________________
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[Vol. VI.
at Humcha and other places in that neighbourhood, that eventually a fall Puranic genealogy and legendary history of the usual kind were duly invented for the Gangas of Mysore. But the Puranic element does not figure in the genealogy given in the spurious grants, with which I was dealing. And I treated that genealogy simply as what it is, namely a fictitious genealogy of & pretended historical kind; calling it specifically on one occasioni "the pretended historical genealogy of the Western Gangas." That I, naturally, treated the invention of it in connection with the invention of some of the Puranic genealogies, is no reason for saying that I stamped it as Puråņic. And I did not do so.
In the second place, as regards the extraordinary sentence which Mr. Rice has put, by the use of inverted commas, into my mouth, - no such sentence has ever been written by me; nor has anything ever been written by me, that could justify my statements being represented in that form. The sentence is founded upon words which were actually used by me. But it has been made up by Mr. Rice himself, from garbled extracts from different sentences written by me on different occasions. And my reference to the Pallava Purânic genealogy was made in a way very different from that in which it has been presented by Mr. Rice.
In 1894, in the remarks which, in particular, Mr. Rice was attacking in 1898, I made no mention at all of the Pallava Puranic genealogy; and I wrote: “The Puranic genealogy of "the R&shtrakūtas makes its first appearance in the Sangli grant of A.D. 933. The Purânic "genealogy of the Chalukyas presents itself first in the Korumelli grant of shortly after "A.D. 1022. The Chôļa Purâņic genealogy is, apparently, first met with in the Kalingattu“Parani, which was composed in the reign of the Eastern Chalukya king Kulôttunga-Chôdadêva "1. (A.D. 1063 to 1112). And the Purâņic genealogy of the Eastern Gangas of Kalinganagara “is first made known by a grant of A.D. 1118-19." I plainly put forward each date as the date at which we first come across each genealogy, and not as the date of its actual invention. And it should be obvious to anyone that the genealogies must have existed for some appreciable time, before they could be actually quoted in records.
So much I wrote in 1894, adding the opinion, from the Lakshmêshwar inscription, that, in the time of Noļambântaka-Marasimha II., the Western Gangas followed the general example that had thus been set, and that their genealogy, as put forward in the spurious grants, was probably invented closely about A.D. 968-69. Subsequently, in 1895 or 1896, in my account of the Pallavas, I wrote - "In their records, the Pallavas claim to belong to the Bharadvaja "gôtra. Some of the records give them a regular Puranic genealogy which appears first in the "seventh century A.D." And at this place I made no reference at all to any of the other genealogies. Further on in the same work, I had occasion to give a full notice of the legendary history, including the Puråņic genealogy, of the Chalukyas, taken, in its final and most complete shape, from a record of the period A.D. 1022 to 1063. And to this I attached the following note, the first part of which does little more than recapitulate what I had said in 1894,-“The Puråņic genealogy of the Rashtrakůțas makes its first appearance in the Sângli " grant of A.D. 933. The pretended historical genealogy of the Western Gangas may have been “concocted a little earlier, but was more probably devised about A.D. 950. The Chola Purâņic
Dys. Kan. Distrs. p. 342, note 1. • See Bp. Cars, Vol. IV. Introd. p. 6, para. 3, the last three lines. : Above, Vol. III. p. 171 f.
• Dun. Kam. Distrs. p. 316.-I say I wrote this "in 1895 or 1896," for the following reason. The date of a remark must be, ordinarily, the date of the publication of it. The last of the proof-sheets of my Dynasties were passed by me, for printing, in September, 1895. And the title-page was among them. It naturally was dated 1895. And that is the date that appears on the title-page of the very few separate copies that were struck off. Nevertheless, and though I expressly gave instructions that uniformity was to be observed, the date was changed, without my being consulted, to 1896, in the title-page as issued in the Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. I. Part II after page 276,- appareatly because that volume was not issued till 1896. Dyn. Kan. Distrs. p. 336 ff.
• 1d. p. 342, note 1.
