Page:Report of a Tour Through the Bengal Provinces of Patna, Gaya, Mongir and Bhagalpur; The Santal Parganas, Manbhum, Singhbhum and Birbhum; Bankura, Raniganj, Bardwan and Hughli in 1872-73.djvu/37

Rh a very roundabout way of going from Indraprastha to Râjagriha, but we must not lose sight of the object with which they went; this was no less than the death of the great Raja Jarâsandha, and it is only reasonable that, instead of going madly to certain destruction, as they would had they gone direct and unsupported, they should first visit the neighbouring princes of East Koçala and Mithila in order to obtain their assistance and support. Hence there is not only nothing improbable in their going viâ East Koçala and Mithila to Râjagriha, but it was the course indicated by sound policy.

So far we have traced their course to Mithila; next we find them going from Mithila to Râjagriha; in doing so, we see they cross the Ganges and the Sona. To understand their route, let us turn to Hwen Thsang’s route long years afterwards. He went from Vaisâli near the Gandak to Mithila, then to Lalita Patan, and returned by the same route to Vaisâli in order to go to Patna and Râjagriha. Hwen Thsang’s route leads clearly to the inference that the usual road from Mithila to Râjagriha went viâ Vaisâli and Patna; this is rather a detour, but roads then were neither numerous nor well, if at all, looked after. The Pándavas, then, in going from Mithala to Râjagriha, evidently followed the same route, doubtless for similar reasons. Therefore they crossed the Ganges at Patna, which we certainly know was a well-known crossing as early as the time of Râmâ, and continued so to the time of Buddha, when the city was not in existence, and down to the present day.

Having crossed the Ganges at Patna, they are represented as crossing the Son to go to Râjagriha; this clearly shows that the Son then flowed between Patna and Râjagriha,— that is, in the course I have indicated before.

The mention here of the Charmanvati, usually identified with the Chambal, is very puzzling. It certainly cannot mean the Chambal; and I can only suppose the name to have got in either by mistake, or as being the name of some one of the small streams near Mithila. The absence of all qualifying epithet for it, as in the case of the Gandaki and the Sarayu, tends to favour the last supposition.

While, however, I suggest what appears to me to have been the course of the Son at the time when the Râmâyana and Mahábhárata were written, I must not omit to mention that the shifting of the Son westwards is not what would have been expected considering the general lie or declivity