1876.] 



at Delhi three thousand years ago. 



369 



whether a soveriegn or not, may perform it ; but the context shows clearly that 

 a king was a sine qua non, and none but a king could undertake the rite. 

 According to the S'astras, none but a Kshatriya was fit for royalty, and the 

 use of the word raj an both for a king and a man of the Kshatriya caste 

 was so common, that in interpreting it, in particular passages the context 

 is always looked upon as the safest guide to its true meaning. If we 

 assume, however, that Katyayana wished only to indicate the caste of the 

 performer, with a view to exclude the other castes, without caring to point 

 out his political position, the interpretation of the scholiast would be open 

 to no exception. 



From its very nature a ceremony like the Eajasuya could not be 

 common anywhere, or at any time, much less during the Hindu period, 

 when India was never held by a single monarch. It was then divided 

 into many kingdoms, principalities and chief ships, each enjoying perfect 

 autonomy, and entertaining more or less jealousy, not unoften amounting 

 to hostility, or even violent animosity, against each other, and a universal 

 sovereignty like that of the autocrat of Russia was perfectly impossible. 

 The language of praise or flattery has doubtless often declared particular 

 sovereigns to have been Ghahravartins or emperors ; but the reality, as 

 regards the whole of India, was never accomplished. It is unquestionable 

 that in rare instances, such as those of Chandragupta and Asoka, many 

 sovereigns acknowledged subordination to some mighty monarch or other, 

 and the weaker ones paid tribute, but their autonomy was rarely sacri- 

 ficed, and their alliances generally bore the character of confederacies, or 

 federal union, and not that of feudal baronies subject to a ruling chief, and 

 under no circumstances were servile duties, such as under the feudal sys- 

 tem the Barons in Europe were obliged to render their suzerains, ever 

 exacted from the tributaries. The* bond between them was, besides, of 

 the feeblest kind, and snapt at every favourable opportunity. In the 

 Vedic period even such monarchic federations on a very large scale were 

 any thing but common, and the rite of MaMbhisJieka, or imperial bap- 

 tism, which follows the Eajasuya, was administered to only a few. The 

 Aitareya Brahmana of the Eig Veda affords a curious illustration of this 

 fact. After describing the ritual of the Mahabhisheka, with a view to 

 point out its high importance, the author of that work gives a list of the 

 persons who had been inaugurated by that rite, and of the priests who 

 officiated thereat, and it includes only ten names.* The list does not, it is 



* The list includes the following names: 1. Janamejaya, son of Parikshit, 

 inaugurated by Tarn, son of Kavasha. 2. Saryata, son of Manu, anointed by Chyavana, 

 son of Bhrigu. 3. Somasushma, son of Vajaratna, by S'atanika, son of Satrujit. 4. 

 Ambashtya, by Parvata and Narada. 5. Yudhamsraushti, son of XJgrasena, by Parvata 

 and Narada. 6. Vis'vakarma, son of Bhuvana, by Kasyapa. 7. Sudas, son of Puja- 





sss 



