________________
AUGUST, 1914.)
THE DATE OF MAHAVIRA
167
THE DATE OF MAHAVIRA, BY JARL CHARPENTIER, PH.D., UPSALA.
(Continued from page 183.) From this point the various chronological documents ought to be considered separately, and I shall begin here with the Brahmanical tradition as incorporated in the Vayu Purára.
According to this text the above-mentioned, Dar aka (or Harsaka)e+ after a reign of 25 years was succeeded by Udaya (or Udaya va), who reigned 33 years; after him came Nandivardhana and Mahậnandin, to whom a reign of altogether 85 years is assigned. Mahanandin was the last king of the Eaisunaga dynasty, and after him the nine Nandas, Mahapadma, etc., reigned during two generations altogether 100 years ; of the Mâuryas, who followed the last Nanda, Candragupta reigned 24, Bindusara 25, and Asoka 36 years. If we now sum up the different reigns from Ajâta atru down to the accession of Asoka, it makes altogether 317 years, and if we take for granted, that Buddha died eight years after the accession of Ajáta atru, this would place Asoka just 309 years after the Nirvara, which is simply impossible, for even if we could use the Ceylonese era, according to which Buddha died 544 B. c. this would correspond to 234 B. C., and we know, that Aoka had been anointed more than 12 years before a date which fell between 260 and 258 B.C. And, if we take 477 B. c. as the year of the Nirvaya, the accession of Asoka would fall in 168 B.C., which is still more absurd.
So there must be an error in the Pura ras, and I think it is rather easily detected. That there were two generations of Nandas, including a father and nine sons, the last of whom was called Mahápadma, is related not only in Brahmanical, but also in Jain and (to a certain extent) in Buddhist texts. Moreover, Hemacandra and other Jain authors assert expressly, that Udaya or Udayi was the last of the Saisunagas. Now, it is obvious that names like Mahậnandin and Nandivardhana have nothing in common with the Saiunagas, but look suspiciously like Nanda, and Mahānandin may even be a sort of shortening for the fuller Mahâ padma Nandarå ja,cs From this and from the great exaggeration in years I conclude, that the Purana has twice counted the reigns of the Nanda dynasty, which is quite possible, as there seems to have been a great confusion prevailing in matters concerning their history. Moreover, the number of years (100) seems very suspicious as allotted to a father and nine sons, for it would give just ten years to each. From these instances I venture to draw the conclusion, that Mahậnandin and Nandivardhana originally represented the two generations of Nandas, reigning 85 years,60 and that the 100 years attributed to the Nandas is an interpolation based on oblivion and misunderstanding of the real facts. If then we eliminate the 100 years of the Nandas. the time between the death of Buddha and the accession of Asoka would be 209 years instead of 309. which would place his date in 268 B. C. according to the adjusted chronology. But now the Buddhists, who may have had after all, the best information concerning A oka, tellus. that he reigned 4 years before his coronation and 37 years after it, which is fairly near the 36
64 In the Vişou-Purana his name is Darbhaka, Cf. Müller, Ancient Skl. Lit. p. 296.
65 Nandardja is mentioned twice in the inscription of Khâravels and in Kautillys p. 429. Nandrus is an evident emendation of (vide Gutschmid) for Alexandrus in Justin XV, 4. I am absolutely at A losy to understand what Xandramas or Agramines, which was the name of the last king of Maradha hofere Candragupta according to Diodora XVII, 93 and Curtins IX, 2, might be in Sanskrit. avanune seems to contain a Sanskrit candra or perhaps canda but nothing can be made out of this, as there is no such name amongst the Nandas.
Two generations reigning for 85 years may seem to be a rather incredible event, but it is by no means impossible as Mr. Vincent A. Smith has supplied in his Early History of India, p. 40, examples from English history illustrating the length of reigns, I need only call attention to the fact that the reigns of
children covered a period ot no less than 94 years (1609-1603), and that Henry VIII WAS born 112 years before the death of Elizabeth.
