The Brāhmans and Rājpūts, however, and one or two other military castes, as the Marāthas and Lodhis, do not have the small exogamous clans (which probably, as has been seen, represented the persons who lived together in a village), but large ones. Thus the Rājpūts were divided into thirty-six royal races, and theoretically all these should have been exogamous, marrying with each other. Each great clan was afterwards, as a rule, split into a number of branches, and it is probable that these became exogamous; while in cases where a community of Rājpūts have settled on the land and become ordinary cultivators, they have developed into an endogamous subcaste containing small clans of the ordinary type. It seems likely that the Rājpūt clan originally consisted of those who followed the chief to battle and fought together, and hence considered themselves to be related. This was, as a matter of fact, the case. Colonel Tod states that the great Rāthor clan, who said that they could muster a hundred thousand swords, spoke of themselves as the sons of one father. The members of the Scotch clans considered themselves related in the same manner, and they were probably of similar character to the Rājpūt clans.

177

See article on Rājpūt, para. 9.

I do not know, however, that there is any definite evidence as to the exogamy of the Scotch clans, which would have disappeared with their conversion to Christianity. The original Rājpūt clan may perhaps have lived round the chiefs castle or headquarters and been supported by the produce of his private fief or demesne. The regular Brāhman

gotras

are also few in number, possibly because they were limited by the paucity of eponymous saints of the first rank. The word

gotra

means a stall or cow-pen, and would thus originally signify those who lived together in one place like a herd of cattle. But the

gotras

are now exceedingly large, the same ones being found in most or all of the Brāhman subcastes, and it is believed that they do not regulate marriage as a rule. Sometimes ordinary surnames have taken the place of clan names, and persons with the same surname consider themselves related and do not marry. But usually Brāhmans prohibit marriage between Sapindas or persons related to each other within seven degrees from a common ancestor. The word Sapinda signifies those who partake together of the

pindas

or funeral cakes offered to the dead. The Sapindas are also a man’s heirs in the absence of closer relations; the group of the Sapindas is thus an exact replica within the

gotra

of the primitive totem clan which was exogamous and constituted by the tie of living and eating together. Similarly marriage at Rome was prohibited to seven degrees of relationship through males within the

gens

178

Professor W. E. Hearn’s

Aryan Household

(London, Longmans, Green & Co.), p. 160.

and this exogamous group of kinsmen appear to have been the body of agnatic kinsmen within the

gens

who are referred to by Sir H. Maine as a man’s ultimate heirs.

179

At first the whole

gens

were the heirs,

Ancient Law

, p. 221. The group of agnatic kinsmen are mentioned in

Early Law and Custom

, pp. 238, 239, but not directly as heirs.

At Athens, when a contest arose upon a question of inheritance, the proper legal evidence to establish kinship was the proof that the alleged ancestor and the alleged heir observed a common worship and shared in the same repast in honour of the dead.

180

Aryan Household

, p. 28, quoting Becker’s

Charicles

, p. 394.

The distant heirs were thus a group within the Athenian γένος corresponding to the Sapindas and bound by the same tie of eating together. Professor Hearn states that there is no certain evidence that the Roman

gens

and Greek γένος were originally exogamous, but we find that of the Roman matrons whose names are known to us none married a husband with her own Gentile name; and further, that Plutarch, in writing of the Romans, says that in former days men did not marry women of their own blood or, as in the preceding sentence he calls them, kinswomen συγγενίδας, just as in his own day they did not marry their aunts or sisters; and he adds that it was long before they consented to wed with cousins.

181

Aryan Household

, p. 160, quoting Plutarch,

Quaestiones Romanae

, c. 6.

Professor Hearn’s opinion was that the Hindu

gotra

, the Roman

gens

and the Greek γένος were originally the same institution, the exogamous clan with male descent, and all the evidence available, as well as the close correspondence in other respects of early Hindu institutions with those of the Greek and Latin cities would tend to support this view.

Hindu bathing party

75. Comparison of Hindu society with that of Greece and Rome. The

gens

In the admirable account of the early constitution of the city-states of Greece and Italy contained in the work of M. Fustel de Coulanges,

La Cité Antique

, a close resemblance may be traced with the main strata of Hindu society given earlier in this essay. The Roman state was composed of a number of

gentes

or clans, each

gens

tracing its descent from a common ancestor, whose name it usually bore. The termination of the Gentile name in

ius

signified descendant, as Claudius, Fabius, and so on. Similarly the names of the Athenian γένη or clans ended in

ides

ades

, as Butades, Phytalides, which had the same signification.

182

La Cité Antique

, 21st ed. Paris, Hachette et Cie.

The Gentile or clan name was the

nomen

or principal name, just as the personal names of the members of the totem-clans were at first connected with the totems. The members of the

gens

lived together on a section of the city land and cultivated it under the control of the head of the

gens

. The original

ager Romanus

is held to have been 115 square miles or about 74,000 acres,

183

Aryan Household

, p. 215.

and this was divided up among the clans. The heads of clans originally lived on their estates and went in to Rome for the periodical feasts and other duties. The principal family or eldest branch of the

gens

in the descent from a common ancestor ranked above the others, and its head held the position of a petty king in the territory of the

gens

. In Greece he was called ἄναξ or βασιλεύς.

184

La Cité Antique

, p. 299.

Originally the Roman Senate consisted solely of the heads of

gentes,

and the consuls, flamens and augurs were also chosen exclusively from them; they were known as

patres

; after the expulsion of the kings, fresh senators were added from the junior branches of the

gentes

, of which there were at this period 160, and these were known as

patres conscripti

185

La Cité Antique

, p. 304.

. The distinction between the eldest and junior branches of the

gentes

may have corresponded to the distinction between the Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, though as practically nothing is known of the constitution of the original Kshatriyas, this can only be hypothetical.

76. The clients

Within the

gens

, and living in the household or households of its members, there existed a body of slaves, and also another class of persons called clients.

186

Ibidem

, pp. 128, 129.

The client was a servant and dependant; he might be assigned a plot of land by his patron, but at first could not transmit it nor hold it against his patron. It is probable that originally he had no right of property of his own, but he gradually acquired it. First he obtained a right of occupancy in his land and of its devolution to his son if he had one. Finally he was given the power of making a will. But he was still obliged to contribute to such expenses of the patron as ransom in war, fines imposed by the courts, or the dowry of a daughter.

187

Ibidem

, p. 318.

The client was considered as a member of the family and bore its name.

188

Ibidem

, p. 129.

But he was not a proper member of the family or

gens

, because his pedigree never ascended to a

pater

or the head of a

gens

189

Ibidem

, p. 273.

It was incumbent on the patron to protect the client, and guard his interests both in peace and war. The client participated in the household and Gentile sacrifices and worshipped the gods of the

gens

190

Ibidem

, p. 129.

At first the people of Rome consisted of three classes, the patricians, the clients and the plebeians. In course of time, as the rights and privileges of the plebeians increased after the appointment of tribunes, their position, from having originally been much inferior, became superior to that of the clients, and the latter preferred to throw off the tie uniting them to their patrons and become merged in the plebeians. In this manner the intermediate class of clients at length entirely disappeared.

191

Ibidem

, p. 320.

These clients must not be confused with the subsequent class of the same name, who are found during the later period of the republic and the empire, and were the voluntary supporters or hangers-on of rich men. It would appear that these early clients corresponded very closely to the household servants of the Indian cultivators, from whom the village menial castes were developed. The Roman client was sometimes a freed slave, but this would not have made him a member of the family, even in a subordinate position. Apparently the class of clients may have to a great extent originated in mixed descent, as the Indian household and village menials probably did. This view would account satisfactorily for the client’s position as a member of the family but not a proper one. From the fact that they were considered one of the three principal divisions of the people it is clear that the clients must at one time have been numerous and important.

77. The plebeians

Below the clients came the plebeians, whose position, as M. Fustel de Coulanges himself points out, corresponded very closely to that of the Sūdras. The plebeians had no religion and no ancestors; they did not belong to a family or a

gens

192

La Cité Antique

, p. 279.

They were a despised and abject class, who lived like beasts outside the proper boundary of the city. The touch of the plebeian was impure.

193

Ibidem

, pp. 281, 282.

“When tribunes were created a special law was necessary to protect their life and liberty, and it was promulgated as follows: ‘It is forbidden to strike or kill a tribune, as if he was an ordinary plebeian.’ It would appear then that a patrician had the right to strike or kill an ordinary plebeian, or at least that he was amenable to no legal punishment for doing so.”

194

Ibidem

, p. 281.

Similarly in the ancient Greek cities the citizens were known as ἀγαθοί or good, and the plebeians as κακοί or bad. This latter class is described by the poet Theognis as having had aforetime neither tribunals nor laws; they were not allowed even to enter the town, but lived outside like wild beasts. They had no part in the religious feasts and could not intermarry with the proper citizens.

195

Ibidem

, p. 320.

This position corresponds exactly with that of the Sūdras and the existing impure castes, who have to live outside the village and cannot enter or even approach Hindu temples.

M. de Coulanges considers that the plebeians were to a large extent made up of conquered and subjected peoples. An asylum was also established at Rome for broken men and outlaws from other cities, with a view to increasing the population and strength of the state. Subsequently the class of clients became absorbed among the plebeians.

78. The binding social tie in the city-states

Thus the gradation of society in the city-states of Greece and Italy, the account given above being typical of them all, is seen to correspond fairly closely with that of the Hindus, as exemplified in the Hindu classics and the microcosm of Hindu society, the village community. It is desirable, therefore, to inquire what was the tie which united the members of the

gens

, the

curia

phratry

, and the city, and which distinguished the patricians from the plebeians. On this point M. Fustel de Coulanges leaves us in no doubt at all. The bond of union among all these bodies was a common sacrifice or sacrificial meal, at which all the members had to be present. “The principal ceremony of the religion of the household was a meal, which was called a sacrifice. To eat a meal prepared on an altar was, according to all appearance, the first form of religious worship.”

196

La Cité Antique

, p. 179.

“The principal ceremony of the religion of the city was also a public feast; it had to be partaken of communally by all the citizens in honour of the tutelary deities. The custom of holding these public feasts was universal in Greece; and it was believed that the safety of the city depended on their accomplishment.”

197

Ibidem

M. de Coulanges quotes from the

Odyssey

an account of one of these sacred feasts at which nine long tables were set out for the people of Pylos; five hundred citizens were seated and nine bulls were slaughtered for each table. When Orestes arrived at Athens after the murder of his mother, he found the people, assembled round their king, about to hold the sacred feast. Similar feasts were held and numerous victims were slaughtered in Xenophon’s time.

198

Ibidem

At these meals the guests were crowned with garlands and the vessels were of a special form and material, such as copper or earthenware, no doubt dating from the antique past.

199

Ibidem

, p. 181.

As regards the importance and necessity of being present at the Gentile sacrificial feast, the same author states: “The Capitol was blockaded by the Gauls; but Fabius left it and passed through the hostile lines, clad in religious garb, and carrying in his hand the sacred objects; he was going to offer a sacrifice on the altar of his

gens

which was situated on the Quirinal. In the second Punic war another Fabius, he who was called the buckler of Rome, was holding Hannibal in check; it was assuredly of the greatest importance to the Republic that he should not leave his army; he left it, however, in the hands of the imprudent Minucius; it was because the anniversary day of the sacrifice of his

gens

had come and it was necessary that he should hasten to Rome to perform the sacred rite.” In Greece the members of the

gens

were known by the fact that they performed communal sacrifices together from a remote period.

200

La Cité Antique

, p. 113.

As already seen, a communal sacrifice meant the eating together of the sacred food, whether the flesh of a victim or grain.

79. The Suovetaurilia

The Roman city sacrifice of the Suovetaurilia, as described by M. de Coulanges, is of the greatest interest. The magistrate whose duty it was to accomplish it, that is in the first place the king, after him the consul, and after him the censor, had first to take the auspices and ascertain that the gods were favourable. Then he summoned the people through a herald by a consecrated form of words. On the appointed day all the citizens assembled outside the walls; and while they stood silent the magistrate proceeded three times round the assembly, driving before him three victims—a pig, a ram and a bull. The combination of these three victims constituted with the Greeks as well as the Romans an expiatory sacrifice. Priests and attendants followed the procession: when the third round had been accomplished, the magistrate pronounced a prayer and slaughtered the victims. From this moment all sins were expiated, and neglect of religious duties effaced, and the city was at peace with its gods.

There were two essential features of this ceremony: the first, that no stranger should be present at it; and the second, that no citizen should be absent from it. In the latter case the whole city might not have been freed from impurity. The Suovetaurilia was therefore preceded by a census, which was conducted with the greatest care both at Rome and Athens. The citizen who was not enrolled and was not present at the sacrifice could no longer be a member of the city. He could be beaten and sold as a slave, this rule being relaxed only in the last two centuries of the Republic. Only male citizens were present at the sacrifice, but they gave a list of their families and belongings to the censor, and these were considered to be purified through the head of the family.

201

Ibidem

, pp. 186–188.

This sacrifice was called a

lustratio

or purification, and in the historical period was considered to be expiatory. But it does not seem probable that this was its original significance. For there would not in that case have been the paramount necessity for every citizen to be present. All females and children under power were purified through the list given to the censor, and there seems no reason why absent citizens could not have been purified in the same manner. But participation in this sacrifice was itself the very test and essence of citizenship. And it has been seen that a public meal was the principal religious rite of the city. The conclusion therefore seems reasonable that the Suovetaurilia was originally also a sacrificial meal of which each citizen partook, and that the eating of the deified domestic animals in common was the essence of the rite and the act which conferred the privilege of citizenship. The driving of the sacrificial animals round the citizens three times might well be a substitute for the previous communal meal, if for any reason, such as the large number of citizens, the practice of eating them had fallen into abeyance. The original ground for the taking of a census was to ensure that all the citizens were present at the communal sacrifice; and it was by the place which a man occupied on this day that his rank in the city was determined till the next sacrifice. If the censor counted him among the senators, he remained a senator; if among the equites, he remained a knight; if as a simple member of a tribe, he belonged henceforward to the tribe in which he was counted. If the censor refused to enumerate him, he was no longer a citizen.

202

La Cité Antique

ibidem

Such was the vital importance of the act of participation in the sacrifice.

80. The sacrifice of the domestic animal

The Roman sacrifice of the Suovetaurilia was in no way peculiar, similar rites being found in other Greek and Latin cities. Some instances are recorded in the article on Kasai, and in

Themis

203

Pp. 151, 154.

Miss Jane Harrison gives an account of a sacrifice at Magnesia in which a bull, ram and he- and she-goats were sacrificed to the gods and partaken of communally by the citizens. As already seen, the act of participation in the sacrifice conferred the status of citizenship. The domestic animals were not as a rule eaten, but their milk was drunk, and they were used for transport, and clothes were perhaps sometimes made from their hair and skins. Hence they were the principal source of life of the tribe, as the totem had been of the clan, and were venerated and deified. One common life was held to run through all the members of the tribe and all the domestic animals of the species which was its principal means of support. In the totem or hunting stage the clan had necessarily been small, because a large collection of persons could not subsist together by hunting and the consumption of roots and fruits. When an additional means of support was afforded by the domestication of an important animal, a much larger number of persons could live together, and apparently several clans became amalgamated into a tribe. The sanctity of the domestic animals was much greater than that of the totem because they lived with man and partook of his food, which was the strongest tie of kinship; and since he still endowed them with self-consciousness and volition, he thought they had come voluntarily to aid him in sustaining life. Both on this account and for fear of injuring the common life they were not usually killed. But it was necessary to primitive man that the tie should take a concrete form and that he should actually assimilate the life of the sacred animal by eating its flesh, and this was accordingly done at a ceremonial sacrifice, which was held annually, and often in the spring, the season of the renewal and increase of life. Since this renewal of the communal life was the concrete tie which bound the tribe together, any one who was absent from it could no longer be a member of the tribe. The whole of this rite and the intense importance attached to it are inexplicable except on the supposition that the tie which had originally constituted the totem-clan was the eating of the totem-animal, and that this tie was perpetuated in the tribe by the communal eating of the domestic animal. The communal sacrifice of the domestic animal was, as already seen, typical of society in the tribal or pastoral stage. But one very important case, in addition to those given above and in the article on Kasai, remains for notice. The Id-ul-Zoha or Bakr-Id festival of the Muhammadans is such a rite. In pre-Islamic times this sacrifice was held at Mecca and all the Arab tribes went to Mecca to celebrate it. The month in which the sacrifice was held was one of those of truce, when the feuds between the different clans were in abeyance so that they could meet at Mecca. Muhammad continued the sacrifice of the Id-ul-Zoha and it is this sacrifice which a good Muhammadan takes the pilgrimage to Mecca to perform. He must be at Mecca on the tenth day of the month of Z’ul Hijjah and perform the sacrifice there, and unless he does this there is no special merit in making the journey to Mecca. It is incumbent on every Muhammadan who can afford it to make the pilgrimage to Mecca or the Hajj once in his life and perform the sacrifice there; and though as a matter of fact only a very small minority of Muhammadans now carry out the rule, the pilgrimage and sacrifice may yet be looked upon as the central and principal rite of the Muhammadan religion. All Muhammadans who cannot go to Mecca nevertheless celebrate the sacrifice at home at the Indian festival of the Id-ul-Zoha and the Turkish and Egyptian Idu-Bairām. At the Id-ul-Zoha any one of four domestic animals, the camel, the cow, the sheep or the goat, may be sacrificed; and this rule makes it a connecting link between the two great Semitic sacrifices described in the article on Kasai, the camel sacrifice of the Arabs in pre-Islamic times and the Passover of the Jews. At the present time one-third of the flesh of the sacrificial animal should be given to the poor, one-third to relations, and the remainder to the sacrificer’s own family.

204

The above account of the festival and pilgrimage is taken from the Rev. T.P. Hughes’

Dictionary