History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c90.97
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c90.97
- Language
- English
v7.c90.97.1
Some remarks on the important conclusions of Pargiter and Kirfel are necessary. Pargiter tries to construct history from the earliest times to the Bhārata war which he holds to have taken place about 950 B. C. (AIHT, chap. 15 p 182). He holds that there were two traditions in ancient India, viz. the Kṣatriya tradition and the Brāhmaṇa tradition (AIHT, chap. 5 pp. 58-77). He harps dozens of times on the utter lack of the historic sense among the brāhmaṇas in his work (AIHT), holds that the Purāṇas represent the kṣatriya tradition, that there were three racial stocks, viz. the Mānavas (or Mānvas as he styles them), the Ailas and the Saudyumnas, that respectively represent the Dravidian, the Aryan and Munda (AIHT chap. 25 pp. 289-302), that the Purāṇas are Sanskritizations of works in Prakrit (pp. X-XI) of 'Dynasties of the Kali age'. His date for the Mahābhārata war has not been accepted by later scholars, since his handling of that subject is not judicial, objective or straightforward, but relies too much on his own prejudices and on averages. In his 'Purāṇa texts of the dynasties of the Kali age (pp. 58, 74) he appears to favour the view that the Bhārata war was fought 1050 years before the Nandas i. e. about 1475 B. C. The mss. and the printed Purāṇas give four different periods between the birth of Parīkṣit¹³⁷⁶ and the crowning of Nanda, viz 1015 years (Viṣṇu), 1050 years (Vāyu, Brahmāṇḍa and mss of Matsya), 1115 years (Bhāgavata), 1500 years (some mss.
v7.c90.97.2
of Viṣṇu and of Matsya). Pargiter himself argues forcefully for the trustworthiness of tradition and Paurāṇika genealogies in R G. Bhandarkar Presentation volume pp. 107-113 and in AIHT chap. X. p. 119-125 Besides, there is the common experience that the total number of years between one well-known event and another can be easily remembered and handed down even orally for hundreds of years, while handing down hundreds of royal names is a difficult matter and some names may easily drop out. Moreover, the Matsya, Brahmāṇḍa and Vāyu themselves say that they ¹³⁷⁷ mention only the prominent kings of the Ikṣvāku line and the Bṛhadratha line ¹³⁷⁸ and even as to the Paurava ¹³⁷⁹ line it is clear that that dynasty had many names not all of which are enumerated. There is therefore every possibility that some kings dropped out even in later genealogies also (as for example Matsya 213. 16, saying that Āndhras were 29 and Vāyu 99 357 saying they were 30). Merely counting the total of the kings actually named in the Purāṇas would not convey a quite accurate idea of the total length of years during which that dynasty ruled. Bearing in mind the two matters (viz. trustworthiness of tradition and Paurāṇika genealogies and the ease of remembering the time distance between two well-known events) he should have endeavoured to find out the age of the Bhārata War.
v7.c90.97.3
He brushes aside the statement of the period between Parīkṣit and Nanda as unreliable simply on the ground (which appears to me flimsy) that the figures (1015, 1050) are discrepant (A. I. H. T. p. 180). In almost all passages of the Purāṇas there is some discrepancy or other. Therefore, he should have made an endeavour to find out which one of the three periods (1015, 1050, 1500) is supported by the best and oldest mss. and should have stuck to them, particularly when the Sanskrit equivalents of the three periods (*pañcadaśa*, *pañcāśat* and *pañcaśata*) are so much alike that scribes might easily have been confused and made their own readings. Even taking the least period of (1015) years, the Mahābhārata War would have to be placed at about 1440 B. C. (adding 1015 to the date of Nanda's enthronement, viz. about 425 B. C.). Most Western writers and Prof. S. N. Pradhan (in 'Chronology of ancient India', Calcutta 1927, pp. 249ff) find fault with Paurāṇika statements and brush them aside as practically worthless. Prof. Pradhan takes the kings actually named in the three lines, holds that 28 years are the average reign period of each and multiplying the number of kings by 28 arrives at the conclusion that the Mahābhārata war was fought about 1150 B.C. It is not possible to deal at length with his arguments. But he ignores the express words of the Purāṇas that they enumerate only the *principal* or *important* kings.
v7.c90.97.4
Besides, there are scholars like Pargiter who regard 17 or 18 years as the average reign of a king in other countries (and in India also). The author cannot accept Prof. Pradhan's reasoning. Most Western writers are loth to assign old dates to matters Indian. Pargiter is no exception. Instead of straightforwardly accepting one of the three periods that was strongly supported by mss. he indulges in some devices that appear like tricks of jugglery (A. I. H. T. pp 180-183). His method requires some explanation and examination.