Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c11: Chapter V. Administration: Central Government

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c11

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V. Administration: Central Government

Part I. The Machinery of Government

Section I. Dharma—Its Political Significance

v1.c11.s1.t1.1

THE spirit underlying the movement which liberated the Hindus from a veritable cataclysm of foreign domination brought into relief a principle which had found favour with Hindu lawgivers from Manu down to Śukrāchārya. It was embodied in the statement that the king was the creator of the age, and that the nature of his rule produced corresponding variations in the social, moral, and even physical condition of the times. Thus in the code of Manu—"The various ways in which a king behaves (resemble) the Kṛita, Trēta, Dvāpara and Kali ages; hence the king is identified with the ages (of the world)".⁵ How the king assumes five different forms according to five different occasions has been described at some length in the *Mahābhārata*.⁶ As understood by the mediaeval theorist Sukra, it meant the following: "The king is the maker of the age as the promulgator of duties and sins. The faults are to be ascribed neither to the age nor to the subject, but to the king".¹ "The king is the cause of the setting on foot of the customs, usages and movements and hence is the cause or maker of the time. . . .".²

v1.c11.s1.t1.2

⁵ Manu, IX, 301, 303 seq. pp. 396-7. See also Nārada, XVIII, 26-33, pp. 217-8; Gautama, VIII, 1-11, pp. 214-5.

v1.c11.s1.t1.3

⁶ Śānti Parva, LXVII, pp. 221, 229. See also Ghosal, Hind. Pol. Theor, pp. 187-8, (1.ed.), p. 139 (2nd ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t1.4

¹ Sukraniti, I, IV, i, ll. 116-7, p. 132.

v1.c11.s1.t1.5

² Ibid., I, II, 43-4, p. 5.

v1.c11.s1.t1.6

What precisely the writers meant when they made the king the creator of the age is a question which leads us to the elucidation of a vital principle in terms of Vijayanagara history. It is only then that we shall be able to realize to a certain extent the position which the Brahman canonists took as regards the promulgation of an apparently unintelligible dogma, and at the same time, to follow the thought and action of the mediaeval Hindu monarchs of southern India. In the famous saying of Bhishma we have the key to the interpretation of the statement which seems to give to the king some undefined superhuman powers. "Whether it is the king that makes the age, or it is the age that makes the king, is a question about which thou shouldest not entertain any doubt. The truth is that the king makes the age".³

v1.c11.s1.t1.7

³ The passage in question is the following:

v1.c11.s1.t1.8

परोक्षा देवताः सर्वा राजा प्रत्यक्षदेवता ।
प्रसादथ प्रकोपथ प्रत्यक्षो यस्य दृश्यते ।
राजा माता पिता चैव राजा कुलवतां कुलम् ।
राजा सत्यं च धर्मश्च राजा हितकरो नृणाम् ॥
कालो वा कारणं राज्ञो राजा वा कालकारणम् ।
इति ते संशयो माभूत् राजा कालस्य कारणम् ॥
राजमूलो महाराज धर्मो लोकस्य लभ्यते ।
प्रजा राजभयादेव न खादन्ति परस्परम् ॥

v1.c11.s1.t1.9

Santi Parva, Ch. 69, 79. See, LXIX, p. 229, seq., (Roy). See Parāśara-Samhita, with the Commentary of Sāyaṇa Mādhavāchārya, I, P. I. Āchāra-Kaṇḍa, Adhyaya, I, p. 449- (Pandit Vaman Sāstri Islampurkar's ed., Bombay 1893).

v1.c11.s1.t1.10

Herein we have a political principle of the first magnitude which the sons of Saṅgama made the corner-stone of their Empire. To them it meant that "national" regeneration could only be achieved when political emancipation had already been secured. In other words, the ruler had to create the proper political environment in order to foster all that was best in Hindu culture. That this was exactly in the minds of the founders of the Vijayanagara Empire is evident from the manner in which they promoted the Hindu Dharma. "In the Kali age evil having greatly increased, Dharma seeing that it was impossible for it to move about, went to the side of its master the creator and benefactor of the world, and said: 'With only one leg (left) how can I travel about in the troubles of this Kali age? . .'" It was this prayer, as we had an occasion of remarking in an earlier connection, which caused the Benefactor of the world to create Saṅgama in the royal line of Sailaṅka. The Hindus, who recognized the necessity of securing a proper political rejuvenation prior to their attempts at preserving their ancient heritage, called their monarchs Defenders of their Dharma.² This was the reason why Rājanātha, for example, wrote thus about Sāḷuva Nṛsiṃha:

v1.c11.s1.t1.11

² Infra, Volume II, Chapter I. Varṇāśrama-dharma.

v1.c11.s1.t1.12

वर्णाश्रमाणां अवनक्रमेण धर्मं स्थिरोकृत्य पदैश्चतुर्भिः । कलिं पुनर्यैः कृतयाद्भिः उर्ब्या कालस्य कर्ता नृपत्यदर्शि ।³

v1.c11.s1.t1.13

³ Sāḷuvābhyudayam cited by Venkoba Rao, *Vyāsayōgicharitam*, Intr., p. CLXXX.

v1.c11.s1.t1.14

The ideal of the monarchs, who established thus firmly Dharma on its feet, and converted thereby the Kali age into the Kṛita age of righteousness, is also borne out in the writings of Kṛishṇa Dēva Rāya, who, as we have recorded elsewhere, in his *Amuktamālyada*, says. . . "A crowned king should always rule with an eye towards Dharma".⁴ The same ruler has laid down the following rules which are to guide the general conduct of a king: "A king should rule collecting round him people skilled in statecrafts, should investigate the mines yielding precious metals in his kingdom and extract the same, should levy taxes from his people moderately, should counteract the acts of his enemies by crushing them with force, should be friendly, should protect one and all of his subjects, should put an end to the mixing up of the castes among them, should always try to increase the merit of the Brahmans, should strengthen his fortress and lessen the growth of the undesirable things and should be ever mindful of the purification (?) of his cities and thus strengthen himself and increase his longevity just as a man strengthens his own body and increases his longevity by consulting good doctors, by learning the properties of the seven Dhatus. . . .”¹

v1.c11.s1.t1.15

¹ E.C., VIII, Sb. 375, pp. 65-6, op. cit.

v1.c11.s1.t1.16

⁴ *Amuktamālyada*, Canto IV, v. 285, J.I.H. IV, P. III, p. 77. See below.

v1.c11.s1.t1.17

¹ Amuktamālyada, Canto IV, v, 271-2, pp. 157-118 (Ed. Vāvilla Ramaswamy); J.I.H., IV, P. III, p. 74. ² Ghosal, Hind, Pol. Theor. p. 28, seq. (1st ed.); p.

Section 2. The Origin of the King's Power

v1.c11.s1.t2.1

While the Vijayanagara monarchs recognized the need of agreeing with the ancients that the general lines on which administration was to be conducted were to be those which were based on Dharma, there was one important detail in the observance of which mediaeval practice was allowed to transgress completely ancient tradition. This was in connection with the origin of the king's power. From the Vedic age had been handed down the belief in the divinity of the kings.² In olden times it was “preeminently associated with his participation in the great political sacrifices”.³ The earlier writers agreed as regards assimilating the functions of the king to those of various specified deities.⁴

v1.c11.s1.t2.2

This notion of the divine nature of the king, however, gave place to new dogmas in later times when Hindu political writers took a more rational view of sovereignty. They inculcated the older notions of the paramount importance of the king,⁵ but dwelt less frequently on his divine nature. It took some time before the old principle—which was understood in the Purāṇas as referring to the king, in the form of a mortal, with a divine body⁶—was finally modified to suit the changing times. The later Hindu writers maintained that the duties of the king were no longer limited to Kshatriyas only. This was the view of Mēdhātithi, amplified by Vijñānēśvara.¹ According to Mitramiśra, the duties of kingship were extended to all the rulers, and even to subordinate officials.² When royalty was thus no longer the monopoly of the Kshatriyas,³ a modification of the classical ideas was bound to follow. Hence we find in the *Sukranīti* the dying echoes of the earlier doctrine of the divinity of the king side by side with the enunciation of the new principle in the following words: "The ruler has been made by Brahmā a servant of the people, getting his revenue as remuneration. His sovereignty, however, is only for protection".⁴ Then again: "From the very moment a man attains the position of a king through skill, might or valour, no matter whether he is properly anointed and duly installed or not, he shall begin to rule his subjects according to Niti, being always above board and ever the holder of the sceptre".⁵ And the classical theory of the divine nature of the king received its death-knell in the following statement of Sukrāchārya: "The king is honoured because of these qualities. It is not birth that makes a king. He is not respected so much because of his ancestry, as for his prowess, strength and valour".⁶ Thus was promulgated a principle which justified monarchial authority on the sole ground of merit.⁷

v1.c11.s1.t2.3

¹²⁴ (2nd ed.) ³ Ibid., (1st. ed). ⁴ Śānti Parva, LXVII, p. 215; Ghosal, ibid., pp. 174-5, (1st. ed.). p. 127 seq (2nd. ed.). ⁵ Ghosal, ibid., p.

v1.c11.s1.t2.4

²¹⁷ (1st. ed.); p. 176 seq. (2nd. ed.) ⁶ Ibid., pp. 224-5, (1st. ed.); p. 184 (2nd. ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t2.5

¹ Ghosal, *Hind. Pol. Theor.*, pp. 234-5 pp. 234-5 (1st ed.); pp. 193, 197; seq. (2nd. ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t2.6

² *Ibid.*, pp. 262-3. (1st. ed.): pp. 223-4. (2nd. ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t2.7

³ *Infra* Volume II, Chapter III. Brahmans. See also Acharya, *Dicty. of Ind. Arch.*, p. 60.

v1.c11.s1.t2.8

⁴ *Sukraniti*, I, l. 375, p. 24.

v1.c11.s1.t2.9

⁵ *Ibid.*, I, ll. 52-4, pp. 6-7.

v1.c11.s1.t2.10

⁶ *Ibid.*, I., ll. 363-4, p. 24.

v1.c11.s1.t2.11

⁷ Ghosal, *ibid.*, pp. 254-5 (1st ed.); p. 214 (2nd. ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t2.12

Sukrāchārya's conception of kingship anticipates the origin of the mediaeval monarchy of southern India; and one may have applied the statement of Sukra to the sons of Saṅgama were it not for the difficulty one finds in reconciling the theory of Sukrāchārya with that of the celebrated writer Mādhavācharya, whose influence was profound in the early days of the Vijayanagara Empire. Mādhava is inclined to give a dogmatic interpretation to the old theory in his commentary on Parāśara, thus: "Now the word *rājan* applies to Kshatriyas alone, and not to one qualified for kingship".¹ This assertion, which is at variance not only with the principle of Sukrāchārya but also with the actual facts about the origin of the very founders whose kingdom Mādhavācharya himself helped to stabilize, is to a certain extent qualified by the following words of the same high authority: "As the divine incarnation in the form of Rāma and others came into being for punishing the mighty Rāvaṇa, and others like him, so the divine incarnation in the form of the king (Rājāvatāra) is born for the purpose of punishing lowly beings like thieves and the rest".² The theory of the divine incarnation in the form of the king is reflected in the following words of Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya, who writes: "Manu, Daṇḍadhara and others became known as addicted to Dharma only by finding out the mistakes of the subjects and punishing them. The anointed king who is equal to God and who is created by God (Prajāpati) in various forms for the purpose of ruling the subjects is known by various terms which are sanctioned by the vēdas, as Virāṭ, Samrat, and should put up with the trouble and relieve the sufferings of the world. If he does not do this, the purpose of his creation is not fulfilled".³ The term Samrāṭ carries us to the Vedic conception of the position of the universal monarch⁴; the idea of the anointed king

v1.c11.s1.t2.13

¹ Ghosal, Hind. Pol. Theor., pp. 260-2 (1st ed.); p. 220, (2nd. ed.). The reference is obviously to the following by Parāśara:

v1.c11.s1.t2.14

² Parāśara-samhita, I, p. I, Āchāra-kaṇḍa, Adhyāya, 1, vv. 60-2, p. 445. For Mādhava's explanation of the point in question, ibid, p. 449 (ed. by Pandit Vaman Sāstri Islāmapūrkar); Parāśara-Mādhaviya-Dharma-sastravu, Āchāra-kaṇḍa, Adhyāya, 1, vv. 61-3, pp. 259, 262-3. (Veṅkaṇṇaiyya).

v1.c11.s1.t2.15

³ Ghosal, ibid.

v1.c11.s1.t2.16

⁴ Amuktamālyada, v. 285; J.I.H. IV, P. III, p. 76.
* Macdonell, Vedic Mythology, p. 24; Ghosal, ibid., p. 34 (1st ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t2.17

अन्रता ह्यनधोयाना यत्र भैक्ष्यचरा द्विजाः ।

तं ग्रामं दण्डयेद्राजा चोरभक्तप्रदो हि सः ।

क्षत्रियो हि प्रजा रक्षन् शस्त्रपाणिः प्रदण्डवान् ।

निर्जित्य परसैन्यानि क्षितिं धर्मेण पालयेत् ।

पुष्पं पुष्पं विचििनुयान्मूलच्छेदं न कारयेत् ।

मालाकार इवारामे न यथाऽङ्गारकारकः ।

v1.c11.s1.t2.18

created by Prajāpati, to the dogmatism of Vidyāraṇya; and the purpose for which the king is created, to the saner views of Śukrāchārya. It is in the last detail that Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya truly confesses the needs of the times.¹ The basis of the king's authority in the Vijayanagara age is to be sought, therefore, not in the dogma of the divine nature of the king, which was inapplicable either to the sons of Saṅgama or to Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya himself, but in the solution of the fundamental question of the times—the protection and encouragement of the Hindu Dharma.²

v1.c11.s1.t2.19

¹ As regards Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya's idea of protection, see supra, Chapter IV on Revenue Administration.

v1.c11.s1.t2.20

² The Vijayanagara monarchs as patrons of, and participators in, great sacrifices may be said to have fulfilled one of the conditions of divinity mentioned in the Brahminical canons. See Ghosal, Hind. Pol. Theor., p. 30. (1st ed.)

Section 3. Position of the King

v1.c11.s1.t3.1

A. In Relation to Society

v1.c11.s1.t3.2

The earlier notions of the divinity of the king having thus been modified in later times, it remains to be seen whether the corresponding ideas about the position of sovereignty also underwent any alteration in subsequent ages. The adherence of the early Hindu canonists to the theory of the divine nature of kingship may at first sight seem to be most uncompromising, especially as expressed by Manu. Nevertheless, it is curious to observe that their attitude was to some extent characterized by tolerance. This is seen when we deal again with the topic of protection which we discussed once from the point of view of the right which the king could claim in levying a specified rate of taxation. We shall now analyse the same question from the standpoint of the obligation which the king owed to the people for having received from them a certain amount of revenue. In other words, we shall explain the position of the king "as a moral element in the social system".³

v1.c11.s1.t3.3

³ Ghosal, ibid., p. 88. (1st ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t3.4

The acknowledgment of the king as an integral part of the social order presupposes, on his part, the observance of the very principle which brought into being his sovereignty—viz., the principle of protection, which now resolves itself into the foremost of his duties. The second duty of the king is his adherence to the dictates of polity (daṇḍanīti) in the fullest measure. Thus in the code of Manu: "A king who protects the created beings in accordance with the sacred law and smites those worthy of corporal punishment, daily offers (as it were) sacrifices at which hundred thousands (are given as) fees".¹ It was also the duty of the king to respect the traditional rights and customs of individuals as well as of collective bodies.² The duties of lawful punishment, giving State-relief to the Brahmans and other people, fighting the enemy, levying taxes, administering justice, appointing State officials, and performing sacrifices—these are some of the duties of the kings that are given in the dharma-sūtras.³ To these may be added the personal duties of the king as mentioned in detail in the Sukranīti.⁴

v1.c11.s1.t3.5

¹ Manu, VIII, 306. See also 303, 307, p. 307; Śānti Parva, LXIX, pp. 228-31; Ghosal, Hind. Pol. Theor., pp. 184-6, op. cit. (1st ed.) ² Gautama, XI, 20-1, p. 237; Ghosal, ibid., p. 16 (1st ed.); Majumdar, Corporate Life in Ancient India, p. 60, seq. ³ Manu, VII, p. 216, seq.; Gautama, XI, p. 234, seq; Āpastamba, II, 10, 25, p. 161, seq., Vasiṣṭha, XIX, p. 96, seq.; Baudhāyana, I, 10, 18, p. 199, seq. See Ghosal, ibid., p.

v1.c11.s1.t3.6

Classical as well as mediaeval theory, as regards this question, may be set side by side with the maxims of Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya. ". . . So with very great care and according to your power you should attend to the work of protecting (the good) and punishing (the wicked) without neglecting anything that you see or hear. In the case of impossibilities, you should throw the burden on the God Viṣṇu (Puṇḍarīkākṣa) who is the Protector of the afflicted who take refuge in him".⁵ "You should not think that ruling a kingdom is a sin and feel embarrassed how to get rid of the sin. The scriptures do not ordain any impossible thing. Therefore you should rule the kingdom to the best of your ability".⁶ "A crowned king should always rule with an eye towards Dharma. The lives of the Gods like Varuṇa, Indra, Vaiśravaṇa, Vāyu, and Agni are the results of their actions in several previous births. The various worlds, as the Bhu, Bhuvah, and Suvah owe their positions to Dharma. So, skilfully fulfilling your Dharma, you get rid of your three-fold debt and attain fame among your equals".⁷

v1.c11.s1.t3.7

⁶² (1st ed.) ⁴ Sukranīti, I. ll. 551-72, pp. 36-7. ⁵ Amuktamālyada, v. 285; J.I.H., IV, P. III., p. 77. ⁶ Ibid., v. 284, p. 76. ⁷ Ibid., v. 285, p. 77.

v1.c11.s1.t3.8

B. In relation to Other Parts of Sovereignty

v1.c11.s1.t3.9

The recognition of the king as an integral part of society did not prevent legists from considering the relation in which he stood to the other parts of sovereignty. The disappearance of the classical theory of the divine origin of the king was in itself an indication of the growing claims that were being put forward in support of the inter-dependence of the different parts which constituted sovereignty. When the ancient writers introduced the notion of protection, they ushered in at the same time the idea of divided responsibility between the king and his ministers, and of the limitations on the authority of the king. It is true that even in the earliest times royal action was to a certain extent limited by the highest moral and spiritual sanction.¹ But what definitely diminished the importance of the ruler as a despot with an atmosphere of divinity around him, was the principle which made the minister an indispensable adjunct to sovereignty. Since neither the king nor his minister alone, nor both of them combined, could solve the growing demands of the State, there necessarily were introduced the financial, military and foreign departments,² the ministers in charge of every one of which were to a large extent responsible for the effective execution of the orders of the sovereign. It is exactly this sense of responsibility being shared between the king and his great officers that is expressed in the maxims of Kṛṣṇa Deva Rāya on what may be called the civil service of Vijayanagara.

v1.c11.s1.t3.10

¹ Ghosal, *Hind. Pol. Theor.*, p. 41. (1st ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t3.11

² *Ibid.*, p. 86. (1st ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t3.12

Before we deal with them, we may acquaint ourselves with the words of Kauṭilya, who explains to us the relations of the king to other parts of sovereignty thus: ". . . it is verily the king who attends to the business of appointing ministers, priests, and other servants including the superintendents of several departments, the application of remedies against the troubles of his people, and of his kingdom, and the adoption of progressive measures; when his ministers fall into trouble, he employs others; he is ever ready to bestow rewards on the worthy and inflict punishment on the wicked . . ."³ The interdependence of the several component parts of the State is more clearly given in the *Śukranīti* thus: "The kingdom is an organism of seven limbs, viz., the Sovereign, the Minister, the Friend, the Treasure, the State, the Fort, and the Army. Of these seven constituent elements of the kingdom, the King or sovereign is the head, the Minister is the eye, the Friend is the ear, the Treasure is the mouth, the Army is the mind, the Fort is the arms, and the State is the legs".¹

v1.c11.s1.t3.13

³ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. VIII, Ch. I, 322, pp. 377-8.

v1.c11.s1.t3.14

¹ *Sukraniti*, Ch. I, ll. 121-4, p. 11. See also Ch. II, ll. 141-62, pp. 68-9.

Section 4. The Secretariat

v1.c11.s1.t4.1

The idea of a ruler conducting the administration of the country with the aid of what may be termed civil service is as old as Manu. "Even an undertaking easy (in itself) is sometimes hard to be accomplished by a single man; how much (harder is it for a king), especially (if he has) no assistant, (to govern) a kingdom which yields great revenues".² Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya was evidently conversant with the injunction of Manu, if one may say so from the following statement made in his poem: "When the work of a single subordinate (officer) is entrusted to a number of men and when each of them is assisted by his friends the business of the State may easily be accomplished. On the other hand when the staff is decreased, work cannot be turned out when business increases. No business can be accomplished by money alone without the co-operation of many big officers. For having them in due subordination the following are essential—absence of greed, absence of cruelty and truthfulness".³

v1.c11.s1.t4.2

² *Manu*, VII, 55. p. 224.

v1.c11.s1.t4.3

³ *Amuktamālyada*, I., vv. 214-5; *J.I.H.*, IV., P. III., p. 66.

v1.c11.s1.t4.4

From theory we may now turn our attention to the actual state of affairs in Vijayanagara. The existence of a sort of a secretariat is proved by the writings of foreign travellers. 'Abdur Razzāq says: "On the right hand of the palace of the Sultan (i.e., the Vijayanagara Emperor) there is the *diwān-khāna*, or minister's office, which is extremely large, and presents the appearance of a *chihal sutūn*, or forty-pillared hall; and in front of it there runs a raised gallery, higher than the stature of a man, thirty yards long and six broad, where the records are kept and the scribes are seated".⁴

v1.c11.s1.t4.5

⁴ Elliot, *Hist. of India*, IV, p. 107. According to Elliot, the *diwān-khāna* was on the right hand of the palace; but according to Major it was on the left hand side. Major, *India*, p. 25. Sewell evidently follows Major. *For. Emp.*, p. 91, n. (2).

v1.c11.s1.t4.6

Nuniz has some details to give about the secretariat.

v1.c11.s1.t4.7

"The captains and lords of this kingdom of Bisnaga, as well those who are at Court as those who are away from it, have each one his secretary who goes to the palace in order to write to him and let him know what the King is doing; and they manage so that nothing takes place of which they do not soon know, and day and night they are always in the palace. And the King also, when he leaves the palace, takes with him on his own account secretaries, who write what the King says, and the favours he bestows, and with whom he spoke, and upon what subject, and what his determination was; and to these men is given a credit equal to that of the Evangelists, because they say that whenever the King speaks there must be something worthy to be recorded, and also that such a record is necessary for their remembrance. Thus no written orders are ever issued, nor any charters granted, for the favours he bestows or the commands he gives; but when he confers a favour on any one it remains written in the registers of these secretaries. The King however gives to the recipient of the favour a seal impressed in wax from one of his rings, which his minister keeps, and these seals serve for letters patent".¹

v1.c11.s1.t4.8

¹ Sewell, *For. Emp.*, pp. 374-5. See also Taylor, *O.H. MSS.*, II, pp. 171, 199, seq., for some notices of the secretariat of the provincial rulers.

v1.c11.s1.t4.9

The inscriptions as well as the accounts of travellers throw some light on the general features of the administration of Vijayanagara. The king was assisted by a council of ministers. About the council we have some details in the chronicles of the Portuguese travellers. Nuniz, while describing an incident in the diplomatic relations between Kṛiṣhṇa Dēva Rāya and Sultan 'Ādil Shāh, relates that the latter had harboured at his court a man called "Cide", who had misappropriated the revenues belonging to the Hindu Government. 'Ādil Shāh sent a letter to Vijayanagara professing innocence in the Cide affair. "When those who had come from the King returned bearing the Ydallcão's answer, the King showed great indignation at it, and held that the peace was broken; he at once ordered to appear before him the great lords of his Council, and had the letter read aloud so that all might hear. As soon as it was read he said that without more ado they should make ready, since he was determined to take full vengeance". The influence which the councillors had on the Emperor is thus described by the same traveller. "But the councillors advised the King, saying that for such a small sum of money as this it was not well so to act; that he should think of what would be said and talked of throughout the world; and that if he was bent on breaking so prolonged a peace for such a trifling cause, he should call to mind that there never was any honesty in a Moor; that others were to blame in that which Cide had done; and that if Cide should dare to come to that war which was waged in order to take vengeance on him, then it would be well that those who accompanied him should die, but that they knew that Cide would keep well away from the army.

v1.c11.s1.t4.10

"The councillors, however, saw that the King remained unmoved from his determination to make war, and they then counselled him, saying:—'Sire, do not go to war by that route (Dabull), but go against Rachol, which now belongs to the Ydallcão but of old was part of this kingdom; then the Ydallcão will be forced to come to defend it, and thus thou wilt take vengeance jointly both on one and the other'. The King held this advice to be good and prepared for his departure. . ."¹

v1.c11.s1.t4.11

¹ Sewell, For. Emp., pp. 324-5.

v1.c11.s1.t4.12

In the above passage we have evidence of a council, of the stubborn stand made by the Emperor as regards the question of war, of the equally persistent attitude of the councillors, and finally, of the manner in which the ruler yielded to the advice of his ministers. Whether the ministers were able to have their own way in all important matters cannot be made out; what we may assert is the fact that the king governed with the aid of a council. The remarks of Barbosa seem to confirm the evidence of Nuniz as regards the existence of a council. Barbosa speaks of a council-room thus: "This King has a house in which he meets with the governors and his officers in council upon the affairs of the kingdom. . ."² Firishtah also speaks of a council summoned by the king. While relating the events of Dēva Rāya's reign, the Muhammadan historian says: "He called a council of his nobility and principal brahmins. . ."³ It was summoned, as we shall see, to discuss the ways and means of improving the Vijayanagara army.

v1.c11.s1.t4.13

² Barbosa, Stanley, p. 89; Dames thinks it to be the divān-khāna, I, p. 208, n. (1); Sewell, ibid., pp. 129-30.

v1.c11.s1.t4.14

³ Firishtah, Briggs, The Rise, II, p. 430; Scott, I., p. 118; Sewell, ibid., p. 72.

v1.c11.s1.t4.15

The council, we may presume, was composed of ministers appointed by the king and of the great nobles of the kingdom. The tradition of appointing ministers was of course in vogue in India since the earliest times.¹ In the following words of Sukra there is not only a further denial of the divine nature of the king but also an affirmation of the importance of the ministers. "Without the advice of the Prakṛitis, i.e., the Executive Officers, the state is sure to be destroyed. If the king fears their control, they are good ministers".² Then again: "Even the king who is proficient in all the sciences and a past-master in statecraft should never by himself study political interests without reference to ministers".³ Sukra is no advocate of the superiority of a particular caste as regards the question of the selection of ministers. "One should not notice only the caste (or race) or only the family in making the selection (of ministers). Work, character, and merit—these three are to be respected—neither caste nor family. Neither by caste nor family can superiority be asserted".⁴ This approaches the maxim of Kṛiṣhṇa Dēva Rāya: "Do not have the following as your servants even though they are Brahmans: one born of a mean family, one living in a Kikaṭa (a Sabara village), one who is not learned, a coward, a liar, an Ātatāyin, one who is not afraid of ignominy, a foreigner and one devoid of Dharma".⁵ The same ruler has recorded the following about the procedure to be adopted in the council: "In the Council when one officer proposes a particular course another may object to it as unsuitable through mere spite of the former. The king should discover their individual motives and without denying the statement of either should close the council and then follow the course adopted by the first councillor, without spite".⁶ We are not certain whether the Vijayanagara monarchs followed this injunction of Kṛiṣhṇa Dēva Rāya; but we are sure that as regards the selection of ministers, their choice was by no means confined to the members of the sacerdotal class. Their ministers were recruited from the ranks of Brahmans, Kshatriyas, and Vaiśyas. The office was sometimes hereditary, and sometimes rested on selection.

v1.c11.s1.t4.16

¹ Manu, VII, 54-68, pp. 224-6; Sānti Parva, lxxi-lxxxiii, pp. 254, seq., 268, seq.; Ghosal, Hist. Pol. Theor., p. 191. (1st. ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t4.17

² Sukranīti, II, ll. 161-3, p. 69.

v1.c11.s1.t4.18

³ Ibid., II, ll. 3-4, 5-8, pp. 54-5.

v1.c11.s1.t4.19

⁴ Ibid., II, ll. 111-12, p. 65.

v1.c11.s1.t4.20

⁵ Amuktamālyada, v. 209; J.I.H., IV, P. III, p. 65.

v1.c11.s1.t4.21

⁶ Ibid., v. 227; J.I.H., IV, P. III, p. 67.

v1.c11.s1.t4.22

Here we may perhaps add a word about the function of the ministers. The post of a minister and of a royal chaplain was sometimes held by one and the same man. But there is reason to believe that in the generality of cases under Vijayanagara, while the rāja-guru was always a Brahman, the post of a prime-minister was bestowed on a Brahman, a Kshatriya or a Vaiśya. It is evident, therefore, that Śukrāchārya's injunction as regards the choice of ministers was unconsciously followed by the Vijayanagara monarchs. Information is not forthcoming as to how the office of a pradhāna, or, as he was also called, mahā-pradhāna, was conferred by the king. But we may assume from the manner in which similar high offices were bestowed on nobles, that appointments were confirmed by a śāsana. We have so late as A.D. 1639 Veṅkaṭapati Dēva II granting Erekkaṭṭe in Hoysala-dēśa to Bhairappa Nāyaka of the Gōvala-gōtra, by means of a śāsana, with the office of amara-nāyaka along with certain lands.¹ The granting of lands for personal services, or, as in some instances, in lieu of salary, was greatly in vogue in those times. Thus in A.D. 1416-17 under Rāmachandra Oḍeyar, son of Dēva Rāya, Bhāvanāyanigaru was given as personal salary (aṅga-jitamu) fields in the village of Bōyaviḷḷa.² Whether ministers were granted lands in lieu of money, as salary, cannot be determined. The office of a minister, we may note in passing, was in some instances hereditary. Thus we are told in A.D. 1382 that Muda Daṇḍēśa inherited his office from his father.³

v1.c11.s1.t4.23

¹ My. Arch. Report for 1918, p. 54.

v1.c11.s1.t4.24

² Butterworth-Chetty, Nellore Ins., II, p. 637. But here we may observe that this personal salary was granted to him for constructing a tank.

v1.c11.s1.t4.25

³ E.C., V, P.I., Bl. 75, p. 62.

v1.c11.s1.t4.26

The history of ministers under Vijayanagara now deserves to be examined. The most popular name which we meet with in early Vijayanagara history is that of Mādhavāchārya. This name, however, was borne by the celebrated Vidyāraṇya, the author of the Commentary on the Vedas; by Mādhava-mantri, scholar, author and minister; by Sāyaṇa, who, although he did not bear that name, has been sometimes confounded with his elder brother Mādhavāchārya; and Mādhava, the author of *Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha*.¹ The first two were ministers to Bukka I, and the third was the minister of Bukka and Harihara and preceptor of Saṅgama II.² The futility of asserting that Mādhavāchārya Vidyāraṇya was the minister of Harihara I has already been dealt with;³ and it was said that Vidyāraṇya must have been transferred to the capital at some period in the reign of Bukka I from his post at one of the provincial centres. This however is only a conjecture. We cannot find out who really was the prime-minister of Harihara I, although, as we said, we are aware of Kriyāśakti Āchārya being the *raja-guru* of the founders. The earlier notion that Mādhava Vidyāraṇya was the minister of Harihara I, Bukka I, and also of Saṅgama II,⁴ is to be rejected on the authority of Sāyaṇa’s *Alaṅkāra Sudhānidhi* which definitely describes the activities of Sāyaṇa as regent during the minority of Saṅgama II.⁵ Sāyaṇa, who was the minister of Bukka Rāya,⁶ continued to be the prime-minister of Harihara II.⁷ In A.D. 1347 we have Mādhava as the prime-minister of Mārappa. The inscription records the following: "Having returned to Chandragutti-pura, he (Mārappa) was there in great glory, when to this great king floating in the ocean of the kingdom there was born (arose?) [ajani] a pilot, who by the power of his wisdom could overreach even Guru (or Bṛihaspati), the great minister Mādhava, whose guru was Kriyāśakti, and of such fame that he was himself Triyambaka".¹ We suppose that this Mādhava was a Kashmere Brahman from the same inscription which, while narrating the names of several donees from Kashmere, says: "On the advice of the learned Mādhava, he who directed the dharma of the kings and Brahmans of his own country, had this śāsana made".² He has been identified with Mādarasa Oḍeyar, also called Mādhavāṅka, the governor placed over Banavāse in A.D. 1368-9, and the conqueror of Goa.³ The chief minister (styled the head-minister = siraḥ-pradhāna) of Bukka I in Śaka 1274 (A.D. 1352-3) was Nāgaṇṇa Daṇṇāyaka.⁴ Whether he is to be identified with Teppada Nāgaṇṇa Oḍeyar, who, along with Tippaṇṇa Oḍeyar, is called the senior minister of Bukka I in A.D. 1359⁵ cannot definitely be made out. Bukka had another minister called Anaṅtarasa Oḍeyar in Śaka 1286 (A.D. 1364-5).⁶ In A.D. 1368 the great minister of Bukka was Basavayya Daṇṇāyaka, who is called "a light of the Brahman race".⁷

v1.c11.s1.t4.27

¹ Narasimhachār, *I.A.*, XLV, p. 1, seq.

v1.c11.s1.t4.28

² Shankar Pandit, *I.A.*, IX, pp. 200, n. (1), 202, op. cit.; *Alaṅkāra Sudhānidhi*, The Sources, p. 49.

v1.c11.s1.t4.29

³ Equally futile is it to maintain with Mr. Subramiah Pantulu that he was a Telugu Brahman of the Bhāradvāja-gōtra born in Parhpā. See *I.A.*, XXVII, p. 248. Mr. R. Rama Rao has adduced formidable proof in support of the theory that Mādhavāchārya and Vidyāraṇya are not one and the same person. *I.H.Q.*, VI, p. 702, seq.

v1.c11.s1.t4.30

⁴ Wilson, *As. Res.*, XX, p. 5.

v1.c11.s1.t4.31

⁵ *I.A.*, XLV, ibid.; The Sources, p. 49.

v1.c11.s1.t4.32

⁶ This is proved by his Commentary on the *Saunaki-śākhā* of the *Atharva Veda* in the introductory verses of which he definitely tells us that he was the minister of Bukka Rāya. From the same source we learn that Vidyātirtha and Vidyāraṇya were two distinct persons, that the former was the guru of Sāyaṇa, and the latter, a famous scholar. Sankar Pandit, *I.A.*, IX, pp. 200, n. (1), 202. The evidence of Sāyaṇa’s Commentary on the *Saunaki-śākhā* of the *Atharva Veda* only strengthens our contention that Vidyāraṇya—whom Rice identified with Vidyātirtha—could never have been the prime-minister of Bukka I. See in this connection Narasimhachār, *I.A.*, XLV, pp. 2-3; *My. Arch. Report* for 1916, p. 56; *Supra*, Ch. III.

v1.c11.s1.t4.33

⁷ Sewell, *For. Emp.*, p. 48.

v1.c11.s1.t4.34

¹ E.C., VIII, Sb. 375, p. 66.

v1.c11.s1.t4.35

² Ibid.

v1.c11.s1.t4.36

³ Weber identified him with Vidyāraṇya, I.A., VI, p. 162, n. See also I.A., IV, p. 206, and p. 206, n. where Fleet confounded this Mādhavāṅka with Mādhavāchārya Vidyāraṇya.

v1.c11.s1.t4.37

⁴ E.C., IX, Dv. 29, p. 77.

v1.c11.s1.t4.38

⁵ E.C., VI, Mg. 25, p. 63. Teppada Nāgaṇṇa is also styled sabhāpati or Lord of the Council of the king, in the same inscription.

v1.c11.s1.t4.39

⁶ Rangachari, Top. List., I, Ap. 1, p. 1. If this Anaṅtarasa is the same as the person who reconstructed the famous tank called Bukkarāya-samudram, Anantapur district, then he seems to have been known also as Chikka Oḍeyar, Sewell, Lists., I, p. 117.

v1.c11.s1.t4.40

⁷ E.C., IV, Ch. 113, p. 15.

v1.c11.s1.t4.41

Before we deal with the next great name in the list Vijayanagara ministers, we may note the mahā-pradhānas of Kampaṇa, the great son of Bukka. In Śaka 1275 (A.D. 1353-4) the famous general under him was the Brahman Gōpaṇārya, but the talented mahā-pradhāna was Sōvappa, who could minister to the needs of the province as well as to those of Sanskrit poetry with equal ease.⁸ This Sōvappa was evidently the same as Sōmappa who figures in other inscriptions.⁹

v1.c11.s1.t4.42

⁸ 523 of 1906. Sōvappa (or Sōmappa) composed a Sanskrit verse with double meaning on the occasion of the gift of an ornament to the temple at Kadiri by Gōpaṇa.

v1.c11.s1.t4.43

⁹ 250 of 1901; A.S.R. for 1907-8, pp. 240-41; 89 of 1889; E.C. X, Kl. 203, 222; Mb. 58, pp. 61, 64, 91; Ep. Ind. VI, p. 324.

v1.c11.s1.t4.44

A more famous name in the line of royal ministers is that of Muddappa Daṇḍanātha, the great minister of Bukka in A.D. 1378. An inscription of that date relates that "committing to him (Muddappa) the burden of the world, the king Bukka remained at ease like Vāsudēva".¹ This remarkable administrator remained in power for nearly ten years. In the reign of the next king Harihara I, too, Muddappa was entrusted with the sole responsibility of government, according to an inscription dated A.D. 1379, which repeats the eulogy given to the prime-minister in the times of Bukka thus: "The king Harihara, committing all the burdens of the kingdom to him (i.e., Mudda Daṇḍanātha) was at ease, like Hari who places the burden of the earth on the head of the king of serpents".² We may incidentally note that Harihara II was extremely fortunate in having around him a devoted band of efficient officers.³ Two ministers of Harihara are mentioned in A.D. 1403. They were Saṅkapa and Rāyapa, who belonged to the Bhāradvāja-gōtra.⁴

v1.c11.s1.t4.45

¹ E.C., V, Cn. 256, p. 232. ² E.C., XI, Dg. 34, j.

v1.c11.s1.t4.46

The Executive officer of Dēva Rāya II, in Śaka 1328 (A.D. 1406-7), is said to have been Nāgappa Daṇḍanāyaka.⁵ He is probably to be identified with Nāgaṇṇa Daṇṇyāka, mentioned by Rice and Sewell.⁶ We cannot determine when this minister was exchanged by Dēva Rāya for Baiche Daṇṇāyaka, who, in A.D. 1444, is spoken of as the great minister of the king.⁷ Nuniz relates the following about Dēva Rāya: "As long as he reigned he had twenty ministers, which is an office that amongst these (people), is (generally) held only by one person".⁸ The chief officers of Virūpāksha Rāya in Śaka 1389 (A.D. 1467-8) were the following: Viṭṭharasa Oḍeyar, Sāluva Tirumala Rāya, Sāluva Narasimha, Singappa or Singa Daṇḍanayaka.¹

v1.c11.s1.t4.47

⁴² (For Mudda Daṇḍanātha's descent, see E.C., V, Bl. 75, p. 62); E.C., V, Bl. 63, p. 59. ³ These were Sāyaṇa, Irugapa Daṇḍanātha, Guṇḍapa Daṇḍanātha, Vīra Bāchaṇa Oḍeyar, Mallaṇa, and Muddappa. Ep. Ind. III, p. 117. ⁴ E.C., VI, Kp. 53, p. 87. ⁵ 345 of 1905; A.S.R. for 1907-8, p. 245. ⁶ Sewell, For. Emp., p. 80. ⁷ E.C., V, P. I. Bl. 14, p.

v1.c11.s1.t4.48

⁴⁷ His descent is also given in this inscription. ⁸ Sewell, ibid., pp. 302-3. Here we may note what Mr. Srikantha Sāstri says: "Dēva Rāya (II) had the good fortune to possess some of the greatest ministers that would have adorned any court. To mention some of them, Timmaṇṇa Oḍeya (1336), Chandrapparasa Oḍeya (1336), Aṇṇappa Oḍeya (1358), Nāgaṇṇa Oḍeya (1347) Perumāḷa Daṇḍa Nāyaka (1351), Baichappa Oḍeya (1329), Auchappa (1347), Lakkaṇṇa Daṇḍa Nāyaka, Mādaṇṇa Daṇḍa Nāyaka, Saṅkara Deva (1338), Narasimha Oḍeya (1347), Singaṇṇa Oḍeya (1358), Ballāḷa Dēva (1369), Srigiri Bhūpāla in Maraṭaka Rājya (1346-8), Pañjamailāra (1351), Vallabha Dēva (1368)". I.A., LVII, p.

v1.c11.s1.t4.49

⁷⁷ How the writer came to assign these dates to the different ministers cannot

v1.c11.s1.t4.50

¹ The first was made the viceroy of Tuḷuva, the second was placed over Trichinopoly, and the third was the famous usurper. Subramanya Aiyar, Ep. Ind., XVII, p. 196.

v1.c11.s1.t4.51

Inscriptions give us some details about the two famous ministers of the great Kṛishṇa Dēva Rāya. These were Sāluva Timmarusayya (also called Pratāpa and Appāji), and Rāyasam Koṇḍamarusayya. It is not unlikely that Sellappar Vira Narasimharāya Nāyakkar may have also held the post of a minister under the same monarch.² Three other names of ministers are also given, although we are uncertain about their identity. These are Tipa-Sōma, son of the Kandāchāra-Brāhmaṇa (i.e., the Brāhmaṇa of the Military Department) minister Mādappa, in A.D. 1513,³ and the ministers Appa and Gōpa, sons of Timma who was also a minister but who belonged to the Kausika-gōtra, in A.D. 1515.⁴ But the three great persons who may be said to have moulded Vijayanagara destiny in the days of Kṛishṇa Dēva Rāya were Sāluva Timma, Rāyasam Koṇḍamarusayya and Vyāsarāya. The monarch about whose obduracy as regards the declaration of war we read in the accounts of Nuniz some time ago, was never more docile to the counsel of his priests and nobles than when on a famous occasion, he vacated his throne in favour of his

v1.c11.s1.t4.52

² Ep. Report for 1916, p. 142.

v1.c11.s1.t4.53

³ E.C., VII, Sh. 1, p. 2.

v1.c11.s1.t4.54

⁴ Lüders, Ep. Ind., VI, pp. 111-12.

v1.c11.s1.t4.55

be made out. He starts with the statement: "Saka dates from inscriptions are used for the sake of greater accuracy". Evidently we have to take all the above dates as Saka dates. This, in the absence of any hint from the writer, we conjecture from the date given to Paṭṭa Mailāra. (Here we may also observe that the reference has been given as Ins. Mad. Pres., Vol. I, p. 1051, when it ought to be Sewell, Lists, II, C.P. No. 87, pp. 13-14; Rangachari, Top. Lists, I, Nl. 23, A.p. 1051). If we take all the above dates as Saka dates, we start with Timmaṇṇa Oḍeya who, according to Mr. Sastri, was the minister in 1336 (A.D. 1414-15) and with Chandrapparasa, of the same year. This date falls within the reign of Dēva Rāya I (A.D. 1406-16.) Rice, Mysore, and Coorg, p. 112. And Ballāḷa Dēva, to whom the writer gives 1369 (A.D. 1447-8), comes under Mallikārjuna (A.D. 1446-7). The date which Mr. Sastri gives to Baichappa Oḍeya is 1329 (A.D. 1407-08). If he is to be identified with the Baicheya Daṇṇayaka we have referred to above, then, it is difficult to explain why the minister of Dēva Rāya I should have appeared again in A.D. 1444. Mr. Srikantha Sāstri makes matters infinitely worse by not giving authorities and references to any of the statements in connection with the ministers—in the passage we have quoted—except in two instances. B.A.S.

v1.c11.s1.t4.56

illustrious *guru* Vyāsarāya. About the minister Rāyasam Koṇḍamarusayya, it is doubtful whether or not he was also ordered to conduct a campaign in the east.¹ The career of Sāḷuva Timma, known, as we said, to Appāji,² was as unsurpassed for its magnificence and power at the beginning as it was unequalled for its misery and pain at the end of his eventful political career.³

v1.c11.s1.t4.57

¹ S. K. Aiyangar, *The Sources*, p. 114; *infra*, Vol. II, Chapter III Brahmans.

v1.c11.s1.t4.58

² Subramiah Pantulu, *I. A.*, XXVII, p. 297. Sāḷuva Timma has also been identified with the 'Heemraj' of Firishtah. *Ibid.* But Briggs' Timraj mentioned elsewhere, is nearer to Timma Rāja. B.A.S.

v1.c11.s1.t4.59

³ Sewell, *For. Emp.*, pp. 108, 123, 131, 158, 168, 250, 359 and *passim*. See also *Ep. Ind.* VI, p. 109; *I.A.*, XXVII, *ibid.*

v1.c11.s1.t4.60

Sāḷuva Timma's family was one of the three great families which figured conspicuously in the history of Vijayanagara. The other was that to which Salakka Pedda Timma belonged. In Saka 1456 (A.D. 1534-5) Pedda Timma seems to have been the prime-minister of Achyuta Rāya.⁴ In Saka 1477 (A.D. 1555-6) the prime-minister of Sadāśiva Rāya was Gutti Tirumalayya Mahārāya of the famous Āravīḍu family.⁵ It was this family which continued the traditions and rule of the Vijayanagara monarchs for more than three generations after the memorable battle of Rākshasa-Taṅgaḍi.

v1.c11.s1.t4.61

⁴ C.P. No. 11 of 1905-6.

v1.c11.s1.t4.62

⁵ 412 of 1911. There is a Tirumalayya Dēva Mahārāya mentioned as minister in Saka 1455. Rangachari, *Top. List.*, I. Ap. 10, p. 2.

v1.c11.s1.t4.63

We may note in passing one or two great names in the list of ministers under the provincial rulers. The chronicles of Madura as well as the inscriptions supply us with one outstanding figure in the days of Viśvanātha Nāyaka and Kumāra Kṛishṇappa Nāyaka. It is that of Ariyanātha Mudaliyar, the contemporary of Akbar and Todar Mall.⁶

v1.c11.s1.t4.64

⁶ Rangachari, *I.A.*, XLIV, p. 62; Taylor O.H. MSS. II. pp. 17, 19.

v1.c11.s1.t4.65

We infer that the Vijayanagara monarchs had "assistant-ministers" from an inscription dated Saka 1450 (A.D. 1528-9) which speaks of Vīra Narasimha Nāyaka, son of Taḷuvakkḷaindām-bhaṭṭar, as *ubhaya-pradhāni* (or assistant-minister).⁷

v1.c11.s1.t4.66

⁷ 233 of 1901; A.S.R. for 1908-9. p. 184. *Ubhaya* also means both.

v1.c11.s1.t4.67

The functions and powers of the *rāja-guru* and the *mahā-pradhāna*, at least in some instances, were so indissolubly connected that we may be permitted to discuss here the position of the royal priest in relation to the State in general. The *rāja-guru* has always had a unique standing in Hindu history. Apparently in charge of the religious affairs of the royal household and of the State, he has sometimes thrown into the shade the mahā-pradhāna or prime-minister. In one or two instances he went even to the extent of commanding the king. From the earliest times the importance of the rāja-guru has been recognized by the canonists. This is especially seen in the statement which declared the purōhita "to be one-half of the Kshatriya", and the protector of the kingdom.¹ Some canonists however refused to recognize this Brahman view, which seemed to them to over-rate the status of the rāja-guru. This perhaps explains why Kauṭilya fails to mention the purōhita among the elements of sovereignty,² although he certainly remembers to note that high dignitary in the front rank of State officials.³ Śukrāchārya likewise gives the priest the first place in his description of the ten departments of a king.⁴ But the extraordinary sanctity given to the priest in the early canons is absent in the later treatises.⁵

v1.c11.s1.t4.68

¹ Śat. Brah. P. III. VI, 6, 3, 12, p. 259; Ghosal, Hind. Pol. Theor. pp. 51-2. (1st. ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t4.69

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. VI, Ch. I, 258, p. 309; Ghosal, ibid, p. 89. (1st. ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t4.70

³ Arthaśāstra, Bk. I. Chs. IX-X., pp. 15-16.

v1.c11.s1.t4.71

⁴ Śukranīti, Ch. II, ll. 141-4, p. 68.

v1.c11.s1.t4.72

⁵ For a short account of the importance of the royal priests among foreign nations, see Sarkar, Pos. Back., I, p. 1.

v1.c11.s1.t4.73

Great prominence was given to the rāja-gurus in the Vijayanagara times. This was in some measure due to the profound wisdom of the celebrated characters that illumine the pages of Vijayanagara history. The earliest of these, as related above, figure also in their capacity as ministers, although we are uncertain whether the first authentic name of the rāja-guru, Kriyāśakti Ācharya, can in any way be included among the mahā-pradhānas. He seems to have been the head of the Śrikaṇṭhāgama.⁶ While discussing the genuineness of the copper-plate grant called Mb. 158, we remarked that Kriyāśakti Āchārya was probably succeeded by Vidyātīrtha Svāmi of Śṛingēri as rāja-guru; and that the latter was the predecessor of Vidyāraṇya in the pontificate of that famous maṭha. It was also said that it was difficult to determine the date of the advent of Vidyāraṇya at the court of Vijayanagara.⁷ From A.D. 1378 till A.D. 1399 the royal priest under Harihara II was Kriyasakti Acharya, who has been identified by some with his namesake who was the *guru* of Madhava-mantri.¹

v1.c11.s1.t4.74

⁶ Gopinatha Rao, Madhurāvijayam, Intr. pp. 17-18.

v1.c11.s1.t4.75

⁷ An inscription dated A.D. 1652 informs us that Vidyāraṇya Śripāda "for the protection of cows, gods and Brahmans performed the coronation anointing of Harihara-mahārāya to the throne". E.C. VI, Sg. 11, p. 95.

v1.c11.s1.t4.76

¹ *My. Arch. Report* for 1911-12, p. 48; *E.C. V*, P.I., Cn. 256, p. 232.

v1.c11.s1.t4.77

The influence wielded by these *raja-gurus* seems to have been considerable. There is no doubt that in their capacity as preceptors of the monarch, they even commanded him to bestow gifts on learned presons. The manner in which Srikanthanatha, the royal priest of Sangama II, guided his royal master is thus related in an inscription dated Saka 1278 (A.D. 1356-7). "Once when (his) beloved disciple, Sangama (II), waited upon him, the preceptor commanded him (*as follows*), with a glance which was full of great love: 'It pleases me to urge you to bestow some *agrahara*. Threfore, O King, grant some village!' With folded hands (*and*) bent head, the lord of the rulers of the earth received this command of (*his*) preceptor'."²

v1.c11.s1.t4.78

² Krishna Sastri, *Ep. Ind.* III, p. 33, and n. (3).

v1.c11.s1.t4.79

Narasimhacharya is said to have been the priest of the royal household, under Deva Raya II, in A.D. 1427.³ An inscription dated Saka 1438 (A.D. 1516-7) informs us that the *purohita* of Krishna Deva Raya was Ranganatha Dikshita.⁴ But three years later, in A.D. 1519, the *guru* of king Isvara and king Narasa of the Tuluva line is said to have been Basava Dikshita of the Jamadagnya-Vatsiya-gotra, Asvalayana-sutra and Rik-sakha. The epigraph further narrates that he performed all the ceremonies of the Vajapeya and other great sacrifices for Vira Narasimha and Krishna Deva Raya.⁵ But we know from Somanatha's *Vyayayogicharitam* that the illustrious Vyasaraya, at the special request of Sripadaraya, had gone to the court of Saluva Nrisimha, and that he continued to grace the courts of Saluva Narasimha (II), (otherwise known as Thamma-raya), and Krishna Deva Raya for many years.⁶

v1.c11.s1.t4.80

³ Rangachari, *Top. List.* I, NA 614A, p. 105.

v1.c11.s1.t4.81

⁴ 686 of 1922.

v1.c11.s1.t4.82

⁵ *E.C. V*, P.I., Cn 167, p. 198.

v1.c11.s1.t4.83

⁶ *Vyayayogicharitam*, Intr., pp. lxiv-lxv, 40, 53, 58 and 60.

v1.c11.s1.t4.84

Since there is no reason to doubt the veracity of Somanatha's account, we can only say that both Ranganatha Dikshita and Basava Dikshita may have acted in the minor capacity of *purohitas*, while the coveted position of a *raja-guru* was held by the great Vyasaraya. He was the disciple of Brahmanyatirtha. In A.D. 1525-26 he was granted the village of Beṭṭagoṇḍa, which was renamed Vyāsasamudra after the donee, and Kṛṣṇarāyapura, after the donor, Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya.¹ Two years earlier (in A.D. 1523-4) he seems to have received a grant when he was known as Vaiṣṇava-Siddhānta-pratiṣṭhāpakācārya.² How this renowned Vaiṣṇava teacher won the confidence of the Emperor, even to the extent of occupying the throne to avert a great danger, will be narrated in a subsequent paper.

v1.c11.s1.t4.85

¹ Ep. Report for 1905, p. 51.

v1.c11.s1.t4.86

² Ibid, 74 of 1889.

v1.c11.s1.t4.87

An equally great name among the rāja-gurus was that of the celebrated Tātācārya, the family guru of Rāma Rāya. Born in the Srīśaila-vaṃśa of the famous Srīśailanātha, also known as Periya Tirumalai-nambi, the maternal uncle of Rāmānuja, Tātacharya, the son of Srīnivasa-guru, learned in all the śāstras, was the ācārya of Rāma Rāya. He accompanied the Emperor to Chandragiri.³ Tātācārya was the family guru of Veṅkaṭa II.⁴ it was he who performed the coronation ceremony of that monarch.⁵ Among the commanding figures of later Vijayanagara history we have the famous Appaya Dīkṣita and Gōvinda Dīkṣita, who were in no small measure responsible for the magnificence of the court of Vellore.⁶

First 138 of 624 passages. Read on

Linked texts (17)