________________
308
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
I would add here a few remarks on the true application of the title Maharajadhiraja, in respect of which there has been a misunderstanding. Mr. Fergusson wrote (Jour. R. As. Soc. N. S. Vol. IV. p. 84 f.): "In India there were three ranks of kings. First, Rájas, or simple "princes; Mahá-Rájas, who would rank as kings in Europe; and Mahárája Adhirajas, kings of "kings, or emperors. The title is identical with Bariλevs Bariλéwv of the Greeks, or Shahan "Shahi of the Persians, and was used in India from the Greek times till probably the Mahomedan "conquest. This would hardly be worthy of remark, but for one circumstance. There might "be any number of Rajas or Maharajas contemporary with one another, but only one Adhiraja "or emperor could exist at one time. The consequence is, that whenever we find a king adopting "this title, we know that he was, or at least, assumed to be king of the five Indies, divisions, "which would correspond very nearly with the four Presidencies into which we have divided "India, if the Nizam's and surrounding estates were erected into a fifth. The consequence of "this is that no two emperors could be contemporary with one another, and that whenever we can trace the dignity from a king in one family to one in another, we know that we have a "true succession, and an historical sequence of the utmost importance. Sometimes these emperors resided in Magadha, at other times at Canouge or Ougein, and at one time at "Kalyan, but always in succession."
46
-
[OCTOBER, 1890.
My attention has been directed again to this passage, which I knew previously, by some remarks made by the Hon. K. T. Telang in connection with 'Samkaracharya's statement that, in his time, there was no Sárvabhauma-rúja or emperor of all India. Mr. Telang has correctly pointed out that the title Mahárájádhirája does not denote an emperor of all India. But he himself, if properly reported, has fallen into an error, in saying that "even the Maharajadhiraja was not really a paramount sovereign, to whom the other Rájas owed allegiance as subordinates or feudatories in any way."12 And Mr. Fergusson's statements contain more than one point open to objection. In the first place, it is most improbable that there ever was any emperor of all India after the time of Asôka; most certainly, not even the Early Guptas held that position. In the second place, the assertion that the Maharajas of India would rank as kings in Europe, is correct only for early times; in Northern India, up to the period of Kanishka, Huvishka, and Vâsudêva; and in Southern India, up to the times that have been indicated above, in connection with the Western and Eastern Chalukyas. In the third place, that Mahárájádhiraja corresponds to Basileus Basileón, is open to question, as the latter appears to have been a perceptibly inferior title; but on this point I am not prepared to write more at present, having not had leisure to complete my intended Note on Hindu and Indo-Scythian. Titles of Sovereignty. And finally, that there might be several Mahárájádhirájas at one and the same time, is an actual fact, capable of demonstration; for, e. g., in or about A. D. 650 there were, contemporaneously, at least the Mahúrájádhiraja Amśavarman in Nêpâl, the Maharajadhiraja Adityasêna in Magadha, the Mahárájádhirája 'Silâditya III. at Valabhi, and the Mahárájádhiraja Pulikéśin II., or Adityavarman, or Vikramaditya I., at Vâtâpi. The title Maharajadhiraja is the one, which corresponds to the title and the only one since the periods indicated above, of king' or 'emperor' in Europe. The Mahárájádhirájas were paramount sovereigns, each in his own division of India, and each independent of his peers, just as in Europe are the Emperors of Germany and Austria, and the Kings of Denmark and Portugal. And their feudatories were the Maharajas, Mahásámantas, Rájas, Sámantas, &c., according to the nomenclature of the different kingdoms, whose correlatives are the princes and great feudatory nobles of Europe.13
-
-
12 Mr. Telang's paper was read before the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society on the 14th July last. My remarks are made on the report of it which appeared in the Bombay Gazette of the 24th July.
13 That there was a misunderstanding on this point, and that I had not distinctly cleared it away, occurred to me when I had finished my Gupta Inscriptions; in consequence of which, in the Index, under the headings "paramount sovereigns, titles of," and "sovereigns, paramount, titles of," I inserted the words "i. e. of Bovereigns supreme in their own dominions, but not necessarily reigning over the whole of India."
