Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c15.10

c15.10

Secondly, the genealogies are corroborated by the testimony of other works in their support. Of this we have a cogent instance in the Raghuvamśa and the Ayodhyā genealogy. The Puranas give one version of that genealogy and the Rāmāyaṇa another and absolutely incompatible version as already pointed out (chap. VIII), and those Puranas and the Rāmāyaṇa were in existence when Kālidāsa composed the Raghuvamśa; yet he followed the Puranic version in the portion of the genealogy that he gives which is common to both. Putting aside Dilīpa, because the comparison from him is uncertain, since the Rāmāyaṇa names only one Dilīpa while the Puranas mention two, and starting from Raghu about whom there is no doubt, he gives four kings, Raghu, Aja, Daśaratha and Rāma as in the Puranas, instead of the Rāmāyaṇa version of 14 or 15 kings; so that he virtually declares the Puranas are right and the Rāmāyaṇa wrong. His work also testifies that the Puranic version is no late composition, but was so well established as authoritative in his time that even the Rāmāyaṇa could not invalidate it; and proves that, as his entire list from Dilīpa II down to Agnivarṇa agrees substantially with the list in the Vāyu, Brahmāṇḍa, Brahma, Harivamśa and Viṣṇu, the Puranic list was the same substantially in his time as we have it now. If then the Puranic genealogy of Ayodhyā was held to be right then, in spite of the Rāmāyaṇa, that is strong evidence that it is ancient and trustworthy. It is reasonable to conclude that equal care has been bestowed on the other dynasties, and there is a strong presumption that they had been equally well preserved during the preceding centuries, that is, that they are the original genealogies and therefore genuine.