________________
122
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(JONE, 1914
we might think that Pusyamitra was zealously orthodox-or that at least they suffered considerably from the successors of these, and that they did not in reality know anything concerning the kingdom of Magadha after that time. 14
Professor Jacobiis has tried a somewhat complicated hypothesis in order to account for the introduction of King Palaka of Avanti into the list of the rulers of Magadha, considering Udayana, the brother-in-law of Palaka, to have been confused with Udáyin, the son and successor of Ajátaśatru, and Palaka to have entered into the list in this way. As I have ex. plained above, I do not think that Palaka belonged to the original list at all; but, if his presence there is to be accounted for in any way, I think another suggestion may be more easily adopted. It is stated in Kalpas. $ 147 (p. 67 ed. Jacobi) that Mahavira reached nirvana while staying at Pâvå (or Papà) in king Hastipâlaka's office of the writers' (rajjú-sabha). This monarch is mentioned also in $ 123, where he is called Hatthipala, and Jacobi, S. B. E. XXII, pp. 264, 269, has in both passages used the form Hastirala. But the manuscripts give in both paragraphs alternatively the form Hatthipala and palaga, and the latter is taken into the text by Jacobi in § 147. From this it is clear, that he was styled Hastipdla as well as palaka, a circumstance upon which no special stress need be laid, because we have no reason whatsoever for expecting anything else. Now it is both possible and credible that a Hastipala (ka) might in more unofficial language be styled Palaka, and as this king stands in the closest connexion with the death of Mahavira, we might well suggest that he may have been said later to have been anointed in the same night in which the Prophet entered Nirvana. This might in my opinion supply a reasonable cause for the introduction into this list of a certain Palaka, who was later mistaken for the king of Avanti well-known to the Jains in Western India 10 However, this king Palaka is for reasons already partly mentioned, and to be further developed subsequently, of no chronological importance whatsoever for fixing the date of Mahavira and for filling up the space between him and the commencement of the Vikrama era.
Passing over, for the present, the regnal periods assigned to the Nandas (155 years), the Mauryas (108 years) and Pusyamitra (30 years), as I shall enter upon a more close examination of these dates later on, I shall now say some words concerning the kings, whose names fill up the last 117 years before the beginning of the Vikrama era, i. e., about 174-57 B. c. These are the following:
Balamitra and Bhanumitra, reigning for 60 years. Nahavahana (Nabhovahana) reigning for 40 years. Gardabhilla reigning for 13 years,
and Saka reigning for 4 years.
There is in reality not much to be said concerning this strange list of rulers, and nothing certain. Nahavahana, a name which Bühler and Jacobi render by Nabhovahana, is a totally unknown personality ;17 and the only suggestion to be made is that he may have been
14 Of course, the Jains had a patron in Eastern India in Khåravela, king of Kalinga; but this protec. tion may have been of rather short duration. The Jains do not seem to recognise their obligation to their great patron even by mentioning his name, and his date is uncertain (op. farther on).
15 Kalpas., p. 8 sq.
16 King Hastipala(ka) of Påvå undoubtedly a petty olan-ruler of the type of Suddhodana of Kapilavastu or Siddhartha of Kundaggâma, is, as far as I know, mentioned nowhere else in Jain or Brahmanical scripture. This show clearly that BA ond crily have been remembered because Mahavira paned away in his dominions. And such an unknown ruler could, of course, very easily be confused with a far better known name sake.
11 If the varia Lectio Nahavâna is in fact worth anything and renders the name Nahapina, the Satrap who woms to have flourished about A. D. 80-125 and in fact reigned between 40 and 50 years, this list would of course in its later part be absolutely useless. But there are reasons which make me believe that this is not the case : (1) it seems really impossible that even & very confused chronology would put Nabapins before Vikrams, and (2) if Nahapana had really been intended, he ought most certainly to have been mentioned in the story of Kalakacarya, dealing with the rise of Scythian power in India before Vikrama; but this is not the case.
