Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c21: Chapter V. Social Legislation, Etiquette, and Orthodoxy

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v2.c21

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V. Social Legislation, Etiquette, and Orthodoxy

Section 1. Social Legislation

A. Marriage—The Question of Dowry

v2.c21.s1.t1.1

The influx of the people from the northern parts of the Empire into the south, as already narrated in connection with the caste system in Vijayanagara,¹ gave rise to certain general questions of grave social importance. Allied to these were other problems which will now be examined. These concern chiefly marriage, etiquette, and orthodoxy, and the consequent legislation which they necessitated at the hands of the people as well as of the State. The question of marriage affords us an example of the concern that was felt for a growing danger which was eating into the life of the people.² Before we deal with this social problem, we may be permitted to dispense with some of the notices about marriage from foreign travellers who observed only one aspect of the evil. These few observations are to some extent supplemented by meagre references in inscriptions. Thus, for example, we have the fact of the offering of signet-ring for the rite of marriage in an inscription dated A. D. 1159. The epigraph relates that the Hoysala king Narasimha bestowed upon the Chaturvimśati-Jina temple "a second name Bhavya-chūḍāmaṇi after Hullapa's title Saṃyukta-chūḍāmaṇi." And to provide for gifts and the enjoyment of the good sages residing in that Jina temple, "as if offering his signet-ring for the rite of marriage with the maiden merit", affiliated to the Pustaka-gachchha of the Dēśyagaṇa and endowed it with further grants.³ An inscription dated A. D. 1407 hints at certain marriage customs. It informs us that Dēvarasa made a grant to Chokkāla Gōvindyar-tāte (tammaḍiga!) the priest of the god Śaṅkara of Sāgare, in the year specified, of the fees for those who celebrated a marriage with throwing sandal powder and carrying in a palanquin, for the expenses of the temple of the said god.¹

v2.c21.s1.t1.2

¹ Kavicharite, II., p. 333. In this connection it is interesting to observe that even foreigners remarked about this: "But (I may say in conclusion) as for the women and men, the blacker they be, the more beautiful they be (held)". Jordanus wrote thus about the men and women of "Lesser India", in his Mirabilia Descripta, p. 25.

v2.c21.s1.t1.3

² Kavicharite, II., p. 199.

v2.c21.s1.t1.4

³ Ibid., p. 219. For later descriptions, see, for example, Lakshmīśa, Jaiminī Bhārata, ibid., p. 524. But on other occasions too he has described women. Sandhi, 8, vv. 20-1, p. 159, Sandhi, 11, vv. 7-10, p. 209, etc. (Sanderson). For a fantastic account of a woman, read Careri, Travels, p. 231.

v2.c21.s1.t1.5

¹ Supra, Chapter I., Section 1.

v2.c21.s1.t1.6

² For an account of Social Legislation relating to this phase of the question, read Dr. S. K. Aiyangar, *Social Legislation*, Q. J. M. S., VI, pp. 47-57.

v2.c21.s1.t1.7

³ There seems to be some difference of opinion as regards the reference to marriage in this instance. Rice, who edited this inscription, in the 1st ed. of the Śravaṇa Belgoḷa inscriptions, says: "..and in order to contract a marriage with the maiden the lady merit, and confirm it, with a sealed document". *E. C.* II, No. 138, p. 184 (1st. ed.). Narasimhachar's interpretation is followed above. *E. C.*, II, No. 340, pp. 153-4. The passage in the original runs thus: *puṇya-iri-kanyākāya vivāhana-vidhaye mudrikām arppayan va*. *E. C.*, II, text, p. 153.

v2.c21.s1.t1.8

¹ E. C., IV., Hg. 60, p. 74.

v2.c21.s1.t1.9

We may now turn to Muhammadan historians and foreign travellers. Firishtah's remarks on the custom of betrothing children in childhood have already been cited in an earlier connection. Nehal, the Mudkul beauty, was to have been married to a youth of her own caste in her childhood "agreeably to the custom of Hindoostan", but "she requested that the ceremony might be delayed, with such earnestness, that it was put off".² Linschoten confirms the opinion of Firishtah that that was indeed a common custom among the Hindus. Linschoten, however, describes the Brahmans of Goa in A. D. 1583. He says: "When the woman is seven yeeres old, and the man nine yeeres, they doe marrie; but they come not together before the women be strong enough to beare children."³ The more orthodox section of the Brahmans would have justified this deplorable custom of theirs by referring to Manu, whose regulation on this important questions runs thus: "A man aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner".⁴

v2.c21.s1.t1.10

² Firishtah, Briggs, The Rise, II, p. 380, op. cit.

v2.c21.s1.t1.11

³ Linschoten, Purchas, Pilgrims, X, p. 256. This is again confirmed by the remarks of a Jesuit. In A. D. 1709 Fr. Lane wrote thus: "Tis also a Custom in several Castes, particularly in those of the greatest Eminence, to marry their Children in their tender age. The juvenile Husband ties about his Bride's Neck a small Trinket called Tali, which is as the Badge of Distinction between wives and Maidens; and thus the Marriage is solemniz'd. If the Husband happens to die before the marriage cou'd be consummated, the Tali is taken from the young Widow, and she is not permitted to marry again. As nothing is more contemptible in the Eyes of these Indians, than this State of Widowhood; 'twas partly to free themselves from this scorn, that they used formerly to burn themselves with their Husband's body.."Lockman, Travels of the Jesuits, II, p. 384. As regards the use of the tali, see Commiade, Q. J. M. S. X, pp. 150, seq. For further notices of marriage, read Thevenot, Travels, pp. 82-3.

v2.c21.s1.t1.12

⁴ Manu, IX, 94, p. 344.

v2.c21.s1.t1.13

Without entering into the question of the demerits of the custom of the child marriage, we may proceed to record the remarks of Linschoten on childbirth. This time he speaks of the "Canarins and Corumbins of India", meaning thereby evidently the agricultural section of the people of Kanara and the Kurumbars or Kurubas. "When the women are readie to travell with Child, they are commonly delivered when they are all alone: and their Husbands in the fields, as it fortuned upon a time, as I and some other of my friends went to walke in the fields, and into the Villages where the Canariins dwell, and having thirst, I went to one of the Canariins houses to aske some water, therewith to refresh us, and because I was thirstie, I stooped downe and thrust my head in at the doore, asking for some water, where I espied a Woman alone within the house, tying her cloth fast about her middle, and before her having a wooden Trough (by the Portugals called Gamello) full of water, where shee stood and washed a Child, whereof as then she had newly beene delivered without any helpe: which having washt, she laid it Naked on the ground upon a great Indian Figgie leafe, and desired me to stay and she would presently give me water. When I understood by her that she had as then newly beene delivered of that Child without any helpe, I had no desire to drinke of her water, but went unto another to aske water, and perceived the same woman not long after going about her house, as if there had beene no such matter, and the Children are brought up in that manner cleane naked, nothing done unto them, but onely washed and made cleane in a little cold water, and doe in that sort proper and come up as well as man would wish, or as any Child within these Countries can doe with all the tending they have, and live many times untill they be a hundredth yeeres old, without any Head-ach, or Tooth-ach, or losing any of their Teeth."¹ This was the condition of the "Canariins and the Corumbins" whom the same traveller calls "Countrimen" who "deale with Tilling the Land, Fishing and such like labours". Further he says: "These are the most contemptible, and the miserablest people of all India..."²

v2.c21.s1.t1.14

¹ Linschoten, Purchas, Pilgrims, X, p. 263.

v2.c21.s1.t1.15

² Ibid., p. 262.

v2.c21.s1.t1.16

It cannot be determined whether the remarks of Linschoten as regards the longevity of the agricultural and fishing people could be applied to the Brahmans. But we are aware of the fact that the question of marriage had assumed great proportions, especially in the eyes of the priestly class. And the crucial point then was, as unfortunately it is now to a large extent, in connection with dowry. On this significant detail, Manu has the following to say: "No father who knows (the law) must take even the smallest gratuity for his daughter; for a man who, through avarice, takes a gratuity, is a seller of his offspring...Some call the cow and the bull (given) at an Ārsha wedding 'a gratuity', (but) that is wrong, since (the acceptance of) a fee, be it small or great, is a sale (of the daughter). When the relatives do not appropriate (for their use) the gratuity (given), it is not a sale; (in that case) the (gift) is only a token of respect and kindness towards the maidens".¹ Then again: "Even a Śūdra ought not to take a nuptial fee, when he gives away his daughter, for he who takes a fee sells his daughter, covering (the transaction by another name). Neither ancients nor moderns who were good men have done such (a deed) that, after promising (a daughter) to one man, they gave her to another; nor, indeed, have we heard, even in former creations, of such (a thing as) the covert sale of a daughter for a fixed price, called a nuptial fee".² According to Manu, therefore, "the acceptance of a fee be it small or great, is a sale of the daughter" and hence is to be condemned.³

v2.c21.s1.t1.17

¹ *Manu*, III, 51, 53-4, pp. 84-5. ² *Ibid.*, IX, 98-100, p. 345. ³ Read Vasiṣṭha: "The purchase (of a wife) is mentioned in the following passage of the Veda; 'Therefore one hundred (cows) besides a chariot should be given to the father of the bride'". *Vasiṣṭha*, I., 36, p.

v2.c21.s1.t1.18

⁷ Cf. Manu. "When (the father) gives away his daughter according to the rule, after receiving from the bridegroom for (the fulfilment of) the sacred law, a cow and a bull or two pairs, that is named the Ārsha rite" *Manu*. III, 29, p.

v2.c21.s1.t1.19

⁸⁰ But, as already remarked, Manu definitely declares that it is wrong to call this fee a gratuity. As regards the method of giving a girl in marriage, see *Gṛhya Sūtras* (Āśvalāyana) Part I, Adhyāya 1, Kaṇḍikā 6, p. 166, seq. For Śukrācārya's opinion on marriage, *Śukranīti* III, 11. 342-7, p. 115.

v2.c21.s1.t1.20

The Brahmans of a prominent part of Vijayanagara too were precisely of the same opinion. In fact, they even went to the extent of seeking the aid of the State in executing a measure which they themselves had enacted on behalf of the society. They must have realized that the dowry system was becoming more and more unbearable, and that it was telling sadly on the material prosperity of the Hindu households. Although information is not forthcoming as regards the nature and amount of dowry that was demanded amongst the common people, yet we know that among families well stationed in life, it was almost a custom to grant whole villages as dowry. Thus, for example, we have the following in an inscription in Tamil, dated A. D. 1379, in the reign of Immaḍi Bukka Rāya : "By order of Petteyaraśar, Rāchcharasar, minister of the Kāṇṭikkāra-rāyar-gaṇḍa Nāgaṇṇ-uḍaiyar, I—the Malaimaṇḍalap-perumāḷ, mahā prabhu, of Pulliyūr-nāḍu, Nambi Iravi Seṭṭiyar—granted (on the date specified), as dowry, the village of Paśigaipaḷḷi in my share of one-third of Pulliyūr-nāḍu to my daughter's sons Iraviyaṇṇan, Kēśava Seṭṭiyar and others".¹

v2.c21.s1.t1.21

¹ E. C., IX., Ht. 108, 109, p. 102. The date falls within the reign of Harihara Rāya II (A. D. 1377-1404). The name of the king given in this epigraph—Immaḍi Bukka—cannot be referred to Bukka II who reigned from A. D. 1405-6.

v2.c21.s1.t1.22

It was most probably because of the exorbitant nature of dowry and the consequent heavy expenses of marriage that people were compelled to sell their estates. This is what is perhaps suggested in an inscription dated A. D. 1404 which relates that Achapa's son Viṭṭhapa sold to Bēlūr Narasivā Dēva's son Sugaṇṇa the Kaudavaḷḷi village, also called Virūpāmbikāpura, in Beḷuve of the Āraga-vēṇṭe, together with other land, "on account of marriage" (*nāū namma prastha-nimittavāgi nimage krayavāgi koṭṭa*).² According to another inscription assigned to about the year A. D. 1424, the Āḷva-prabhu Bommiyakka Heggaḍiti's son, whose name is missing in this defaced epigraph, also, on account of marriage, sold land (specified) to the *sthānika* temple priest Dēvaṇṇa-ayya's son Bōvaṇṇa-ayya.¹

v2.c21.s1.t1.23

² E. C., VIII., Tl. 134, p. 190, P. II, p. 599. The village was again re-christened Lakshmi-Narasimhapura. See *ibid.* Tl. 133.

v2.c21.s1.t1.24

¹ E. C., VIII, Tl. 175, p. 199, P. II, p. 658.

v2.c21.s1.t1.25

It was about this time that Brahmans of all shades of opinion concerted on a most useful measure of social legislation. They belonged to the Paḍaiviḍu-rājya, as an inscription dated Śaka 1347 (A. D. 1424-5) narrates, and their representative character is shown by the fact that the inscription particularly mentions them as Kannaḍiga, Tamil, Telugu and Lāṭa Brahmans. The agreement which was arrived at as regards this question of Dharma relating to marriage, was as follows: That henceforth marriages among them were to be concluded only by *kanyādāna*, i. e., the father had to give his daughter to the bridegroom gratuitously; and that both the father who accepted money, and the bridegroom who paid money, were to be subjected to punishment by the King, and to be excommunicated from their caste. Their agreement runs thus: "...(On the date specified)...the illustrious Vīrapratāpa-Dēvarāya-mahārāya was pleased to rule the earth,—the great men of all branches of sacred studies of the kingdom (*rājyam*) of Paḍaiviḍu drew up in the presence of (*the god*) Gōpinātha (*of*) Arkapushkaraṇī a document (*which contains*) an agreement fixing the sacred law. According to (*this document*), if the Brāhmaṇas of this kingdom (*rājyam*) of Paḍaiviḍu, *viz.*, Kannaḍigas, Tamiras, Telungas, Lāṭas, etc., of all *gōtras sūtras* and *śākhās* conclude a marriage they shall, from this day forward, do it by *kanyādāna*. Those who do not adopt *kanyādāna*, *i. e.*, both those who give a girl away after receiving gold, and those who conclude a marriage after having given gold, shall be liable to punishment by the king and shall be excluded from the community of Brāhmaṇas. These are the contents of the document which was drawn up." We may note that it contains the signature of "the great men of all branches of sacred studies".²

v2.c21.s1.t1.26

² 49 of 1877; S. I. I. No. 56, pp. 82-4; Rangachari, *Top. List*, I. NA. 602, p. 104.

v2.c21.s1.t1.27

Two conclusions may be drawn from this epigraph—that "the evil practice of bargaining for marriage", as the late Mr.

v2.c21.s1.t1.28

Kṛṣṇa Śāstri said, "by one, at least, of the parties concerned was as rampant in Śaka 1347 (A. D. 1425) as it is today;"¹ and that the Brahmans made definite provision for State interference in purely social matters. We are uncertain whether this wise step taken by the Brahmans of the Paḍaivīḍu-rājya was ever followed by the others all over the Empire. But if the remission of taxes on marriage of all classes in Ballāḷapura by Dēva Rāya II, in A. D. 1432, as we have already related,² could be traced to the bold stand made by the Brahmans of the Paḍaivīḍu-rājya in A. D. 1424-5, then, it is, we believe, not too much to say that, so far as the question of dowry was concerned, they were certainly far ahead of their times.

v2.c21.s1.t1.29

¹ A. S. R. for 1907-8, p. 250.

v2.c21.s1.t1.30

² E. C., X, Gd. 17, p. 214, op. cit., *Supra*, Volume I., Ch. IV, Section 9. There is an epigraph dated A. D. 1653-4 which relates that Boligadacha Vrajagoruvindla.. issued a charitable edict exempting the residents of the village of Kāgollu, which had been given as a *mānyam* to Pākanala Krishṇappa Nāyanivāru—from fees for the marriage of their daughters. The edict ends with a vile curse on those who would infringe its clause. Butterworth-Chetty, *Nellore Ins.* II, p. 763. For some remarks on the brideprice, see Richards, *Salem Gaz.*, I, P. I, p. 133.

v2.c21.s1.t1.31

We are not sure whether this could be said of them as regards the other vital questions connected with Hindu womanhood. It cannot be determined, for example, whether the Brahmans of Vijayanagara made any attempts to put a stop to the vile custom of compelling widows to shave their heads. From the account of sati given by Linschoten in A. D. 1583, it is certain that this savage rite prevailed among the Brahmans. That traveller says: "Then shee taketh all her Jewels, and parteth among her friends, and so with a cheerfull countenance, she leapeth into the fire, and is presently covered with Wood and Oyle: so shee is quickly dead, and with her Husbands body burned to ashes: and if it chance, as not very often it doth, that any woman refuseth to be burnt with her husband, then they cut the haire cleane off from her head, and while she liveth she must never after weare any Jewels more, and from that time she is despised, and accounted for a dishonest woman".³

v2.c21.s1.t1.32

³ Linschoten, *Purchas, Pilgrims*, X, p. 257.

v2.c21.s1.t1.33

That Linschoten was not wrong in this is proved by the following statement by Barbosa who also speaks of sati. "All this they do in general without any hindrance, as it is the custom of all. Those who do not so, they hold in great dishonour, and their kindred shave their heads and turn them away as disgraced and a shame to their families."1

v2.c21.s1.t1.34

Judged by the institutes of Manu, this attitude of the Brahmans in the last quarter of the sixteenth century can in no sense be justified. For Manu enjoins that a widow is at liberty to (wear and) possess her ornaments after her husband's death. This is evident from the following: "The ornaments which may have been worn by women during their husbands' lifetime, his heirs shall not divide; those who divide them become outcasts."2 Further, in the regulations relating to the conduct of a faithful wife after her husband's death, Manu does not mention the barbarous rite of the degenerate Brahmans: "A faithful wife, who desires to dwell (after death) with her husband, must never do anything that might displease him who took her hand, whether he be alive or dead. At her pleasure let her emaciate her body by (living on) pure flowers, roots and fruit; but she must never even mention the name of another man after her husband has died. Until death let her be patient (of hardships), self-controlled and chaste, and strive (to fulfil) that most excellent duty which (is prescribed) for wives who have one husband only....A virtuous wife after the death of her husband constantly remains chaste, reaches heaven, though she have no son, just like those chaste men."3

v2.c21.s1.t1.35

As regards the occasion when a woman, belonging to the Brahman caste, could be shaved, we have the following in Vasiṣṭha : "If a Śūdra approaches a female of the Brāhmaṇa caste, (the King) shall cause the Sūdra to be tied up in Viraṇa grass and shall throw him into a fire. He shall cause the head of the Brāhmaṇi to be shaved, and her body to be anointed with butter; placed her naked on a black donkey, he shall cause her to be conducted along the high road. It is declared that she becomes pure (thereby)."¹ Nothing is more regrettable than the fact, that then, as it is unfortunately now, the Brahmans of southern India should have been blind to the injunctions of the authors of the dharma-śāstras; and that they should have imposed on women a penalty which had not the slightest claim to legality or justice.²

v2.c21.s1.t1.36

¹ Barbosa, Dames, I, p. 216. From the account of sati given by Metthwold, it appears that widows were not necessarily shaved. See Metthwold, Relations of Golconda, p. 25.

v2.c21.s1.t1.37

² Manu, IX, 200, p. 372. In the twelfth century, as we shall presently see, the Chōḷa goverment of the day permitted widows to own the lands, jewels, and other valuables of their (deceased) husbands.

v2.c21.s1.t1.38

³ Ibid, V., 156-8, 16 0, pp. 196-7; see also Vasiṣṭha XVII., 55-6, pp. 89-90.

v2.c21.s1.t1.39

¹ Vasiṣṭha, XXI., 1, p. 109. See also ibid., 2-3, p. 110. Cf. The Institutes of Parāśara, X., 15-19, pp. 54-5. (Kṛṣṇa Kamal Bhaṭṭāchārya, Bib. Ind., 1887).

v2.c21.s1.t1.40

² It is gratifying to learn in this connection that the Tengale schismatics do not shave their widows. They quote from Śaṇḍliyaḥ, Sambhuh, Manu, Khagēśvara Samhita, Hayagrīva Samhita in support of immunity of their widows from the rite of tonsure. Narasimmiyengar, I. A., III., pp. 136-7. As regards the rite of tonsure (chūḍākarman) for girls, see Manu, II., 66, p. 42; Gṛihya Sūtras, (Śāṅkhyāyana) Part I., 1, 28, 22, p. 57. See also ibid., Āśvalāyana 1, Adhyāya, Kaṇḍikā 17, 19, p. 186.

B. Communal Questions—How settled

v2.c21.s1.t2.1

The clause relating to those who violated the agreement made by the Brahmans of the Paḍaiviḍu-rājya, and their punishment by the king, leads us to the question whether the State in mediaeval times ever interfered in matters concerning the social welfare of the people. There is reason to affirm that at the request of the people themselves, the Government did intervene in their social affairs, especially when it was a question of settling details about trivial formalities, which caused much concern to the humbler sections of the people.

v2.c21.s1.t2.2

That there was nothing new in the Government of Vijayanagara adjusting the social differences of the people is seen when we examine the measures which earlier rulers took to settle allied questions relating to society. From the fourteenth year of Rājādhirāja II, for example, it was declared (evidently by the State) that a woman who was wedded to a person, was entitled, on his demise, to become the owner of the lands, slaves, jewels, or other valuables, and the cattle of her deceased husband; that if before his death, he made default and had his lands sold, the purchaser had the right of the lands and slaves that belonged to the deceased; that Brahmans should not till lands with bulls yoked to the plough; that those classes that were engaged as labourers should not become *vēḷ* and *araśu*; that *kāviḍis*, potters, drummers, weavers, and barbers should not keep locks of hair; that during their mourning or joyous occasions big drums (*bērigai*) should not be taken; and that they should not possess slaves. Further, bullocks grazing near the village channels should be impounded in pens erected for the purpose; and cattle-stands or house-sites of the village should not be converted into paddy fields. Finally, it was also ordered that potters, who made small lamps and pots, and sold them, should wear an upper cloth.¹

v2.c21.s1.t2.3

¹ *Ep. Report* for 1919, pp. 97-8.

v2.c21.s1.t2.4

We have evidence of the settlement of equally complicated questions in the reign of Tribhuvana Chakravartin Kulōttuṅga Chōḷa Dēva (who has been identified with Kulōttuṅga Chōḷa Dēva I), as is related in an inscription dated in the forty-eighth year of his reign. This epigraph deals with the decision arrived at as regards the question of caste, and lays down the profession to be followed by a certain *anulōma* class called *Rathakāras* who are described as the sons of *Māhishyas* by *Karaṇi* women. On the strength of previous authorities such as Yājñavalkya, Gautama, Kauṭilya, Baudhāyana, and others, the *bhaṭṭas* (i.e., the learned Brahmans) of Rājāśraya-chaturvēdimaṅgalam defined (1) a *Māhishya* as one born of a Kshatriya father by a Vaiśya mother; (2) a *Karaṇi* as the daughter of a Vaiśya father by a Śūdra mother; and (3) a *Rathakāra* as the son of a *Māhishya* father by a *Karaṇi* mother.

v2.c21.s1.t2.5

The following means of livelihood were also laid down for adoption by the *Rathakāras*: (1) architecture, (2) building coaches and chariots, (3) erecting *gōpuras* of temples with images on them; (4) preparation of instruments required by the Brāhmaṇas in their sacrificial ceremonies such as ladle (srik) etc., (5) building maṇḍapas, (6) not clear, and (7) making jewels for kings such as diadems, bracelets, etc.

v2.c21.s1.t2.6

It was decided also that this anulōma sect of Rathakāras was superior to the pratilōma sect (‘born the other way’), viz., from a father of a lower class, and a mother of a higher class. One of the authorities quoted also states that these Rathakāras were entitled to upanayana (the sacred thread ceremony), ijyā (performing sacrifice), and ādhana (receiving sacred fire). Another authority, however, suggests that the anulōmas thus entitled to upanayana are forbidden from performing the agnihōtra (keeping the sacred fire always alive), aupāsana (worshipping the fire thus kindled), pañchamahāyajña (the five sacred duties prescribed for the Brahmans, viz., (1) Dēva yajña [ceremonial worship of gods], (2) pitṛi-yajña [ceremonial worship of manes]; (3) brahma-yajña [ceremonial worship of ṛishis], (4) bhūta-yajña [ceremonial worship of living creatures other than men] and (5) manushya-yajña [ceremonial worship of men] and adhyāyana [recital of the Vēdas]. The same authority also says that their upanayana ceremony ought not to be conducted by quoting the mantras (sacred hymns). This was the decision of the learned men of Uyyakoṇḍān-Tirumalai at the beginning of the twelfth century.¹

v2.c21.s1.t2.7

¹ Ep. Report for 1909, pp. 95-6. As regards the Rathakāras, it is interesting to observe that they were an ancient class. See Rāja Radhakanta Deva Bahadur Śabdakalpadruma, under the article Rathakāra, q. v. Cf. Srinivasa Aiyangar, Tamil Studies, pp. 74-5.

v2.c21.s1.t2.8

In the decision of the Chōḷa kings of the early times we have the echoes of those same intricate communal problems which compelled the Vijayanagara rulers to step into the wrangling circles of the cultivators and the Pañchāḷas, the barbers and the potters, and the weavers and the Seṭṭis. The cases which the mediaeval monarchs had to solve may roughly be divided into two broad classes—those relating to marriage and the consequent rise in social estimation, and those concerning honours, birudus, and rights during festivals and religious occasions. An instance of a lower class claiming equality with a higher class as regards marriage may be mentioned. The following account of the fate which befell the Bēḍars, who, as we saw, belonged to the Left Hand division, illustrates this as well as other phases of Vijayanagara history. The Bēḍars, who were ruling around the places called Piriyapaṭṭaṇa and Tuṅga, where Maṅgarasa and Caṅgarāya, two Jaina Kshatriyas, had settled, claimed their daughters in marriage. The Kshatriyas could not openly refuse the demand as the Bēḍars were all powerful. They had recourse to diplomacy: they built a great house with six large halls ostensibly for marriages, and dug a well at the back of the last hall. One day they mustered all their forces and invited the Bēḍars for the marriage. Elated with the prospect of a marriage alliance with Kshatriyas, the Bēḍars repaired to the place with their famlilies. But the Jaina Kshatriyas told them that it was a custom of theirs that only a single pair of married couple should enter the house at a time. The Bēḍars went inside two by two. As each pair went to the innermost hall the Kshatriyas arranged to have their heads cut off and bodies thrown into the well.¹ Thus all the Bēḍars were killed and Maṅgarasa conquered all the country round and became a powerful chief with Piriyapaṭṭaṇa as his capital, Changalarāya becoming king of Raṅgapaṭṭaṇa. These two, we may note, were feudatories of the Vijayanagara kings.

v2.c21.s1.t2.9

¹ My. Arch. Report for 1925, p. 15. In three copper-plate grants dated Śālivāhana Śaka 1212, Vikrama Śaka 1012, and Śālivāhana Śaka 1157 referring to the reigns of Bukka Rāya, and a number of other kings some interesting details are given as regards the question of intermarriage among the gauḍa and the reḍḍi classes, and the different kinds of honours to which they were entitled on festive occasions. These inscriptions are rambling epigraphs and are all dated wrongly, and, therefore, untrustworthy. But some of the details are the following: The gauḍas, we are told, were given the right of possessing a palanquin carried cross-ways, round umbrella, torch by day, big and little kettle-drum, silk flag, turban, gold marriage crown, gold necklace, and shoes of honour. One of them states that a number of reḍḍis (named with descent), of the Sujana-kula and Pembolu-gōtra, on the Sultan (not named) demanding one of their daughters migrated (the same night ?) with 101 families and seven elephants to the Naḍinigadda country. There they sought to make marriages in Chittalapuripaṭṭaṇa, but were refused. Whereupon Koṇḍāma Nāyaka and two others went to Penugoṇḍa and represented the matter to Rāma Rāyal and Bukka Rāyal, who came with an army to Naḍinigadda. There they held an enquiry as to why the reḍḍis of Bōḍipet and Chandragiri declined intermarriages, and sent for their guru Tātāchārya to decide the question. In his presence the heads of the Sujana-kula were invested with honours (like those given above), and they agreed to make certain payments (specified) on occasions of marriages. Marriages were accordingly performed, the Rāyal spending 150 Rāmateṅki-varāha for the purpose. E. C. XIII, 18, 72, 82, pp. 119, 128, 131, and text, pp. 363, 388, 397. See also Pg.

v2.c21.s1.t2.10

The other type of cases relates to the rights and *birudus* granted to communities on festive occasions. There were, for example, the minute distinctions between the Right Hand and Left Hand sections, the rivalries between the Pañchāḷas and cultivators, and the acrimonious differences between the potters and the barbers. The feeling between the Iḍaṅgai and Vaḷaṅgai subdivisions seems to have reached its climax in about Śaka 1352 (A. D. 1440-1), as is related in an inscription dated only in the cycle year Saumya Chittirai, 16, when an agreement was reached as regards some social conduct among the Vaḷaṅgai and Iḍaṅgai classes of two out of the eighteen subdivisions, residing around Poṇparappi in Iruṅgōḷappāṇḍi-vaḷanāḍu in Mērkāl--nāḍu, a subdivision of Virudarāja-bhayaṅkar-vaḷanāḍu on the northern bank of the Kāvērī. The parties met in the temple of Tiruvālandurai-mahādēvar (in the Trichinopoly district) and settled the question amicably.¹ Two years earlier, however, according to an inscription dated Śaka 1350 (A. D. 1438-39), as given by Taylor, the people of some unspecified town came to a common understanding as regards the disturbances that might be created by the Right Hand and Left Hand sections. It was agreed that if members of either of these subdivisions caused any commotion and fought with each other during public festivals, "the said persons should be forthwith killed on the spot, with spears, without ceremony".²

v2.c21.s1.t2.11

¹ 253 of 1926; *Ep. Report* for 1926, p. 111. For a minute account of the insignia of the Right Hand and Left Hand Sections, see Oppert, *Org. Inhab. of Bharatavarsha*, p. 90, n. 59.

v2.c21.s1.t2.12

² Taylor, *Cat. Rais.*, III, p. 305.

v2.c21.s1.t2.13

But this summary procedure did not always characterize the decision of the people as regards communal questions. A

v2.c21.s1.t2.14

96, p. 132. These considerations of status arising out of marriage may have been responsible for the claims of Śūdra Prapannas to be given the same position as Brahman Prapannas. See Tātāchārya, *Vedānta Deśika*, p. 23. Cf the case of Vipravinōdins given *supra*, Chapter II., Section 1, C.

v2.c21.s1.t2.15

copper-plate grant dated only in the cyclic year Siddhārtin, Bhādrapada Śuddha 5, Sō., but assigned to the year A. D. 1379, contains the following interesting details about the manner in which they solved their social problems: "If a caste dispute arises in the country, they (i.e. the rulers of the town—the nāyakas and gauḍas)—will summon the parties before them and advise them. And as they have the power of punishment, the parties must act according to the advice given. This proceeding to be free of cost to them." The royal signature at the end—Śrī Virūpāksha—lends some support to this document.¹

v2.c21.s1.t2.16

¹ E. C., XII, Si. 76, p. 100, text p. 288. The week-day, however, does not correspond. Śaka 1301, Siddhārti Samvatsara Bhādrapad-su. 5 Sō (mavāra) [Saumyavāra]=A. D. 1379, August, Thursday, the 18th. Swamikannu, Ind. Eph., IV, p. 361. Although there is the king's approval at the end, yet objection may be raised against the copper-plate grant on the ground that it does not contain the usual verses at the beginning. The imprecations at the end are in Kannaḍa, while they are often in Sanskrit. Cf. E. C. XII, Si. 95, p. 101, text, pp. 295-300. B. A. S.

v2.c21.s1.t2.17

The assemblies summoned by the nāyakas and gauḍas are to be distinguished from those which gathered under the auspices of the heads of the castes. These latter organizations were called kūṭa. Since even in our days every non-Brahman caste has its kūṭa, we may imagine that in mediaeval times too each community must have had its own organization. The kūṭa of the Ayyas of Kuṛubūr is mentioned in an inscription dated A. D. 1409.²

v2.c21.s1.t2.18

² E. C., X, Gd. 9, pp. 212-13.

v2.c21.s1.t2.19

Sometimes social differences were also submitted to the aribtration of Brahman Voḍayas (Odeyars ?), Elders, and merchants of a prominent city. Perhaps these assembled together to deal with questions which the smallest court comprising the the kūṭa, and the next higher tribunal composed of the rulers of the town, the nāyakas and gauḍas, had failed to decide, or with problems which concerned all the people of the towns and the nāḍ or province. We are, however, uncertain about this. An inscription dated Śaka 1464 (A. D. 1542-3) tells us that the Baḍuguluvāru and the Palināṭivāru quarrelled among themselves about the birudus to be carried during festal occasions.

v2.c21.s1.t2.20

The case was submitted to the Vaishṇavas, Voḍeyas, Elders and Merchants of Kāñchi for decision. They granted, on the authority of a previous document on stone, a very long list of privileges including that of kuṅkuma-vasantam, to the Baḍuguluvāru, though this did not please their opponents.¹

v2.c21.s1.t2.21

¹ C. P. No. 13 of 1912-13; Ep. Report for 1913, p. 9. These Baḍuguluvāru, we are told in this connection, refused to accept the theory of pollution in matter of food and the clothes to wear. It is conjectured that they have been shepherds of the Yādava race. Ibid., p. 9. The cyclic year given in this record, Krōdhana, is wrong. Śaka 1464=Plava. Sewell, The Siddhantas, p. 304; Ś. 1488=Krōdhana, ibid., p. 306. But according to Swamikannu Ś. 1464=Subhakrit. Ś. 1487=Krōdhana, Ind. Eph. V., V., pp. 286, 332.

v2.c21.s1.t2.22

But there were serious questions which necessitated the interference of the State in social affairs. On such occasions the Emperor appointed dictators who were vested with exceptionally high powers. In Śaka 1444 (A. D. 1522-3), for instance, Kṛishṇa Dēva Rāya the Great gave to Veṅkaṭāṭāyarya extraordinary privileges to deal with socio-religious problems. We may incidentally observe that this great man was not unworthy of the honour bestowed on him. He was the son of Ahōbalāchārya and grandson of Śrīraṅga Dēśika. He is described as the establisher of the Vēdic path, proficient in both the Vēdāntas (Sanskrit and Tamil), as a rich man who possessed palanquins and other paraphernalia and as having performed the Sōma sacrifice, with liberal gifts of money, cows, cloths and land.²

v2.c21.s1.t2.23

² My. Arch. Report for 1918, p. 52.

v2.c21.s1.t2.24

The interference of the State is seen mostly in the affairs of minor communities of weavers and other artisans. According to an inscription dated Śaka 1407 (A. D. 1485-6), in the reign of Kumāra Mallikārjuna, the Kaikkōḷars of Vaḷudilambaṭṭu-rājya were granted, in the time of Aṛamvaḷatta Nāyaṉār, the privilege of using taṇḍu (palanquin) and conch as their insignia on the model of the Kaikkōḷars of Kañchipuram, who were enjoying these privileges.³ A similar charter relating to the same privileges was given to the Kaikkōḷars (of Kañchipuram?) on their representing the matter to the same dignitary at Kañchipuram in Śaka 1409 (A. D. 1487-8).¹ According to an epigraph dated Śaka 1425 (A. D. 1503-4), in the reign of Immaḍi Narasimha Rāya, an Agent of the Tuḷuva general Narasa Nāyaka bestowed on the weavers of the three villages Tribhuvaṇa-mahādēvi-parru, Naḍuvukaraipparru, and Neṇmalipparru, the right to have daṇḍu and śaṅku on all good and bad occasions. They were to enjoy these privileges on the model of those enjoyed by their community of the country situated on the bank of the river Peṇṇai. The epigraph further states that those who objected to this right should undergo the penalty stipulated for the offence mentioned in an inscription engraved at Seḷiyaṅanallūr.²

v2.c21.s1.t2.25

³ 473 of 1921.

v2.c21.s1.t2.26

¹ 422 of 1925.

v2.c21.s1.t2.27

² Ep. Report for 1918, p. 166.

v2.c21.s1.t2.28

The Kaikkōḷars residing round the temple of Lakshmī-Nārāyaṇa-Perumāḷ at Ambāsamudram, according to an inscription dated Śaka 1429 (A. D. 1517-18), having constructed "from the basement to the pinnacle" a temple for the god and his son Bhūtaḷa-Vira-Rāma, and having also provided for the requirements of the temple kitchen, were granted the hereditary right of receiving a garland in the temple with other incidental privileges.³ Since the name of the ruler's agent is not mentioned in the epigraph, we may presume that this action may have been taken by the temple itself on its own responsibility.

v2.c21.s1.t2.29

³ 312 of 1916.

v2.c21.s1.t2.30

An epigraph dated only in the cyclic year Parābhava but assignable to A. D. 1546, refers us to the reign of Sadāśiva Rāya when Sūrappa Nāyaka, the Agent of the king, governor over Tiruvaḍi-rājya, seems to have enacted measures in connection with the Ilaivāṇiyars. These agreed to accord the same privileges to the Kaikkōḷars of the place as were in vogue according to a previous stone inscription which, however, had been defaced by some member of the Ilaivāṇiyar sect in previous years, and which was now ordered to be so engraved on the temple walls.⁴

v2.c21.s1.t2.31

⁴ 41 of 1922.

v2.c21.s1.t2.32

The importance of the official dictator in social matters is seen in a copper plate grant dated A. D. 1555 which registers the agreement that was reached by (the dictator) Vēdānti-Rāmarājayapa together with the eighty-eight Śrī-Vaiṣṇava Brahmans, Banadarasayya, the Agent for the affairs of Rāma Rājayya Tirumala Rājayya, and Senabōva Seṭṭi, Agent for the affairs of Rāmapayya. The dispute between the cultivators and the Pañchāḷas, which is the subject of the above grant, took place in the reign of Sadāśiva Rāya. "Words having arisen between all the (?) cultivators and the Pañchāḷas (or artisans) in the place belonging to (the god) Chennigarāya of Bēlūr,—according to the decision formerly given by Rāma-Rājayya-Tirumala-Rājayya regarding the caste observances of the Pañchāḷas, fixing the southern street of Bēlūr for them, the stones were put up at the four boundaries (specified) within which the Pañchāḷas might erect rows of houses, carry on their caste observances and make jewellery, enjoying in the temple of Chennigarāya the same privileges and positions as were granted to the Pañchāḷas at the car-festival in Vidyānagara. Such is the śāsana granted to the Pañchāḷas, in accordance with the order of Rāma-Rājayya-Tirumala-Rājayya, by us—the Vēdānti Rāmarājayapa, the eighty-eight Śrī Vaiṣṇava Brahmans, Banadarasayya, agent for the affairs of Rāma-Rājayya-Tirumala-Rājayya, and Senabova Seṭṭi, agent for the affairs of Rāmapayya ".¹

v2.c21.s1.t2.33

¹ E. C., V, P. 1, Bl. 5, p. 45.

v2.c21.s1.t2.34

There is another instance of the officials of the Government settling communal questions. The inscription which gives us this information is undated, but it is possible that it may be assigned to the reign of the Emperor Sadāśiva Rāya. It narrates that in the time of Rāmarāja Nāyaka, a charter to the headmen of potters was given as follows: "When Chāma, Amsamāna, Honna, Dhūma, and Chaṇḍa, these barbers and washermen, saying that for the potters, paring of the toe-nails and tying on the upper cloth are not allowed,²—the chiefs of the potters saying that they are, gained the victory by (the ordeal of) dipping their hands in (boiling) *ghī* before (the god) Divya Liṅgēśvara in Haradanahaḷḷi, the following charter was written. ‘For the potters the toe-nails may be pared and the upper-cloth may be tied on-thus it is ordered. The caste tax is nine varāha, gold five varāha. If a woman of Yelavandūr lose her living, the five varāha may be excused and six varāha given......’¹ The epigraph which breaks off at the end, evidently records the decision which was the outcome of the inquiry conducted by Rāma Rāja Nāyaka.

v2.c21.s1.t2.35

² "Apparently the reference is to the case of the bride and bridegroom at the time of marriage." E. C., IV p. 27, n. (1).

v2.c21.s1.t2.36

¹ The date of this is given by Rice thus: "Date? About A. D. 1580". But there is nothing in the original which justifies this assumption. *E.C.*, IV, Yl. 2, p. 27, text, p. 72.

v2.c21.s1.t2.37

We have a case of a Provincial Government settling these trivial questions relating to honours during marriage occasions. An inscription dated only in the cyclic year Bhāva but assignable to the year A. D. 1634, on the strength of the name Dikshitasvāmi—the well known Minister Gōvinda Dikshita of the two Nāyakas, Achyuta and Raghunātha—informs us that a *vaḷakkumuṛi* or petition was made as regards a dispute which arose among the weavers (*paṭṭunūlkār*) and the Śeṭṭis of Paṭṭīśvaram. The problem was in connection with the order of procedure in the receipt of betel leaves and areca-nut during marriages. It was agreed that in cases of disturbances caused on this count, a new cloth worth five *paṇam* should be offered to the goddess (of the local temple) along with thirty arecanuts and 100 leaves. The epigraph closes with a vow made on the feet of Nāyakkarayyaṇ, who, it is suggested, may have been Raghunātha Nāyaka of Tanjore.²

v2.c21.s1.t2.38

² 257 of 1927; *Ep. Report* for 1927, p. 117. A copper-plate grant dated A. D. 1693 of the time of Raṅga Rāya Dēva Mahārāya "seated on the jewel throne in Ghaṇagiri-durga" relates some very interesting details about communal fights which arose on account of the procession of the Nandi-kōlu in Anekal. This was between the Śeṭṭis and merchants on one side, and all the other people on the other. The question of the procession of the goddess Kālikā in Nagarta-pēṭe caused complete disorder in both *pēṭes*. Mammuḍi Chikka Rāya Tamme Gauḍarayya gave certain grants (specified) to Veṅkaṭācharya (whose pedigree is given) for having restored order with the aid of the *samayagāras* and the Mutta-dāsris and other people. It was agreed that according to former custom the Nandi-

v2.c21.s1.t2.39

Social legislation, it may not be out of place to observe, sometimes took a strange turn. Instead of unifying the conflicting elements in the community, the Government helped the dismemberment of the castes. Two records dated Śaka 1545 (A.D. 1623-4) and Śaka 1547 (A.D. 1625-6) register a royal writ granted by Virappa Nāyaka of Madura to the five sub-sects of the artisan community, facilitating their separation from each other. It has to be noted that the order does not seem to have proceeded from the king himself but to have been the result of an initiative taken by the subsects themselves. This is inferred partly from the statement that the writ was a privilege granted in the presence Uḍaṅkūṭṭam-pāḍa-gaṇanaiñjāṉ Kulaśēkharaṉ-āśāri or Uḍaṅkūṭṭa-aṇaiñjāṉ, who was evidently the leader of the Kaṇmāla community. We may add that the epigraphs which give us the above information, do not enlighten us on the causes which brought about the dismemberment of the artisan community.¹

v2.c21.s1.t2.40

¹ 309 and 378 of 1916; Ep. Report for 1917, p. 134; "The non-interference of the Brahmans in this connection is significant." Ibid. Satyanatha wrongly interprets these inscriptions as having emanated from the Government. "The caste system was considered sacrosanct, and there were occasions of royal interference to check breaches of its rules". Nayaks, p. 256. About the year A. D. 1371, "the temple priests (sthāvikaru) of Nallūr-nāḍ agreeing together caused a śāsana to be written. The meaning of this is not at all clear. See E. C., IX, Dv. 73, p. 83, text, p. 189.

v2.c21.s1.t2.41

We may give one more example of State interference in social matters. An inscription dated only in the cyclic year Aṅgiras but assignable to A. D. 1632,² of the reign of Śrīraṅga Dēva, registers an undertaking by the residents of the village Tiruvamattūr, South Arcot district, that the three artisan communities (Kaṇmāla) carpenters, blacksmiths, and goldsmiths of the several villages in the northern parru (ward) shall no more be treated ill, or deprived of their privileges; that the same

v2.c21.s1.t2.42

² Swamikannu, Ind. Eph., VI, p. 66.

v2.c21.s1.t2.43

kōlu procession should pass through the Dēśada-pēṭe and the goddess Kālikā's procession through the Nagarta-pēṭe. E. C., IX, Ht. 105, p. 101. Interesting as the above details are, they cannot be given entire credence since the epigraph takes us to the year A. D. 1693 when Vijayanagara rulers had ceased to exercise any authority. B. A. S.

v2.c21.s1.t2.44

rights and privileges as were given to their brethren in Paḍaiviḍu Śeñji, Tiruvaṇṇāmalai, and Kañchipuram should be accorded to them; and that in default a fine of twelve *pon* was to be paid by them (residents) [?]. In this record Kṛṣṇappa Nāyaka is mentioned as the king's Agent; and Rāyasam Tirumalayyaṇ, as the subordinate of the former.¹

v2.c21.s1.t2.45

¹ 65 of 1922.

C. Excommunication

v2.c21.s1.t3.1

To the orthodox minds of the mediaeval ages excommunication was a potent weapon of exercising the authority of social groups. In one of its aspects it is related to the problem of outcastes; and this again is allied to that of untouchability which we briefly alluded to while dealing with the social issues which the people of Vijayanagara had to solve. Before we enumerate the different kinds of excommunication in Vijayanagara, we may acquaint ourselves with the views of classical canonists on the subject.

v2.c21.s1.t3.2

Manu has laid down specific regulations dealing with the question of excommunication from the caste.² "A Brāhmaṇa who unintentionally approaches a woman of the Chāṇḍāla or of (any other) very low caste, who eats (the food of such persons) and accepts (presents from them) becomes an outcaste; but (if he does it intentionally), he becomes their equal."³ Then again: "He who associates with an outcaste, himself becomes an outcaste after a year, not by sacrificing for him, teaching him, or forming a matrimonial alliance with him, but using the same carriage or seat, or by eating with him."⁴

v2.c21.s1.t3.3

² As regards Manu's regulations on outcastes, see *Manu*, III, 150, 157, pp. 103, 104-5; IV, 79. 213, pp. 141, 163; IX, 238-9, p. 384; XI, 185, 190, pp. 468-9.

v2.c21.s1.t3.4

³ *Ibid.*, XI, 176, pp. 466-7.

v2.c21.s1.t3.5

⁴ *Ibid.*, XI, 181, pp. 467-8.

v2.c21.s1.t3.6

The penances meant for those who desired to atone for their sins are thus given: "He who also associates with any one of those outcastes, must perform, in order to atone for (such) intercourse, the penance prescribed for that sinner. The Sapiṇḍas and Samānōdakas of an outcaste must offer (a libation of) water (to him, as if he were dead), outside (the village) on an inauspicious day, in the evening, and in the presence of the relatives, officiating priests, and teachers. A female slave shall upset with her foot a pot filled with water, as if it were for a dead person; (his Sapiṇḍas) as well as the Samānōdakas shall be impure for a day and night; But thenceforward it shall be forbidden to converse with him, to sit with him, to give him a share of the inheritance, and to hold with him such intercourse as is usual among men; And (if he be the eldest) his right of primogeniture shall be withheld and the additional share, due to the eldest son; and in his stead a younger brother, excelling in virtue, shall obtain the share of the eldest.”¹

v2.c21.s1.t3.7

¹ Manu, XI, 182-6, pp. 468-9. See also ibid., 187-92, 196-7, pp. 469-70, for the penance by which such an outcaste may regain his original status.

v2.c21.s1.t3.8

According to Gautama even a father could be excommunicated, if he had committed certain grave crimes. “Let him cast off a father who assassinates a king, who sacrifices for Śūdras, who sacrifices for his own sake (accepting) money from Śūdras, who divulges the Veda (to persons not authorised to study it), who kills a learned Brāhmaṇa, who dwells with men of the lowest casts, or (cohabits) with a female of one of the lowest casts.”²

v2.c21.s1.t3.9

² Gautama, XX, 1, pp. 277-8. Ibid., 2-9, pp. 278-9 for the penances meant for such a sinner. Cf. Vasiṣṭha, XV, 11-2, p. 77; Baudhāyana, II, 1, 36, p. 216.

v2.c21.s1.t3.10

With these regulations of the lawgivers before us, we may now ascertain the nature and kinds of social punishment under Vijayanagara. All classes of people including Brahmans were liable to excommunication. The members of the priestly class were especially punished if they violated the rules of their caste or those of a communal grant, and sold the shares which they owned in the village to Śūdras. Those who refused the consecrated food of a god were also declared outcastes. An undated inscription, assigned to about A. D. 1568, clearly says that “the Brahman who refuses the consecrated food (artha-prasādavannu) of the god Tirumala’s tirth is a Caṇḍāla (or outcaste).¹ In the grant dated A. D. 1474 recording the gift of the villages Ālugōḍu and Nuggilūr situated in Gayā-tristhāna, by king Virūpāksha to Kṛishṇa Bhaṭṭa, it is said that “If any among the shareholders mortgage or sell his share to Śūdras, he shall be put out of the Brahman community, and such share shall not belong to this place (*i-vṛillimaṅtaroḷage ār obaru tamma tamma vṛilliyanu śūdrarugaḷige ādhi-krayava māḍidare avaru brāhmaṇikege horagu ā-vṛittigaḷu i-taṇḍake salau*).² All the Brahmans (endowed with many titles) of the all-honoured great *agrahāra*, the seat of all learning, Prasanna-Vijayapura, made an endowment for the support of the dancing-girls of the temple of the god Rāmanātha, in A. D. 1372, and lest it should be violated by members of their own community, laid down the following rule: “Whatever Brahmans oppose this, are out of the Brahman community and banished from the village” (*i-dharmakke āva brāhmaru vighanava māḍidavaru brāhmarige horagu grāma-bahishkri-taru*).³ Three kinds of social ostracism are mentioned in A. D. 1519 and A. D. 1537. These refer to the Vīraśaivas. The offenders were be declared outcasts to the *mahā-mah-allu* or the holy assembly of the Vīraśaivas; outcasts in respect of *vibhūti* (or sacred ashes) and *rudrākshi*; and outcasts both in this world and the next.⁴

v2.c21.s1.t3.11

¹ E. C., XI, Hr. 42, p. 109, text, p. 303.

v2.c21.s1.t3.12

² E. C., III, Ml. 121, p. 68, text, p. 909. See also *Ep. Report* for 1916, p. 140, op. cit.

v2.c21.s1.t3.13

³ E. C., IV, Gu. 32, p. 41, text, p. 104.

v2.c21.s1.t3.14

⁴ *My. Arch. Report* for 1920, pp. 42-3. Cf. Imprecations against the Liṅgavantas and Nāmadhāris in A. D. 1598: *Liṅgavantan ādava aḷupidare ā-Koppa-āyadali liṅga jaṅgu....pāpake hōha vibhūti-rudrāk-shige horagu nāmadhāri āgi ādava-i-dharmake aḷupidare Tirupati Śri-raṅga-Vishṇu-Kanchili svāmi-sēve aḷida pāpake hōharu*. E. C., VI, Kp. 50, text, p. 332.

First 99 of 343 passages. Read on

Linked texts (25)