________________
SEPTEMBER, 1909.]
THE PALA DYNASTY OF BENGAL.
247
Before it will be practicable to discuss in due order the historical events which mark the Pala rule during a period of inore than four centuries and a ball, the ground must be cleared by #justification in detail of the entries in the dynastic and genealogical lists. The names are determined chiefly by the eight inscriptions in which genealogies are given, more or less fully. These are: -
No. in Serial. List of
Locality. Inscriptions.
2 Khâlimpar, copper-plate (6.p.) Dharm pala. 2 8 Mungir (c. p..)
Devapala. 3 10 Bhagalpur (e. p.)
Narayanapala. Badal pillar.
Ditto. Dinajpur (c. p.)
Mahipala I. 6 23 Amgâchht (. p.)
Vigrahapala III. 7 26 Kamauli (c. p.)
Kumarapala. 8 28 Manabali (c. p.).
Madanapala. The names of Sri Vapyata, the father, and Dayitavishņu, the grandiather of Gopala I, the first king of the dynasty, are given only in No. 1 of the above list. Nothing else is oa record concerning those two persons.
The genealogy from Gopala is given in Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8. The last named record, being the latest in date, is, of course, the fullest extant statement on the subject.
All the documents are agreed that Dharmapala, the second king, was the son of Gôpåla I ; but there is an apparent discrepancy concerning the parentage of Devapala, the third king.
When Dharmapala, in the year 32 of his reign, made the grant officially recorded in the Khalimpar copper-plate, his son Tribhuvanapala was alive, and held the dignity of Yuvaraja, or Crown Prince. But the king enjoyed an exceptionally long reign, 64 years according to Târánáth, and evidently survived the son who was intended to succeed him. His immediate successor undoubtedly was Dévapala, who is expressly described in the Muagir copper-plate as the son (suta) of his predecessor by Rannadevi, the daughter of Parabala, the Rashtrakûta ruler, and is sail to have inherited the kingdom of his father free from troubles' (rdjyam Apa nirupaplavan pitur). This official declaration by Dévapila of bis own jarentage, conclusive on the face of it, seems however, at first sight, to be contradicted by the language of the Bhagalpur copper-plate of Narayanapala, which in words apparently equally plain seems to describe Deva pala as the elder brother (púrvaja) of Jayapala, who was the son of Vâkpala, younger brother of Dharmapala. Thus, according to the obvious meaning of the Bhagalpur record (with which the Âmgachhi grant agrees), Dêrapala was the nephew (brother's son) of Dharmapala, and not his son. In his earlier publication the late Prof. Kielhorn, while accepting As superior the authority of Dêvapála himself in the Mungir grant, was not able to offer any explanation of this apparent conflict of epigraphic testimony. But at a later date, when drawing up the Pala dynastic list, he hit on the correct explanation, and perceived that in the Bhagalpur and Åmgâcbhi grants the term parvaja as applied to Dêvapala signifies that that prince was the son of the elder brother' (scil. Dharmapala) of Jayapâla's father, Våkpåla (Ep. Ind., V, App. I, p. 15, note 4 and p. 17, note 6). This interpretation is not invalidated by the fact that in line 6 of the Bhagalpur grant Jayapâla is described as conquering the lord of the Utkalas under his brother's orders' (bhráturnnideádd), for, at the present day Hindus constantly speak of first cousins on the father's side as brothers,' and scacely recognize any distinction between
a son' and a brother's son.' The table therefore exhibits three sons of Dharmapala, namely, Tribhuvanapala, who was Crown Prince in the regual year 32, but must have predeceased his father Dêrapila, who succeeded to the throne ; and Våkpala, whose progeny became kings.
