=Grants to Brāhmans and Devotees.=—The Brahmans, Sannyasis, and Gosains are not behind those professional flatterers, the Bards; and many a princely name would have been forgotten but for the record of the gift of land. In Mewar, the lands in _sasan_, or religious grants, amount in value to one-fifth of the revenue of the State, and the greater proportion of these has arisen out of the prodigal mismanagement of the last century. The dilapidated state of the country, on the general pacification in A.D. 1818, afforded a noble opportunity to redeem in part these alienations, without the penalty of denunciation attached to the resumer of sacred charities. But death, famine, and exile, which had left but few of the grantees in a capacity to return and reoccupy the lands, in vain coalesced to restore the fisc of Mewar. The Rana dreaded a “sixty thousand [509] years’ residence in hell,” and some of the finest land of his country is doomed to remain unproductive. In this predicament is the township of Menal,[4.19.4] with 50,000 bighas (16,000 acres), which with the exception of a nook where some few have established themselves, claiming to be descendants of the original holders, are condemned to sterility, owing to the agricultural proprietors and the rent-receiving Brahmans being dead; and apathy united to superstition admits their claims without inquiry. The antiquary, who has dipped into the records of the dark period in European church history, can have ocular illustration in Rajasthan of traditions which may in Europe appear questionable. The vision of the Bishop of Orleans,[4.19.5] who saw Charles Martel in the depths of hell, undergoing the tortures of the damned, for having stripped the churches of their possessions, “thereby rendering himself guilty of the sins of all those who had endowed them,” would receive implicit credence from every Hindu, whose ecclesiastical economy might both yield and derive illustration from a comparison, not only with that of Europe, but with the more ancient Egyptian and Jewish systems, whose endowments, as explained by Moses and Ezekiel, bear a strong analogy to his own. The disposition of landed property in Egypt, as amongst the ancient Hindus, was immemorially vested in the cultivator; and it was only through Joseph’s ministry in the famine that “the land became Pharaoh’s, as the Egyptians sold every man his field.”[4.19.6] And the coincidence is manifest even in the tax imposed on them as occupants of their inheritance, being one-fifth of the crops to the king, while the maximum rate among the Hindus is a sixth.[4.19.7] The Hindus also, in visitations such as that which occasioned the dispossession of the ryots of Egypt, can mortgage or sell their patrimony (_bapota_). Joseph did not attempt to infringe the privileges of the sacred order when the whole of Egypt became crown-land, “except the lands of the priests, which became not Pharaoh’s”; and these priests, according to Diodorus,