not be paffed over, his confecration is directed; but if he be vicious, another fon, who is virtuous, may obtain the kingdom: confecration to empire is thus fhown; therefore, fhe adds, the eldest son of Rama, and not Bharata, will obtain the empire. It should not be objected, that the fpeech of Mant'hara is intended to excite difcord, and is no authority. Such a difpofition would not be excited in the mind of a hearer by the fuggeftions of a perfon speaking inconfiftently with the reafon of the law, with exprefs ordinances, and with received ufage: it may be affirmed, that the fpeech of Mant'hara is not inconfiftent with thefe three. It is confitent with the reafon of the law; for the fhows the argument of it and it is confiftent with fettled ufage; for Va. fifht'ha fubfequently declares, that, 46 among all the fons of Icfhwacu, the first born" is king" and the doubt above-mentioned, whether the declaration of Vafifht'ha be reftricted to the pofterity of Icfhwacu, is obviated by the general affertion of Mant'hara.

It should not be objected, that,' were it fo, the allotment of a divided kingdom to the two fons of Satrughna would contradict that af. fertion; and it would be inconfift. ent with an exprefs ordinance; for, in the want of exprefs texts of law, partition by a father ought to be made in the fame mode with partition among heirs. If no contradiction be apprehended, there is nothing to prevent partition: and the reafon of the law has more authority in-judicial procedure than the letter of exprefs ordinances. Thus Mifra fays, "civil law is indeed founded on reafon, not on revelation;" that is, he does not lay much firefs on the Veda in judicial decifions, (for a

text of the Veda, on partition by a father, is preferved by Baudhayana,) but eftablishes the fuperior authority of the reafon of the law, in compa rifon with the letter of exprefs ordinances.

Some explain the fecond verfe, "all the fons of kings do not retain life, when the eldest brother remains:" and they quote the remainder of Mant'hara's fpeech.

"Rama and Lachmana are close"ly united in mutual friendship; "their brotherly affection, like the "union of the twin fons of Afwini, is known to the world *.

2. "Rama, therefore, will in nothing injure Lachmana; but, "doubtlefs, he will injure Bharata.

3. "Thy fon, therefore, muft ha❝ften to the foreft from thy mother's "houfe: fuch must be his fate.

"Rama does not regard Bharata, "as he does Lachmana: the life of "thy fon (now refiding in his ma"ternal grandmother's houfe) will "therefore be attempted by Rama, "when he has obtained the empire; "and, to fave his life, Bharata muft "retire to the foreft." This they hold to be implied by this fpeech. But that expofition is wrong; for it would be a vain repetition of what had been already faid, and would be fpoken without caufe.

Therefore, fhould a father, hearing thefe inftances from the Puranas and other works, commit the kingdom to his eldeft or other virtuous fon, the gift muft neceffarily be confidered as valid, even according to the opinions of Mifra and others : there is no difficulty in afferting, that the nullity of gifts, as mentioned by them, fuppofes cafes other than the gift of a kingdom; for a different practice in refpect of royal fucceffion is mentioned in the Ra.

Should he commit the kingdom to his daughter's fon or other remote beir, although his own fon be void of offence, then indeed it should be determined as is propofed; but if he make a provifion for the fupport of his other fons, and give his kingdom or other landed property to one fon, then the gift is valid according to all opinions; for his family is not thereby deprived of fubfiftence. It is not proper to affert, that he who has power to give away the perfen of his fon, has not power to give away immoveable property without

the affent of his fon.

If, making a provifion for fons void of offence, he give his kingdom to his daughter's fon, or to a franger, what is the rule in that cafe? The gift even of a kingdom is valid, as it is of other landed property; for no fpecial prohibition, nor any fuch ufage, is found in regard to kingdoms. But no father, who diftinguishes right from wrong, would be fo difpofed.

If a king paramount, viewing the inftances of kingdoms given by a father as above mentioned, give the whole kingdom to one brother, without intending an injury to the reft, he commits no offence, for he is equal to a father. But if the father die after giving away his king. dom, and the king paramount direct that it should be difpofed of according to law; in this cafe, it does not appear confiftent with the reafon of the law, that one brother fhould take the whole, without the affent of the reft.

What is the "fubfiftence of the family?" fpeaking of the fons of kings. As much as each confumes in food and apparel: not merely enough to fupport life; for a man, retiring to the foreft, may fupport life upon leaves, roots, fruit, and the like; and the fubfiftence of the family, mentioned by all fages, would be unmeaning. But, fhould

another of the king's fons fay, "needing as much food and ai much raiment as this anointed bro. ther, I give as much to the poor and helpless: thefe wants cannot be fupplied out of that appanage;" his claim fhould not be admitted by the paramount: no other, not even his father, can be equal to that confecrated brother; for the law admits, that a king is a portion of the divi nity of Indra and other deities; and royalty obtains much reverence. Even Brahmanas pronounce the praifes of kings: Brahmanas reverend themselves, even in the fight of deities; for, to them are duties committed; to them are the Vedas intrufted; and to them is great fayour fhewn by the fupreme ruler, becaufe, contemning riches, they accept a fubfiftence on alms alone, in fubjection to others. Thus, in the Sri Bhagavata, Crishna fays of Sanacha and the reft:

"Sri, for whofe momentary regard others perform aufterities, deferts not me, (though I need her not,) becaufe I acquire merit from refpect shown to thefe, the duft of whofe lotos-like feet is holy, and who inftantly remove every foulnefs."

Though fome modern priests are, in a certain degree, leffened by their mifconduct, ftill great refpeft fhould be fhown to them, in honour of former generations; and becaufe it is faid by a deity in another Pu. rana, a Brahmana, learned or unlearned, is my body:" it is not proper that one bound to refpect fhould notice the faults of a perfon to whom reverence is due.

From apprehenfion of offending very great perfons, it is not here examined whether fome modern princes, who are not independent in the government of their fubjects, but merely employed in levying the revenue of the paramount, thould, or fhould not, be acknowledged as kings.

The 4th volume opens with "the fpeeches of Ifæus, in caufes concerning the law of fucceffion to property at Athens, with a prefatory difcourfe, notes critical and hiftorical, and a commentary." This, with the reft of the compofitions contained in it, was published previously to Sir William's departure for India.

"Ifæus," fays our author, "the mafter of Demofthenes, and the true fountain of that eloquence which afterwards flowed with fo impetuous a ftream, is by fome fuppofed to have been a Chalcidian, and by others, with greater appearance of probability, an Athenian; but whatever country may claim the honour of being his birth-place, it is certain that he was educated at Athens, where he became famous as a pleader of caufes after the clofe of the Peloponnefian war." The circumftances

VOL. 2.

of his life are now unknown; and of fifty of his fpeeches which were extant in the ninth century, the ten tranflated by our author are all which remain. The writers of antiquity, who have treated fo dif. fufely of the Grecian orators, fay little of Ifæus. Sir William attri butes their filence to this orator

46

having confined his talents to the narrow limits of the bar, and the compofition of forenfic arguments; which, however interefting to lawyers, cannot be supposed to attract the notice of fcholars in general fo much as the pompous and folemn orations on treaties and embaffies, or the various events of an obsti nate war." Yet the merit of Ifæus was recognised by Demofthenes, who chose him for his master in preference to Ifocrates; and Dionyfius of Halicarnaffus declares his opinion, that "the fpeeches of Lyfias refemble ancient pieces of painting, in the fimplicity of their colours, and the graceful correctnefs of their outlines; while thofe of Ifæus are like the more modern pictures, which are lefs accurately drawn, but 'finifhed with bolder ftrokes of the pencil, decorated with a greater variety of tints, and enlivened with B a stronger