________________
OCTOBER, 1920 ) CHRONOLOGY OF THE PÅLA DYNASTY OF BENGAL
191
dine 14."11 The latest record of Nayapala is again, from the colophon of a MS., dated "Samvat 14 Chaitra dine 27."11 We have thus the following scheme worked out:
March 1100 falls within the 4th year of Vaidyadeva. March 1097 falls within the 1st year of Vaidyadeva.
Allowing only a few months' reign to Kumarapala and Gopala III,
June 1095 falls within the 42nd year of Ramapala. Therefore, June 1054 falls within the first year of Ramapala
Allowing again a few morths' reign to Sarapala II and Mahipala II, November 1052 falls within the 13th year of Vigrahapala III.
November 1040 falls within the first year of Vigrahapala III. Therefore, March 1039 falls within the 14th year of Nayapála, and March 1026 falls within the first year of Nayapala..
Against this apparent agreement of the chronology with 1100 for the date of Vaidyadeva's grant, there are grave and numerous objections. In the first place, all the six kings of the series here are allotted just the minimum lengths of reign as determined by materials hitherto collected, and there is not even a few months' margin left. Secondly, the happy synchronism of Karnadeva and Nayap&la, which has been accepted from Tibetan sources, 18 has to be rejected under the present scheme, for we now know that Karnadeva ascended the throne in January A.D. 1041 14 while Nayapala, here died before November 1040 at the latest. 18 Thirdly, Dipankara addressed & didactic letter "Vimalaratnalekha " to King Nayapâla, while the sage was "staying in the plains of Nepal on his way to Tibet” in A.D. 1041 (Dr.Vidyabhu: haņa in the ASB.). This also is not poggible under the present scheme. Fourthly, Nayapala's reign here begins in March, 1026 at the latest, but the Sarnath inscription is dated December 1026. Moreover, Karnadeva's son was still reigning in A.D. 1122.16 It is but fair then to assume that Karnadeva was quite a young man when he ascended the throne in A.D. 1041, and Vigrahapala III, to be consistently a son-in-law of his, must needs be pushed beyond A.D. 1053, (the date of his death under the present scheme) when hat would be too young it born, at all. Indeed, if the measured words of the Ramacharita17 be taken literally, Vigrahapala must have married the princess at the time when he ascended the throne, (" toff arrarat "
: THE Writtor
) which becomes even more unlikely under the present scheme. We are thus sufficiently justified in rejecting 1100 and accepting 1119 for the date of Vaidyadeva's grant. The only thing that stands in the way is the supposed alliance of Madanapala with Chandradevs of Kananj, put forth by M. M. H. P. Sastri in the learned introduction to the Ramacharita. Here we have to discuss the following connected genealogy:
Nayapåla Karpadeva (aso. 1041)
Chandradeva Madanapala
Mahanadeva 1 Sankaradevi
Vigrahapala=Vijayasri Yasahkarna (1122)
Râmapala Gayakarna (1151)
Govindachandra Kumaradevi. Kumarapala Madanapals (1104—1154). 11 P. 112.
19 p. 79. 18 p. 77.
14 E I., XI., p. 146. 16 Dipankara who brought about a ponce between Karadeva and Nayapala, could not therefore have best for Tibet before A.D. 1042. Dipankara's chronology, which originally appeared in JASB., Vol. LX, 1881, p. 237, was in keeping with this synchronism, but it is not known what led the olaronology to be shifted later by two years. 16 EI., II, p.
17 I, 9.
