|
|
|
|
BY: SUN STAFF
The Coronation of King Prthu Sep 19, 2018 — CANADA (SUN) — The last in a series on the religious dictates that influenced kingship in Vedic culture.
CHAPTER XXV
It must also be emphasized that the above account of the main characteristics of Indian kingship from the point of view of the comparative study of religion does not intend to be anything like a history of kingship in ancient India. We could not go into such questions as to how far royal authority was, in practical life, strengthened by particular causes and circumstances, for instance by the existence of a loyal aristocracy or by a more or less influential body of brahmans.
Nor did we consider how far every point discussed on the preceding pages was accepted in all milieus and at any period, a problem which indeed is largely insoluble. We have intentionally left those aspects of kingship undiscussed which do not pertain to our subject.
In details there may have been also much difference of opinion with regard to the nature of kingship and the functions of the man on the throne, in different parts of the enormous country different features may have come to the fore. At an earlier period the mighty influence of the brahmans had not yet systematically delineated the position of the king, and defined the various aspects of his function. That the leader of the prehistoric Indian tribes was in a sense a 'divine king' may be taken for granted. On the other hand, it was the first order, the brahmans, who though convinced of their own divinity, by their mighty spiritual and intellectual influence supported and strengthened the position of the ruler with a variety of rites and theories and who proclaimed it s superhuman character. It was the purohita who by his mere presence and by his knowledge and practices protected the valuable personality of the ruler, it was priesthood which consecrated him.
It may be taken for granted that the superhuman nature of kingship which was rooted in the belief of the masses was in accordance with their philosophy of life and universe, which too was an amplification and an elaborated and well-considered systematization of pre-scientific views, beliefs, and interpretations of the connections between the various entities and phenomena in the universe.
We have also refrained from discussing the intricate question—the importance of which is however not denied—of how far Aryan and non-Aryan components can be distinguished in Indian kingship. A word of warning may not be out of place here. Much has been written in order to show that the non-Aryan substratum has left many traces in various provinces of the Indian culture as it is known to us from historical sources. That this influence has been considerable may be taken for granted a priori. But this is not to concede that any attempt to prove the non-Aryan origin of a particular custom or a definite belief must be regarded as successful. What has been said on this point is for the greater part of a more or less speculative character and any effort to point out more than general outlines would appear to be premature.
Most authors neglected to consider a fact which is, with regard to all problems of this description, of outstanding interest. The expression of natural, pre-scientific, 'primitive' and 'semi-primitive' or non-modern humanity, irrespective of racial connections and geographical environments, is fairly similar. It is therefore far from easy to decide whether definite features in myths, beliefs, customs, practices, or institutions are Aryan or non-Aryan in origin, because they may at a certain stage of cultural development have been belonged to the mental outfit of any people. Only unambiguous philological, historical and linguistic data could help us further in ascertaining what was contributed by the Aryan, what by Dravidian or other peoples 806).
Besides, the processes of identification and amalgamation of religious beliefs, conceptions and institutions originally belonging to different milieus are often complicated to such a degree that the respective contributions are almost always difficult exactly to determine even if philological and historical material is available. For we should always remember that forms of worship, magic, religious beliefs, social institutions etc. occurring among the Aryan immigrants may have been identified, assimilated, and indistinguishably united from the very early moment at which in prehistoric times Aryans and non-Aryans came into contact. An Aryan, Austrian, or Dravidian name does therefore not necessarily cover a figure, cult or institution of purely Aryan, Austrian of Dravidian origin.
With regard to our subject we may, for the time being, arrive at the conclusion that in the main kingship was for the ancient Indians what it was in many other societies. The unity of basic concepts is unmistakable. As generally speaking the forms of socio-religious beliefs and institutions reflect within the pattern of pre-scientific or non-modern culture variations in the degree of civilization both ethically and socially, both temporally and geographically, it is not surprising to find that in many details the conceptions of the ancient Indians were different from those of the Egyptians, the Chinese, of various African tribes or other peoples. Some aspect—for instance the conviction that an incapable king should be killed—which is emphasized in other countries, may hardly have been of any importance in India, and vice versa. In the course of time some views of rulership varied, also in India itself, from their original form.
On the other hand ancient Indian kingship corresponded in many respects to similar institutions of other ancient Indo-European peoples 807). Despite the comparatively small number of our data regarding kingship and rulership in large parts of ancient Europe— the Indian sources can safely be said to flow more abundantly than those of all other Indo-European peoples together—we shall not err in maintaining that ancient Indo-European kingship was, in important aspects, a sacred institution. Whereas in India the adjective sreyas- "specially characterized by the possession of sri- 808), prosperous, rich, illustrious to a special or comparatively high degree, distinguished, superior, one's better" and cognate words were often used in connection with rulers, the related xpeiwv [Greek] was applied to the ancient Greek princes, the idea expressed by the root krei- kri- being that of "causing to prosper, (re)creating for good" 809).
Agamemnon's and Poseidon's epithet eupu xpeiwv [Greek] "ruling widely" may be compared to the Indian prthusri- "of broad in". The Homeric king was [ ] "divine, holy", and "heavenly"; he was [Greek] "sprung from Zeus" and [Greek] "fostered by Zeus". The Odyssey 810) completely agrees with the Indian authors in regarding "a good lord over many men who upholds justice" the source of his people's prosperity: "the black earth bears wheat and barley, and the trees are laden with fruit, the flocks bring forth unceasingly and the sea yields fish, all from his good leading" 811).
Similar ideas were fostered by the Celts, and German communities to held their chieftains responsible for a bad harvest as well as a military defeat 812). The Irish king was subject to a variety of taboos 813), played a part in rites which were in some respects remarkably similar to those described on the foregoing pages, just as the Indian queen had, as a part of the rites of the asvamedha, to lie with the sacrificial horse, the Irish king was expected to enter into matrimonial relation with a mare. Whereas the Homeric ruler was honoured with gifts like a god and brought under his sceptre—, which he possessed in common with other sacrosanct persons—his ordinances to prosperous fulfilment 814), the Roman king was not only head of the state, but also a priest; his priestly functions have survived.
It was the belief in ancient England that the king was a representative of God; he moreover was the hlaford, i.e. "guardian of bread" and like his Indian colleague, the mundbora "protector" of the whole people. The birth of the ancient Iranian ruler, who was also believed to be "long-armed'', really was that of a divine helper and redeemer; he represented right and justice, and protected, by his very existence, the welfare and prosperity of his realm against any danger. Even the republican Cicero in defining the essence of kingship 815) resorted to terms which at least admit of a 'religious' interpretation: "(rex est) qui consulit ut parens populo, conservatque eos quibus est praepositus quam optima in condicione vivendi".
King Prthu Enters His City So far kingship in ancient times is concerned, but among the many features of hoary antiquity included in the great solemnity of the coronation of a king or queen of England arc, as is well known, inter alia the resemblance of the royal vestments to sacerdotal garb—which in the Middle Ages led to numerous controversies as to whether the king after coronation possessed a priestly character. The ruler is, like the ancient Indian king, expected to protect religion, to help and defend widows and orphans, to do justice, to confirm what is in good order and to punish and reform what is amiss. The purpose of the anointing ceremony is for the recipient of the oil to receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost, the oil itself being traditionally miraculous: a.' similar character was, mututis mutandis, attributed to the divine water drawn from the sacred river Sarasvati, the sea, a well, rain fallen by sunshine, milk and so on, with which the ancient Indian monarch was sprinkled; and the words spoken by the Archbishop in performing his task have a remarkable resemblance to a well-known type of Indian consecrating formulas in which the power inherent in a prototype, or 'historical' or mythical 'first case' is activated on behalf of the recipient. There can on the other hand be no doubt that the sacred nature of kingship assumed, in India, a much more definite character than may be assumed to have existed in prehistoric Indo-European antiquity. This kingship seems to have been one of those elements of so-called primitive or non-modern culture, which were in the West— mainly under the influence of Greek rationalism—gradually superseded, but in India—which culturally developed on its own lines 816)— not only preserved but even fostered and systematized. It would therefore be wise, not to rely on the argumentum e silentio and to ascribe to the prehistoric Greek, Romans, and Germans all beliefs and customs (found in the ancient Indian documents, but rather to regard both the eastern and the ancient western conceptions of royalty and rulership was, in the first place, representative of a generally human belief, and secondly as a continuation of common Indo-European ideas and practices; and not to attribute to the prehistoric Indo-Europeans those details which we know only from the Indian sources 817). FOOTNOTES 806) See for a more detailed discussion of these problems my Aspects of early Visnuism, ch. I. 807) The reader may be referred to O. Schrader-A. Nehring, Reallexikon 808) Die Andhra kings used to place siri (sri-) before their names (IInd cent. A.D.). 809) Sat. Br. 6, 7. 3. V, 13. 2. 9, 2; cf. 4; Taitt. Br. 3, 9. 7. I. 810) Odyssey 19, 109 ff. 811) For traces of a king acting as weather-magician in ancient Greece see J E. Harrison, Themis 2, Cambridge 1927, p. 109. 812) Cf. E.g. Ammianus Marcellinus 28, 5. See also O. Hofler, Gernamsches Sakralkonigtum, Tubingen 1952; K. Olivecrona, Das Werden eines Konigs nach altschwedischcm Recht, Lund 1947. 813) Cf. e.g. M. L. Sjoestedt, Gods and heroes of the Celts, London 1949, p. 70 ff.; M. Dillon, The Taboos of the Kings of Ireland, Proc. Royal Irish Acad. 54, C, I, Dublin 1951. 814) Iliad 9. 155 f. 815) Cicero, D. re publica I, 26, 47. 816) I refer to my Inleiding tot het Indische denken, Antwerpen 1948, ch. I. 817) As I have, in this essay, not primarily addressed to specialists in Indology or historians, tried to summarize for students of the history of religion in general and for those interested in the religions of other ancient Asian and European peoples, the results reached by research into the "religious" aspects of kingship from the Rgveda down to the end of the epic period and the break-up of the Gupta empire, no attention has been devoted to the "juiridical status" of the king, to the administration of the kingdoms, to the historical interest of the problems discussed, or to other aspects of kingship which, however interesting by themselves, have no relevance for those interested in religion. My aim has been to set forth and to interpret as fairly as I could the main evidence, without concealing the fact that sometimes divergent views have been expressed by those who viewed the subject from another standpoint. This concludes our presentation of Ancient Indian Kingship from the Religious Point of View, E. J. Brill, Netherlands
| |