Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c12: Chapter VII. General Survey of the Genealogies

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c12

Language
English

Chapter VII. General Survey of the Genealogies

c12.2

THE general scheme of the genealogies is here first sketched out, and the several dynasties will be dealt with in more detail in the next two chapters, the Solar race in chapter VIII and the Aila or Lunar race in chapter IX.

c12.3

All the royal lineages are traced back to the mythical Manu Vaivasvata. He is said to have had nine sons,² and also a daughter named Ilā or an eldest son Ila who was turned into a woman Ilā.³ Only four of the sons are important. The chief son Ikṣvāku reigned at Ayodhyā and had two sons Vikukṣi-Śaśāda and Nimi. From the former was descended the great Aikṣvāku dynasty of Ayodhyā, generally known as the Solar race, and the latter founded the dynasty of Videha. Another son Nābhānediṣṭha established the line of kings that reigned in the country known afterwards as the

c12.4

² Bḍ iii, 60, 2–3. Vā 85, 3–4. Br 7, 1–2. Hv 10, 613–14. Lg i, 65, 17–19. Śiv vii, 60, 1–2. Kūr i, 20, 4–6. Ag 272, 5–7. Cf. also Vā 64, 29–30; Bḍ ii, 38, 30–2. These collated suggest this original text:—

c12.5

³ This is fully dealt with in chap. XXIV.

c12.6

Manor Vaivasvatasyāsan putrā vai nava tat-samāḥ
Ikṣvākuś caiva Nābhāgo Dhṛṣṭaḥ Śaryātir eva ca
Nariṣyantas tathā Prāmśur Nābhāgodiṣṭa eva ca
Karūṣaś ca Pṛṣadhraś ca navaite Mānavāḥ smṛtāḥ.

c12.7

Viṣ iv, 1, 5 and MBh i, 75, 3140–1 agree generally therewith. The correct form of Nābhāgodiṣṭa is Nābhānediṣṭha, as Viṣ suggests. Gar i, 138, 2; Mārk 79, 11–12 and 111, 4–5; and Bhāg ix, 1, 11–12 vary. Mat 11, 40–1 and Pad v, 8, 75–7 have a different text. MBh i, 1, 42–7 is a fanciful summary, incorrect.

c12.8

kingdom of Vaiśālī; a third Śaryāti the dynasty that reigned in Ānarta (Gujarat); and from a fourth Nābhāga were descended the Rathītaras. These are discussed in chapter VIII.

c12.9

Ilā had a son Purūravas Aila, the progenitor of the great Aila race, who reigned at Pratiṣṭhāna ¹ (Allahabad). The early part of the Aila genealogy from him to Yayāti's five sons is given by twelve Puranas and twice by the Mahābhārata, and part is also given by the Rāmāyaṇa.²

c12.10

¹ Pratiṣṭhāna is Prayāga on the north bank of the Jumna; Vā 91, 50: Bḍ iii, 66, 21: Lg i, 66, 56. Br 10, 9–10 and Hv 26, 1371, 1411–2 say it is Prayāga but place it on the north bank of the Ganges. Mat 106, 30–2 suggests it was on the east side of the Ganges; cf. 111, 7–9.

c12.11

² MBh i, 75, 3149–62; 95, 3760–2: vii, 144, 6027–30: xiii, 147, 6831–3. Rām vii, 56, 25–7 (wrongly calling Purūravas king of Kāśī); 58, 7–10.

c12.12

Purūravas is said to have had six ³ or seven ⁴ sons, and there is some variation in their names,⁵ but only two are important, and nearly all the authorities agree about them, namely, Āyu or Āyus, and Amāvasu. Āyu continued the main line at Pratiṣṭhāna, and from Amāvasu was descended the dynasty of Kānyakubja (Kanauj). Āyu had by Svarbhānu's daughter Prabhā five sons who are all mentioned as important, namely, Nahuṣa, Kṣatravṛddha (or Vṛddhaśarman), Rambha, Raji and Anenas (or synonymously Vipapman).⁶ Nahuṣa continued the main line at Pratiṣṭhāna.

c12.13

³ Bḍ iii, 66, 22–3. Vā 91, 51–2. Cf. Viṣ iv, 7, 1: Gar 139, 2.

c12.14

⁴ Br 10, 11–12 and Hv 26, 1372–3 differently. Lg i, 66, 57–8 (seven sons) and Kūr i, 22, 1–2 (six sons) are alike but intermediate and corrupt. MBh i, 75, 3149 (six sons) is somewhat alike. Mat 25, 33–4; Pad v, 12, 86–7 and Ag 273, 15, which have a different text, give eight names, corrupting most of them. Bhāg ix, 15, 1 is wrong.

c12.15

⁵ Some of the variations are obviously due to misreadings of the names in the old scripts.

c12.16

⁶ Bḍ iii, 67, 1–2. Vā 92, 1–2. Br 11, 1–2. Hv 28, 1475–6. These agree, except that Br and Hv call Kṣatravṛddha Vṛddhaśarman. Lg i, 66, 59–60 and Kūr i, 22, 3–4 are similar but name only Nahuṣa. Viṣ iv, 8, 1, Gar 139, 7–8 and Bhāg ix, 17, 1–2 concur in the names. Mat 24, 34–5, Pad v, 12, 87–8 and Ag 273, 16 agree, with different verses. MBh i, 75, 3150 varies. Svarbhānu was a Dānava king, MBh i, 65, 2532; 67, 2648: xii, 227, 8262–7. Cf. Vā 68, 8, 22, 24; Bḍ iii, 6, 8, 23–4; Mat 6, 20–1, and Viṣ i, 21, 6, which say Prabhā was his daughter. Svarbhānu was also a name of Rāhu, MBh v, 109, 3811: vi, 12, 481–8; 102, 4619: cf. Vā 52, 80; 53, 63–5, 83 (confused). The two must be distinguished, but Viṣ iv, 8, 1 (read Rāhor) confuses them. So also the Dānavas Sūrya and Candramas were different from the sun and moon, MBh i, 65, 2534–5: Bḍ iii, 6, 12: Vā 68, 12.

c12.17

Kṣatravṛddha founded the dynasty of Kāśi (Benares), for the Brahma and Harivaṃśa, though they call him Vṛddhaśarman at first, give his lineage under his name Kṣatravṛddha.¹ From Raji were descended the Rājeya kṣatriyas, who perished (it is said) in a contest with Indra.² Rambha had no sons.³ From Anenas sprang a line called the Kṣatradharmans, whose names as best ascertainable are these—Anenas, Kṣatradharma, Pratikṣatra, Sañjaya, Jaya, Vijaya, Kṛti (or Jaya), Haryatvata, Sahadeva, Adīna, Jayatsena, Saṅkṛti, and Kṛtadharma (or Kṣatradharma).⁴ They seem to have constituted a small dynasty somewhere, but nothing more is said about them: the second of these names became confused with Kṣatravṛddha, and so the Viṣṇu and Garuḍa drop out Anenas and attribute this lineage to Kṣatravṛddha erroneously:⁵ and the last name also became confused with Kṣatravṛddha, whose lineage follows this pedigree, in the Brahma (11, 31), and was wrongly altered to Kṣatravṛddha.

c12.18

¹ Br 11, 31, beginning with Kṣatravṛddhasya câparaḥ, vaṃśaḥ understood. Hv 29, 1517, beginning with Kṣatravṛddhasya me śṛṇu.

c12.19

² Bḍ iii, 67, 80–104. Vā 92, 75–99. Br 11, 3–26. Hv 28, 1477–1511. Mat 24, 35–49. Ag 273, 17–19. Gar i, 138, 14. Bhāg ix, 17, 12–16. Pad v, 12, 88–102.

c12.20

³ Br 11, 27. Hv 29, 1513. Viṣ iv, 9, 8. Yet Bhāg ix, 17, 10–12 provides him with a short lineage wrongly.

c12.21

⁴ Bḍ iii, 68, 7–11; Vā 93, 7–11. Br 11, 27–31 and Hv 29, 1513–17, both concluding with Anenasaḥ samākhyātāḥ. Bhāg ix, 17, 11–12 wrongly gives Anenas a wholly different line of descendants. Bḍ and Vā preface this genealogy with a passage about king Marutta and Mitrajyotis (verses 1–6) which has no connexion with it and seems misplaced. I do not know what its true connexion is.

c12.22

⁵ Viṣ iv, 9, 8. Gar i, 139, 15–17.

c12.23

Nahuṣa had six⁶ or seven⁷ sons by pitṛ-kanyā Virajā, which no doubt means his sister (p. 70). Only two sons are important, Yati and Yayāti. Yati the eldest became a muni and gave up the kingdom,⁸ and Yayāti succeeded to it. Yayāti had two wives, Devayānī daughter of the great Bhārgava rishi Uśanas-Śukra,⁹ and Śarmiṣṭhā daughter of the Daitya-Dānava-asura king Vṛṣaparvan.¹ The former bore two sons, Yadu and Turvasu, and the latter three, Druhyu, Anu and Pūru.² Yayāti divided his territories among them, so that his kingdom developed into five kingdoms, and from his sons were descended the five famous royal lines of the Yadus or Yādavas, the Turvasus, the Druhyus, the Anus or Ānavas and the Pūrus or Pauravas.

c12.24

⁶ Bḍ iii, 68, 12–13; Vā 93, 12–13; Br 12, 1–2; Hv 30, 1599–1600; Lg i, 66, 60–62; Kūr i, 22, 5–6. Viṣ iv, 10, 1, Gar 139, 17 and Bhāg ix, 18, 1 agree; and MBh i, 75, 3155 partially. But Br, Hv, Lg, and Kūr readings approximate to the Mat and Pad reading.

c12.25

⁷ Mat 24, 49–50 and Pad v, 12, 103–4; which vary some of the names corruptly. Ag 273, 20.

c12.26

⁸ See continuations of passages in second note above.

c12.27

⁹ See chap. XVII.

c12.28

¹ Vā 68, 23–4. Bḍ iii, 6, 23, 25. Mat 6, 20, 22. Viṣ i, 21, 6.

c12.29

² Bḍ iii, 68, 15–16. Vā 93, 15–17. Br 12, 4–6. Hv 30, 1603–4. Lg i, 66, 64–6. Kūr i, 22, 7–8. Similarly Ag 273, 21–3, Viṣ iv, 10, 1–2 and Bhāg ix, 18, 29–33; also Gar 139, 18. Mat 24, 52–4 and Pad v, 12, 105–7 say the same in different verses; and MBh i, 75, 3158–60; 95, 3760–2. Cf. MBh i, 84; 85: Br 146, 2–7. Turvasu is called Turvaśa in Vedic literature. The sons are said to be four and are wrongly named in late fables in Pad ii, 64, 11–12; 77, 105: and 109, 49–55, where the genealogy is corrupt—an instance of the vitiation of genealogies by late story-makers. The story of Yayāti, Devayānī and Śarmiṣṭhā at great length, Mat 25 to 32; MBh i, 78 to 83: differently, Rām vii, 58; 59.

c12.30

Yadu had five³ or four⁴ sons, but only two are important, Sahasrajit (or Sahasrăda) and Kroṣṭu (or Kroṣṭṛ). With them the Yādavas divided into two great branches. Sahasrajit’s descendants were named after his grandson Haihaya and were well known as the Haihayas.⁵ Kroṣṭu’s descendants had no special name, but were known particularly as the Yādavas. The Ānavas after Anu’s seventh named successor Mahāmanas divided into two branches under two sons Uśīnara and Titikṣu. The former branch established various kingdoms in the Panjab, and the latter founded a dynasty in East Bihar. The Pauravas gradually developed and established a number of kingdoms in Madhyadeśa. All these lines will be explained fully in chapter IX.

c12.31

³ Bḍ iii, 69, 2. Vā 94, 2. Br 13, 153–4. Hv 33, 1843. Mat 43, 6–7. Pad v, 12, 110. Lg i, 68, 2. Kūr i, 22, 12–13. Ag 274, 1 is equivalent but confused.

c12.32

⁴ Viṣ iv, 11, 3. Gar 139, 19. Bhāg ix, 23, 20–1 (corrupt).

c12.33

⁵ So stated expressly in Br 13, 207; Hv 34, 1898; Lg i, 68, 15—which also say they were Yādavas.

c12.34

The broad results thus sketched out are exhibited in the annexed genealogical table.

c12.35

The genealogies profess to give the dynastic lists at length and in correct succession, and say so expressly, *vistareṇānupūrvya ca*, as regards the Yādava⁶ and Paurava⁷ lines. But in giving the Aikṣvāku genealogy of Ayodhyā the Puranas do not profess to be complete, and say that only the chief and best-known kings are mentioned.¹ These statements are noteworthy, because the three genealogies profess to cover exactly the same chronological period, all starting from Manu and all ending with the Bhārata battle. Yet, while the Aikṣvāku lists name some 93 kings, the Yādava lists give only about 53 kings, and the Paurava lists only some 45 kings in succession, and prefixing to each of these two the common anterior names Manu, Ilā, Purūravas, Āyu, Nahuṣa and Yayāti, these two lists make their totals 59 and 51 respectively. Moreover, the latter two lists profess to be given at length, while the first does not profess to be exhaustive. The Liṅga throws some light on the meaning of the word vistareṇa, in that, after setting out the list of Yādava names as fully as the Vāyu, it adds that it gives the list succinctly, saṅkṣepeṇa (i, 68, 1), which is explained by the fact that its account is more concise. Hence apparently vistareṇa does not imply that the list is exhaustive, but that it is the full traditional account. In fact it will be found that gaps occur sometimes in the genealogies, and in one place it is frankly admitted that there is a gap.²

c12.36

⁶ Vā 94, 1. Mat 43, 5. Hv 32, 1842. Bḍ iii, 69, 1.

c12.37

⁷ Vā 99, 119. Mat 48, 103. Br 13, 2. Hv 31, 1653.

c12.38

¹ Vā 88, 213; Bḍ iii, 64, 213–14; Lg i, 66, 43. Br 8, 94; Hv 15, 831–2 and Mat 12, 57 somewhat similarly. Viṣ iv, 4, 49 equivalently. Kūr i, 21, 60 says truly it gives this genealogy succinctly, samāsena.

c12.39

² Tasyânvavāye mahati, Mat 49, 72; Vā 99, 187.

c12.40

The succession of kings in the lists is expressed in four ways, which may be explained by styling the predecessor A and the successor B; namely (1) B was son of A, (2) B was ‘of A’,³ no relationship being expressed, (3) B was ‘from or after A’, the ablative being used or its adverbial form,⁴ and (4) B was ‘heir’ of A.⁵ The second and third forms are indistinguishable where the genitive and ablative cases are the same.⁶ These different forms may all mean sonship; the last three may include the succession of other relatives, and the third may imply bare succession without particular relationship. None necessarily means immediate sonship⁷ or succession¹ for even the first does not always mean it. Absolute precision in genealogical details can hardly be expected and is not indispensable for historical purposes. Kings who were celebrated are well known by name, and the names of others are mainly useful as marking steps in descent, so that it is not material whether insignificant names are perfectly correct. In such cases the name which is best supported is adopted, and the question of names is dealt with in chapter XI.

c12.41

³ e. g. Haryaśvasya Nikumbho ’bhūt (Vā 88, 62).

c12.42

⁴ e. g. Śarūthāt tu Janapīḍas (Vā 99, 5). Aviddhataḥ Pravīras tu (ibid. 121).

c12.43

⁵ e. g. Purukutsasya dāyādas Trasadasyur (Vā 88, 74).

c12.44

⁶ e. g. Karaṇḍhamas Trisānos tu (Vā 99, 2). Sañjāter atha Raudrāśvas (ibid. 123).

c12.45

⁷ Thus Vā 99, 234 says Devāpi and Śantanu were sons of Pratīpa, but they were really grandsons: see chap. XIII.

c12.46

¹ Thus Ajamīḍha, Ṛkṣa and Saṃvaraṇa in the main Paurava line were not three successive kings; as the table of genealogies in chap. XII shows. Genealogies also were intentionally abbreviated; cf. the Aikṣvāku line in Ag 5, 3; Gar i, 143, 2-3.

c12.47

The fact that the genealogies of some dynasties are fuller than those of others will not be a serious bar chronologically, because synchronisms (which will be discussed in chapters XII to XIV) will fix the positions of the chief kings, and other kings will fall into approximate position accordingly; and thus it will appear where lists are incomplete or gaps occur. Though absolute accuracy is unattainable, yet it may be possible to reach an approximation sufficient for working purposes.

Linked texts (15)