to the service of the king who properly represented those old masters of his to whom Râkshasa's loyalty still remained quite firm. If the end could ever be regarded as justifying the means, it might be so regarded in this case. And, secondly, it must not be forgotten, that the games of diplomacy and politics have always been games of more or less doubtful morality. When we hear of one great politician of modern days declaring another to be a great statesman, because, as I believe he expressed it, the latter lied so cleverly, we cannot say that the world has risen to any very perceptibly higher moral plane in the times of Metternich and Napoleon, than in those of Châņakya and Râkshasa. Nor are suppression of important passages in despatches for the purposes of publication, or wars undertaken on unjustifiable and really selfish pretexts, calculated to convince one, that even in Europe in the nineteenth century the transaction of political affairs has been purged of the taint of immorality, however different, and I may even add, comparatively innocent, may be the outward manifesta- tions of that taint.
A few words only need to be added regarding the commentary published in this volume. The author of it is Dhundhirâja, son of Lakslimana, of the family of Vyâsa. The exordium and the conclusion of his commentary save one the necessity of any toilsome inquiry as to his age. He says that his commentary was written in the year 1635, at the request of one Tryambakâdhvarî, who was. patronised by the Bhonsle Râjâ of Cholamandala and surround- ing districts, named Sarabhaji, the brother of S'âhaji. The copy of the commentary used by us explains 1635 to be 1635 of the S'âlivâhahana era. And we are enabled to remove all doubt on that point by the statement, that it was in the time of S'arabhaji Bhonsle that the commentary was written. For this S'arabhaji the brother of Sîhaji, is doubtless identical with the Sarfoji, the brother of Sâhâji, whom we see mentioned in the genealogical tree of the Marathî dynasty of Tanjore, given by Mr. Sewell in his Sketch of the Dynasties of Southern India. Sarfojî is there
ever, no indication of this view in our play, and it stands in need of further corrolocation as a historical tlıcory. The indication which General Cunningham. had suggested (J.A.S. B. Vol. X,, P. 156), is based on a mistake, which has been pointed out at P. 27 Supra,
