Indian Antiquary Vol 18

Author(s): John Faithfull Fleet, Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 77

MARCH, 1889.)
EXTRACTS FROM THE RAJATARAMGINI.
65
EXTRACTS FROM KALHANA'S RAJATARAMGINI.
BY E. HULTZSCH, PH.D.; BANGALORE.
No. 1.-EXTRACTS FROM THE FIRST TARAMGA. MHE Rajataramgint, or River of Kings, of Kalhana, has always attracted a great deal of
I attention, partly because it is the only historical work of its kind in the Sanskrit language, but more especially because it claims to give a consecutive account of the Kings of Kasmir from almost the very earliest times.
Until recent years, however, the text of it has been available to us only in the not very accurate editions published — at Calcutta, in 1835, by the Pandits of the Bengal Asiatic Society, containing the whole eight Taramgas; with the Doitiyá Rájatarargimi of Jônarâja; the Tritiya Juina-Rájatarangini of Srivara pandita, a pupil of Jônarâja ; the Rajavali-Patáká, or Chaturthi Rajatarasigint, of Prajyabhatta ; and the Rajatarangiņa-Sangraha :- and at Paris, in 1840, by M. Troyer, containing the first six Taramgas of the Rijatarangini itself.
As regards translations, in 1825, in the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV. pp. 1 to 119, in his "Essay on the Hindu History of Cashmir," Prof. H. H. Wilson gave an abstract account of . the contents of Taramgas i. to vi. In 1852, M. Troyer completed a French Translation of the whole eight Taramgas. Prof. Lassen has given an analysis of the entire work in his Indische Alterthumskunde, Vol. II. And in 1879 and 1887, Jogesh Chunder Dutt published at Calcutta an English translation of Kalbaņa's work, which is at least useful in helping to facilitate references to the original text.
And, in the matter of the adjustment of Kalhana's chronology, Prof. H. H. Wilson considered the subject in the remarks attached to his abstract account; and Gen. Sir A. Cunningham has dealt with it in 1843, in his paper on "The Ancient Coinage of Kaśmir," in the Numismatic Chronicle, Vol. VI. pp. 1 to 38. Bat no very satisfactory results, at least for the earlier period, have as yet been attained. As good an illastration of this as can be wished for, is to be found in connection with king Mihirakula. His initial date, as deduced from the Rájataraingini itself, is Kaliyaga-Samvat 2397 expired, or B. C. 704 ; and the end of his reign, seventy years later. Prof. H. H. Wilson brought him down to B. C. 200 (loc. cit. p. 81). And Gen. Sir A. Cunningham arrived at the conclusion that he should be placed in A.D. 163 (loc. cit. p. 18). With the help, however, of newly discovered inscripcions, which are the only really safe guide, Mr. Fleet (ante, Vol. XV. p. 252) has now shewn that his true date was in the beginning of the sixth century A.D.; that as nearly as possible the commencement of his career was in A.D. 515; and that A.D. 530, or very soon after, was the year in which his power in India was overthrown, after which he proceeded to Kasmir and established himself there. This illustrates very pointedly the extent of the adjustments that will have to be made in Kalhana's earlier details; and furnishes us with a definite point from which the chronology may be regulated backwards and forwards for a considerable time. A similar earlier point is provided by Kalhana's mention, in Taranga i. verse 168, of the Turushka king Kanishka, who, according to his account, was anterior by two reigns to B. C. 1182,--the date of the accession of Gônanda III.,-bat who is undoubtedly the king Kanishka from the commencement of whose reign in all probability runs the Saka era, commencing in A.D. 77. And a still earlier point is furnished by the mention of king Asoka in Taramga i. verse 101. According to Kalhana, he stood five reigns before B. C. 1182. But it can hardly be doubted that he is intended for the great Buddhist king Asoka, whose accession has now been shown by Gen, Sir A. Cunningham to have been in B. C. 260 (Corp. Inscr. Indic. Vol. I. Preface, p. vii.). This question of adjustment is one that I shall not at present enter upon. And I will here only remark that the earliest lists evidently include, as consecutive kings, many persons who, if they existed at all, were only ancestors or other relatives of actual kings of Kasmir, and did not themselves occupy the throne; that the introduction of the names of such persons after a break in the direct succession, of course