¹ Smith, V. A., The Oxford History of India, 3rd Edition (Oxford, 1958), p. 99Google Scholar. The Encyclopedia of World History, ed. Langer, Wm. L. (Revised 3rd Edition, Boston, 1952), p. 42Google Scholar, also gives credence to this tale and treats the twelve-year famine as a historical reality in citing the chronology of ancient India.

² Mbh. Adi P. 63. 26, 95. 26Google Scholar (Critical Ed.) References are to P. C. Roy's edition of the Mahābhārata unless otherwise indicated.

³ Bhargava, P. L., India in the Vedic Age (Lucknow, 1956), p. 67.Google Scholar

⁴ Mahāvaṃsa, XXXIII. 103, XXIV. 73, XXIV. 68, XXV. 75.Google Scholar

⁵ Law, N. N., Aspects of Ancient Indian Polity (Oxford, 1921), pp. 64–65.Google Scholar

⁶ This story is repeated with some variations in other sources. Cf. Mbh. (Crit.) Adi P. 89, 52–53Google Scholar; Udyoga P. 147, 155 ff.Google Scholar, Matsya Pttrāṇa 50, 38–46Google Scholar; Vāya Parāṇa 99, 234–240Google Scholar; Bṛhad-devatā VII, 153–157Google Scholar; VIII, 1–7; Viṣṇu Parāṇa XX, 457 ffGoogle Scholar; Nirukta II, io. For a discussion of the political implications of this legend, cf. Spellman, J. W., “The Legend of Devāpi,” JRAS (10, 1959)7Google ScholarNirukta II. 10.Google Scholar

⁸ Brhad-devatā VIII. 5.Google Scholar

⁹ Mbh. Adi P. 175. 6615–6630.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Idem. Pargiter remarks: “The Vasiṣṭha Devarāj or Bhūtakṛt mentioned in those two verses can only be this Vasiṣṭha who governed the kingdom of Ayodhyā in the twelve years' drought during Satyavrata's exile. This identification is corroborated by the remarkably simple and appropriate explanation it offers.” Pargiter, F. E., “Viśvāmitra, Vasiṣṭha, Hariścandra and Sunaḥśepa” JRAS, (01 1917), p. 39.Google Scholar

¹¹ Mbh. Sānti P. 139. 13–17Google Scholar ff. (Crit.).

¹² Idem.

¹³ Mbh. Vana P. 187.Google Scholar

¹⁴ There appears to be a relationship between the symbolic significance of the number twelve in ancient India and the number forty in Biblical literature. In Genesis VI–VIII, the Lord repents of having created the world because of the wickedness of men. He resolves to destroy all except the family of Noah (who was righteous) and one of both sexes of all living things. (The latter appears to be an afterthought, cf. Gen. VI. 7). The destruction takes the form of a flood which lasts for forty days and nights (Gen. VII. 12). When we consider such events as Israel walking forty years in the wilderness (Josh. V. 5), Moses wandering in the wilderness for forty years (Acts VII. 36), the people bearing their iniquities for forty years (Num. XIV. 34), the wicked shall be beaten with forty stripes (Deut. XXV. 3), and the current season of forty days for Lent (with its scriptural basis in the New Testament), the relationship of the number forty to penance or expiation of guilt is suggested. A present-day English tradition connects rain with forty by suggesting that if it rains on St. Swithin's day, it will rain for forty days thereafter.

¹⁵ Agni Parāṇa, Vol. I (Dutt's trans.) V. pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Idem.

¹⁷ Mbh. Vana P. 110. 343.Google Scholar

¹⁸ It is undoubtedly a mistake in the transliteration which confuses Romapāda and Lomapāda as the name of the king of Aṅga. The reference is clearly to the same person in both cases.

¹⁹ Idem.

²⁰ Mbh. Śalya P. 48. 33.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid., 34–42.

²² Mbh. Śalya P. 51. 22.Google Scholar

²³ Mbh. Vana P. 126, pp. 382–385Google Scholar. By obtaining austerities through virtuous conduct and rule, a king could become the equal of a god.

²⁴ McCrindle, J. W., Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian (London, 1877), p. 32Google Scholar. Frags, of Indika of Megasthenes, Frag. I. 36.

²⁵ Mbh. Udyoga P. 9. pp. 25–26.Google Scholar

²⁶ Mbh. Sabha P. 33. 95Google Scholar. Cf. 5. 66–67.

²⁷ Maṇicora Jātaka, No. 194. 124. Cf. Kurudhamma Jātaka No. 276.

²⁸ Aṅguttara Nikāya II. 74Google Scholar, IV. VII, 70. Cf. G. U. Pope trans., The Kural Bk. II. LVI, p. 79Google Scholar, “Where king from right deflecting, makes unrighteous gain, the seasons change, the clouds pour down no rain.”

²⁹ Other Buddhist texts make this same point which we need not labor here. Cf. The Mahāvaṃsa XXVI. 77 and 27–34.Google Scholar

³⁰ There is a recognition of a relationship between rain and righteousness in the Biblical thought, “the rain falleth upon the just and the unjust alike” (Matt. V. 45) although this would not be acceptable by Indian standards of dharma.

³¹ Ś. B. XI. 1. 6. 24.Google Scholar

³² This is the view expressed by several texts, Cf. Mbh. Śānti P. 15. 30, 67. 16Google Scholar; Matsya Parāṇa 225. 9.Google Scholar

³³ A king who is not righteous obviously cannot preserve dharma, and some texts suggest that such a king is no king at all and deserves to be slain by his subjects (cf. Mbh. Śānti P. 93. 9–10Google Scholar). In diese formulae, by “king” we mean, of course, a righteous king.

³⁴ Ś. B. IX. 3. 3. 10–11.

³⁵ Ś. B. V. 3. 4. 5, V. 4. 9, V. 3. 4. 11, V. 3. 4. 14, V. 3. 4. 21.

³⁶ We should note that the texts do not suggest that the king draws his authority exclusively from water. Different hymns or verses suggest other forces as well.

³⁷ Mbh. Śalya P. 47Google Scholar. 5–10. The Agni Parāṇa suggests that the sovereignty of water was conferred upon Varuna by Lord Hari. (Agni Parāṇa I. XIX. 21).Google Scholar

³⁸ A. V. IV. 16. 2.Google Scholar

³⁹ A. V. IV. 16. 3.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ For further discussions of the attributes of Varuṇa, cf. Keith, A. B., Religion and Philosophy of the Vedas and Upaniṣads, Harvard Oriental Series, Vol. 31 (1925), pp. 96 ff.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid. p. 97. For an indication of the punishing aspect of Varuṇa, cf. A. L. Basham's translation of R. V. VII. 89 in The Wonder that Was India (London, 1954), pp. 237–238.Google Scholar

⁴² R. V. IV. 42.Google Scholar

⁴³ Aitareya Brāhmaṇo VI. 17Google Scholar, VIII. 13.

⁴⁴ R. V. I. 24. 10.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ R. V. I. 25. 10.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ S. B. V. 4. 4. 5.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Manu VIII. 172.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Arthaśāstra IV. XIII. 272–273Google Scholar. Yājñanalkya gives basically the same ruling in II. 307: Cf. I. 24.

⁴⁹ It is of no consequence that the violation of dharma, in some cases, was originally perpetrated by a subject of the king rather than by the king personally. The theorists would hold that all acts of adharma, committed by no matter whom, were caused by improper rule of the king and that he was therefore personally responsible.

⁵⁰ Taittirīya Saṁhitā II. 5. 1. 2Google Scholar; V. 3. 1–2; Ś. B. XIII. 3. 1. 1.

⁵¹ Agni Parāṇa II, CLXIX. 1–4.Google Scholar

⁵² The most detailed study of sin and penance has been done by P. V. Kane in his History of Dharmaśāstra Vol. IV (Poona, 1953)Google Scholar. I am much indebted to his exhaustive research which shows, in this case, that twelve is not exclusive in relation to dharma but that it certainly cannot be ignored.

⁵³ Kane, P. V., History of Dharmaśāstra, IV, 93.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Ibid., p. 91.

⁵⁵ Mbh. Śānti P. 36. 27.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Kane, , op. cit. H.O.D. IV. 88.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Hopkins, E. W., “Social and Military Position of the Ruling Caste in Ancient India,” XVIII JAOS XIII (1888), 171.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Agni Purāṇa I. CLVIII.

⁵⁹ Ibid. I. CLVI. 13–14.

⁶⁰ Mbh. Śānti P. 146. 28.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Kane, P. V.'s History of DharmaśāstraGoogle Scholar, Vol. IV deals largely with sin, penance, and purification.

⁶² Mbh. Anuśāsana P. 142Google Scholar. There are a number of sections in this Parvan which mention the number twelve in connection with receiving merit or accumulating tapas. Cf. Sections 25–146 passim.

⁶³ Mbh. Vana P. 134.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Agni Parāṇa I. LIX. 38–48.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ibid. II. CCI. 9–I2.

⁶⁶ Viṣṇupurāṇa quoted by Kane, P. V., History of Dharmaśāstra, IV, 51.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Gonda, J., “Ancient Indian Kingship from the Religious Point of View,” Numen, III (1956), 128.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ I am indebted to Rhoads Murphey and Carl Allendoerfer of the University of Washington for calling these points to my attention.