Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c17.s2.43

c17.s2.43

This footnote cannot afford space for an exhaustive review of the dissertation of Mr. Chaṭṭopādhyāya. Nor is it concerned with theories and speculations about social organisation based on 'mother right or father right', cross-cousin marriage in general, and royal successions, that are not germane to the discussion about the Sātavāhana dynasty. We shall try to confine ourselves to the points that are really relevant to an enquiry about that illustrious line itself. *A study of the Purāṇic lists analysed by Pargiter (Dynasties of the Kali Age, pp. 35ff.) would show that the discrepancies in the Purāṇic lists are not capable of as simple a solution as that proposed by Mr. Chaṭṭopādhyāya. It cannot be said, for example, that Gautamīputra (No. 23) is mentioned in all Matsya texts and retained in all Vāyu MSS., and that his son Pulumāvi (No. 24) of the so-called "Vāsiṣṭhīputra group" is always mentioned in the Matsya and omitted only in "later revised versions" of the Vāyu, etc.* Gautamīputra is omitted in *Matsya* MSS., styled *e, k* and *l* by Pargiter (p. 36), and also in the *e Vāyu* MSS., while his son Pulumāvi is omitted in *Matsya e, f* and *l* MSS. but mentioned in the *Viṣṇu* and *Bhāgavata* lists, *notwithstanding the activities of the so-called revisers.* The *theory of succession of sisters' sons in the so-called revised list of the Vāyu, Brahmāṇḍa, etc., is clearly negatived by numerous passages where a* but merely Āndhra-bhṛityas, servants of the Āndhras,