Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c17: Chapter I. Varṇāśrama Dharma

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c17

Language
English

Contents

Chapter I. Varṇāśrama Dharma

Section I. Dharma in Relation to Society

v2.c17.s1.1

THE huge and costly forces, some aspects of which we have described, were necessary in an age when the rulers stood as champions of the thought and culture of the people. In the statement of an epitaph that Bukka-mahipati was a reincarnation of Kṛṣṇa, who "re-appeared as a king to deliver the world when it was overspread by *Mlechchhas*", we have one of the most salient features of the Hindu classical lawgivers expressed in terms of contemporary history. The Vijayanagara age, as we have elsewhere remarked, saw the resuscitation of Hindu life. And this was only possible with a revival of the ancient Dharma modified to some extent by the experience of ages.

v2.c17.s1.2

The monarchs as well as the people were aware of the relationship of Dharma to society. It was the endeavour of the former to protect the *varṇāśrama dharma*; it was the ambition of the latter to follow the classical precepts without endangering the prosperity of the land. To the Hindus, as is well known, the word *Dharma* covered a large field of human activity : it was used to denote the whole social order with its attributes of law, conduct and worship. It was, therefore, as vast in its range as it was complex in its character.¹ Its end could only be realized by the united action of the people led by the king. The ancients invented a singular method of securing their object. They instituted the four *varṇas* or castes (and the four *āśramas* or orders) and gave the system a touch of divinity, reiterating the interdependence of the different parts. The four castes and the duties assigned to each of these are too familiar to need a description here. Nevertheless in understanding the interdependence of the four castes and in the consequent solidarity of the whole system, we cannot help noting the following words by Manu : "The king has been created (to be) the protector of the castes (varṇa) and orders, who, all according to their rank, discharge their several duties"². Then again : "Abstention from injuring (creatures), veracity, abstention from unlawfully appropriating (the goods of others), purity, and control of the organs", Manu has declared to be the summary of the law for the four castes.³ Hence we have in Vaśiṣṭaḥ : "(To live according to) the rule of conduct is undoubtedly the highest duty of the men. He whose soul is defiled by vile conduct perishes in this world and in the next."⁴

v2.c17.s1.3

¹ It is difficult to define Dharma. We can only repeat the words of Dr. Kielhorn: "I find no English word by which I could fully express all the meanings of the Sanskrit dharma...." *Ep. Ind.*, IX., p. 113, n. (7).

v2.c17.s1.4

² Manu, VII., 35, p. 221.

v2.c17.s1.5

³ Ibid., X., 63, p. 416.

v2.c17.s1.6

⁴ *Vaśiṣṭha*, VI., 1, p. 34.

v2.c17.s1.7

Manu, who is our main authority on the subject, has minutely delineated the duties pertaining to every one of the four castes. He has laid down their mutual obligations, and, further he has allowed them a latitude, in the matter of adhering to their own duties in ordinary times and of assuming the functions of their inferiors on extraordinary occasions, which is especially seen in the social activities under Vijayanagara. The apparent diversity of the four *varṇas*, which seems to be a prominent feature of the system, was according to Manu, by no means a source of conflict between them. In the following regulations he tells us, firstly, about the interdependence of the Brahmans and the Kshatriyas, and, then, about the importance of the Vaiśyas and the Śūdras in the social order. "When the Kshatriyas became in any way overbearing towards the Brāhmaṇas, the Brāhmaṇas themselves shall duly restrain them, for the Kshatriyas sprang from the Brāhmaṇas. Fire sprang from water, Kshatriyas from Brāhmaṇas, iron from stone, the all-penetrating force of those (three) has no effect on that whence they were produced. Kshatriyas prosper not without Brāhmaṇas, Brāhmaṇas prosper not without Kshatriyas; Brāhmaṇas and Kshatriyas, being closely united, prosper in this (world) and in the next".¹ Then, again, Manu says: "The Brāhmaṇa is declared (to be) the root of the sacred law and the Kshatriya its top."² This explains why in the Institutes of Gautama we have the following: "It has been declared in the Veda: 'Brāhmaṇas, united with Kshatriyas, uphold gods, manes, and men.'"³ About the importance of the third varṇa Manu says: "For when the Lord of creatures (Prajāpati) created cattle, he made them over to the Vaiśya; to the Brāhmaṇa and to the king, he entrusted all created beings."⁴ Further we have the following as regards the interdependence of the Vaiśyas and the Śūdras: "(The king) should carefully compel Vaiśyas and Śūdras to perform the work (prescribed) for them; for if these two (castes) swerved from their duties, they would throw this (whole) world into confusion."⁵ The Hindu society, therefore, according to the ancients, was divided into a number of component parts, each of which, while it had some specific duties to perform, was also required to work for the common purpose—the realization of the Dharma. Therefore "one may detect beneath the outer garb of dogma a keen appreciation of the principle of specialization and division of labour as well as that of the organic unity of society."¹

v2.c17.s1.8

¹ Manu, IX., 320-2, p. 399.

v2.c17.s1.9

² Ibid., XI., 84, p. 447.

v2.c17.s1.10

³ Gautama, XI., 27, p. 238.

v2.c17.s1.11

⁴ Manu, IX., 327, p. 400.

v2.c17.s1.12

⁵ Ibid., VIII., 418, p. 327. See Gautama, X., 1-2, p. 227 for the occupations common to all twice-born men.

v2.c17.s1.13

¹ Ghosal, *Hind. Pol. Theor.*, pp. 60-1 (1st ed.); p. 36 (2nd ed).

v2.c17.s1.14

The Vijayanagara conception of the social order was, on the whole, modelled on the classical precepts. That the rulers were aware of the *varṇāśrama dharma* is proved by numerous records as well as by references in literature. Harihara Rāya II, in A.D. 1399, is said to have been "engaged in upholding the observances of all the castes and orders", and to have been "the supporter of the four castes and orders".² In A.D. 1403 the same monarch is described to be protecting the duties of the various castes (*Harihara-mahārāyaru Vijeyanagariyal(l)i śrī-Virūpāksha-dēvara sannidhiyalli varṇāśrama-dharman-gaḷan(n)u pālisutta*).³ The same phrase is used in connection with him and with his son Virūpāksha in the next year.⁴ In A.D. 1404 and A.D. 1405 Bukka (II) is also represented as protecting the *varṇāśrama dharma* from Vijayanagara.⁵ From A.D. 1407 till A.D. 1432 we come across various inscriptions in which Dēva Rāya II is said to be protecting all the *varṇā-śrama dharmas* (*sakala-varṇāśrama dharmamavannu pālisutta . . .*).⁶ In A.D. 1423 the phrase *sakala-varṇāśrama-dhar-maṅgaḷan(n)u pālisutta dharma-mārgada sakala-sāmbrājya-van āḷu* is used both in regard to Dēva Rāya and Śrigirinātha Oḍeya (son of Kammaṇa Oḍeya), the Viceroy over Āraga.⁷ Mallikārjuna Mahārāya, from A.D. 1448 to A.D. 1451, is also depicted as upholding the duties of all the castes.⁸ The idea of the *varṇāśrama dharma* survived the shock of the battle of Rākshasa-Taṅgaḍi, as is evident from the use of the phrase in connection with Sadāśiva Rāya in A.D. 1566.¹ In an inscription dated A.D. 1577, of the times of Śrīraṅga Rāya, we have the following about the Emperor Sadāśiva—*purarājyaṁ praśāsati varṇāśrama-sad-āchāra-paripālana-pūrvakam*.²

v2.c17.s1.15

² *Ep. Ind.*, III, p. 125.

v2.c17.s1.16

³ *E. C.*, VI., Kp. 52, p. 86, text, p. 334; *E. C.*, VIII., Tl. 133, p. 190.

v2.c17.s1.17

⁴ *E. C.*, VIII., Tl. 9, Tl. 13, pp. 164-6, Tl. 196, p. 206.

v2.c17.s1.18

⁵ *Ibid.*, Tl. 11, 12, 126, pp. 164-5, 187.

v2.c17.s1.19

⁶ *Ibid.*, Tl, 122, p. 187, Tl. 190, text, p. 82, Tl. 131, p. 189, Tl. 222, p. 211; *E. C. VII.*, Sh. 70, p. 27; *E. C. VIII.*, Tl. 205, p. 208, Tl. 142, p. 191, Tl. 148, p. 192, Tl. 144, p. 191; Tl. 2. p. 161, Tl. 14, p. 165; *E. C. VII.*, Sh. 71, p. 27; *E. C. VIII.*, Tl. 23, p. 168.

v2.c17.s1.20

⁷ *E. C.*, VIII., Tl. 14, text, p. 450, op. cit.

v2.c17.s1.21

⁸ *E. C.*, VI., Kp. 32, p. 81, text, p. 317, Kp. 44, p. 83, text, p. 325. The name Dēva Rāya given to the king in this latter inscription is to be interpreted as Immaḍi Dēva Rāya. See also *E. C.*, VIII., Tl. 155, p. 193.

v2.c17.s1.22

¹ E.C., VIII., Nr. 1, p. 126.

v2.c17.s1.23

² Ibid., Tl. 5. text, p. 418.

v2.c17.s1.24

But these were not the only monarchs who were credited with the observance of the *varṇāśrama dharma*. The picture of Sāḷuva Nṛsiṁha, as given in the *Sāḷuvābhyudayam*, makes us believe that that ruler maintained the traditional dignity of the sovereigns as Defenders of the Faith. As we have already remarked, Sāḷuva Nṛsiṁha appeared like Indra pledged to uphold the cause of the Dēvas, when he was seated on an elephant during the usual royal perambulations in the south.³

v2.c17.s1.25

³ Ante., Vol. I., Chapter V.

v2.c17.s1.26

But no Vijayanagara monarch could put forth such substantial claims for the honour of defending and promoting the Hindu Dharma as Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya. Sōmanātha in his *Vyāsayōgicharitam* showers an uncommon eulogy on that ruler which, but for the fact that it is confirmed by foreign as well as Indian sources, would have been given hardly any credence by students of history. Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya was the crest jewel of kings—शिरोमणिः भूपतीनां, and when he died, after making obeisance to the celebrated Vyāsarāya, his *guru*, it seemed to the people that Kṛṣṇa himself had departed from the ken of mankind at the end of His *avatāra*.

v2.c17.s1.27

तत्र समहीपतिः भगवंतं यतिमघवतं नमस्कृत्य विदांवर
परलोक यथाधिरोहिणीमिव तस्य महतीम आशिपम्
आदरेणादाय प्रयाणे लीलावियीकृत नंदनस्य देवकी
नंदनस्य पुनरपि स्मरयन्नवरौकः कदंबानि बहुजन्म
सुकृतेन वासववास्तव्य भावमभजत⁴

v2.c17.s1.28

⁴ Vyāsayōgicharitam, Intr., pp. clxi, clxxii, 66, 76-7.

v2.c17.s1.29

This encomium lavished on Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya is to be traced to the feeling of patriotism and benevolence which characterized that able champion of the Hindu Dharma, and which made the people believe that his rule was like a shower from heaven blossoming the world at the commencement of spring.

v2.c17.s1.30

तदनु समस्तभुवनमंगलकंदलसमयसलिलधारायमाणशासनचातुरिक:¹ How ardent Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya himself was that his people as well as posterity should judge him as the Defender of the Dharma can be gathered from the concluding lines of his own composition styled *Jāmbhavatī Kalyāṇa*, where, with the characteristic humility of a truly noble mind, he prays that the fruits of his rule might last to the remotest periods of time:

v2.c17.s1.31

धर्मे पाद चतुष्टयेन कृतवत् स्थैर्य समालंबतां । चातुर्वर्ण्य
उपैतु कर्म सततं स्वस्वाधिकारोचितम् । शेषक्षमाधनायकस्य
कृपया सप्तार्णवीमध्यगं रक्षन् गामिह कृष्णराय
नृपतिः जीयात् सहस्रं समाः ।²

v2.c17.s1.32

² Jāmbhavatī-Kalyāṇa, The Sources p. 143; Venkoba Rao, Vyāsa-yōgicharitam Intr., p. clxxiii.

v2.c17.s1.33

Foreigners, who personally interviewed the great ruler, have given us many details about the grandeur of his court and the number of his troops. But none has given such an admirable sketch of his character and person as Paes. It is worthwhile to take his words into account in our estimate of the greatest monarch southern India has ever seen. "This king," says Paes, "is of medium height, and of fair complexion and good figure, rather fat than thin; he has on his face signs of small-pox. He is the most feared and perfect king that could possibly be, cheerful of disposition and very merry; he is one that seeks to honour foreigners, and receives them kindly, asking about all their affairs whatever their condition may be. He is a great ruler and a man of much justice, but subject to sudden fits of rage, and this is his title—¹ Crisnarão Macacão, king of kings, lord of the greater lords of India, lord of the three seas and of the land.' He has this title because he is by rank a greater lord than any, by reason of what he possesses in (?) armies and territories, but it seems that he has (in fact) nothing compared to what a man like him ought to have, so gallant and perfect is he in all things."¹ Coming as this does from a foreigner who was ignorant of the ideas of Hindu Dharma, it confirms the fear, love and esteem in which the people held Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya the Great.

v2.c17.s1.34

¹ Vyāsayōgicharitam, p. 66. Cf. The popular conception of the same ruler as given in E. C. X., CB. 4, p. 198, op. cit. (Ante., Vol. I., Chapter IV), and in the two triumphal verses composed by the court poets during his campaign of Kondavidu, The Rāyavachakamu, The Sources, p. 122, op. cit. (Ante., Vol. I, Chapter IX.)

Section 2. The Hindu View of Life

v2.c17.s2.1

DHARMA could only be realized by co-ordinating three other aims which have ever been associated with it. In the words of Manu,—" (Some declare that) the chief good consists in (the acquisition of) spiritual merit and wealth, (others place it) in (the gratification of) desire and (the acquisition of) wealth, (others) in (the acquisition of) spiritual merit alone, and (others say that the acquisition of) wealth alone is the chief good here (below); but the (correct) decision is that it consists of the aggregate of (those) three."² Manu, therefore, combines the two-fold path of progress (*pravṛtti*) and of abstinence (*nivṛtti*) to secure liberation or self-realization. This ideal remained unchanged till the mediaeval days. Thus does Śukra explain the rules of social polity: "The activities of all creatures are known to have happiness for their end. There can be no happiness without morality. So one should be devoted to morality (dharma). Let one not try to get mōkṣa without trying to acquire the other three (*viz.*, dharma, artha and kāma), and let them constantly follow (the path of) mōkṣa without discarding the other three. This is the (golden) mean in all religions".³ Here is "a profound appreciation of the totality of human interests" which "lies, unless we are greatly mistaken, at the root of the sociological ideas of the Hindus".⁴

v2.c17.s2.2

¹Sewell, *For. Emp.*, pp. 246-7. On p. 247, n. (2). Sewell in connection with the word Macacão, writes. "A mixture, apparently, of *Mahā*, 'great' and 'Śāh'". The word may as well stand for "*Mahārāya*". B.A.S. ²Manu, II, 234, pp. 70-1. ³Śukranīti, III, ll. 2-5, p. 102. ⁴Ghosal, *Hind. Pol. Theor*, p. 7 (1st ed.), p. 7 (2nd ed.).

v2.c17.s2.3

Inscriptional evidence proves that the Hindu monarchs were Defenders of the Dharma; foreign travellers attest to the fact that their Empire, specially in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, was almost unrivalled for its riches and splendour. The Vijayanagara monarchs realized that material wealth was indispensable for the attainment of freedom of any kind. There was of course nothing new in this: Śukra had already expressed the mediaeval view in the following words: "Man is the slave of wealth, not wealth of anybody. So (one) should always carefully labour for wealth. Through wealth men get virtue, satisfaction and salvation"¹. The ultimate significance of such a conception was indeed profound; it meant that the life of an average citizen was to be governed by considerations of material wealth rather than by those of metaphysical calculations. We may be permitted to repeat that there is no definite evidence to prove that the mediaeval treatise of Śukrāchārya influenced the thought and action of the Hindu rulers. Nevertheless we may assert, on the evidence of both foreign and indigenous accounts, that the Vijayanagara monarchs achieved remarkable success in co-ordinating the apparently divergent lines of action enunciated by legists from Manu down to Śukrāchārya.

v2.c17.s2.4

¹ Śukranīti, V. ll. 77-9, p. 264; Sarkar, Pos. Back. II, P. I, p. 79.

v2.c17.s2.5

Whether in Vijayanagara times the distinction between the rich and the poor was as acute as is depicted in the Śukranīti², and whether they adopted the "eight good ways and means" of acquiring wealth, mentioned by the mediaeval lawgiver³, it is not possible to say; but if one could judge from the opinions of writers of a later age, one may venture to remark that in Vijayanagara too there must have been as invidious distinctions between the rich and the poor as are mentioned, for example, by Vēmana. This writer tells us that "If one be possessed of wealth they look upon him as the god of love; but if he falls into poverty, and is unable to rise and help himself, be he as Cupid himself, they look upon him as a Pariar."¹ If this was the heritage which was left by Vijayanagara to the people of the seventeenth century, we may well imagine that in its own days it could not have been free from those ideas of wealth and poverty which are usually associated with material prosperity.

v2.c17.s2.6

² Śukranīti, III., 363, 369-70, 373-5, p. 116; Sarkar, Pos. Back., II, P. I, p. 78, seq.

v2.c17.s2.7

³ Śukranīti, III, ll. 364-7, p. 116: Sarkar, ibid., pp. 79-80.

v2.c17.s2.8

¹ Vēmana, *Verses*, Bk. II., v. 25, p. 58. (Brown) See also pp. 84-101, 113. See infra, Chap. II, Section I.

Section III.—Some Features of Life in a Hindu Family

A. Pre-Vijayanagara

v2.c17.s3.t1.1

With these general notions of the aims and means of the Hindu Dharma, we may now ascertain, with the fragmentary evidence before us, a few facts concerning life in a Vijayanagara family. There is reason to believe that in the earliest periods of Indian history, the conception of home or family life was highly elevated, embracing as it did relationship in blood as well as in service. We have a pleasant glimpse of such a state of life in the edicts of Aśōka.² Even in the seventh century A. D., the Hindu home was not much shorn of its antique simplicity. Bāṇa in his description of his own life gives us a sketch of the stages through which a diligent Brahman passed;³ and in the following account he tells us that "the religious mendicants were intent on worshipping the shrines, having washed their feet and hands in the outpour of their water-pots; the fire, with the sacred grass spread round it, was blazing up, with its hands purified by the sacrificial vessels."⁴ Then, again, he speaks of the little folk at home : "the children were beginning to long to go to sleep, having enjoyed a good lying in bed while listening to the long stories of the old nurse", when the dreadful mouth of early night was beginning to yawn. Rājyavardhana lay down his sword in sorrow; and Harsha, perplexed and pained at his brother's attitude, gave vent to his feelings in an admirable soliloquy, in the course of which he gave further proof of the great love he bore to his brother.

v2.c17.s3.t1.2

² Mookerjee, *Asoka*, p. 103.

v2.c17.s3.t1.3

³ Bāṇa, *Harshacharita*, p. 66.

v2.c17.s3.t1.4

⁴ Ibid., p. 67.

v2.c17.s3.t1.5

He could not think of accepting the charge of sovereignty which was "like a rain of cinders on a drought parched wilderness, scorching one already scorched." He is unable to find out the reason of Rājyavardhana's renunciation. "This is unworthy of my lord. Again, although in this world a prince without pride, a Brahman without greed, a saint without anger, an ape without tricks, a poet without envy, a trader without knavery, a fond husband without jealousy, a poor man not an eye-sore, a hunter without cruelty, a mendicant with a Brahman's learning, a contented servant, a grateful dicer, a wandering ascetic without gluttony, a misanthrope with a soft tongue, a truthful minister, and a King's son without vice are all equally hard to find, yet my Lord himself has been my instructor."¹ The figure of the noble Harshavardhana stands out in bold relief against the characters he has described in his speech.

v2.c17.s3.t1.6

¹ Bāṇa, *Harshacharita*, p. 68.

v2.c17.s3.t1.7

Friends, children and wealth—these three constituted worldly happiness. The inscriptions of the twelfth century supply equally interesting features about the life in a Karṇāṭaka home. According to a record dated A. D. 1176, the most essential factors which could give happiness to a family were the following—*pañcha-sūnā* or cutting, grinding, cooking, carrying water, and sweeping; *strī-mōha* or love of women; *parigraha* or land, house, cattle, grain, bipeds, quadrupeds, conveyance, bed, servants and vessels. These formed the three *garavas* which were as indispensable to the house-holder as they were harmful to the hermit.² With the inclusion of a very minor but significant article, lamps, which is mentioned in A. D. 1195³, we may venture to assert that the pre-Vijayanagara conception of home life included almost all things required for domestic happiness.

v2.c17.s3.t1.8

² E. C., II., No. 66, p. 22, n. (2) (2nd ed.)

v2.c17.s3.t1.9

³ *Ibid*., No. 349, p. 153.

B. Vijayanagara

v2.c17.s3.t2.1

The uniformity in the Hindu system of home life is seen when we compare the ideas of the twelfth century with those of mediaeval times. The eight sources of wealth and enjoyment, as given in a copper-plate record dated A. D. 1403, were houses, both kinds of land (wet and dry), cattle-folds, woods, waste grounds, land filled with game, rivers and hills—*mandi-ram dvi-vidham kṣētram gōṣṭam cha vanam ēva cha khili bhūtam cha yat kṣētram mṛiga-vāsas tathaiva cha nadī-par-vala-bhōgaś cha aṣṭa-bhōgaḥ prakīrtitāḥ.*¹ Then again in a record dated A. D. 1583 we are told that Daḷavāyi Basavi Nāyaka was blessed by the people with health, wealth, cattle, gold, sons and grandsons, in order that he might live a long and unobstructed life.²

v2.c17.s3.t2.2

¹ E. C., XII, Si. 95, p. 101, text, p. 300.

v2.c17.s3.t2.3

² Ibid. XII, Si. 3, p. 88.

v2.c17.s3.t2.4

The Hindu lawgivers have ascribed all happiness resulting from the acquisition of the above mentioned attributes to one of the four stages into which, according to them, wordly life may be divided. These four stages or orders, as is also well known, are those of the *brahmachārin* or student, *gṛihasta* or house-holder, *vānaprasta* or hermit, and *bhikshu* (or beggar) or ascetic. Without dwelling at length on the specific duties pertaining to every one of the four orders, which are mentioned in detail by the lawgivers,³ we may observe that according to the Hindus great importance was attached to the *gṛihastā-śrama* or the order of the house-holder. This is evident from the following in the code of Manu : "As all living creatures subsist by receiving support from air, even so (the members of) all orders subsist by receiving support from the house-holder. Because men of the three (other) orders are daily supported by the house-holder with (gifts of) sacred knowledge and food, therefore (the order of) house-holders is the most excellent order."⁴

v2.c17.s3.t2.5

³ Manu., II., 71, seq., pp. 43, seq; III., 1, seq., p. 74, seq; VI., 1, seq., p. 198, seq.; VI., 38, seq., p. 205, seq.; Vasiṣṭha, VII., 1—3, p. 40, Baudhāyana, II., 6, II, 12, seq., pp. 258—9.

v2.c17.s3.t2.6

⁴ Manu, III., 77—8, p. 89; Cf. Śānti Parva, Sec. LXVI. pp. 213—4.

v2.c17.s3.t2.7

The respect in which this stage of life was held by the people of Vijayanagara is described in an inscription dated Śaka 1438 (A. D. 1516). Kṛishṇa Dēva Rāya, in the presence of Viṭhṭhalēśvara on the bank of the Tuṅgabhadrā river, conferred the village of Māṇḍya, otherwise called Kṛṣṇarāyapuram, together with certain hamlets, to Gōvinda Rāja, son of Varadāchārya, and grandson of Anantāchārya, on whom Veṅkaṭēśa after diligent search had placed the garland of flowers.¹ The story alluded to in this inscription is briefly told by Rice. Anantāchārya, it appears, was a disciple of the reformer Rāmānujāchārya and the only one among his disciples who volunteered to accept the duty of daily preparing the garlands for the god Veṅkaṭēśa of Tirupati. This he did solely from *bhakti* or devotion to his *guru*. Gōviṅda Rāja, who was twelfth in descent from Anantāchārya, was, it is said, a confirmed ascetic. The god learning the distress of his parents at their son's remaining a bachelor and the threatened extinction of the family, appeared to him while at penance, and announcing that his devotion was accepted, threw a garland over him, at the same time directing him to marry and serve thenceforth as a householder.² Whatever may be the value attached to this anecdote, it is significant that in an inscription of A.D. 1516 there should be an allusion to the excellence of the *gṛihastāśrama* and the piety of Anantāchārya.

v2.c17.s3.t2.8

¹ E. C., III., Md. 115, p. 52. Even now the representative of Anantāchārya's family is the only person, it is said, who is garlanded on visiting Tirupati. Rice gives the memorial verse repeated on this occasion at Tirupati. *Ibid.*, Intr., p. 24, n. (2).

v2.c17.s3.t2.9

² E. C., *ibid.*, Intr., *ibid.* Mr. R. Narasimhachar tells us, however, that the epithet "on whom Veṅkaṭēśa placed a garland" does not apply to Gōvinda Dikshita but to the progenitor of his family, Anantāchārya. *My. Arch. Rept. for 1908*, p. 21.

v2.c17.s3.t2.10

We shall presently give examples of private charity testifying to the attachment which existed between members of a family. There cannot be a doubt that in the conduct of household duties, the people in Vijayanagara must have observed most of the orthodox rules which have ever governed a Hindu family. Even the princes of the Saṅgama dynasty, who were certainly not of the Brahman caste, seemed to have vigorously adhered to the regulations enjoined by the lawgivers on the dvija or the twice-born castes. Kumāra Kampaṇa, as we saw in connection with the army, at dawn performed his ablutions as prescribed in the śāstras, and then started on his southern campaign.

v2.c17.s3.t2.11

On one important aspect of their home life we have much evidence. This is their filial love which may have been instrumental in bringing together into closer relationship the various conflicting elements in the political and social life of the people. The love of the parents for their children is a most remarkable feature of the Hindu family. Even so late as in A.D. 1720 foreigners were struck by it. Father Bouchet wrote to Father Balthus the following—"... it is most certain that, there is no nation in the world where parents are more fond of their children; the tenderness of the Fathers and Mothers in this respect is beyond imagination".¹ This referred to the people of the south.

v2.c17.s3.t2.12

¹ Lockman, *Travels of the Jesuits*, III., p. 50.

v2.c17.s3.t2.13

In the light of this observation it is not too much to say, we believe, that in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and earlier, perhaps when orthodoxy was rampant among the people, the attachment of the parents to the children and the regard of the latter for the former must also have been especially noticeable. This only can explain the following epigraphs which deal with the filial love of the people. Honnana Gauḍa, son of Chikkaṇa Gauḍa, of Ānevāḷa, in about A.D. 1430, erected the basti of Brahma-dēva and Padmāvati, in order that Bommaṇṇa Gauḍa, the son born to him might obtain merit.² What precisely they meant by the phrase might obtain merit (puṇyav āgabēk endu) is told to us in a record dated A.D. 1590 which says that Piriya Rājayya Dēva Mahā-arasu, son of Śrīkaṇṭha Rājayya, king of Nañjarāyapaṭṭaṇa, in order that his (?) adopted son Prāṇadhāreya Piri-Oḍeyar might attain to Kailāsa, made in his name a grant of Pirisamudra for the lights of the Kārttika-pūjā of the god Annadāni-Mallikārjuna of Śrigiri.³ As regards the attachment which a mother felt for her daughter, we have an epigraph dated A. D. 1530 which relates that when Vīra Bhairava Oḍeyar was ruling over Kārkaḷa, and his younger sister Kāḷala Dēvī was protecting the Bāguñji-sīme, on the death of her daughter Ramā Dēvī, she gave in her name gifts in kind and money for the offerings of the god of Kallabasti in Tuḷuva.¹

v2.c17.s3.t2.14

² E. C., IV., Hs. 62. p. 90.

v2.c17.s3.t2.15

³ Ibid., Hs. 121, p. 95.

v2.c17.s3.t2.16

¹ *E. C.*, VI., Kp, 47, p. 84. ² *E. C.*, IX., An. 87, p. 119. ³ *E. C.*, IV., Yd. 46, p. 59. ⁴ *E. C.*, XII., Tp. 9, p. 44. ⁵ *My. Arch. Report* for 1920, p. 37. ⁶ 195 of 1913. ⁷ 196 of 1913.

v2.c17.s3.t2.17

There are many instances of the care with which children commemorated their love and respect for their parents. The Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara Vira Mallappa Oḍeyar's son Bukkaṇṇa, evidently of the royal family, in order that *dharma* might be to Mallappa Oḍeyar, in A.D. 1355 made a grant of vessels for the god Dāmōdara of Bannūrgaṭṭa.² Harihara Mahārāya in A.D. 1376 "in order that his father the Mahārājādhirāja Rājaparamēśvara Bukka Rāya might obtain union with Śiva, and through the removal of his sins acquire the favour of Paramēśvara", bestowed the village of Hebasūr, renamed Bukkarāyapura, to Brahmans of all *gōtras*.³ The same ruler Harihara II, "in order that merit might be to his forefathers," while in the capital in A.D. 1388, granted to a Brahman called Malli Bhaṭṭa the village Ayyarasanahaḷḷi in the Turvekere-sthaḷa, together with its thirteen hamlets.⁴ Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya the Great in A.D. 1513 granted six villages to the temple of Hazāra-Rāma at Hampe for the spiritual welfare of his parents, Narasaṇṇa Oḍeyar and Nāgājiyammā.⁵ Achyuta Rāya in Śaka 1455 (A.D. 1533-4) gave as a gift the village of Doṇḍavaṭi in Kurugōḍu-sīme, to the god Bukkēśvara-dēva, consecrated by himself, in the name, and for the merit, of Narasaṇṇa Nāyaka's mother Bukkammā.⁶ An undated epigraph records that the same monarch granted as a gift the village Chiṭikanahāḷa to the temple of Prasanna-Virūpāksha of Jenetegallu, Bellary district, for the merit of his father Narasaṇṇa Nāyaka.⁷

v2.c17.s3.t2.18

As in other matters, the monarchs set here an example to the nobles and the people. Bayappa Nāyaka in A.D. 1374 in order that *dharma* might be to his father, whose name is effaced in the record, and to his mother Chalō Nākitti made grants of land in his own Maṇṇe to Gaṅga Dēva Oḍeyar.¹ Mallaṇṇa Oḍeyar, son of Dēva Rāya I, was the governor over the great city of Bemmattanakallu-paṭṭaṇa in A.D. 1411. That merit might be to his mother Mallayave, he made a grant of Kanchiganahaḷḷi, (location described), to provide for the decorations and festivals of the god Hiḍambanātha.²

v2.c17.s3.t2.19

¹ E. C.. IX, Nl. 53, p. 38.

v2.c17.s3.t2.20

² E. C., XI, Cd. 14, pp. 5–6.

v2.c17.s3.t2.21

This spirit did not disappear in the later ages of Vijayanagara history. In the reign of Kṛiṣhṇa Dēva Rāya, his *kāryakarta* (Agent) Mahārāja Koṇḍamarusayyagāru, in A.D. 1520-1, caused to be constructed a tank at Anantasāgara for the religious merit of his mother Saṅkāyammā and his father Timmarusayya.³ Koṇḍamarusayya's precedent was copied by his son *Rāyasta* (i.e., *Rāyasa*) Ayyaparusayya, who, in Śaka 1447 (A.D. 1525-6), gave the village Jālavaṭi to the temple of Mallikārjuna Dēva at Kambadūru, Anantapur district, "in order that Rāyasta Koṇḍamarusayya may dwell in heaven".⁴ Kṛiṣhṇappa Nāyaka, son of Sōlūr Basavappa Nāyaka, in A.D. 1530, granted the village of Hārōhaḷḷi, in the Śivanasamudra-sthaḷa, for the decorations and offerings of the god Tiruveṅgaḷanātha of Siṅgāpura, in order that merit might be to Achyuta Rāya Mahārāya and to his own father Basavappa Nāyaka.⁵ The *Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara* Raghupati Rāja Mahā-arasu in A. D. 1538 made a grant of land in order that merit might be to Sirugammā, who was evidently his mother.⁶ The commander of the gate (of the palace) [*bāgila-daḷavāyi*] of Achyuta Rāya, Veṅgala Rāja, in A.D. 1542, in order that merit might be to his father Viṭha Rāja (*i.e.*, Viṭhṭhala Rāja) and to the god Viṭhṭhala, caused the Kukkasamudra to be constructed,¹ Timmaṇṇa Nāyaka and Koṇḍana Nāyaka, in A.D. 1546, in order that merit might accrue to their father, whose name is not given in the record, granted land for the god Vīrabhadra (of ?)². The Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara Jagan-nātha Rājayya, in A. D. 1550, granted for the offerings and the tenth day festival of the god Chennigarāya of Turuvekere, the village of Buvanahaḷḷi, in Sampa . . . sīme, in order that his father might obtain merit.³ In the same year Vidyādhara-mahāpātre-arasu gave to Lakshmipati-ayya, a learned Brahman, the village of Haḷḷadapura of the Kalla-haḷḷi-sthala in the Terakaṇāmbi-sime, in order that merit might accrue to his mother, whose name is effaced in the inscription, with the usual presentation of coin and pouring of water.⁴

v2.c17.s3.t2.22

³ Butterworth-Chetty, *Nellore Ins.*, I., pp. 203–4.

v2.c17.s3.t2.23

⁴ 97 of 1913,

v2.c17.s3.t2.24

⁵ E. C., IX., Bn. 28, p. 8.

v2.c17.s3.t2.25

⁶ E. C., VI., Ck. 127, p. 52.

v2.c17.s3.t2.26

¹ E. C. VI, Kd. 160, p. 32.

v2.c17.s3.t2.27

² E. C.. XI., Cl. 46, pp. 102-3.

v2.c17.s3.t2.28

³ E. C., XII., Tp. 6, p. 43.

v2.c17.s3.t2.29

⁴ E. C., IV.. Gu. 36, p. 42.

v2.c17.s3.t2.30

Sometimes such grants which commemorated maternal and paternal affection also described their patriotic sentiments. A Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara, whose name is effaced in the epigraph dated A.D. 1551, granted the village of Oḍagere, with all rights, for the god Mūlasthāna-liṅga, in order that merit might accrue to Sadāśiva Mahārāya, to Rāma Rājayya, and to his own father Gōpa Rājayya.⁵ In the same year the Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara Rāja Aubhalēśvara Dēva Mahā-arasu granted the village Bilanakōṭe, in the Gūḷūr-sime, for the god (obviously of the local temple) in order that merit might be to Sadāśiva Mahārāya and to his own father.⁶ In A. D. 1554 Pāpi Dēva Chōḷa Mahā-arasu, son of Veṅgaḷa Rāja of the Sūrya-vaṁśa, granted the village called Uparikarahaḷḷi, also called Veṅgaḷapura, situated in the Rāya-durga kingdom, for the god Tiruveṅgaḷanātha of Ambaligere, in order that merit might accrue to his father⁷. Of a similar nature is the gift made in Śaka 1478 (A. D. 1556-7) of Bāgināyinapalle to the temple of Mādhavēśvara at Rāyagiri, by the *Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara* Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja of Āraviṭi family for the merit of his father Viṭṭhalarāja.¹ In the reign of Sadāśiva Rāya, his betel-bearer Era Kṛṣṇappa Nāyaka's son Veṅkaṭādri Nāyaka, in A.D. 1559, granted the village of Narasāpura for the god Chennakēśava of Guṇḍeṛi, in order that merit might accrue to his father.² About the same year, Vīra Rāja Oḍeyar, son of Śrīkaṇṭha Oḍeyar, in order that he, his father and mother might obtain merit, made a grant of the village of Bekkare to the temple of the god Annadāni-Mallikārjuna of Śrigiri.³ In A.D. 1559 the *Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara* Nārāyaṇa Rāya, in order that merit might accrue to his father and mother, made a grant of the villages Viṭṭasandra and Nañjiguḷi for the offerings of the god Mallikārjuna.⁴ Era Kṛṣṇappa Nāyaka, the betel-bearer to the Emperor Sadāśiva in A.D. 1561, in order that merit might accrue to his father Bayyappa Nāyaka and his mother Koṇḍammā, granted the village of Kāḍaji for the ghee, *chhatra*, and necessary offerings of the god Harihara of Kuḍaḷūr.⁵ In A.D. 1569 Harati Abbaṇa Nāyakayya's son Kenchappa Nāyaka gave the village of Kānubeyahaḷḷi, in the Hiriyūr-sime, for the god Rāmēśvara, "in order that merit might accrue to our Abbaṇa Nāyakayya."⁶ Saṅte-Bennūr Hanama Nāyaka's son Rājappa Nāyaka, in A.D. 1571, in order that merit might accrue to his father and mother, set up the goddess Lakshmī (of Bhāgyapura or Bāgūr).⁷ In A.D. 1576 Bayyappa Nāyaka's son Kṛṣṇappa Nāyaka, evidently the same as the one mentioned above, gave to Viṭṭhala Bhaṭṭa a grant of land for an *agrahāra* at Gaḷigekere, also named Rāmapura *agrahāra*, in order that merit may accrue to his mother Rāmammā.⁸ Sōde Immaḍi Arasappa Nāyaka, in A.D. 1591, in order that merit might accrue to his mother Changammā, repaired the agrahāra of Kōḍi-Koppa.¹

v2.c17.s3.t2.31

⁵ Ibid., Gu. 54, p. 45.

v2.c17.s3.t2.32

⁶ E. C., IX., N1. 72, p. 47.

v2.c17.s3.t2.33

⁷ E. C., XI., Hr. 22, p. 107.

v2.c17.s3.t2.34

¹ 105 of 1913.

v2.c17.s3.t2.35

² E. C., XI., Hk. 21, p. 118.

v2.c17.s3.t2.36

³ E. C., IV., Hn. 88 p. 92.

v2.c17.s3.t2.37

⁴ E. C., IX., Ht. 2, p. 88.

v2.c17.s3.t2.38

⁵ E. C.. XI., Dg. 18, p. 29.

v2.c17.s3.t2.39

⁶ *Ibid.*, Hr. 79, p. 113.

v2.c17.s3.t2.40

⁷ *Ibid.*, Hk. 115, p. 132.

v2.c17.s3.t2.41

⁸ E. C., IV., Yd. 59, p. 62.

v2.c17.s3.t2.42

¹ E. C., VIII. Sb. 447, p. 77.

v2.c17.s3.t2.43.1

The citizens were in no sense behind their princes and rulers in recording their love to their parents. During the viceroyalty of Yadugiri Virūpāksha Rāya, in about A.D. 1382, Goṭṭi Seṭṭi, who had received from the hands of the viceroy Huṇasavaḷḷi, for an agrahāra to his house, constructed the Nāgasamudra, in the name of his father Nāga Seṭṭi, and dividing the agrahāra into fifteen shares bestowed them on Brahmans.² In A.D. 1395, when Immaḍi Bukka Rāya was ruling from Muḷuvāyi, Chinnaṇṇa, who was in charge of the village Hodali in Bilusone-nāḍ, in order that merit might obtain to his father Mācha Gauṇḍa and his mother Melayakkā, set up a dīpa-māle stone pillar for the god Vighnēśvara.³ Appalayya in A.D. 1409-10 constructed a temple of Chennakēśavaradēva and Ranganāthasvāmi, for the religious merit of his parents Mādhava-Jōsyulu and Jābālikā.⁴ Bankarasa's son Viṭhappa, in A.D. 1415, with the consent of his relatives, formed the villages of Beḷali and Kiṭṭaḍūr into an agrahāra, named after his mother Akkāmbikāpura, and dividing it into twenty-two shares gave them to Brahmans.⁵ Tippe Seṭṭi of the Vijayanagara treasury (Vijayanagarada kōshada), in A.D. 1423, dedicated to the god Tirumala of Chikka Honnūru the tank (taṭāka) which he had constructed in order that merit might accrue to his father and mother.⁶ On Lāyadakere Śirumi Seṭṭi, of Hiriyakere town, dying at Koḍakani in A.D.

v2.c17.s3.t2.43.2

1449, his three sons Vira Seṭṭi, Malli Seṭṭi, and Honne Seṭṭi, "on the day on which he came to his setting (or end), at the moment of Vṛishabha-lagna, set up the god Vṛishabha", and made specified grants for the god's offerings, and for other purposes.¹ An unknown donor in about A.D. 1506 in the reign of Kaṭhāri Sāḷuva Immaḍi Narasinga Rāya Mahāraya, granted land in the twelve villages of Tiru-Śivamandur-sthaḷa, belonging to Kōḷāla-chāvaḍi, to Kēsarasa's son Sōmayagār, in order that the donor's parents and "twenty one generations before," him might attain to the world of merit.² In A.D. 1515 Parvata Nāyaka, the son of Malli Seṭṭi, in order that merit might be to his father and mother, erected a pillar of stone from the hillock in front of a temple, the name of which is effaced in the inscription.³ Beṅkachiya Gauḍa in A.D. 1524, with the same object, gave a village as a pura to Viraṇṇa Oḍeyar for the performance of Śiva worship.⁴ Elasūr Samani Gauḍa, in about A.D. 1534, granted the house-tax, in order that merit might be to his father and mother, guru and posterity.⁵ Hanumantayyar in Śaka 1459 (A.D. 1537-8), gave a gift of money to provide for the offerings of the god Kāḷahastiśvara at Kāḷahasti, Chittoor district, for the merit of his parents.⁶ A grant was made by the Kandāchāra Nāyaka Timmappa-ayya, for gods and Brahmans in Kurugōḍu, in A.D. 1545, that merit might be to his parents as well as to Sadāśiva Rāya.⁷ Sivanaya Gauḍa's son Dēvaya Gauḍa, in about A.D.

v2.c17.s3.t2.43.3

1550, for the merit of his mother, granted Kadumanapura and Sūlibele to Suttūr Chennaya Dēva's disciple Namaśivāya Dēva.⁸ Sugaṭūr Tim-mapa Gauḍa-ayya, the Agent for the affairs of Rāma Rāja Tirumala Rāja Mahā-arasu, in A.D. 1559, "in order that merit might be to his father, mother, guru and daiva," made a grant of Simasandra of the Nañjiguḷi village, belonging to the Sugaṭūr-sīme, for the god Mallikārjuna of Nañjiguḷi.⁹ Māraya Gauḍa, the second son of the great Avaṭi-nāḍ Prabhu Moleya Bayiraya Gauḍa, in A. D. 1575, granted (lands ?) in order that his father Moleya Baira Gauḍa, his mother Hiriya Bāyi, and his forefathers might obtain merit, for the god Śrīkaṇṭhēśvara.¹ Hariapa of the palace, son of Nārāyaṇappayya of the gold treasury, in order that his mother Timmammā, might " obtain a permanent abode in Brahma-lōka ", purchased the village of Heggaḍitikoppa in A. D. 1583, and gave it as a gift for the god Viśvanātha of the Maleyāḷa maṭha of Amarēndrapuri-śrīpāda at Tirthahaḷḷi.² The village of Upparahaḷḷi which was a royal gift from Śrīraṅga Rāya, to Tirumale Penugoṇḍe, was granted by the donor for the offerings of the local god, in order that his father Hiriya-Bōrappa Gauḍa and his guru might obtain merit.³ In A. D.

v2.c17.s3.t2.43.4

1608, during the reign of Veṅkaṭapati Dēva, Mummaḍi Temmayi Gauḍa, son of Sugaṭūr Immaḍi Tammaya Gauḍa, granted the Kōṭūr-Hosahaḷḷi village, renamed Vīrapura, in the Kōḷāla-sime, to Mahādēva, disciple of Nagaralēśvaradēva, Śivaputra of the Chatra-gōtra, "in order that merit may accrue to our mother and father."⁴ So late as about A.D. 1661, Amesiya-ayya, (son) of Virūpaya-ammā, in order that his mother might obtain merit, made for the god Sōmanātha of Haradūr a grant to provide for a maṭha and a perpetual lamp.⁵

v2.c17.s3.t2.44

² Ibid., Tl. 167, p. 197.

v2.c17.s3.t2.45

³ E. C., X., Bp-. 54, p 279.

v2.c17.s3.t2.46

⁴ Butterworth Chetty, Nellore Ins. I., pp. 256-6.

v2.c17.s3.t2.47

⁵ E. C., VIII. Tl. 218, p. 210.

v2.c17.s3.t2.48

⁶ E. C., IV., Hs. 27, p. 86.

v2.c17.s3.t2.49

¹ E. C., VIII. Sb. 18, p. 4.

v2.c17.s3.t2.50

² E. C., IX., Ht. 121, p. 103.

v2.c17.s3.t2.51

³ E. C., XII., Tm. 3, p. 2.

v2.c17.s3.t2.52

⁴ E. C., IX., Ht. 57, p. 94.

v2.c17.s3.t2.53

⁵ E. C., XII., Kg. 19, p. 35.

v2.c17.s3.t2.54

⁶ 175 of 1924.

v2.c17.s3.t2.55

⁷ E. C., X., Gd. 19, p. 214.

v2.c17.s3.t2.56

⁸ E. C., IX., Ht. 69, p. 95.

v2.c17.s3.t2.57

⁹ Ibid., Ht. 1, p. 88.

v2.c17.s3.t2.58

¹ E. C., X., CB. 27, p. 204.

v2.c17.s3.t2.59

² E. C., VIII., Tl. 172, p. 199.

v2.c17.s3.t2.60

³ E. C., X., Gd. 25, p. 216.

v2.c17.s3.t2.61

⁴ Ibid., Kl. 241, p. 67.

v2.c17.s3.t2.62

⁵ E. C., IV., Hs. 75, p. 91.

v2.c17.s3.t2.63

The desire of the people that puṇya or dharma might accrue to their parents, was also extended to the other members of the family. Avasarada Chandraśēkharayya, in the name of his father-in-law Avasarada Dēmarasayya, in A. D. 1534, made a grant to provide for a chhatra for sixty Brahmans, and for the offerings of a god. The inscription which is defaced at the end contains, however, the words "by order of Achyuta Rāya-mahāraya".⁶ In A. D. 1599, during the reign of Śrīraṅga Rāya, Veṅkaṭa Kṛiṣhṇajāmmā, meritorious wife of Immaḍi Hiri-Kempayya-Gauḍaraiyya, the Yaḷahaṅka-nāḍ-prabhu, caused to be given by means of a *dharma-sādhana* stone inscription the Veṅkaṭakṛṣṇasāgara village in Kuṇigil, for the maintenance of an *agrahāra* in order that "our father-in-law Immaḍi-Kempe-Gauḍaraiyya and our mother-in-law Liṅgājammā may obtain merit."¹

v2.c17.s3.t2.64

⁶ E. C., XI., Dg. 46, p. 57.

v2.c17.s3.t2.65

¹ E. C., XII., Kg., 12, p. 34.

v2.c17.s3.t2.66

Rulers as well as people have also left behind them evidence of their regard for their wives. Piriya Rājaya Dēva, son of Śrīkaṇṭha Rājaya, king of Nañjarāyapaṭṭaṇa, in A. D. 1590, in order that his crowned queen might attain to Kailāsa, in her name, at the moment of Śivarātri, made a grant of Virūpākṣapura for the god Annadāni-Mallikārjuna of Śrigiri.² In Śaka 1384 (A. D. 1462-3), a gift of a flower garden was made to the temple of Mallikārjuna at Śrīśailam, Kurnool district, by Vairāgi Sāntayya for the merit of his wife, Siddammā.³ Sometimes it was a whole family which came in for a share of the donor's devout prayers. For the attainment through *dharma* of royal fortune and all the chief objects of human desire by her king Rāmacandra-Bādāmi-prabhuvarmā, son of Bādāmi-Prabhuvaramā, and grandson of Nilakaṇṭha-prabhuvaramā, his wife, Tulajā Bai, created a *dīpa-mālā* in the Harihara-Kṣētrā "for the promotion of her own family," in A. D. 1519.⁴

v2.c17.s3.t2.67

² E. C., IV., Hs. 103. p. 93.

v2.c17.s3.t2.68

³ 39 of 1915.

v2.c17.s3.t2.69

⁴ E. C., XI., Dg. 37, p. 47.

v2.c17.s3.t2.70

But it is not to be supposed that the Vijayanagara age was not made up of people whose egotism directed them to grant lands, and compelled their subordinates to perform acts of charity, as a token of their filial love. In A. D. 1553, Liṅgaṇṇa Nāyaka, son of Chennarāya Oḍeyar of Dānavisa, set up the Virūpāksha-liṅga and erected a *satra* for five Brahmans, "in order that our mother and father and ourselves may obtain union with Śiva."⁵ Sometimes the nobles made no endeavour to hide their desire to give themselves the first preference in their prayers for eternal happiness. Dēvoḍeyar of Kōṭe, in about A. D. 1572, granted the village of Jagaṇakōṭe for the god Bayirava of Bayal-nāḍ, in order that there might be merit for himself, his son and grandsons.¹ Egotism could not go to a further extent than in the case of Perama Nāyaka, son of Mallappa Nāyaka of Arakere, who did not think it derogatory on his part to give rent-free land, in about A. D. 1577, for the offerings of the god Basavēśvara of Pañjanahaḷḷi, " in order that thereby merit might accrue to himself."² The deplorable tendency of compelling people to do works of merit for the sake of the nobles is best illustrated in a record dated A. D. 1612-13, which relates that, during the reign of Veṅkaṭapati Dēva, Veṅkaṭapati Nāyaingāru (whose descent is stated) sent for Rudrappa, the officer placed over the sīma of Kullūr, and addressed him thus: "You have restored the sluice of Anaṅtasāgaram tank which was in disrepair; you have constructed the eastern weir of Kaluvāyi tank and are keeping the tank in good order. Deeds of charity like topes, topes in tanks, wells, etc., are of meritorious services. So construct the eastern weir of Kollūr tank for the religious merit of my father Kōmera Timmanayāḍu." And poor Rudrappa forthwith built thirty-three stone-posts on the tank weir, side-walls on the two sides and a flight of steps in stone ³.

v2.c17.s3.t2.71

⁵ E. C., VI., Kg. 17, p. 78.

v2.c17.s3.t2.72

¹ E. C., IV., Hg. 71, p. 75.

v2.c17.s3.t2.73

² Ibid., Gu. 42, p. 43.

v2.c17.s3.t2.74

³ Butterworth-Chetty, Nellore Ins. I., pp. 246-7.

v2.c17.s3.t2.75

These instances of aristocratic arrogance do not, however, eclipse the unfeigned endearment of the larger masses of people throughout the history of Vijayanagara. What exactly was in the minds of the parents and their children in those days, how deeply the former loved the latter, and what delight the young folk gave to their elders cannot unfortunately be determined from any contemporary record. But if it is true that in A. D. 1720, the tenderness of the parents towards their children, according to the evidence of a Jesuit priest, was a marked feature of the social life of the people; if it is allowed that that was a great heritage which the people of Vijayanagara left behind them; and if we realize that the region where the Hindu Empire came into being was Karṇāṭaka, then, we may be permitted to complete the picture of a Hindu home of the mediæval times by listening to a poet who, although he belongs to post-Vijayanagara days, has given us a description of the domestic circle which is as true of the times in which he lived as it is of those of Vijayanagara and of our own. This is how Lakṣmīśa depicts the joy which a child radiates in a Hindu household:

v2.c17.s3.t2.76

ಕಂದನಾಡುವ ಬಾಲಲೀಲೆಯುಂ ನೋಡಿಕೊದ |
ಳೊಂದಿದಿನಿವಾತನರೆ ಕೇಳ್ದ ಮುದ್ದಿನ ಮುದ್ದೆ |
ಯಂದದಂಗವನೆತ್ತಿ ಕೊಂಡು ನಳಿನೇಕ್ಷ ಕಂದಪ್ಪ ಕೆಂಗುರುಳ ಲೀಲವ ||
ಮುಂದಲೆಯ ಕಂಪನಾಘ್ರಾಣಿಸಿ ತೊರೆದಜೊಲ್ಲ |
ಚೆಂದುಬಿಯ ಬಾಯ್ತೆರೆಯನ್ನದೆ ಜುಂಬಿಸಿ ಸೊಗಸು |
ಗುಂದದಾಯೆಂದು ಪಂಚೇಂದ್ರಿಯ ಪ್ರೀತಿಯಂ ಪಡೆವರಿನ್ನಾ ವಕ್ಯತರೂ ||
ತೇಲಿದ್ದೆಸರಿಸಿ ಮೇಲುದಸೆಗಳಿವ ಕಮಲಮಂ |
ಪೋಲ್ವ ಕಣ್ಣೊನೆಯಿಂದೆ ತಾಯಮೊಗಮ ನೋಳ್ವ |
ಕಾಲ್ದುದಿಗಳಂ ಬಿದಿರಿ ತಡವರಿಸಿ ಕೈಯಿಡುವ ಬಾಲಂಗೆ ಮೋಹದಿಂದ ||
ಜೋಲಿದ್ದ ಲವ ಹಾರಮಂ ಸರಿದು ಮುಯ್ಯಿಗೆ ಸಾಚಿಸಿ |
ವಾಲಿಕ್ಕಿದ ಮೆಲೆಯುದಿ ಕೂಡ ತೊಟ್ಟಲೊಲಟ್ಟು |
ಸಾಲದೈ ಪಿಂದೆ ಜೋಗುಳವಾಡಿ ತೂಗುವಳದೇಂ ಸುಕೃತಿಯೊ ಧರೆಯೊಳು || 1

v2.c17.s3.t2.77

¹ Jaimini Bhārata, Sandhi, 18, vv. 20-21, p. 228 (Karibasava Sastri); pp. 426-7 (Siddhalinga). To get an idea of children at play, ibid., Sandhi 19, vv 50-1, p. 471.

v2.c17.s3.t2.78

CHAPTER II

Linked texts (9)