[67.]
Burg Rheindorf, near Bonn, December 2, 1855.My dear Friend,—I think you must now be sitting quietly again in Oxford, behind the Vedas. I send you these lines from George's small but lovely place, where we have christened his child, to stop, if possible, your wrath against Renan. He confesses in his letter that “ma plume m'a trahi;” he has partly not said what he thinks, and partly said what he does not think. But his note is not that of an enemy. He considers his book an homage offered to German science, and had hoped that it would be estimated and acknowledged in the present position of French science, and that it would be received in a friendly way. Though brought up by the Jesuits, he is entirely free from the priestly spirit, and in fact his remarkable essay in the “Revue des Deux Mondes” of the 15th of November on Ewald's “History of the People of Israel” deserves all our thanks in a theological, national, and scientific point of view. We cannot afford to quarrel unnecessarily with such a man. You must deal gently with him. You will do it, will you not, for my sake? I am persuaded it is best.
Brockhaus will bring out the third unaltered edition of my “Signs of the Times,” as the 2,500 and the 1,000 copies are all sent out, and more are constantly asked for. I have, whilst here, got the first half of the “World-Consciousness” (Weltbewusstsein) ready to send off. The whole will appear in May, 1856, as the herald and forerunner of my work on the Bible. I have gone through this with H. Brockhaus, and reduced it to fifteen delightful little volumes in common octavo, six of the People's Bible, with a full Introduction, and nine of the Key with higher criticism. I am now expecting three printed sheets of the Bible, Volume I., the Key, Volumes I. and VII. The fourth and fifth volumes of “Egypt” are being rapidly printed at the same time for May. The chronological tables appear in September. And now be appeased, and write again soon. George sends hearty greetings. Thursday I shall be in Charlottenberg again. Heartily yours.
[68.]
Charlottenberg, March 10, 1856.I should long ago have told you, my dearest friend, how much your letter of last September delighted me, had I not been so plunged in the vortex caused by the collision of old and new [pg 454] work, that I have had to deny myself all correspondence. Since then I have heard from you, and of you from Ernst and some travelling friends, and can therefore hope that you continue well. As to what concerns me, I yesterday sent to press the MS. of the last of the three volumes which are to come out almost together. Volumes III. and IV. (thirty-six sheets are printed) on the 1st of May; Volume V. on the 15th of July. I have taken the bold resolution of acquitting myself of this duty before anything else, that I may then live for nothing but the “Biblework,” and the contest with knaves and hypocrites in the interest of the faithful.
In thus concluding “Egypt,” I found it indispensable to give all the investigations on the beginnings of the human race in a compressed form. Therefore SET==YAHVEH and all discoveries connected with this down to Abraham. Also the Bactrian and Indian traditions. I have read on both subjects all that is to be found here; above all Burnouf (for the second time), and Lassen's “Indian Antiquities,” with Diis minorum gentium. I find then in Lassen much which can be well explained by my discoveries in the Egyptian, Babylonian, and Phœnician, but a huge chasm opens out for everything concerning the Vedas. I find in particular nothing analogous to the history of the Deluge, of which you most certainly told me. I therefore throw myself on your friendship, with the request that you will write out for me the most necessary points, so far as they do not exist in Colebrooke and Wilson, which I can order from Berlin. (1.) On the Deluge tradition; (2.) On the Creation of Man, if there is any; (3.) On the Fall of Man; (4.) On recollections of the Primitive Homes on the other side of Meru and Bactria, if such are to be found. I know of course what Lassen says. I do not expect much, as you know, from these enthusiastic emigrants; but all is welcome.
One must oppose with all one's power, and in solemn earnest, such pitiful nihilism and stupid jokes as Schwenk has made of the Persian mythology. I have done this in the “Doctrine of Zoroaster;” I am to-day applying to Haug about some hard nuts in this subject. The number seven predominates here also, of course, and in the symbolism depends on the time of each phase of the moon; but the Amshaspands have as little to do with it as with the moon itself. The Gahanbar resemble the six days of creation, if the Sanskrit translation by Neriosengh (which I don't understand) is more to be trusted than the Vispered. [pg 455] But at all events there is an ideal element here, which has been fitted in with the old nature worship.
The sanctity of the Hom (havam?) must also be ideal, the plant can only be a symbol to Zoroaster. Can it be connected with Om? As to the date, Zoroaster the prophet cannot have lived later than 3000 B. C. (250 years before Abraham therefore), but 6000 or 5000 before Plato may more likely be correct, according to the statements of Aristotle and Eudoxus. Bactria (for that surely is Bakhdi) was the first settlement of the Aryans who escaped from the ice regions towards Sogd. The immigration, therefore, can hardly fall later than 10,000 or 9000 before Christ. Zoroaster himself must be considered as after the migration of the Aryans towards the Punjab, for his demons are your gods.
Now will you please let me have, at latest at Easter, what you can give me, for on the 25th the continuation of the MS. must go off, and of this the Indians form a part.
I do not find the account by Megasthenes of Indian beginnings (Plinius and Arrianus) at all amiss: the Kaliyuga computation of 3102 B. C. is purely humbug, just like the statement about the beginning of the Chinese times, to which Lassen gives credit. How can Herodotus have arrived at a female Mithra, Mylitta? Everything feminine is incompatible with the sun, yet nowhere, as far as I can see, does any deity corresponding to Mater appear among the Persians or Indians. Altogether Mithra is a knotty point in the system of Zoroaster, into which it fits like the fist into the eye.
And now I come to the subject of the inclosed Kuno Fischer has given a most successful lecture in Berlin on Bacon, which has grown into a book, a companion to Spinoza and Leibnitz, but much more attractive through the references to the modern English philosophy and Macaulay's conception of Bacon. The book is admirably written. Brockhaus is printing it, and will let it appear in May or at latest in June, about twenty-five sheets. He reserves the right of translation. And now I must appeal to your friendship and your influence, in order to find, 1st, the right translator, and 2d, the right publisher, who would give the author £50 or £100, for Fischer is dependent on his own resources. The clique opposes his appearance: Raumer has declared to the faculty that “a Privat-docent suspended in any state of the Bund because of his philosophical opinions which were irreconcilable with Christianity, ought not to teach [pg 456] in Berlin.” The faculty defends itself. I have written public and private letters to Humboldt, but what good does that do? Therefore it is now a matter of consequence to enable this very distinguished thinker and writer, and remarkably captivating teacher (he had here 300 pupils in metaphysics), to secure the means of subsistence. Miss Winkworth's publisher offered her £150 when she sent him the first chapter of my “Signs;” Longmans half profits, that is—nothing! I only wish to have the matter set going. The proof-sheets can be sent.
Who wrote the foolish article in the “Quarterly” against Jowett? The book will live and bear fruit. We are well, except that George has had scarlet fever. Frances is nursing him at Rheindorf. Heartily yours.
I have myself undertaken the comparison of the Aryan with the Semitic, on Lassen's plan. Two thirds of the stems can be authenticated. What a scandal is Roth's deciphering of the Cyprian inscriptions. Renan mourns over the “Monthly Review,” but is otherwise very grateful. I have made use of your Alphabet in my “Egypt.”
[69.]
Charlottenberg, March 12, 1856.My dearest M.,—You receive at once a postscript. I have since read W.'s essay on the Deluge of the Hindús, in the second volume of the “Indian Studies;” and can really say now that I understand a little Sanskrit, for the essay is written in a Brahmanic jargon, thickly strewn with very many German and French foreign terms. O, what a style! I am still to-day reading Roth (Münchener Gelehrte Anzeigen). I know therefore what is in it; that is, a child's tale which came to India from the Persian Gulf, or at least from Babylonia, about Oannes, the man in the shape of a fish, who gives them their revelation and saves them. Have you really nothing better? It is just like the fable of Deucalion, from the backward-thrown λᾶς, that is, stones! Or was it ἀπὸ δρυὸς ἥ ἀπὸ πέτρας?
Faith in the old beliefs sits very lightly on all the emigrant children of Japhet. Yet many historical events are clearly buried in the myths before the Pândavas. Wilson's statement (Lassen, i. 479 n.) of the contents of a Purâna, shows still a consciousness of those epochs. There must be (1) a dwelling in the primitive country (bordering on the ideal), quite obscure, historically; (2) expulsion, through a change of climate; (3) [pg 457] life in the land of the Aryans (Iran.); (4) migration to and life in the Punjab.
For the western Aryans and for southern Europe, there is another epoch, between 6000 and 5000 B. C. at latest, namely, the march of the Cushite (Turanian) Nimrud (Memnon?) by Susiana, and then across Northern Africa to Spain. The discovery of Curtius, of the Ionians being Asiatics that had migrated from Phrygia, who disputed with the Phœnicians for the world's commerce long before the colonies started from Europe, is very important.
Write me word what you think of Weber's Indian-Semitic Alphabet.
I have to-day written to Miss Winkworth, to speak to the publisher. If he will undertake it and pay Fischer well, both editions would appear at the same time; and she must then come here in April, to make the translation from the proof-sheets. The printing begins at Easter.
[70.]
Charlottenberg, April 22, 1856. (Palilia anni urbis 2610.)So there you are, my worthy Don, sitting as a Member of Committees, etc.; and writing reports, and agitating and canvassing in Academicis! This delights me: for you have it in you, and feel the same longing, which seized me at your age—to act and to exert an influence on the God-given realities of life. It inspirits me; for you, like me, will remain what you are—a German, and will not become a “Philister.”
I have missed you here very much, even more than your answers to my questions. No one escapes his fate: so I cannot escape the temptation to try my method and my insight on indirect chronology. I confess that such confusion I have not seen as that of these investigations hitherto beyond Colebrooke and Wilson, Lassen and Duncker. Something can already be made of Megasthenes' accounts in connection with the Brahmanic traditions, in the way cleared up by Lassen (in the “Journal”). I believe in the 153 kings before Sandrokottus and the 6402 years. The older tradition does not dream of ages of the world, the historical traditions begin with the Tretâage, and point back to the life on the Indus; the first period is like the divine dynasties of the Egyptians. The Kaliyuga is 1354 B. C., or 1400 if you like, but not a day older. The so called cataclysms “after [pg 458] the universe had thrice attained to freedom” (what nonsense!) are nothing but the short interregnums of freedom obtained by the poor Indian Aryans between the monarchies. They are 200 + 300 + 120. And I propose to you, master of the Vedas, the riddle, how do I know that the first republican interregnum (anarchy, to the barbarians) was 200 years long? The Indian traditions begin therefore with 7000, and that is the time of Zaradushta. I find many reasons for adopting your opinion on the origin of the Zend books. The Zoroastrians came out of India; but tell me, do you not consider this as a return migration? The schism broke out on the Indus, or on the movement towards the Jumna and lands of the Ganges. The dull, intolerable Zend books may be as late as they will, but they contain in the Vendidad, Fargard I., an (interpolated) record of the oldest movements of our cousins, which reach back further than anything Semitic.
About Uttara-Kuru and the like, you also leave me in the lurch; and so I was obliged to see what Ptolemy and Co., and the books know and mention about them. It seems then to me impossible to deny that the Ὀττοροκοροι is the same, and points out the most eastern land of the old north, now in or near Shen-si, the first home of the Chinese; to me the eastern boundary of Paradise. But how remarkable, not so much that the Aryans, faithful people, have not forgotten their original home, but that the name should be Sanskrit! Therefore Sanskrit in Paradise, in 10,000 or 9000. Explain this to me, my dear friend. But first send me, within half an hour of receiving these lines, in case you have them, as they assume here, Lassen's maps of India (mounted), belonging to my copy of the book, and just now very necessary to me. You can have them again in July on the Righi. Madame Schwabe is gone to console that high-minded afflicted Cobden, or rather his wife, on the death of his only son, whom we have buried here. She passes next Sunday through London, on her return to her children, and will call at Ernst's. Send the maps to him with a couple of lines. If you have anything else new, send it also. I have read with great interest your clever and attractive chapter on the history of the Indian Hellenic mind, called mythology. Does John Bull take it in? With not less pleasure your instructive essay on “Burning and other Funereal Ceremonies.” How noble is all that is really old among the Aryans! Weber sent me the “Mâlavikâ,” a miserable thing, harem stories,—I hope by a dissolute fellow [pg 459] of the tenth century, and surely not by the author of “Sakuntala.” For your just, but sharply expressed and nobly suppressed essay against ——, a thousand thanks. I have to-day received the last sheet of “Egypt,” Book IV., and the last but one of Book V. (a), and the second of Book V. (b). These three volumes will appear on the 1st of June. The second half of Book V. (b) (Illustrations, Chronological Tables, and Index) I furnish subsequently for Easter, 1857, in order to have the last word against my critics.
Meanwhile farewell.
[71.]
Charlottenberg, Wednesday, April 23, 1856.It would be a great pleasure to you, my dear friend, if you could see the enthusiasm of my reawakened love for India, which possessed me in the years 1811-14, and which now daily overpowers me. But it is well that you are not here, for I dare not follow the notes of the siren till I have finished the “Signs of the Times,” and have the first volume of my five books of the “Bible” before me. I see clearly, from my point of view, that when one has the right frame, the real facts of the Indian life can be dug out from the exuberant wealth of poetry as surely as your Eros and the Charites, and the deepest thoughts from their ritual and mythology. True Germans and Anglo-Saxons are these Indian worthies. How grateful I am to Lassen for his conscientious investigations; also to Duncker for his representation of the history, made with the insight of a true historian. But all this can aid me but little. I can nowhere find the materials for filling up my frame-work; or, in case this frame-work should not itself be accurate, for destroying it and my whole chapter. Naturally all are ignorant of the time which precedes the great fable,—namely, the time of the Vedas.
And so I turn to you, with a request and adjuration which you cannot set aside. I give you my frame-work, the chronological canon, as it has been shaped by me. It is clear that we cannot depend on anything that stands in the noble Mahâbhârata and the sentimental Râmâyana, as to kings and lines of kings, unless it is confirmed by the Vedas; but they generally say the very opposite. All corruptions of history by our schoolmen and priests are but as child's play compared to the systematic [pg 460] falsifying and destruction of all history by the Brahmans. Three things are possible; (1) you may find my frame-work wrong because facts are against it; (2) you may find it useless because facts are missing; or (3) you may find the plan correct, and discover facts to support and further it. I hope for the last; but every truth is a gain. My scheme is this: The poets of the Veda have no chronological reckoning, the epic poets a false one. There remain the Greeks. To understand the narrative of Megasthenes, one must first restore the corrupted passages, which Lassen unfortunately has so entirely misunderstood.
Arr. Ind. ix., in Didot's “Geographi,” i. p. 320: Ἀπὸ μὲν δὴ Διονύσου (Svayambhû) βασιλέας ἠρίθμεον Ἰνδοὶ ἐς Σανδράκοττον τρεῖς καὶ πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν, ἔτεα δὲ δύο καὶ τεσσαρακόσια (instead of πεντήκοντα) καὶ ἑξακισχίλια (6402, according to Pliny's text, confirmed by all MSS., and by Solinus Polyhist. 59; of Arrian we have but copies of one codex, and the lacuna is the same in all).
Ἐν δὲ τούτοισι τρὶς ΙΣΤΑΝΑΙ (instead of τὸ πᾶν εἰς, Arr. writes only ἐς) ἐλευθερίην (ἱστάναι is Herodotean for καθιστάναι, as every rational prose writer would have put).
The restoration is certain, because the omission is explained through the ὁμοιοτέλευτον, and gives a meaning to the καὶ. The sense is made indubitable by Diodorus' rhetorical rendering of the same text of Megasthenes, ii. 38: τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον, πολλαῖς γενεαῖς ὕστερον καταλυθείσης τῆς ἡγεμονίας δημοκρατηθῆναι τὰς πόλεις; cf. 39, ὕστερον δὲ πολλοῖς ἔτεσι τὰς πόλεις δημοκρατηθῆναι.
From this it follows that the monarchy was thrice interrupted by democratic governments, and that there were four periods. This is the Indian tradition. But the whole was conceived as one history, doubtless with a prehistoric ideal beginning, like our Manus and Tuiskon. Therefore, no cosmic periods (Brahmanical imposture), but four generations of Aryan history in India.
The Kaliyuga is a new world, just as much as Teutonic Christendom, but no more. The Indians will probably have commenced it A. D. 410, as friend Kingsley too (in his “Hypatia”). [pg 461] Where is the starting-point? I hold to 1015 years as the chronological computation up to the time of the Nandas.
For the Nandas, I hold to the 22 years.
If they say that Kâlâṣoka and his ten sons reigned 22 years; and Nanda, nine brothers in succession, 22 years; the 22 years is not wrong, either here or there, but the 22 is correct and the ten kingly personages also, for aught I care: but the names are altered (and really to do away with the plebeian Nanda), therefore it is neither 44, nor 88, nor 100 (which is nothing), but
| 22 | |
| —— | |
| From Parikshit to the year before Sandrakottus | 1037 |
| Sandrak's first year 312 (?), 317 (?), 320 (?). I have no opinion on the point, therefore take the middle number about | 317 |
| —— | |
| Beginning of the fourth period | 1354 B. C. |
| Interregnum, popular government | 120 |
| —— | |
| End of the third period | 1475 |
Nakshatra era 1476? (Weber, “Indian Studies,” ii. 240.)
This fourth period is that of the supremacy of the Brahmans in the beginning, with its recoil in Buddha towards the end.
In the year 1250 B. C. about the one hundredth year of the era, Semiramis invaded India (Dâvpara).
Third period of the royal dynasties, the great empire on the Jumna, not far from the immortal Aliwal. Beginning with the Dynasty of the Kurus. (Here the names of the kings and their works, as canals, etc. Seat of the empire, the Duâb; Hastinapura, Ayodhyâ; or still on the Sarasvatî)
| 0 years | |
| Interregnum between III. and II. (Must have left its traces. A pasted up break is surely there.) | 300 |
| Second period of royal dynasties (Tretâ) | 0 years. |
(Is this the historical life in the Punjab, with already existing kingdoms?) N. B. What is the third of the pure flames? Is it the people? Atria, latria, patria?
| Interregnum between II. and I. | 200 years. |
First period. Beginning of the history after first x years, with an ideally filled up unmeasured period.
| Beginning: Manu | 6402 |
| 317 | |
| —— | |
| 6719 B. C. |
Deduct from this a mythical beginning: a cycle of 5 × 12 = 60, or 600: at most 60 × 60 = 3600, at least 12 × 60=720. Or about 6 kings of 400 years each. Mean time: 2160.
Total: 4559.
(There remain, deducting 6 from 154 kings (with Dionysos), about 148.)
Length of time: 4559 - 1354 = 3205 ÷ 148 = 21-1/2 mean number of years for each historical government; which is very appropriate.
Zoroaster lived, according to Eudoxus and Aristotle (compared with Hermippos) 6350 or 6300 B. C. This points to a time of Zoroastrians migrating towards India, or having migrated, returning again. Accept the latter, and the beginning of the 6402 years lies very near the first period, and the Indianizing of the Aryans. Those accounts about Zoroaster are (as Eudoxus already proves) pre-Alexandrian, therefore not Indian, but Aryan. Do not the hymns of the Rig-veda, of which several are attributed to the kings of the Tretâ period, contain hints on that schism? If it really occurred in the Punjab some reminiscence would have been left there of it. The Zend books (wretched things) only give negative evidence.
The Brahmans of the most sinful period have of course smothered all that is historical in prodigies, and this wretched taste long appeared to the Germans as wisdom; whilst they despised the (certainly superficial) but still sensible English researches [pg 463] of Sir W. Jones and Co., as philistering! One must oppose this more inflexibly than even that admirable Lassen does. (N. B. Has Colbrooke anything on this? or Wilson?)
There may have been two points of contact between the Aryans and the kingdoms on the Euphrates before the expedition of Semiramis.
a. By means of the Zoroastrian Medo-Babylonian kingdom, which had its capital in Babylon from 2234 B. C. (1903 before Alexander) for about two centuries.
b. In the oldest primitive times, by the Turanian-Cushite or North African kingdom of Nimrod, which cannot be placed later than in the seventh chiliad. The Egyptians had a tradition of this, as is proved according to my interpretation by the historical germ in the story in the Timæos of the great combat of Europe and Asia against the so-called Atlantides: but these are uncertain matters.
That is a general sketch of my frame-work. If you are able to do anything with it, I make you the following proposition: You will send me an open letter in German (only without your Excellency, and as I beg you will always write to me, as friend to friend), in which you will answer my communication. Send me beforehand a few reflections and doubts for my text, which I must send away by the 15th of May. Your open letter must be sent in in June, if possible before the 15th, in order to appear before the 15th of July as an Appendix to my text of Book V. b. (fourth division) first half. I can do nothing in the matter; everything here is wanting. I cannot even find German books here. Therefore keep Lassen's maps, if you have them. I have in the mean time helped myself by means of Ritter and Kiepert to find the old kingdoms and the sacred Sarasvatî. That satisfies me for the present.
Soon a sign of life and love to your sorely tormented but faithful B.
[72.]
Charlottenberg, Sunday Morning, April, 27, 1856.I have laid before you my restoration of the text of Megasthenes, and added a few preliminary thoughts on the possibility of the restoration of his traditions, and something of my restoring criticism. I have not however been able to rest since that time, without going to the very ground of the matter, to see if I am on a side-path, or on the right road. I now send you the summary of the two chapters which I have written since then.
[pg 464]I. The restoration of the list of Megasthenes. (153 kings in 6402 years.)
1. The list begins, like the Sanskrit tradition, with the first generation; three interregnums presuppose four periods.
2. The whole fourfold divided chronology is one: three sections of historical recollections lie before the Kali age. Lassen is therefore wrong in saying that Megasthenes began with the Tretâ age. The progress of the gradual extension of the kingdom is organic.
3. The foundation of the whole tradition of the four periods of time are the genealogical registers of the old royal families, which must if possible be localized; of course with special reference to Magadha, which however begins late. As in Egypt, every branch tried somewhere to find its place; we must therefore throw away or mark all names not supported by the legend (that is, the Vedic traditions). The contemporary dynasties must be separated from those that follow each other.
4. Each period was divided from the preceding by an historical fact,—a dissolution followed by a subjugation or a popular government. The first is divided from the second by Herakles—Krishna. The third from the second by Râma, the extirpator of the heroes and royal races (great rising of the people). The fourth from the third by purely historical revolutions, caused or fostered by the Assyrian invasion.
5. The mythical expression for these periods is one thousand years.
6. The historical interregnums are 200, 300, 120.
7. As both are the same, therefore 3 × 1000 years vanish, and there remain but the 620.
8. Therefore Megasthenes' list:
| Megasthenes' list | 6402 |
| 3000 | |
| —— | |
| Kings from the first patriarch to Sandrakottus | 3402 years. |
| Interregnums | 620 |
| —— | |
| 4022 |
First Period.
A. Aryan recollections. Megasthenes' list unites the traditions of the Moon-race (Budha) with that of the Sun-race (direct from Manu).
(1.) Questions. First question. What do the names Ayus and Yayâti mean? Is Nahusha = man?
[pg 465](2.) I know king Ikshvâku, i.e., the gourd. Who are the Asuras, conquered by Prithu?
(3.) Anu, one of the four sons of Yayâti, is the North, not the Iranian, nor the Turanian, which is Turvasa, but the Semitic, i.e., Assur. Anu is the chief national god of the Assyrians, according to the cuneiform inscriptions. The cradle of the old dynasty was therefore called Telanu==hill of Anu. Salmanassar is called Salem-anu, i.e., face of Anu.
B. Indian primitive times.
| 1. Manu (primitive time) | 1000 |
| 2-14. Thirteen human kings in the Punjab, each reigns on an average thirty-six years | 468 |
| 15. Krishna, destruction | 1000 |
2468 years, representing really only 268 + 200 years, with an unknown quantity representing Aryan migrations and settlements in the Punjab.
(4.) Question. Is Jones' statement correct in his chronology (Works, i. 299), that the fourth Avatâr must be placed between the first and second periods?
Second Period.
The kingdom of the Puru, and the Bharata kings. Royal residence, province of the Sarasvatî. Epos, the Râmâyana.
A. Period from Puru to Dushyanta.
Conquests from the Sarasvati on the north, and to Kalinga (Bengal) on the south. Conquerors: Tansu, Ilina, Bharata, Suhôtra (all Vedic names).
B. Period of destruction through the Pañkâlas.—Agamîdha (Suhôtra's son, according to the unfalsified tradition) is the human Râma, the instrument of destruction.
(5.) Question. Why is he called in Lassen, i. 590, the son of Rikshu? (This is another thousand years.)
Riksha is called in M. Bh. (Lassen, xxiii. note 17) son of Agamîdha, and in another place, wife of Agamîdha, or both times wife!
Third Period.
The Kurus; the Pañkâlas; the Pândavas. Seats in Middle Hindostan. Advance to the Vindhya (Epos, the Mahâbhârata of the third period, as the Râmâyana of the second).
A. Kingdoms of the Kurus.
[pg 466]B. Kingdom of the Pañkâlas. Contemporary lists; but the Pañkâlas outlast the Kurus. Both are followed by—
C. Kingdom of the Pândavas.
Ad. A. From Kuru to Devâpi who retires (that is, is driven away), Sântanu, Bahlîka, the Bactrian (?), there are eleven reigns. Then the three generations to Duryodhana and Arguna.
Parikshit represents the beginning of the Interregnum.
The list in the Vishnu-purâna of twenty-nine kings, from Parikshit to Kshemaka, with whom the race becomes extinct in the Kali age, does not concern us.
They are the lines of the pretenders, who did not again acquire the throne. The oldest list is probably only of six reigns; for the son of Satânîka, the third V. P. king of this list, is also called Udayana (Lassen, xxvi. note 23), and the same is the name of the twenty-fifth king, the son of Satânîka II. Therefore Brihadratha, Vasudâna, and Sudâsa (21, 22, 23) are likewise the last of a Parikshit line. But they do not count chronologically.
Fourth Period.
The kingdom of Magadha. Chronological clews for Megasthenes. The first part of the Magadha list preserved to us (Lassen, xxxi.) from Kuru to Sahadeva is an unchronological list of collateral lines of the third period, therefore of no value for the computation of time. The Kali list of Magadha begins with Somâpi to Ripungaya, 20 kings. The numbers are cooked in so stupid a way that they neither agree with each other nor are possible. One can only find the right number from lower down.
Restoration of the Chronology.
| Kali II. Pradyota, five kings with | 138 years. |
| Kali III. Saisunâga, ten kings with | 360 years. |
| Kali IV. Nanda, father with eight or nine sons | 22 years. |
| —— | |
| Kali V. Kandragupta king | 317 B. C. |
| —— | |
| 837 years. |
If one deducts these 837 years from 1182, the first year of the Kali age, there remain 345 years for the twenty kings from Somâpi to Ripungaya (First Dynasty), averaging 17-1/2 years. (That will do!) I adopt 1182 years, because 1354 is impossible, [pg 467] but 1181 is the historical chronological beginning of a kingdom in Kashmir. Semiramis invaded India under a Sthavirapati (probably only a title), about 1250. This time must therefore fall in the interregnum (120 years, after Megasthenes). The history of the war with Assyria (Asura?) is smothered by pushing forward the Abhîra, that is, the Naval War on the Indus (Diodorus).
I pass over the approximate restoration of the first three periods. I have given you a scanty abstract of my treatise, which I naturally only look upon as a frame-work. But if the frame-work be right, and of this I feel convinced, if I have discovered the true grooves and the system—then the unfalsified remains of traditions in the Vedas must afford further confirmation. The Kali can be fixed for about 1150/1190 by powerful synchronisms. The three earlier ages can be approximately restored. One thus arrives, by adding 200 + 300 + 120 (=620) to each of the earlier and thus separated periods, to the beginning of the Tretâ (foundation of the Bharata kingdom beginning with Puru). This leads to the following computation.
| I. Anarchy before Puru | 200 years. |
| II. From Puru to Bharata's father, 10 reigns of 20 years | 200 years. |
| From Bharata to Agamîdha's son, 6 reigns | 120 years. |
| End of II. | 300 years. |
| —— | |
| III. From Kuru to Bahlika (migration towards Bactria?) 10 reigns | 200 years. |
| (Parikshit) apparently 6-7 reigns | 120 years. |
| —— | |
| End of the oldest Indian kingdom, before Kali | 1340 years. |
| 1182 years. | |
| —— | |
| Beginning of Tretâ = 2522 B. C. (2234 Zoroaster invaded Babylon from Media) Second dynasties in Babylon | 1100 years. |
| —— | |
| 3622 years. |
We have still to account for the time of the settlement in the Punjab and formation of kingdoms there. This gives as the beginning approximately = 4339 B. C.
[pg 468]And now I am very anxious to hear what you have made out, or whether you have let the whole matter rest as it is. I have postponed everything, in order to clear up the way as far as I can. I shall try to induce Weber to visit me in the Whitsun holidays, to look into the details for me, that I may not lay myself open to attack. Before that I shall have received Haug's entirely new translation of the first Fargard, which I shall print as an Appendix, with his annotations. My Chinese restoration has turned out most satisfactory.
I may now look forward to telling them: (1.) The rabbinical chronology is false, it is impossible; it has every tradition opposed to it, most of all so the biblical—therefore away with it! (2.) Science has not to turn back, but now first to press really forward, and to restore: the question is not the fixing of abstract speculative formulas, but the employing of speculation and philology for the reconstruction of the history of humanity, of which revelation is only a portion, though certainly the centre if we believe in our moral consciousness of God.
This is about what I shall say, as my last word, in the Preface to the sixth volume of “Egypt.” Volumes IV. and V. are printed. Deo soli gloria.