāyu, but two copies of the Vāyu read Atimānātmajā instead, which is obviously a mistake for Atinārātmajā or Matinārātmajā, as she was Matināra’s daughter; and this rare reading is the right one and confirms the statement in the Paurava genealogy. But it was corrupted and was not understood, and so was altered to the intelligible but commonplace epithet atyanta-dhārmikā, which has now almost superseded that true reading. The Brahmāṇḍa and Vāyu therefore have the correct relation, and the three other Puranas have altered it. It is possible to suggest a reason for their tampering with it. It was a very common trait to provide explanations of names, as shown in chapter V, and Māndhātṛ's name is explained in an absurd fable, which says he was born from his father Yuvanāśva's side.¹ That being accepted, it followed that Gaurī was not his mother, and so it was natural to transfer her as wife from Yuvanāśva to Prasenajit.