^{page 108 note 1} Hamsarāja, , Vedic Kosa, I, Lahore, 1926, 298 ff., esp. citations from Gopatha-br. and Śatapatha-br. (cited below as ŚB).Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 2} VIII, 27: discussed Aiyangar, K. V. Rangaswami, Krtyakalpataru of Bhatta Laksmīdhara. XI. Rājadharmakanda, Baroda, 1943, introd., 59.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 3} Am. Or. Ser. No. 22, New Haven, 1942: reviewed in BSOAS, XI, 2, 1944, 438–9. Our problem is not dealt with in objective treatments of royalty, e.g. Narendranatha Law, Ancient Indian polity, ch. viii; V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, Hindu administrative institutions, ch. ii; P. V. Kane, History of dharmaśāstra (cited below).

^{page 109 note 1} On the Tamil see Dasgupta, Surendranath, History of Indian philosophy, III, Cambridge, 1940, 70; on the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas see Rūpa-kavirāja (attrib.), Sārasangraha, ed. K. Goswami Sastri, Calcutta, 1949, with an introd. by Professor Satkari Mookerjee, which might facilitate the researches of Dr. Morris Carstairs (see p. 116, n. 6, below). The sexual image is used to describe even the relationship between the (masculine) purusa and the (feminine) prakrti in the Sāmkhya philosophy. There is mutual dependence there also (cf. the pangvandha simile). The purusa through the aid of prakrti attains mukti, and prakrti ceases to function ‘justas an unchaste woman who has been found out by her husband-maintainor does not resort to her (or ? a) husband again, or like a dancing girl, who has played her part and departs’. Mādhavācārya, Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha (Bibl. Ind.), Calcutta, 1858, 153, where a śloka is cited. A comprehensive study of the scope of sexual images in Indian thought would be rewarding.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 2} RV, VII, 101, 3 with Sāyana; VS, x, 23; TS, III, 3, 2, 2; ŚB, V, 4, 3, 20; TB, II, 2, 4, 6, 8.Bloomfield, M., Vedic concordance, Cambridge (Mass.), 1906, 602 ff.; Hamsarāja, cit. sup.; text cited below, p. 119. Kalhana, Rājataranginī, III, 86, 108. Meyer, op. cit., I, 207, 213; II, 38, 64 (as Mother); as Fertility-goddess passim.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 3} ŚB, II, 2, 1, 21; XII, 9, 2, 11. See synonyms for ‘Earth’ in Amarakośa, II, 1, 2 ff., also Halāyudha, Abhidhāna-ratnamālā, II, 1.

^{page 109 note 4} LXIII, 12–19. J. Gonda, ‘Ancient Indian kingship…’, Numen, III-IV, 1956–7 (cited below as Gonda, III or IV), at IV, 151. I owe the reference to this invaluable article to Dr. L. J. Rocher, and a copy to the kindness of Professor Gonda.

^{page 109 note 5} Bhāgavata-purāna, , 1916, IV, 18.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 6} Rājat, ., IV, 300.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 7} Kālidāsa, Baghuvamśa, II, 3.

^{page 109 note 8} After all, she is vasudhā, etc. ŚB, XIV, 9, 4, 21; Bājat., III, 300, et alibi.

^{page 109 note 9} Ragh, , I, 65.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 1} Meyer, , III, 231, n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 2} AV, XII, 1, 12. On dyāvāprthivī see below, p. 123, and AB, IV, 27, 5; AA, III, 1, 2; ŚB, I, 8, 3, 12.

^{page 110 note 3} ŚB, XI, 1, 6, 24. Kane, op. cit., III, Poona, , 1946, 21.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 4} Yāska, , Nirukta, x, 10Google Scholar; cf.Gonda, , III, 136.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 5} Aiyangar, R., op. cit., 82Google Scholar; Rau, W., Stoat und Gesdlschaft im alien Indien…, Wiesbaden, 1957, 90–2, para. 59. N. Law, op. cit., ch. viii, 112 ff., and ch. ix (on rājasūya, aśvamedha, etc.) touches the fringes of our problem, but from what Gonda says (III, 41–6; IV, 162) it is plain that abhiseka, ‘coronation’, anointing, and the king&s duty to make rain are very intimately connected. Note that fertility-symbols and water must be looked at by a king commencing a yātrā: evidently a mass of ritual data needs to be examined in a fresh light.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 6} Ragh, ., I, 26.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 7} ibid., I, 62.

^{page 110 note 8} Manu, , III, 76.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 9} Matsya-purāṇa, , CCXXVI, 10.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 1} Aiyangar, R., op. cit., 78Google Scholar, and refs. there given; Kane, op. cit., II, 825–6 (note the pole may be made of bamboo or sugar-cane); Meyer, see below, p. 120, n. 6; Gonda, , III, 64Google Scholar; IV, 27. Investigation is required of Indra, his pārijāta tree (a tree which showers ‘wishes’), and the latter&s ‘sister’ Laksmī. See Meyer, , II, 85–9, and, on unexpected functions of Laksmī-Śrī, Gonda, III, 131; IV, 35.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 2} Vālmīki, Rāmāyana, I, 9, 7–8 (eds. Bombay, 1905; Banaras, 1956; cf. Gorresio, 1843, I, 8, 11–12); VI, 131, 99 (Bombay, 1905) or VI, 128, 102 (Bombay, 1919), 110, 8 (Lahore, 1944), 131, 103 (Banaras, 1956); cf. Gorresio, 1850, VI, 113, 6; MBh., XII, 139, 9; and other refs. in R. Aiyangar, Ancient Indian polity. Second ed., Madras, 1935, 108. Tiruvaḷḷuva-nāyanār, Tirukkural, Thirunelveli and Madras, 1949, 559, p. 213: muṛai-kōdi maṇṇavaṇ ceyyi=nuṛaikōdi= yollādu vānam peyal. Compare the references given in the footnote, same page. Meyer, ,II, 255 ff.Google Scholar; III, 268. Gonda, , IV, 162–3.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 3} In Rājat. alone instances occur at I, 64, 101, 346; in, 58, 98, 529 (where Sesa is referred to); IV, 119, 481–2; et alibi. That the idea was very popular is shown by the story given in Merutunga, Prabandha-cintamani, ed. Jinavijaya-muni, 70–1, trans. Tawney, 106, where a buffoon leans on the king's shoulder and then expresses surprise at his remonstrance. In Kannada inscriptions the idea is a commonplace: see, e.g., Epigraphia Carnatica, v, Hassan 53: Hima-Setuvindolagada bhūmiyam bhuja-balāva-stambhadim taldi…, whereas in ibid., 65 we find ivan ī tōl-gambadol puttaligevol avani-devi tan vippal endum…. Note the significant picture in the Daulatabad Plates of Jayasimha II (A.D. 1017), Hyderabad Archaeological Series, II, p. 7, where the Earth is lifted on high as if a bracelet, i.e. the danda or lingam of the arm (see below, p. 122, n. 4) penetrates the yoni of the Earth.

^{page 111 note 4} Ragh, ., II, 34.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 5} ibid., II, 74.

^{page 111 note 6} By analogy with śankha-pāni or śastra-hasta. An instance of the idea is seen at Ep. Carn., v, Arsíkere 79 (lines 30–1), where ´ākhe = ‘arm’; and there are less obvious examples at lines 23–5 and 33 of ibid., Belur 58. Professor K. A. Nilakanta Sastri seems to have missed this in a remark at JIH, xxxv, 2, 1957, 282–3.

^{page 111 note 7} Arthaśāstra, , I, ī.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 1} See below, p. 118, n. 9, and RV, I, 33, 9, where the root bhuj appears.

^{page 112 note 2} Anekārtha-samuccaya, Poona, 1929, 105, p. 10.

^{page 112 note 3} Kathā-sarit-sāgara, trans. Tawney, Ocean of story, IV, 175–6; VI, 194.

^{page 112 note 4} Ragh., VIII, 3, 7 (which is the plainest of all); XIX, 3; Rājat., I, 72, 273, 287, 309; II, 8, 9, 63 III, 96, 470; IV, 2, 44, 282; et alibi, notably IV, 398, which runs: saptābdān vasudhām bhuktvā so ‘ti-sambhoga-janmanām jagāma samksayam ksmābhrt ksaya-rogena kilbisī In a beautiful and apt passage in Ep. Carn., XII, Nanj. 269, pp. 225–6 (A.D. 904) we are told that (while acting as his elder brother&s viceroy) Vijayāditya treated the Earth with the chaste respect due to a sister-in-law.

^{page 112 note 5} Rājat, ., IV, 32.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 6} ibid., IV, 2.

^{page 112 note 7} Ep. Cam., VI, Kadur 21, dated Cāl. Vik. 13 = A.D. 1089.

^{page 112 note 8} The well-known janapada Kuntala (in Skt. = ‘tresses’) offered poets an obvious pun: e.g. in Epigraphia Indica, XX, p. 115 (A.D. 1167) we are told that by force of arms Bijjana seized the hair of the lady, the land of Kuntala (sc. as a prelude to rape). He was in fact a usurper South Indian inscr., III, no. 205, p. 395, v. 5: the Cōḷa king seized the city of Tanjore, capital of a great kingdom, as if she had been his own wife.

^{page 112 note 9} Rau, , op. cit., 35–7, para. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 10} See Bāna-bhatta, Harsacarita, VI, 13: utsaṅge bhuvā….

^{page 113 note 1} Majumdar, R. C., Raychaudhuri, H. C., and Datta, Kalikinkar, Advanced history of India, London, 1946, 191–2, comment that this makes him equal to Visnu. Compare nāvi⋅nufi prthvīpalih. Vra-Rājēndra Cōḷa is called Śrl-medinī-vallabha in Epigraphia Indica, XXV, p. 265. A title of the Rāstrakūtas, inter alios, and after them of the Western Cālukyas and later the Hoysalas: e.g. Ep. Carn., V, Hassan 114 of A.D. 1139. Vallabha came with time to mean ‘emperor’ in the Deccan.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 2} Ragh, ., XVII, 46. But she observed a vow of chastity in the house of King Ranaraṅga-Bhima: Ep. Ind., XI, p. 218, II. 40–2. As a wife she appears in the Junagadh inscription of Skanda Gupta, Corpus ins. Ind., III, p. 59, v. 5 of c. A.D. 455.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 3} South Indian inscr., III, p. 451, provides one of many examples.

^{page 113 note 4} Ragh, ., I, 32. South Indian inscr., III, no. 69, p. 147, lines 4–5: Kulōttuṅga I put an end to the commonness of the Laksmī of the South and the loneliness of the goddess of the Kāvērī country. Here podumai = commonness (not ‘ownerlessness’), cf. podu-stiri, ‘prostitute’.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 5} ibid., xvm, 47. Note also Bājat., III, 126; IV, 373, 467, 589–90. For the text Srīś ca te Laksmīś ca patnyau see Mitra-miśra, cit. inf., 18–19. Also Ep. Carn., V, Hassan 65: kulavadhu vijaya-śri; and in both ibid., Belur 58 and 71 (of the year A.D. 1117) we find: piṅgade tōlol hormii malaṅgire jaya-laksmi laksmi varddhise suttam.

^{page 113 note 6} Bāna, , op. cit., IV, 27.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 7} Laksmīdhara, Rājadharmakānda, 1–8; Mitra-miśra, Viramitrodaya, Rājanītiprakāśa, Banaras, 1916, 15–31. It is noted that in several texts it is Indra that is first mentioned as supplying parts of the king, and see Nārada, XVII, 27. Gonda, III, 65.

^{page 113 note 8} Laksmīdhara, ubi cit., 18–21, 142–8; Mitra-miśra, ubi cit., 116–21. Manu, I, 89, is faintly comical in view of the traditional rdja-vyasanas: the king&s divinely appointed duties are (i) protection of the people, and (ii) non-surrender to appetites.

^{page 113 note 9} I, 18 (Trivandrum ed., 92).

^{page 114 note 1} Kane, , op. cit., III, 27, notes the relative scarcity of matter in the śāstra dealing with privileges as opposed to responsibilities.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 2} Grants reserving certain rights, particularly in cases of disobedience, laid down in the grants themselves, are well authenticated. The nearest to an ‘out-and-out’ grant was that of astabhoga-tejas-svāmya, in other words nidhi, niksepa, pāsāna, siddha, sādhya, Jala, aksīni, and āgāmi, on which see the verse cited by F. W. Ellis in his letter to the Madras Govt. dated 2 August 1814 (?), pub. C. P. Brown, Three treatises on Mirasi right…, Madras, 1852, at p. 17, n. 49; also A. K. Majumdar, The Chaulukyas, Bombay, 1956, 248; and cf. A. Master, ‘Some Marathi inscriptions, A.D. 1060–1300’, BSOAS, xx, 1957, 428–9. Majumdar, cit. sup., is most useful on the king&s rights, and one may usefully consult S. K. Maity, Economic life of northern India…, Calcutta, 1957. In revenue terminology bhoga means, apparently, the right to maintenance from the inhabitants when in their vicinity, as contrasted with bhāga, the regular share in the crops by way of land-revenue.

^{page 114 note 3} See below, p. 116.

^{page 114 note 4} Paraśurāmapratāpa (on which see Kane, op. cit., I, 578) cited from ‘f. 27a’ (prob. Deccan Coll. MS), ibid., III, 196, n. 252a.

^{page 114 note 5} Details of these rights are to be found in T. V. Mahalingam, South Indian polity, Madras, 1955; Maity, cit. sup.; and Derrett, The Hoysalas, O.U.P., 1957. See also Book II of the Arthaśāstra and ibid., Bk. v, ch. ii. It is well known that the king was entitled to order householders to contribute to the maintenance of dancing-girls; for his right to compel rich persons to be generous see Medhātithi on Mann, IX, 333.

^{page 115 note 1} Many land-grants provide that the demesne shall not be entered by cātas or bhatas (who would levy contributions on the pretext that the court required them). On the abuse called begārī, see Bengal Regs, XI of 1806 and III of 1820; Banerjee, T. K., Administration of criminal justice… [thesis], London, 1955, 135 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 2} Jagannātha-tarkapancānana, Vivāda-bhaṅgārnava, I.O. MS Skt. 1770 = Egg. 1534, f. 5= Colebrooke&s Digest, Madras, 1864, i, 306–7. Kātyāyana (Kane&s text), v. 16, and editor&s comments thereon, p. 121, n., also Kane, III, 189, n. 243. The king&s right to taxes was sometimes attributed to the tax-payer&s own motives (e.g. Aparārka on Yājñ, I, 366, cited Kane

^{page 115 note 3} Basham, A. L., The wonder that was India, London, 1954, 109Google Scholar ff.; Derrett, 233 ff.; Maity, 15–23; Gonda, , IV, 128, n. 656. The less satisfactory view continues to be stated by epigraphists, such as MM V. V. Mirashi, and historians, e.g. Professor Nilakanta Sastri, ubi cit. sup. śabara on Jaimini, VI, 7, 3, is widely misunderstood. The king who serves the Earth by ‘upholding’ and being valorous has no exclusive ownership over the Earth that can be given to priests, but only the rights not already assigned to the subjects. These could be, and often were, alienated in religious donations—and sometimes bought back again!Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 4} Rājat, ., IV, 55 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 1} R. Aiyangar, introd. to Rājadharmakānda, 54 ff. Kane, , III, 190, 228, 384, 762, 942.Google Scholar A fundamental text commences na risam visam, ibid., p. 1273, No. 11. On Bhats and Charans in western India in the eighteenth century see Tod, J., Annals and antiquities …, II, 500Google Scholar; Forbes, J., Oriental memoirs, 1834, I, 377–80.Google Scholar Chintaman Rao, negotiating with Elphinstone in 1819, demanded that Brahmans should be exempt from begārī: Ballhatchet, K., Social policy and social change…, London, 1957, 68.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 2} Rau, 65, para. 43; Gonda, , III, 135.Google ScholarMBh., XII, 47, 24; Vas., I, 42–3.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 3} Kane, , II. 36 ff.Google Scholar; Dikshitar, , Hindu administrative institutions, 114 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 4} Dikshitar, , op. cit., 166Google Scholar ff.; Kane, III, 187; Aiyangar, R., Rajadharma, Adyar, 1941, 35, 107Google Scholar; MBh., XII, 57, 11.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 5} e.g. Rāmānuja, Vedārthasaṅgraha, ed. van Beutenen, Poona, 1957, trans., 275.

^{page 116 note 6} Nār., XVII, 25Google Scholar; Carstairs, E. M., The twice-born, London, 1957, 21.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 1} śrimūla, , on Arthaśāstra, I, i; Manu, ix, 311 and commentaries.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 2} Arthaśāstra, , IV, 3Google Scholar; v, 2: Kane, , III, 188, n. 240.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 3} In AB, VIII, 12, 5Google Scholar (cf. 17, 5) he is called viśām attā ‘eater of the folk’; Gonda, , IV, 35.Google Scholar From the context this may mean ‘devourer’ in the sense of ‘destroyer’; cf. MBh., XII, 47,Google Scholar 37–8. For ‘preying upon’ see Arthaś., II, 1Google Scholar; Kane, ,III, 184Google Scholar ff. In another sense the foodproducing classes are ‘eaten’ by those who protect them by arms or mantras, and the latter even ‘eat’ the king: TS, VII, 1, 1, 4–6Google Scholar; PB, VI, 1, 6–11Google Scholar (Ghoshal, U. N., History of Hindu public life, I, Calcutta, 1945, 51–2)Google Scholar; also śB, V, 4, 2, 3.Google Scholar A thorough study of the problem will take into account texts such as Nārada, , XVII, 22Google Scholar, where the subject is compared with the king&s wife; and Ragh., VII, 8, where the good king acts impartially to each subject, just as the ocean behaves to hundreds of rivers. The ocean is, of course, the husband of the rivers: sarit-pati—cf. Kālīdāsa, . Mālavikā., v, 19.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 4} A commonplace in dharmaśāstra. In Meyer, , II, 128–9, a hint is not followed up.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 5} Sāyana, on BV, I, 52, 14.Google Scholar Indra resorted to for fertility (‘offspring’), victory, and wealth: ibid., I, 8, 6 and passim particularly in the first mandala.

^{page 117 note 6} Another commonplace. See e.g. BV, I, 33Google Scholar; IV, 34 and 35; cf. AV, III, 4, 2Google Scholar. The sexual aspects of Indra: Meyer, III. A critical, but non-sexual study: Benveniste, E. and L., Renou, Vrtra et VrSragna: etude de mythologie. indo-iranienne, Paris, 1934.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 1} Ruler: BV, VIII, 37, 3.Google Scholar Bull, lord, ‘rainer’, protector, ‘showerer’: RV, I, 7, 8; 9, 4; 10, 10; 32. Even in countries where rainfall can be a nuisance ‘showering blessings’ is an accepted metaphor—and, since we have mentioned a Western usage, are not the uses to which the English word husband is put significant in our context?Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 2} He is bhū-śahra (‘the Earth&s Indra’?): Śri-Harsa, cited Sukti-muktdvali, Baroda, 1938, 338Google Scholar, No. 25. MBh., XII, 67, 4Google Scholar; Arthaś., I, 13.Google Scholar The king&s mother is Indra&s mother: AV, VI, 38Google Scholar; his bow Indra's weapon: Gonda, , III, 131.Google ScholarBajat., I, 99, 100, 174Google Scholar; II, 63; III, 329, 475; IV, 108, 164, 194, 217, 372; and so forth. Indra survived in abhiseka ceremonies and the rituals for increasing sovereignty; and also in the South Indian pongal festival, upon which see Meyer, , III, 118 ff.Google Scholar Gonda takes the identification as established: III, 63–1, 134, 138; IV, 51. What is the relationship of Indra to Gautama Buddha ? The concept of Indra held by Buddhist writers is sketched ibid., in, 144.

^{page 118 note 3} vi, 54, cited V. E. Ramaehandra Dikshitar, War in ancient India. Second ed., Madras, etc., 1948, at p. 36.

^{page 118 note 4} Aindrapadam. MBh., XII, 78, 34, promises him Indra-salokatā after his death, but that is not enough. The ‘state of Indra’ is the conventional boon with which sannyāsis are tempted. The whole point, so far as it relates to kings, is well elaborated by Dikshitar, War, 31 and if.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 5} On Jaimini, , I, 4, 13.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 6} AV, XII, I, 42.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 7} See p. 110, n. 2, above and p. 119, n. 4, below, also MBh., XII, 92, 1.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 8} RV., VII, 101, 2.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 9} Bagh., III, 4.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 10} ibid., I, 75; Bājat., IV, 222–40.Google Scholar Indra also gives lessons in statecraft: MBh., XII, 140, 17.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 11} R. Aiyangar, introd. to Bājadharmakānda, 17. The most explicit text is Manu, IX, 304.

^{page 118 note 12} III, 64, 134.

^{page 118 note 13} SeeMeyer, , op. cit., III, 150.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 14} RV., V, 83Google Scholar, 4–5, with Sāyana thereon, is extraordinarily suggestive, since the word avati aptly implies sexual satisfaction (cf. Bagh., I, 65Google Scholar, cit. sup.). On retas and Parjanya as an impregnator see also RV., V, 83, 1; VII, 101, 6; and 103, 2.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 1} VI, 7, 2–40; 8, 42; 9, 4–11.

^{page 119 note 2} Cited in Dikshitar, War, 37, n. 63a; Gonda, , IV, 28.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 3} See p. 118, n. 1, above, and compare the warrior&s hymn to the virile vṙ⋅an Indra in AV, XIX, 13.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 4} op. cit., 106, para. 71, ref. ŚB, V, 3, 1, 4.Google Scholar The learned author assembles further references suggesting that the uttaravedi, the lioness, and the female buffalo are supernaturally related. Indra&s and Parjanya&s relationship with Prthivī, and Indra&s other sexual exploits, were taken for granted in medieval times; Sāyana tells us that ‘for fun’ Indra had intercourse with a mare and begot a cow: comm. on RV, I, 121, 2.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 5} King: refs. in Dikshitar, War, 19, 387–91; Aiyangar, R., op. cit., introd., 75Google Scholar, n. 1; Kane, , op. cit., in, 57–8Google Scholar; IV, 605; sannyāsi: Kane, , II, ch. xxviii.Google Scholar See Medhātithi, on Manu, VII, 89.Google Scholar History abounds with examples of sannyāsis or would-be sannyāsis who have committed suicide by fire or water, and burial alive, as a literal interpretation of the requirement of death by samādhi (with which compare the Jainas& sallekhanā), takes place even to-day. Note that only babies and sannyāsis-are entitled to burial as distinct from cremation. Moreover there is a reciprocity between rājas and sannyāsis of a most unexpected kind. They appear to be at opposite poles of existence: but the royal ṙ⋅i (Gonda, , III, 45Google Scholar) and the rāja whose rājyam is his āśrama or tapas, are commonplaces, whence Ragh., I, 58, is beautifully apt. See also Śālcunt., II, 14. Both rāja and sannyāsi in the form of ṙsi are, of course, perfect father-figures.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 6} Gonda, , III, 71; IV, 133. The last reference links tejas and vīrya, mystical efficiency and sexual potency. Professor Gonda sees in the Aśvamedha sacrifice (IV, 134–5) a ritual primarily intended to increase the king&s potency (and thence his qualification to rule widely).Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 7} MBh., XII, 183, 15: for the printed śukram many manuscripts read śuklam.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 1} Raqh., II, 69.Google Scholar Sūlctim., 339—a verse calling yasas by the suggestive word sukla. Vājapeya = ‘drink of vigour’, on which see refs. in. Gonda, , IV, 37Google Scholar; ibid., 38, 134–5, for the meanings of vāja. It is not precisely retas, but it is evidently the condition of having ample retas pent up. Carstairs enlarges on secret rites involving incest, etc., and no doubt holiness and horror are often related. The relation between sexuality and holiness seems to maintain similar features throughout the Indo-European world, but as Professor Gonda emphasizes, India provides quite special developments of the common heritage.

^{page 120 note 2} Bilhana, , Vikramānkadeva-carita, Banaras, 1945, I, 89. The pure ya⋅as of one king was so abundant that it had to be stored in a reservoir (like the seed of Prajāpati that formed the lake Manasa): Ep. Ind., VII, p. 43; cf. Heesterman, cit. inf., 190. Somadeva&s Yasastilaka bears an intriguing and doubtless apt title. South Indian inscr., III, p. 398, v. 92: the son of Rājarāja seized the pure pearls which had become seeds, as it were, of the pure fame (in the plural) of the Pāndya king.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 3} op. cit., 83 if., 166. Meyer, index, ‘Honig’, ‘Milch’. The king&s couch at the ‘coronation’ may be made of wood yielding a milk-white sap.

^{page 120 note 4} N. Law, ubi cit.; Kane, , III, 72 ff.Google Scholar; Gonda, , III, 43; IV, 33 ff., 46 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 5} Introd. to Rājadharmakānda, 80–1. Meyer seems to have omitted to mention this.

^{page 120 note 6} III, 7 ff.; 192. It is Indra himself, III, 13, 24, 40, 41, 98. On stones see ibid., I, 57.

^{page 121 note 1} Alexander probably did not bring the custom to India. The custom of erecting monoliths is still alive in England. A gigantic partly-hewn pillar is to be seen on the village green in Westwell, Oxon., erected after the first World War to commemorate two soldiers. It is a splendid vīragal.

^{page 121 note 2} Evidence from South India. On trees as fertility symbols, lordly and phallic: Meyer, , I, 214 ff.; III, 190–5.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 3} On attitudes to fathers: Carstairs, 67–9, 159–67. Texts emphasizing the father-like status of the king: Kane, , III, 62–3.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 4} On vīrya; Gonda, , IV, 133, 158. After this paper was written the writer discovered with pleasure that Professor Gonda had found, in TB, III, 9, 7, 4, and ŚB, XIII, 2, 9, 6, identifications of the rāstra (which he translates ‘royal sway’) with the membrum virile.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 5} Vāpya-maṅgala ceremony, cited by Dev Raj, L&esclavage dans l&Inde ancienne, Pondichéry, 1957, 53. Heesterman&s guess, op. cit. inf. 166, seems appropriate.

^{page 122 note 1} VI, 87, 1–2.

^{page 122 note 2} Kannada, examples cited p. 111, n. 3, above.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 3} Gonda, , IV, 53 ff.Google Scholar, on the Earth&s broadness, and Heaven&s. On the circularity of the king&s Earth, ibid., 144 ff. The king should be in the centre of his mandala or cakra (ibid., 148), just, we note, as the liṅgam of Mahādeva shows the upright portion in the centre of the yoni portion.

^{page 122 note 4} In Śiva-Mahādeva the yoni is underneath, the liṅgam above. But the image we have here is reversed, as well it may be since the arm, which is the phallic symbol (see the instance cited above, p. Ill, n. 3), must of necessity be visualized surmounted by that which it is supporting and penetrating. The arm with the clenched fist is often used suggestively in India. The king&s arm appears as phallic, doubtless as a symbol of Indra, and as a deity, it seems, in the otherwise inexplicable passage in the Kaluchumbarru grant of Vijāyāditya Amma II, the Eastern Cālukya of the tenth century (Ep. Ind., VII, p. 186). He is described as sāhsȧd Vallabha-nrpa-samabhyarcita-bhujal} ‘whose arm was personally (or ‘kpublicly’) worshipped by king Vallabha (i.e. the Rāstrakūta emperor, so termed disrespectfully)’. samabhyarcita is a very strong word, suggesting worship of the liṅgam of Śiva, and bhuja means nothing but ‘arm’.

^{page 122 note 5} See p. 123, n. 3. This verse commences about seven out of every ten inscriptions (mostly engraved on tall monoliths) now standing in the villages or fields of Karnātaka. The white cāmara, white umbrellas, and the victorious white pennant, all related to the king and to poles, deserve study along the lines suggested here.

^{page 123 note 1} Gonda, , IV, 141, 143–1Google Scholar, emphasizes how Indra&s expansion is so great that he fills Earth and Heaven and the space between, or rather that in extent he surpasses them. Extension, swelling so as fully to occupy: this attribute of both Indra and the king is carefully expounded by Professor Gonda. Heesterman, J. C., The ancient Indian royal consecration, The Hague, 1957,191, n. 58, points out that the indriya force rises upwards through the three worlds and that it is only by rising to the third world that Indra can master it. His work refers to what he calls indriya-vīrya- frequently, pointing out its importance in the rājasūya.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 2} In particular note RV., III, 30, 5: ime cid Indra rodasī apāre yat samgrbhnā Maghavcm kāśir it te, which Śahara (on Jaimini, IX, 1, 6 and 9) hastens to explain away, because though Indra grips them in a ‘fistful’ (kāśih = muṣṭih, which, N.B., is suspected to mean penis in one citation in Monier-Williams), the jurist is reluctant to ascribe either possession or ownership to a devoiā.

^{page 123 note 3} Nothing depicts the king&s nature as phallus-pillar-Indra more clearly than the axis mundi pose of the king, about to be ‘sprinkled’, standing erect on his throne (the navel of the Earth), with both arms reaching to the sky: MS, 4, 4, 3: 53.16 referred to and expounded brilliantly by Heesterman, op. cit., 101 and n. 51.