Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c16: Chapter XI. Consideration of Names

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c16

Language
English

Chapter XI. Consideration of Names

c16.2

WHEN the genealogies are examined, differences are found in that a name or even several names appear in one or more lists while wanting in others. These variations are often unsubstantial, and may be due to faults sometimes in the MSS and sometimes in the structure of the genealogy itself. The former faults arise through copyists’ mistakes or defects in the MSS. Omissions may include one or two kings, as will appear on comparing the common text of the Vāyu and Matsya in the North Pañcāla dynasty,¹ or a group of kings, as will appear from the common text of the Brahmāṇḍa and Vāyu in the Vaiśāla dynasty.² A case where a passage is in the process of disappearing occurs in the Brahma when compared with its counterpart in the Harivaṃśa in the North Pañcāla dynasty.³ Large omissions would be due to loss of pages in the ancient MSS; and the clearest example of this is the great lacuna in the Brahmāṇḍa (p. 78).

c16.3

¹ Vā 99, 208-9. Mat 50, 15.

c16.4

² Bḍ iii. 61, 4-5. Vā 86, 4-9.

c16.5

³ Br 13, 97 and note thereto. Hv 32, 1781-90.

c16.6

Variations in the structure of a genealogy may be due to one or other of six causes, and in illustrating them it will be convenient to choose mainly from the Ayodhyā line. First, a name may be left out by mere omission, probably accidental; thus the Bhāgavata and Kūrma omit Ambarīṣa, and the Harivaṃśa omits Hiraṇyanābha, both well-known kings. Secondly, little-known kings are omitted; thus the Matsya, Padma, Liṅga and Kūrma insert after Dṛḍhāśva a king Pramoda, whom the other Puranas omit, and they and the Agni and Garuḍa omit Prasenajit, father of Yuvanāśva I, whom all the others mention. There is no good reason to think that either Pramoda or Prasenajit has been invented, and the omission is no doubt due to their unimportance. Thirdly, names have been displaced; and thus the Matsya, Padma and Agni misplace Dilīpa II, Dīrghabāhu, Raghu and Aja as Raghu, Dilīpa, Aja and Dīrghabāhu. Fourthly, a name has been converted into an epithet; thus most Puranas make Dīrghabāhu and Raghu father and son, and the Matsya, Padma and Agni treat them as separate, but the Brahma, Harivaṃśa and Śiva treat Dīrghabāhu as an epithet of Raghu, the Raghuvaṃśa omits him accordingly, and the Garuḍa mentions him, omitting Raghu. Here the weight of authority is in favour of Dīrghabāhu as a separate king and not as an epithet of Raghu.¹ Fifthly, an epithet may conversely be turned into a king; thus the Viṣṇu, Agni and Bhāgavata coin new sons for Sātvata the Yādava out of the epithets applied to his genuine sons (chapter IX); and the epithet Kausalya belonging to Hiraṇyanābha as king of Kosala becomes a separate king Kauśalya, his son, in the Raghuvaṃśa (xviii, 27). Lastly, there may be a pure blunder, as where the Matsya, Padma and Agni turn Satyavrata Triśaṅku’s wife Satyarathā into a son Satyaratha, and where the Garuḍa changes Māndhātṛ’s wife Bindumatī into a son Bindumahya.

c16.7

¹ Dīrghabāhu was a name; so one of Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s sons, MBh i, 67, 2740: vi, 97, 4349: vii, 164, 7337.

c16.8

Differences occur also in names, but they are often superficial, and a few are noticed here out of the many that may be cited. Names are curtailed. Sometimes the final component is omitted, thus Kāñcanaprabha of the Kānyakubja dynasty becomes merely Kāñcana in the Viṣṇu and Garuḍa; Rohitāśva of the Ayodhyā line is generally called Rohita; and Bhīma Pāṇḍava’s full name was Bhīmasena.² In other cases the first component is omitted, thus Devātithi of the Pauravas becomes Atithi in the Garuḍa; and the Bhāgavata calls Prasenajit of Ayodhyā Senajit.³ Similarly the prefix su not seldom disappears in the later Puranas, and so Suśruta of Videha becomes Śruta in the Bhāgavata, which abounds in such modifications and also attempted emendations. Again names may be altered by misreadings, as Vasumata alias Sumati of Ayodhyā by an easy misreading of v as c or vice versa.⁴ Further, names are changed by metathesis, thus Durdama of the Haihayas appears as Durmada in the Vāyu and Brahmāṇḍa, and the rishi Indrapramati appears as Indrapratima.⁵

c16.9

² MBh i, 67, 2746; 124, 4854. So in tales, as Sindhu for Sindhudvīpa, Br. 169, 4, 19.

c16.10

³ So in tales, as Kuṇḍala for Maṇikuṇḍala, Br 170, 4, 52.

c16.11

⁴ Vāyu 88, 76, jajñe Vasumato nṛpaḥ, and Brahmāṇḍa iii, 63, 75, jajñe ca Sumatir nṛpaḥ.

c16.12

⁵ Bḍ ii, 32, 115: iii, 8, 96-7. Vā 59, 105; 70, 88. Mat 145, 110.

c16.13

Another cause of variation, which is only superficial, is the use of synonyms. Thus Anenas, son of Āyu, appears as Vipāpman; Kṣemadhanvan of Ayodhyā as Sudhanvan in the Agni; Kalmāṣapāda of Ayodhyā as Kalmāṣāṅghri;¹ and Hiraṇyavarman, king of Daśārṇa, appears as Hemavarman and Kāñcanavarman.²

c16.14

¹ Ag 272, 31-2. Bhāg ix, 9, 18.

c16.15

² MBh v. 190, 7419; 193, 7493, 7506, 7511 and 7518.

c16.16

Real differences also occur in names, and many of these are easily explainable as misreadings of old scripts. A few out of many such cases may be given here, and the probable mutation is suggested, but in some instances it might have taken place reversely.

c16.17

Thus misreadings of *dh* and *v* (or *b*) are not uncommon. Vyuṣitāśva of Ayodhyā is Dhyuṣitāśva in the Vāyu; Suvarman of Dvimīḍha’s line in the Vāyu is Sudharman in the Matsya and Harivaṃśa; and in the Videha line Pratīndhaka of the Rāmāyaṇa is Pratinvaka in the Vāyu and Pratimbaka in the Brahmāṇḍa; and the Bhāgavata by a double misreading transforms Tridhanvan of Ayodhyā into Tribandhana. Similarly Ārādhi of the Paurava line in the Vāyu is Ārāvin in the Viṣṇu; and by a further easy misreading of *r* as *v* in the later script Ārādhi becomes Āvādhīta in the Garuḍa, and by a second easy mistake between *v* and *c* Ārāvin appears as Avācīna in the Mahābhārata (i, 95, 3771). Some of these changes seem to be due to a desire to emend a name so as to make it intelligible.

c16.18

Among easy misreadings of other letters, the following may be cited. By reading *tr* as *v* Trasadasyu of Ayodhyā (shortened probably to Trasada) was altered to Vasuda in the Matsya. By confusing *ṛ*, *kṛ*, *kra* and *ku* in later mediaeval script, Ṛta of Videha in the Vāyu and Viṣṇu is Kṛta in some copies of the Vāyu and Kratu in the Brahmāṇḍa; Kṛteyu of the Pauravas in the Vāyu is Ṛteyu in the Viṣṇu and Garuḍa; and Ṛtujit of Videha in the Viṣṇu became, by a further easy mistake between *tu* and *la* in later script, Kulajit in the Garuḍa. By confusion between *dh* and *gh* in the later script, we find in the Druhyu line Dharma is Gharma in the Agni and Garuḍa; and Dhṛta is Ghṛta in the Matsya, Harivaṃśa and Agni, while Ghṛta by a further easy misreading is Dyūta in the Brahma. Again *t* and *j* are sometimes easily mistaken in the later script, so in the Videha line Devarāta and Kīrtirāta are Devarāja and Kīrtirāja in some copies of the Vāyu. *P* and *y* were easily confused, so in the Paurava line Sampāti = Samyāti of the Mahābhārata and Agni; and Ahampāti of the Viṣṇu and Bhāgavata = Ahaṃyāti of the Mahābhārata (i, 95, 3766-8). So also *th* and *py*, and thus in the Turvasu line Sarūtha of the Vāyu = Sarūpya of the Brahmāṇḍa. Again *s* and *bh* were sometimes rather alike, so in the Ayodhyā line Sindhudvīpa = Bhindhudvīpa of the Viṣṇu, and Prasuśruta = Prabhusuta of the Brahmāṇḍa. In the mediaeval script *gu* and *śva* might be mistaken, and so Ahīnagu of Ayodhyā becomes Ahīnāśva in the Agni. Similarly Śaṅkhaṇa of Ayodhyā (probably by metathesis, Khaśana) appears as Khagaṇa in the Bhāgavata and Gaṇa in the Garuḍa.

c16.19

The cohesion of a euphonic *r*, or the treating of an initial *r* as belonging to the preceding word may explain in the Paurava line the forms Rahampāti of the Harivaṃśa and Ahampāti of the Viṣṇu and Bhāgavata; also of Rantināra in the Vāyu and Antināra in the Matsya, while Antināra and the form generally found, Matināra, may perhaps be due to mistake between *ma* and *a*.

c16.20

Sometimes the connecting link between variant names is found readily in the Prakrit form. Ancient names do occur in both Sanskrit and Prakrit shape, for the famous Kānyakubja king appears as Gāthi and Gāthin in the brahmanical literature¹ and as Gādhi in the Epics and Puranas. The examination of names in this light is an interesting study. The most cogent illustration of connexion through Prakrit is the name of the famous Paurava king, who is called Duṣyanta (with a common variation Duṣmanta)² in the Mahābhārata and Puranas, but Duṣṣanta and Duḥṣanta in brahmanic tradition because his son Bharata is styled Dauṣṣanti and Dauḥṣanti in the Aitareya and Śatapatha Brāhmaṇas respectively.³ These forms can be reconciled through a Prakrit form Duṣṣanta or Dussanta, of which they are different Sanskrit equivalents, the form Duṣyanta being probably right and the brahmanic one mistaken. Similarly we have Nabhāka in Vedic literature and Nabhāga in the Puranic genealogies; and the Bhārgava rishi Apnavāna’s name was ‘emended’ to Ātmavant (see chapter XVII). Other variant names which can be explained through Prakrit forms are the following in the Videha dynasty: Bṛhaduktha (Brahmāṇḍa and Viṣṇu) and Bṛhaduttha (Vāyu), which, by an easy misreading of *dra* for *du*, appears as Bṛhadratha in the Rāmāyaṇa: Śakuni (Vāyu and Brahmāṇḍa), through *Sakuni*, *sa Kuni*, appears as Kuni (Viṣṇu), and by an easy mistake of *l* for *n* as Kuli (Garuḍa): and Svāgata (Vāyu and Brahmāṇḍa) appears as Śāśvata in the Viṣṇu, where the two forms may perhaps be connected through a possible Prakrit form read as Sāgata or Sāśata (*g* and *ś* being mistaken).

c16.21

¹ For names cited from Vedic literature, see *Vedic Index*.

c16.22

² *Hv* 32, 1721–4. *Vā* 99, 133–4. *Viṣ* iv, 19, 2.

c16.23

³ *Vedic Index*, i, 382. Also Vedārth on Rigv vi, 52, in its verses 12 and 14. Aitar Brāhm viii, 23. Śatapatha Brāhm xiii, 5, 4, 11–14, where the patronymic Saudyumni given to Bharata is probably a brahmanical mistake for *Dauṣyanti*, which it also calls him.

c16.24

Other divergencies of this kind might be noticed, and will occur to any one who examines the variant names. All such variations are not material, however, because the distinguished kings are well known and the names of the less known kings are not important except as supplying links in the chain of a genealogy; and as long as the descents are labelled, it is not material whether the labels are perfectly accurate.

c16.25

We may now consider sameness of name of different persons. It was quite common. Abundant examples might be given.¹ A few of the more important are cited here, and others will be found on consulting Macdonell and Keith’s *Vedic Index*, Sörensen’s *Index to the Mahābhārata*, and the Dictionaries. Forgetfulness of the fact that the same names reappeared in India as in other countries has led to the strangest conjectures and identifications.

c16.26

¹ It is noticed in MBh i, 65, 2535.

c16.27

Sameness of name was well known among kings and princes, for it is expressly declared that there were a hundred Prativindhyas, Nāgas, Haihayas, Dhṛtarāṣṭras, Brahmadattas, Paulas, Śvetas, Kāśis and Kuśas, eighty Janamejayas, a thousand Śaśabindus and two hundred Bhīṣmas and Bhīmas:² also that there were two Nalas, one king of Ayodhyā and the other the hero of the ‘Story of Nala’. ³ So there were two famous Arjunas, Kārtavīrya and Pāṇḍava, and a third in Rigveda i, 222, 5. The genealogical lists in chapter XII show that other names were not uncommon, such as Divodāsa, Sṛñjaya and Sahadeva; and the number of duplicates is very large. Further, it is expressly stated that in the main Paurava line were two Ṛkṣas, two Parikṣits, three Bhīmasenas and two Janamejayas;⁴ and all these appear in that genealogy, if we include Bhīmasena Pāṇḍava. Similarly brahmans had the same names, thus there were two Śaktis, four brahman Rāmas, Jāmadagnya and three others,¹ three named Suśravas,¹ two Śukas (pp. 64-5), &c. Also kings and brahmans often had the same names.² There were two royal Rāmas, one the famous king of Ayodhyā and the other Balarāma, besides four brahman Rāmas mentioned above: four Kṛṣṇas at least, the king, Dvaipāyana-Vyāsa, Devakīputra and Hārita: five Babhrus, a son of the Yādava Lomapāda, a king in the Druhyu line, the Yādava Devāvṛdha's son, and two brahmans: and three Cyavanas, the Bhārgava rishi and two kings, one of N. Pañcāla and the other a descendant of Kuru.

c16.28

² Bḍ iii, 74, 267–9. Vā 32, 49–52; 99, 453–5. MBh ii, 8, 333–6. Mat 273, 71–3.

c16.29

³ Vā 88, 174–5. Bḍ iii, 63, 173–4. Br 8, 80, 89. Hv 15, 815, 830–1. Lg i, 66, 24–5. Pad v, 8, 160–1 blunders over them. There were others besides, see Table of Genealogies in chap. XII.

c16.30

⁴ Br 13, 112–13. Hv 32, 1817–18.

c16.31

¹ See Vedic Index. ² For the kings here mentioned, where other references are not given, consult the Table of Genealogies in chap. XII, and for the brahmans, Vedic Index. ³ See chap. XVIII. ⁴ Anukramaṇī and Vedārth on Rigv ix, 65. Aitareya Brāhm iii, 34, 1. ⁵ Aitareya Brāhm vii, 5, 34. ⁶ Vā 33, 51-2. Bḍ ii, 14, 60-2. Lg i, 47, 20, 24. Viṣ ii, 1, 28, 32. ⁷ See chap. XVI: both called Uśanas also. ⁸ MBh vii, 37, 1605-8; 85, 3049; viii, 8, 237. Hv 119, 6724. Apparently in the Dekhan. ⁹ See genealogy, and MBh i, 122, 4737; 177, 6791. ¹⁰ MBh xii, 47, 1592.

c16.32

Moreover kings, princes, and brahmans had the same names as gods and mythological beings and heavenly bodies. There was a Varuṇa among the Vasiṣṭhas³ and among the Bhārgavas.⁴ Agni was the name of an Aurva rishi (p. 68) and of a maharṣi.⁵ Called Bharata were (1) the famous Paurava king, (2) Rāma's brother, and (3) a mythical king after whom (it is said) India was called Bhāratavarṣa.⁶ Aruṇa was the dawn, and two brahmans were so named. Śukra was the name of (1) the ancient Bhārgava rishi, (2) the planet Venus,⁷ and (3) Jābāla. Named Bali was an Ānava king and also the Daitya king Vairocana (p. 63). Rishis and others were named after deities; and heavenly bodies were called after rishis and others, such as the seven stars of the Great Bear and the star Canopus.

c16.33

Further, kings and brahmans sometimes had the same names as peoples and places. Thus there were a people called Aśmaka,⁸ yet it was also the name of a king of Ayodhyā⁹ and of a brahman.¹⁰ Aṅga was the name of a country and people (East Bihar), and of the king after whom it was said to have been called, and also of the reputed author (Aurava) of *Rigveda* x, 138. *Aja*, king of Ayodhyā, had the same name as a people. *Puṣkara* was the name of (1) a son of Rāma’s brother Bharata, (2) Nala’s brother in the ‘Story of Nala’, (3) a town, the modern Pokhar, (4) one of the mythical continents, and (5) many other persons. *Kuru*, the Paurava king, had the same name as the people, the northern Kurus who dwelt beyond the Himalayas. Such similarity in name must not confuse what is wholly different. Thus king Kuru had nothing to do with the northern Kurus, and to connect him with them merely because of their common name is on a par with saying that Aṅga Aurava mentioned above was an Aṅga; or that Aśmaka king of Ayodhyā was an Aśmaka; or that the brahman Kirāta was one of the rude Kirāta folk.

c16.34

There are no passages, as far as I know, that lend colour to any connexion between king Kuru’s descendants (the Kurus) and the northern Kurus, except perhaps two: one says that in the time of Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s and Pāṇḍu’s youth the southern Kurus rivalled the northern Kurus;¹ and the other says that, when the victorious Pāṇḍavas re-entered Hastināpura, flags waving in the wind displayed in a way (*iva*) the southern and northern Kurus.² The people of Hastināpura were not Kurus, but the name Kuru of the royal family was extended to their people and country according to a common Indian usage.³ Both passages occur in rhapsodies on the extraordinary happiness of the Kaurava kingdom at those times, and the similarity of name suggested the comparison of the Kurus (Kauravas) with the northern Kurus, a simple folk whose condition is portrayed as one of continual ideal bliss.⁴ The comparisons are merely happy poetic similes, and do not indicate racial identity.⁵ The adjective ‘northern’ was added to distinguish the Himalayan folk.

c16.35

¹ MBh i, 109, 4346.

c16.36

² MBh xiv, 70, 2053.

c16.37

³ So Gāndhāra; and Pañcāla (p. 75). Cf. our ‘Rhodesia’ and ‘Rhodesian’.

c16.38

⁴ Mat 105, 20; 113, 69–77. Pad i, 4, 2–11. Vā 45, 11 f. MBh i, 122, 4719–23: vi, 7, 254–66: xiii, 102, 4867–8. Rām iv, 43, 39–53. Lg i, 52, 19–23: &c.

c16.39

⁵ Further study has led me to cancel the remarks that I made in my Translation of the Mārkaṇḍeya, p. 345.

c16.40

Kings and brahmans also bore the names⁶ of animals, as Ṛkṣa, Ṛṣabha, Kuruṅga, and Vatsa; of birds, Śakuni, Haṃsa, Śuka, and Ulūka; of trees and plants, as Aśvattha, Plakṣa, Nala, and Muñja; of inanimate objects, as Śaṅkha, Dṛti, Aśman¹ and Droṇa; and even of ceremonies, as Aśvamedha: also of parts of the body, as Bāhu, Karṇa, Cakṣus; and of abstract ideas, as Śakti and Manyu.

c16.41

⁶ For most of the following names, see *Vedic Index*; also Sörensen’s *Index to the MBh*, and Table of Genealogies in chap. XII.

c16.42

¹ MBh xii, 28, 834–5.

c16.43

Further, not only was sameness of name common, but names of father and son sometimes recur; thus in the Paurava line there were two Parīkṣits with sons called Janamejaya. There is nothing improbable in such duplication, and it is less than has occurred in dynasties in other countries. Other instances are these. Śrutarvan Ārkṣa is praised in the Rigveda, and another is mentioned later as a contemporary of Kṛṣṇa.² There were two kings called Gaya son of Amūrtarayas (p. 40). There were two kings Karandhamas, one in the Vaiśāla dynasty and the other in Turvasu’s lineage.³ The former had a son Avīkṣit and a grandson, the famous Marutta; the latter had a son Marutta. They are sometimes confused.⁴ One Pratardana, son of Divodāsa, was king of Kāśi and is one of the reputed authors of Rigveda x, 179; while Pratardana Daivodāsi, the reputed author of ix, 96, appears to have been a descendant of Divodāsa, king of North Pañcāla.

c16.44

² Rigv viii, 74, 4, 13. Hv 119, 6725.

c16.45

³ Distinguished in Vā 99, 2: Bd iii, 74, 2: Br 13, 143: Hv 32, 1831.

c16.46

⁴ So Br 13, 144–5 and Hv 32, 1832–3, by interpolating two lines stating that the latter Marutta gave his daughter to the rishi Saṃvarta, whereas it was the former who did so. MBh xii, 234, 8602 makes the same mistake, but xiii, 137, 6260 corrects it. See chap. XIII.

c16.47

Purukutsa and his son Trasadasyu were kings of Ayodhyā. The Rigveda (iv, 42, 8, 9) mentions a king Trasadasyu, son of Purukutsa, who is a different and later person. The former Purukutsa was son of Māndhātṛ, as the Aikṣvāku genealogies show; the latter is called Daurgaha and Gairikṣita,⁵ ‘son or descendant of Durgaha and Girikṣit’. The former Trasadasyu was prior to Bharata as the synchronisms in chapter XIII show; the latter Trasadasyu was contemporary with Aśvamedha Bhārata⁶ and is praised by Sobhari Kāṇva;⁷ Aśvamedha was a descendant of Bharata, and the Kāṇvas sprang from Bharata’s descendant Ajamīḍha as will be shown in chapter XIX; hence the latter Trasadasyu was far later than the former. There were thus two Purukutsas with sons named Trasadasyu. Those of Ayodhyā were well known, as even the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa shows.¹ Those in the Rigveda were apparently Pūru kings ² and probably belonged to some minor dynasty descended from Bharata; and are unknown to kṣatriya fame. There was no Ikṣvāku line of Pūru princes.

c16.48

⁵ See Vedic Index, i, 231, 327.

c16.49

⁶ Rigv v, 27. These synchronisms are fully discussed in chap. XIV.

c16.50

⁷ Rigv viii, 19, 2, 36.

c16.51

¹ xiii, 5, 4, 5; which yet seems to confuse them. ² Vedic Index, i, 327. ³ If no references are given here, the names will be found in Sörensen's Index to the MBh, and in the Dictionary. ⁴ MBh i, 95, 3769, 3785, 3797. ⁵ Vadhryaśva's mother. The other, MBh iii, 57, 2237. ⁶ P. 69: and Vā 93, 14; Hv 30, 1601 : &c. Also Brahmadatta's queen according to Bhāg ix. 21, 25. ⁷ Mat 208, 10. ⁸ Mat 20, 26. Hv 23, 1261. ⁹ Manu iii, 9. Ag 243, 4. Pad vi, 223, 45. ¹⁰ Vā 88, 74. Bd iii, 63, 73. Br 7, 95-6. Hv 12, 714-15. Lg i, 65, 41-2. Kūr i, 20, 27-8. Śiv vii, 60, 79. Mat 12, 36 and Pad v, 8, 140, where for Narmadā-patiḥ read °pateḥ. ¹¹ Vā 91, 58-60. Bd iii, 66, 28-30. Hv 27, 1421-3; 32, 1761-2. Br 10, 19-20; 13, 87. ¹² Vā 99, 129. MBh i, 95, 3779-80 (identifying her with the river). Mat 49, 7 calls her Manasvinī. ¹³ So Rām i, 70, 33 : ii, 110, 20. ¹⁴ Hv 118, 6701. Vā 96, 234; &c.

c16.52

Similar remarks apply to queens and women as the following examples show.³ Sameness of name was common; thus, three queens in the Paurava dynasty are said to have had the name Sunandā; ⁴ there were two Indrasenās,⁵ two Satyavatīs (Ṛcīka's wife and Śantanu's queen), and many Mālinīs. Women had the names of animals and birds, as two Gos (Śukra's wife and Yati's wife),⁶ and Haṃsī; of plants or flowers, as Mālatī,⁷ Padminī and Kamalā; of inanimate objects, as Akṣamālā, Araṇi and Sītā; and also of abstract ideas, as Maryādā and Sannati.⁸

c16.53

Further, women had the same names as rivers, and this fact is proved by the injunction that a brahman should not marry a maiden having such a name.⁹ Thus the queen of king Purukutsa, son of Māndhātṛ, of Ayodhyā was named Narmadā;¹⁰ Yauvanaśva's (Māndhātṛ's) granddaughter Kāverī was wife of Jahnu, king of Kānyakubja;¹¹ Sarasvatī was queen of the Paurava king Matināra or Rantināra;¹² and Kālindī (= Yamunā) was the name of the wife of Asita (= Bāhu) king of Ayodhyā,¹³ and also of a wife of Kṛṣṇa.¹⁴ There were three queens named Dṛṣadvatī, (1) wife of a king of Ayodhyā,¹ (2) Viśvāmitra's queen,² and (3) wife of Divodāsa, king of Kāśī.³ Urvaśī was wife of Purūravas,⁴ and Urvaśī was also the original name of the Ganges.⁵ This sameness of name led to the identification of these women with the rivers, with sometimes a story to explain it—all obviously fanciful interpolations due to the desire to explain names (p. 75). So Narmadā is identified with the river (p. 69); and Kāverī because of Yuvanāśva's curse was turned into the river, which may mean either the large river in the south or the southern tributary of the Narbadā.⁶ The former is improbable because it is more than a thousand miles distant; and the latter is no doubt meant, because the princess Kāverī was daughter or niece of queen Narmadā. Similarly, the remark that Yuvanāśva cursed his wife Gaurī and she became the river Bāhudā⁷ is probably to be explained in a like way, though the connexion is wanting in the names as they stand.

c16.54

¹ Vā 88, 64; Bḍ iii, 63, 65; Hv 12, 709; Br 7, 90; all of which appear to identify her with the river. Śiv vii, 60, 73-4.

c16.55

² Vā 91, 103. Br 10, 67. Hv 27, 1473; 32, 1775. Bḍ iii, 66, 75.

c16.56

³ Vā 92, 64. Bḍ iii, 67, 67. Br 11, 49. Hv 29, 1586.

c16.57

⁴ MBh i, 75, 3149. Vā 91, 4. Mat 24, 32: &c.

c16.58

⁵ MBh vii, 60, 2254: xii, 29, 961.

c16.59

⁶ Mat 189, 2 f. Pad i, 16, 2 f. Kūr ii, 39, 40-1. JRAS, 1910, p. 868.

c16.60

⁷ Vā 88, 66. Bḍ iii, 63, 67. Br 7, 91. Hv 12, 710. Śiv vii, 60, 75.

c16.61

Again, women had the same names as stars or constellations; thus there were two Rohiṇīs (one wife of Vasudeva,⁸ and the other wife of Kṛṣṇa⁹), several Revatīs (Balarāma's wife and others), a Citrā,¹⁰ and Rādhā; hence Arundhatī,¹¹ wife of a Vasiṣṭha,¹² may not perhaps be mythical. Moreover, women had the same names as mythological persons, such as apsarases; thus Vadhryaśva's queen in the North Pañcāla dynasty was Menakā,¹³ the queen of Tṛṇabindu of the Vaiśāla dynasty was Alambuṣā,¹⁴ and the Paurava Raudrāśva's queen was Ghṛtācī.¹⁵ The last two are called apsarases, but Vadhryaśva’s queen was certainly not an apsaras, and the sameness of name no doubt suggested that Ghṛtācī and Alambuṣā were apsarases.¹

c16.62

⁸ Vā 96, 160-1. Br 14, 36: &c.

c16.63

⁹ Vā 96, 233. Hv 118, 6701: &c.

c16.64

¹⁰ Name of Subhadrā, Hv 36, 1952.

c16.65

¹¹ The star Alcor in the Great Bear is called Arundhatī.

c16.66

¹² MBh i, 199, 7352. Vā 70, 83. Mat 201, 30.

c16.67

¹³ Vā 99, 200. Hv 32, 1783. Mat 50, 7.

c16.68

¹⁴ Gar i, 138, 11. Viṣ iv, 1, 18 and Bhāg ix, 2, 31, which identify her with the apsaras. Rām i, 47, 12 inaccurately.

c16.69

¹⁵ Vā 99, 123. Hv 31, 1658. Mat 49, 4. Bhāg ix, 20, 5. Another Ghṛtācī (MBh i, 5, 871: xiii, 30, 2004) and the wife of a Vasiṣṭha (chap. XVIII); neither was an apsaras.

c16.70

¹ Bharata’s mother Śakuntalā is absurdly called an apsaras, Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xiii, 5, 4, 13.

c16.71

Such similarities were nothing uncommon. Manu iii, 9 gives the plainest proof that such names did really occur, for he says a brahman should not marry a maiden who bore the name of a constellation, tree or river, of a low caste, of a mountain, of a bird, snake or slave, or of anything terrifying. Women then had such names, and so also had men; and the instances cited show that the range of names was wider than what Manu prohibits. In such conditions there was every chance of mistaking the application of names, confounding different persons of the same name,² confusing persons with things, devising fanciful explanations and fabricating mythology. Some illustrations of these tendencies have been given above, as the identifications of queens with rivers; and others occur, as where Vyāsa’s wife Araṇi is turned into the piece of wood used for kindling fire, and so their son Śuka was born therefrom.³

c16.72

² So Nahuṣa in Rigv i, 122 is different from Nahuṣa, father of Yayāti, as will be shown in connexion with Pajriya Kakṣīvant in chap. XIX.

c16.73

³ So MBh xii, 326, 12192–6, which is brahmanical.

c16.74

It is quite permissible therefore to suspect similar fancies in other cases. For instance, Bhīṣma is often called Gāṅgeya,⁴ Jāhnavī’s son⁵ and Bhāgīrathī’s son,⁶ and a fable is narrated that he was begotten by king Santanu of the river Ganges.⁷ It is not euhemerism to suggest that his mother had the name Gaṅgā⁸ or the patronymic Jāhnavī⁹ or Bhāgīrathī,¹⁰ that tradition forgot her, and that fancy then confused her with and finally superseded her by the river. Again, it is said that king Gādhi of Kānyakubja was an incarnation of Indra, and the story suggests that the truth was he had also the name Indra or one of its synonyms such as Purandara.¹¹

c16.75

⁴ MBh i, 99, 3965: iv, 64, 2078: v, 186, 7307: &c.

c16.76

⁵ MBh v, 177, 7015: vi, 122, 5746.

c16.77

⁶ MBh xiii, 139, 6294: xiv, 2, 24.

c16.78

⁷ MBh i, 97, 3889 to 100, 4006: xii, 37, 1351.

c16.79

⁸ This was a feminine name, see the Dictionary.

c16.80

⁹ MBh xiii, 84, 3942.

c16.81

¹⁰ MBh v, 186, 7317. A woman’s name, Br 136, 3.

c16.82

¹¹ MBh xii, 49, 1718–20. Vā 91, 63–5. Bd iii, 66, 33–5. Br 10, 24–7; 13, 90–1, Hv 27, 1426–9; 32, 1764–5. Vedārth, introduction to Rigv iii.

c16.83

The same was alleged of king Vikukṣi of Ayodhyā, because probably he had also the name Devarāj.¹ Otherwise there appears to be no reason why those two kings should have received that distinction. Further examples will be found in the following pages and especially among the Vasiṣṭhas in chapter XVIII.

c16.84

¹ Mat 12, 26.

c16.85

These examples and those in chapter V show how the misunderstanding of names and the desire to explain them led to the fabrication of fanciful tales and mythology. Indeed a great deal of the mythology is no doubt the work of brahmans who lacked the historical sense and mistook facts, and it is not euhemerism to look in that direction for the origin of silly stories and mythology connected with persons.

c16.86

On the other hand, names may not be explained as eponymous or personifications without more ado (p. 13). Thus countries are said sometimes to have been named after kings, such as Gāndhāra,² Ānarta,³ and Sauvīra;⁴ and similarly towns, such as Śrāvastī,⁵ Hastināpura⁶ and Vaiśālī⁷ from the kings who founded them. To assert that such kings are merely eponymous is to disregard the evidence supplied by many countries and all times. One might equally assert that Alexander, Seleucus and Constantine were merely eponymous heroes of Alexandria, Seleucia and Constantinople; or that Columbus, Tasman and Rhodes were mythical persons invented to account for Columbia, Tasmania and Rhodesia. It has been a universal practice to name countries, towns, mountains and rivers, especially in newly developed regions, after discoverers, conquerors, founders and celebrated men, and the same method must have been adopted by the Aryans who conquered North India and founded new kingdoms and towns there.

c16.87

² Vā 99, 9. Hv 32, 1839. Mat 48, 7, Bḍ iii, 74, 9. Br 13, 150-1.

c16.88

³ Mat 12, 22. Vā 86, 24. Hv 10, 644: &c.

c16.89

⁴ Vā 99, 23-4. Mat 48, 19-20. Hv 31, 1680-1.

c16.90

⁵ Vā 88, 27. Mat 12, 30. Hv 11, 670: &c.

c16.91

⁶ MBh i, 95, 3787. Mat 49, 42. Vā 99, 165: &c.

c16.92

⁷ Vā 86, 17. Bḍ iii, 61, 12. Viṣ iv, 1, 18.

Linked texts (23)