Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c24.s1: Kāṇvas or Kāṇvāyanas

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c24.s1

Language
English

Kāṇvas or Kāṇvāyanas

c24.s1.1

Among the Āṅgirasas were the Kāṇvas,³ and they were an offshoot from the Paurava line, as all the authorities agree, but two distinct points are assigned for their branching off in two different accounts. Both accounts say, Kaṇva had a son Medhātithi, and from Medhātithi were descended the Kāṇvāyanas who were brahmans. One account says, Kaṇva was son of Apratiratha (or Pratiratha), one of the sons of king Matināra (or Rantināra, p. 144) : but the other makes Kaṇva son of Ajamīḍha, a king who was Martināra’s successor by some 32 generations. This difference involves a great discrepancy as to the time when Kaṇva lived. Both origins can hardly be true, for it is difficult to believe that Kāṇvas started from ‘Medhātithi son of Kaṇva’ twice over many generations apart, that is, the double origin of a single brahman family from two persons ages apart. A gotra called Kāṇvas is named among the Vasiṣṭhas,⁴ but, even assuming that that unique mention is correct, that gotra appears unknown otherwise; and the above two accounts undoubtedly refer to one and the same family of Kāṇvas.

c24.s1.2

³ Vā 99, 199. Mat 50, 5. Hv 32, 1782.

c24.s1.3

⁴ Mat 200, 9.

c24.s1.4

The earlier origin is given by the Vāyu, Harivaṃśa, Viṣṇu and Bhāgavata.¹ The Agni mentions Pratiratha, Kaṇva and Medhātithi, and the Garuḍa makes Medhātithi son of Pratiratha,² but neither say anything about Kāṇvāyanas, and so do not assert that the Kāṇvāyanas began at this point.

c24.s1.5

¹ Vā 99, 130-1, misreading Kantha and Kāṇthāyana here as also elsewhere (e. g. verses 199, 344, 346):—

c24.s1.6

² Ag 277, 5. Gar 140, 4.

c24.s1.7

The later origin from Ajamīḍha is given by the Vāyu, Matsya, Viṣṇu and Garuḍa,³ which are all in agreement, while the Bhāgavata⁴ derives from him the Priyamedhas instead, who also were Āṅgirasas.⁵

c24.s1.8

³ Mat 49, 46-7 and Vā 99, 169-70 (which here also misreads Kantha and Kāṇthāyana):—

c24.s1.9

⁴ Bhāg ix, 21, 21:—

c24.s1.10

⁵ Anukramaṇī on Rigv viii, 2.

c24.s1.11

The Harivaṃśa, Brahma and Agni make Jahnu son of Ajamīḍha and Keśinī, and so substitute the Kānyakubja dynasty for the Kāṇvāyanas, and this is clearly wrong (pp. 99 f.). Their false substitution here shows that they have ousted some other line of descendants, and the only other line at this point mentioned anywhere is the Kāṇvāyana family, hence the inference is that it originated here. The Bhāgavata moreover in giving Praskaṇva the earlier origin is clearly wrong, because Praskaṇva Kaṇva was not earlier than Sudās of N. Pañcāla,⁶ and therefore was long posterior to the time it assigns him. Of the four Puranas therefore which assert the earlier origin, the Bhāgavata is wrong, the

c24.s1.12

⁶ Rigv i, 47, 2, 5, 6 (attributed to him): 45, 3-5, which show he was later than Priyamedha.

c24.s1.13

dhuryo 'pratirathasyâpi Kaṇvas tasyâbhavat sutaḥ
Medhātithiḥ sutas tasya yasmāt Kāṇvāyanā dvijāḥ.

c24.s1.14

Dhurya appears to be an adjective, but even if a name does not affect this question. Viṣ iv, 19, 2 agrees closely. Hv 32, 1718 says—

c24.s1.15

putraḥ Pratirathasyâsit Kaṇvaḥ samabhavan nṛpaḥ
Medhātithiḥ sutas tasya yasmāt Kaṇvo 'bhavad dvijaḥ.

c24.s1.16

Bhāg ix, 20, 6-7:—

c24.s1.17

Kaṇvo 'pratirathâtmajaḥ
tasya Medhātithis tasmāt Praskaṇvâdyā dvijātayaḥ

c24.s1.18

which is equivalent, for Praskaṇva was a Kāṇva.

c24.s1.19

Ajamīḍhasya Keśinyāṃ Kaṇvaḥ samabhavat kila
Medhātithiḥ sutas tasya tasmāt Kāṇvāyanā dvijāḥ.

c24.s1.20

Similarly Viṣ iv, 19, 10 and Gar 140, 9.

c24.s1.21

Ajamīḍhasya vaṃśyāḥ syuḥ Priyamedhâdayo dvijāḥ.

c24.s1.22

Harivamśa highly suspect because of its untrue substitution of the Kānyakubja dynasty at the later point, and the Vāyu and Viṣṇu give both accounts and therefore stultify themselves. The weight of authority then is in favour of the later origin.

c24.s1.23

Next, there appears to be nothing to show that the Kāṇvas existed before Ajamīḍha. A Kaṇva is mentioned in Duṣyanta's time. He adopted Śakuntalā, and Duṣyanta met her in his hermitage and married her, but this Kaṇva is expressly called a Kāśyapa (see next chapter), and so could not be a member of the Kāṇvas, who were Āṅgirasas. Kaṇva was his personal name. There is no other mention of any Kaṇva before Ajamīḍha. On the other hand there were many Kāṇvas after him, as the Rigveda shows. By the group of synchronisms at page 163, Sobhari Kāṇva's position has been fixed, and (accepting the Anukramaṇī's ascriptions of authorship) there are the following indications: Pragātha Kāṇva was contemporary with Durgaha's grandsons,¹ and so the positions of his father Ghora, brother Kaṇva and three sons are fixed; Pṛṣadhra Kāṇva was contemporary with Dasyavevṛka;² and Praskaṇva has been noticed above. Through Kakṣīvant Pajriya (ante) can be placed Devātithi Kāṇva,³ Vatsa Kāṇva,⁴ Sadhvaṃśa Kāṇva (who was later than Trasadasyu)⁵ and Medhātithi Kāṇva⁶—all later than Ajamīḍha.

c24.s1.24

¹ Rigv viii, 65, 12. Bṛhadd vi, 35–9.

c24.s1.25

² Rigv viii, 56, 1, 2.

c24.s1.26

³ Id. viii, 4, 17.

c24.s1.27

⁴ Id. viii, 6, 47.

c24.s1.28

⁵ Id. viii, 8, 4, 7, 8, &c.

c24.s1.29

⁶ Id. i, 18, 1. Medhātithi II?

c24.s1.30

It is clear that the Kāṇvas sprang from Ajamīḍha⁷ and not from Matināra's son Apratiratha, and this accords with the fact that both just before and after Ajamīḍha the Paurava line threw off branches which became brahmans, as will be explained in chapter XXIII. The erroneous earlier origin may perhaps be explained by the Harivamśa text. It says Apratiratha's son was Kaṇva, a king, and quite possibly there was a junior king Kaṇva then, and afterwards the second line—

c24.s1.31

⁷ 'Ajamīḍha' is named among the Āṅgirasas, Mat 196, 47.

c24.s1.32

Medhātithiḥ sutas tasya yasmāt Kāṇvāyanā dvijāḥ

c24.s1.33

which is found generally in both accounts and belongs properly to the second, was mistakenly added to the first, especially when Jahnu was foisted in as a son of Ajamīḍha and ousted the Kāṇvāyanas from their proper place. The Kāṇvas thus belonged to the period of the N. Pañcāla dynasty (pp. 146, 148), and various Kāṇva rishis are named in connexion with Rigvedic hymns. The position of one, Sobhari, has been fixed as mentioned. Others were earlier and later, as noticed above, and the positions of others can be perceived in a general way through allusions to kings, to themselves and to other persons, but can hardly be particularized.¹

c24.s1.34

¹ MBh, see Sörensen, where Kāṇva Kāśyapa (ante) must be distinguished. In fables, Br 85; 148.

Linked texts (10)