Rajput 10: The dynasties that succeeded Rama and Krishna--B
This page is an extract from OR THE CENTRAL AND WESTERN By Edited with an Introduction and Notes by In Three Volumes HUMPHREY MILFORD |
Note: This article is likely to contain several spelling mistakes that occurred during scanning. If these errors are reported as messages to the Facebook page, Indpaedia.com your help will be gratefully acknowledged.
Contents |
Rajput 10: The dynasties that succeeded Rama and Krishna—B
Jarasandha
The remaining line, that of Jarasandha, taken from the Bhagavat, is of considerable importance, and will afford scope for further speculation. Jarasandha was the monarch of Rajagriha,3 or Bihar, whose son Sahadeva, and grandson Marjari, are declared to have been contemporaries of the Mahabharata, and consequently coeval with Parikshita, the Delhi sovereign.
The direct line of Jarasandha terminates in twenty-three descents with Ripunjaya, who was slain, and his throne assumed by his minister, Sanaka, whose dynasty terminated in the fifth generation with Nandivardandhana. Sanaka derived no personal advantage from his usurpation, as he immediately placed his son, Pradyota, on the throne. To these five princes one hundred and thirty-eight years are assigned.
A new race entered Hindustan, led by a conqueror termed Sheshnag, from Sheshnagdesa,4 who ascended the Pandu throne, 1 Many of its early princes were killed in battle ; and the present prince's father succeeded his own nephew, which was retrograding. 2 The historians sanction the propriety of these changes, in their remarks, that the deposed were " deficient in [capacity for] the cares and duties of government." 3 Rajagriha, or Rajmahal, capital of Magadhades, or Bihar. [In Patna district, lGI, xxi. 72.] 4 Figuratively, the country of the ' head of the Snakes ' ; Nag, Talc, or Takshak, being synonymous : and which I conclude to be the abode of the ancient Scythic Tachari of Strabo, the Tak-i-uks of the Chinese, the Tajiks of the present day of Turkistan. This race appears to be the same with that of the Turushka (of the Puranas), who ruled on the Arvarma (the Araxes), in Sakadwipa, or Scythia. [This is a confused reference to the Saisunaga dynasty, which took its name from its founder, Sisunaga, and comprised roughly the present Patna and Gaya districts, its capital being and whose line terminates in ten descents with Mahanandin, of spurious birth. This last prince, who was also named Baikyat, carried on an exterminating warfare against the ancient Rajput princes of pure blood, the Puranas declaring that since the dynasty of Sheshnag the princes were Sudras. Three hundred and sixty years are allotted to these ten princes.
Chandragupta Maurya
A fourth dynasty commenced with Chandragupta Maurya, of the same Takshak race.1 The Maurya dynasty consisted of ten princes, who are stated to have passed away in one hundred and thirty-seven years. [322-185 B.C.]
Sunga, Kanva Dynasties
The fifth dynasty of eight princes were from Sringides, and are said to have ruled one hundred and twelve years, when a prince of Kanvades deprived the last of life and kingdom. Of these eight princes, four were of pure blood, when Kistna, by a Sudra woman, succeeded. The dynasty of Kanvades terminates in twenty-three generations with Sus- Arman2 [54].
Recapitulation
Thus from the Great War six successive dynasties are given, presenting a continuous chain of eighty-two princes, reckoning from Sahadeva, the successor of Jarasandha, to Susarman.
To some of the short dynasties periods are assigned of moderate length : but as the first and last are without such data, the test Rajagriha ; the modern Rajglr-Sisunaga means ' a young elephant,' and has no connexion with Sheshnag, the serpent king (Vishnu Purana, 466 f. ; Smith, EHI, 31).]
1 [Chandragupta Maurya was certainly not a " Takshak " : he was probably " an illegitimate scion of the Nanda family " (Smith, EHI, 42).] 2 Mr. Bentley ('On the Hindu System of Astronomy,' As. Res. vol. viii. pp. 236-7) states that the astronomer, Brahmagupta, flourished about A.D. 527, or of Vikrama 583, shortly preceding the reign of Susarman ; that he was the founder of the system called the Kalpa of Brahma, on which the present Hindu chronology is founded, and to which Mr. Bentley says their historical data was transferred. This would strengthen my calculations ; but the weight of Mr. Bentley's authority has been much weakened by his unwarrantable attack on Mr. Colebrooke, whose extent of knowledge is of double value from his entire aversion to hypothesis. [The Sunga dynasty, founded by Pushyamitra, about 185 B.C., lasted till about 73 B.C., when the tenth king, Devabhuti, was slain by his Brahman minister, Vasudeva, who founded the Kanva dynasty. He was followed by three kings, and the dynasty lasted only forty-five years, the last member of it being slain, about 28 B.C., by a king of the Andhra or Satavahana dynasty, then reigning in the Deccan. For the scanty details see Smith, EHI, 198 ff.]
already decided on must be applied ; which will yield 1704 years,
being six hundred and four after Vikramaditya, whose contem porary will thus be Basdeva, the fifty-fifth prince from Sahadeva of the sixth dynasty, said to be a conqueror from the country of Katehr [or Rohilkhand]. If these calculations possess any value, the genealogies of the Bhagavat are brought down to the close of the fifth century following Vikramaditya. As we cannot admit the gift of prophecy to the compilers of these books, we may infer that they remodelled their ancient chronicles during the reign of Susarman, about the year of Vikrama 600, or a.d. 546.
With regard to calculations already adduced, as to the average number of years for the reigns of the foregoing dynasties, a com- parison with those which history affords of other parts of the world will supply the best criterion of the correctness of the assumed data.
From the revolt of the ten tribes against Rehoboam 1 to the capture of Jerusalem, a period of three hundred and eighty-seven years, twenty kings sat on the throne of Judah, making each reign nineteen and a half years ; but if we include the three anterior reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon, prior to the revolt, the result will be twenty-six and a half years each.
From the dismemberment of the Assjrrian 2 empire under Sardanapalus, nearly nine hundred years before Christ, the three consequent confluent dynasties of Babylonia, Assyria, and Media afford very different results for comparison.
The Assyrian preserves the medium, while the Babylonish and Median run into extremes. Of the nine princes who swayed Babylon, from the period of its separation from, till its reunion to Assyria, a space of fifty-two years, Darius, who ruled Media sixty [thirty-six] years [55], outlived the whole. Of the line of Darius there were but six princes, from the separation of the kingdoms to their reunion imder Cyrus, a period of one hundred and seventy-four years, or twenty-nine to each reign.
The Assyrian reigns form a juster medium. From Nebuchad- nezzar to Sardanapalus we have twenty-two years to a reign ; but from thence to the extinction of this dynasty, eighteen. The first eleven kings, the Heraclidae of Laced aemon, com 1 987 years before Christ. 2 For these and the following dates I am indebted to Goguet's chrono- logical tables in his Origin of Laws.
mencing with Eurysthenes (1078 before Christ), average thirty- two years ; while in repubhcan Athens, nearly contemporary, from the first perpetual archon until the office became decennial in the seventh Olympiad, the reigns of the twelve chief magis- trates average twenty-eight years and a half.
Thus we have three periods, Jewish, Spartan, and Athenian, each commencing about eleven hundred years before Christ, not half a century remote from the Mahabharata ; with those of Babylonia, Assyria, and Media, commencing where we quit the Grecian, in the eighth century before the Christian era, the Jewish ending in the sixth century.
However short, compared with our Solar and Lunar dynasties, yet these, combined with the average reigns of existing Hindu dynasties, will aid the judgment in estimating the periods to be assigned to the lines thus afforded, instead of following the improb able value attached by the Brahmans.
From such data, longevity appears in unison with climate and simplicity of life : the Spartan yielding the maximum of thirty- two to a reign, while the more luxurious Athens gives twenty- eight and a half. The Jews, from Saul t6 their exile " to the waters of Babylon," twenty-six and a half. The Medes equal the Lace daemonians, and in all history can only be paralleled by the princes of Anhilwara, one of whom, Chawand, almost equalled Darius.1 Of the separated ten tribes, from the revolt to the captivity, twenty kings of Israel passed away in two centuries, or ten years eacli.
The Spartan and Assyrian present the extremes of thirty-two and eighteen, giving a medium of twenty-five years to a reign. The average result of our four Hindu dynasties, in a period of nearly seven hundred years, is twenty-two years. From all which data, I would presume to assign from twenty to twenty- two years to each reign in lines of fifty princes [56].
If the value thus obtained be satisfactory, and the lines of dynasties derived from so many authorities correct, we shall arrive at the same conclusion with Mr. Bentley ; who, by the more philosophical process of astronomical and genealogical 1 [It is not clear to whom the author refers ; Chamunda Chavada (A.D. 880-908): or Chamunda Chauhikya (a.d. 997-1010),( P,G, i. Part i. 151, 162).]
combination, places Yudhishthira's era in the year 2825 of the world ; which being taken from 4004 (the world's age at the birth of Christ) will leave 1179 before Christ for Yudhishthira's era, or 1123 before Vikramaditya.1
