by Sir William Jones"
("Hist. Sans, Lit." p. 61). And now, pray, what is this extremely
"early date?" "From 880 to 1200 B.C.," we are told. We will then, for
the present purpose, accept this authoritative conclusion. Several
facts, easily verifiable, have to be first of all noticed:--(1) Manu in
his many enumerations of Indian races, kingdoms and places, never once
mentions Bengal; the Aryan Brahmans had not yet reached, in the days
when his Code was compiled, the banks of the Ganges nor the plains of
Bengal. It was Arjuna who went first to Banga (Bengal) with his
sacrificial horse. [Yavanas are mentioned in Rajdharma Anasasanika
Parva as part of the tribes peopling it.] (2) In the Ayun a list of the
Hindu kings of Bengal is given. Though the date of the first king who
reigned over Banga cannot be ascertained, owing to the great gaps
between the various dynasties; it is yet known that Bengal ceased to be
an independent Hindu kingdom from 1203 after Christ. Now if,
disregarding these gaps, which are wide and many, we make up the sum of
only those chronological periods of the reign of the several dynasties
that are preserved by history, we find the following:--

24 Kshatriya families of kings reigned for a period of 2,418 years
9 Kaista kings " " " " 250 "
11 Of the Adisur families " " " 714 "
10 Of the Bhopal family " " " 689 "
10 Of the Pala dynasty (from 855 to 1040 A.D.) " " 185 "
10 The Vaidya Rajahs reigned for a period of " " 137 "
--------
Years . . . . 4,393 "

If we deduct from this sum 1,203, we have 3,190 years B.C. of successive
reigns. If it can be shown on the unimpeachable evidence of the
Sanskrit texts that some of the reigns happened simultaneously, and the
line cannot therefore be shown as successive (as was already tried),
well and good. Against an arbitrary chronology set up with a
predetermined purpose and theory in view, there will remain but little
to be said. But if this attempt at reconciliation of figures and the
surrounding circumstances are maintained simply upon "critical, internal
evidence," then, in the presence of these 3,190 years of an unbroken
line of powerful and mighty Hindu kings, the Orientalists will have to
show a very good reason why the authors of the Code of Manu