1876.] 



at Delhi three thousand years ago. 



381 



tumult became general. The proud and martial spirit of many of the 

 chiefs sided with the king of Chedi, and from words they rushed to arms, 

 when Krishna, in a fit of passion, knocked off the head of S'isupala with 

 his discus, and brought the tumult to an end. 



Mr. Wheeler is of opinion that this legend has been engrafted by the 

 Brahmanical compilers on the story of the Pandavas for a sinister purpose. 

 His arguments are,* 1st, Because " the legend is at variance with the mythic 

 account of the pavilions from which the Eajas are said to have beheld the 

 sacrifice." 2nd, Because " it is of a character suited to the unruly habits of 

 the Yadavas, but inconsistent with the Kshatriyas of the Eoyal house of 

 Bharata, who were scrupulous in the observance of order and law." 3rd, 

 Because " no trace of the custom appears in the ancient ritual of the Eaja- 

 siiya as preserved in the Aitareya Brahmana." 4th, Because "the Eajasuya 

 was a ceremony expressive of the superiority of the Baja who performed the 

 sacrifice", and he could not be expected to honour another. 5th, Because 

 " the custom of offering the arghya as a token of respect or act of worship 

 belonged to the Buddhist period, and was essentially a form of worship 

 antagonistic to that of sacrifice." The first argument is founded on a 

 mistake. The sacrifice lasted for a whole year, and it is distinctly mentioned 

 that the guests assembled in the Sacrificial Hall to be present at the imperial 

 baptism when the dispute occurred. The pavilions were so constructed that 

 the princes could, from them, behold the sacrifice going on, but the princes 

 were not there on the occasion in question. The second is a mere assump- 

 tion. The legends of the Kshatriyas of the house of Bharata show them 

 to have been as unruly as the Yadavas, with whom they were intimately ' 

 connected by marital and other ties. Besides the very fact of the Kshatri- 

 yas of the house of Bharata having been scrupulously observant of order 

 and law, would, in a question of so much importance as precedence, suggest 

 the idea of resenting affronts. The higher the civilization, the more trouble- 

 some becomes the settlement of the table of precedence and court etiquette. 

 To Englishmen familiar with the heart-burning which often results even from 

 mistakes in leading persons to the private dinner table, it would not be diffi- 

 cult to conceive how a slight of that description at a grand ceremonial would 

 be calculated to irritate the proud spirit of ancient warriors, and it is well 

 known that the Hindus have always been most punctilious in this respect. 

 Further, if in 1870 of the Christian era, a Kshatriya chief, the Eana of 

 Jodhpur, could so far carry his recusancy on a question of precedence, as to 

 necessitate his expulsion from British territory within twenty-four hours, 

 it would by no means be unreasonable to suppose that an ancestor of his 

 could commit himself in a similar manner three thousand years ago. 

 The third is due to an oversight ; for had the critic looked to the wording 

 * History of India, I., p. 171. 



