_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. 300
and II. (Must have left
its traces. A pasted up
break is surely there.)
_Second period of royal 0 years.
dynasties_ (Tretâ)
(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. 200 years.
and I.
_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 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.