Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c12.40

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.