344 Remarks on the Allahabad Inscription. [July, 



ful to exhibit synoptically the genealogical facts which the pillar sup- 

 plies. 



Gupta, Raja of the Solar Race. 



Licchavi a private 

 Ghatotkacha, do. Rajput, whose daughter 



was 



Chandragupta, do. $» Cuma'ra DeM, Sanha'rica, an inde- 



and Sovereign, 



wife of the king. pendent princess, whose 



daughter was 



Samudragupta, $} A queen, 



Raja and Sovereign. 



name unknown. 



A royal issue expected at the date of 

 the inscription, (line 18.) 



Another consideration, however, which should not be overlooked in 

 this research, is the name of the contemporary king, mentioned in line 

 17 of the inscription, as having been overcome, together with several in- 

 ferior princes, by Samudragupta. The king is called Dhananjaya, and is 

 described as of the race of Ugraskna, i. e. most probably the celebrated 

 king of Mathura so called, the father of Cansa, who was slain by Crishna, 

 and was, like his enemy, of the great lunar family of Yadu. Now in inquir- 

 ing who this king could be, the -sr-^^ Dhanjye or Dhananjaya, 

 who is mentioned by Abu'l Fazil at the head of the royal lists of Malwa, 

 as having founded a dynasty there about 2000 years before, should appear 

 as much out of the question as the fabulous Arjuna, who also bore the 

 same name. Yet this prince, who in Abu'l Fazil's list (Ayin Acbery, 

 vol. ii. p. 54,)has a Salivahan for his grandson — is identified by Colonel 

 Wilporp, with a Dhananjaya, mentioned in the royal lists of Ra- 

 ghunatha as having sprung from a temple in the peninsula of India, 

 and thence attacked and slain a king named A'ditya, and then reigned 

 at Ujjayin : and on the strength of this last tradition, he is identified 

 also with the great Salivahana himself, the founder of the era A. D. 

 78, because this latter is celebrated as the foe of and destroyer of the 

 celebrated Vicramaditya ! (See As. Res. vol. ix. pp. 134, 135, 140, 

 141.) The authorities from which the age, and family, and reign of this 

 Dhananjaya, might perhaps have been obtained, are so loosely cited by 

 this very learned but fanciful writer, and so mixed up with his own 

 evidently groundless and inconclusive deductions of identity, that we can 

 derive no aid from them in determining whether he be the king men- 

 tioned on the column or not, or what could be thence safely concluded 

 concerning the age of the inscription. 



