History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c90.97.2

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.