Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s85: 100. Pratāparudradeva

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s85

Language
English

100. Pratāparudradeva

v1.c6.s85.1

The Sarasvatīvilāsa was compiled by Pratāparudradeva, a king of the Gajapati dynasty who ruled at *Cuttack* (*Kaṭakanagarī*) in Orissa. The Dāyabhāga portion of this work was published with an English translation by Rev. Thomas Foulkes in 1881. An edition of the whole of the vyavahāra section of the Sarasvatīvilāsa has recently been published in the Mysore Government publication Series. Through the kindness of the Editor, Dr. Shamasastri, I was able to secure the printed sheets of 352 pages before publication. In the following reference is made to the paragraphs of Foulkes' edition and the pages of the Mysore edition.

v1.c6.s85.2

After invoking deities the work starts with the *praśasti* of the king and his family (pp. 2-11). Descent is traced to the Sun himself through Daśaratha, Rāma and his sons. Kapilendra was the founder of the Gajapati family whose son was Puruṣottama. His queen was Rupāmbikā. Pratāparudradeva or Vīra-Rudra-deva was the son of Puruṣottama. He is spoken of as having given protection to Sultan (Suratrāṇa) Husanshah who threw himself on his mercy.¹⁰⁰³ In the colophons¹⁰⁰⁴ the king is styled Gajapati, Gauḍeśvara (king of Gauḍa), lord of Kalubariga (modern Gulbarga) in the Karṇāṭaka country of nine crores (probably of revenue) and as the protector of Sultan Husanshah of Jamunāpura. It is significant that the same titles are applied to Puruṣottama¹⁰⁰⁵ in his Poṭavaram grant of *śake* 1412 (1490 A. D.) and in other inscriptions. Pratāparudradeva, while ruling his capital¹⁰⁰⁶ Kaṭakanagarī, called together an assembly of *Paṇḍits* and compiled an extensive digest of civil and religious law. The royal author feels qualms of conscience on the question of eulogising himself and his family but stifles them easily by saying that a poet can also be an appreciative critic of his own productions.¹⁰⁰⁷ He boasts that he composed the work for saving scholars the trouble of bringing harmony among the conflicting dicta of Vijñānayogī, Aparārka, Bhāruci and others, that there was no work that could equal his own and that his literary effort would make his predecessors' works afford illustrations of the maxim that when a certain purpose is served by one the existence of others is superfluous.¹⁰⁰⁸ Then it is said that the vyavahārakāṇḍa was first taken in hand even before the ācārakāṇḍa following the special desire of the king Vīrarudra Gajapati.¹⁰⁰⁹ But it appears from references in the vyavahārakāṇḍa itself that before that part was finished the ācārakāṇḍa had been completed.¹⁰¹⁰ The Sarasvatīvilāsa, being a work composed under the express orders of a king for the benefit of his subjects, makes the nearest approach to the Austinian conception of law as a command addressed by political superiors to political inferiors and enforced by a sanction.

v1.c6.s85.3

¹⁰⁰³ p. 11 'शरणागतहुसनसाहिसुरत्राणवज्रपञ्जरः.'

v1.c6.s85.4

¹⁰⁰⁴ इति वीरश्रीगजपति-गौडेश्वर-नवकोटिकर्णाटककलुबरिगेश्वर-शरणागतजमुनापुराधीश्वर-हुशनसाहसुरत्राण-शरणरक्षण-श्रीदुर्गावरपुत्र-परमपवित्रचरित्र-राजाधिराज-राजराजपरमेश्वर-वीरप्रतापरुद्रदेवमहाराजाविरचिते स्मृतिसंग्रहे सरस्वतीविलासे व्यवहारकाण्डे &c. I. O. cat. p. 419 No. 1404.

v1.c6.s85.5

¹⁰⁰⁵ वीरश्रीगजपतिगौडेश्वरनवकोटिकर्णाटकलुबरिगेश्वरप्रतापपुरुषोत्तमदेव &c. E. I. vol. XIII p. 155; vide Dr. Rajendralal Mitra's 'Antiquities of Orissa' vol. II, appendix pp. 165-167, Ind. Ant. vol. I. p. 355 and M. M. Chakravarti's article on 'Uriya Inscriptions of 15th and 16th centuries' in JASB vol. 62, part 1, pp. 88-104 for inscriptions of this dynasty.

v1.c6.s85.6

¹⁰⁰⁶ 'स चायं वीररुद्रो गजपतिरयोध्यामिवायोध्यां ... भूकान्ताकटकं कटकनगरीं समानयन्' p. 11.

v1.c6.s85.7

¹⁰⁰⁷ अत्र वर्णयितृवर्ण्ययोरभेदैकनियतयोरपि अवस्थाभेदेन भेदकथनमेकस्यैव कवेः कविसहृदयत्ववन्न विरुध्यते । p. 11.

v1.c6.s85.8

¹⁰⁰⁸ यथाविहितसभामण्डपान्तरे सभ्यप्राड्विवाकामात्यपुरोहितज्योतिर्विदादिसहितो विज्ञानयोगि-भारुच्यपरार्क-मेधातिथ्यसहाय-चन्द्रिकादिबहुग्रन्थैकवाक्यतापर्यालोचनवशायात्तत्क्लेशो मा भूदिति सकलस्मृतिसमुच्चयमतिगम्भीरं नातिविस्तृतं प्रबन्धं प्रस्तौति । ... हीने गर्वमहो नैव नैव गर्वमहोधिके । समे तु गर्वं शङ्केत न समस्ति समस्तु नः ॥ pp. 11-12; एकेन चरितार्थत्वादितरानर्थतानयः । पूर्वप्रबन्धैर्विषयीभवेदिति ममोद्यमः ॥ p. 14.

v1.c6.s85.9

¹⁰⁰⁹ ततश्चाचारकाण्डाद् व्यवहारकाण्डः प्रथमारब्धः । ... तथापि वीररुद्रगजपतिमहाराजस्याकाङ्क्षानुसारेण प्रथमं व्यवहारकाण्डः प्रक्रम्यते ॥ p. 15.

v1.c6.s85.10

¹⁰¹⁰ अत्र यद् बहु वक्तव्यमस्ति तदस्माभिरपि आचारकाण्डे विवाहप्रकरण एव प्रपञ्चितमिति तत एवावधार्यम् । p. 343.

v1.c6.s85.11

The principal topics dealt with in the Vyavahārakāṇḍa are: the hall of justice, the method of judicial procedure, the plaint, the reply, documents, possession, ṛṇādāna, dāyavibhāga, sāhasa and other titles of law. In the beginning of the work he sets out at great length the views of ancient writers on politics about the constitution of the *maṇḍala*, such as those of Parāśara, Uśanas, Viṣṇu, Bṛhaspati, Viśālākṣa, Manu etc. He generally follows the views of Vijñāneśvara on dāyavibhāga, but here and there strongly criticizes him, e. g. he says that Vijñāneśvara gave a very far-fetched interpretation¹⁰¹¹ of Yājñavalkya's verse 'rikthagrāha ṛṇam dāpyaḥ.' The Sarasvatīvilāsa is a work of authority in Southern India on matters of Hindu Law, though inferior to the Mitākṣarā.¹⁰¹² It informs us that, though the Smṛticandrikā passed over the ordeals of water and poison on the ground that they had gone out of vogue, in Utkala the ordeal of water alone was resorted to and in Śūrasena (Mathurā) and Magadha (Bihar) the ordeal of poison alone was administered.¹⁰¹³

v1.c6.s85.12

¹⁰¹¹ एतद्‌व्याख्यानकं (?) विज्ञानयोगिना पूर्वाचार्यच्छेद्यानुगच्छता (०च्छायामनुगच्छता ?) अधिक्षेपसमाधानाभ्यामतिक्लेशमाश्रित्य कृतम् । p. 262; *vide* p. 207 for another example of the criticism of विज्ञानेश्वर.

v1.c6.s85.13

¹⁰¹² *Vide* 2 Mad. H. C. R. 206 at p. 217, 33 Mad. 439 at p. 441, 35 Mad. 152 at p. 156.

v1.c6.s85.14

¹⁰¹³ यथोक्तं चन्द्रिकाकारेण जलविषयोरुत्सन्नानुष्ठानत्वात्तद्विधिमनाख्याय कोशविधिरुच्यत इति । उत्कलादिषु कचिद्देशेषु जलविधेरेव प्रामाणिकत्वेन व्यवह्रियमाणत्वात् । शूरसेनमागधादिषु कचिद्देशेषु विषविधेरेव प्रामाणिकत्वेन परिगृहीतत्वात् । p. 200.

v1.c6.s85.15

Besides the usual dharmasūtras and other smṛtis, the principal authors and works named in the Sarasvatīvilāsa are noted below.¹⁰¹⁴ The Sarasvatīvilāsa presents in the case of the dharmasūtras, particularly of Viṣṇu and Gautama, great variations from the printed texts of these works (vide sec. 10, p. 70 above). The Sarasvatīvilāsa in scores of places gives the conflicting views of Bhāruci and the Mitākṣarā (for which see under Bhāruci, sec. 61). The Sarasvatīvilāsa also contains valuable information about the views of such authors as Asahāya, Bhavadeva and Śrīkara whose works have not yet come to light.

v1.c6.s85.16

¹⁰¹⁴ अपरार्क, असहाय, कर्कभाष्य, कुलार्क, गुरु (प्रभाकर), चन्द्रिका (i. e. स्मृतिचन्द्रिका), देवरात, देवस्वामी, धारेश्वर, निबन्धनकार, प्रदीप, प्रदीपिकाकार, भवदेव, भवनाथ, भारुचि, मिताक्षरा, यज्ञपति,मेधातिथि, राजलासक,लक्ष्मीधर,वरदराज (called आधुनिक as contrasted with भारुचि), विज्ञानेश्वर, वृत्तिकार (on आप० श्रौत), वैखानस-संहिता, शालिकानाथ, श्रीकर, संग्रहकार, सोमशेखर, सोमेश्वर.

v1.c6.s85.17

Burnell (introduction to Vaṁśa Brāhmaṇa p. VII) took Pratāparudradeva to be the king of that name who belonged to the Kākatīya-Gaṇapati dynasty of Warangal and who was carried captive to Delhi in 1322 A. D. But in this he was wrong. It has been shown above that the king connected with the composition of the Sarasvatīvilāsa belonged to the Gajapati dynasty that ruled at Cuttack and not at Warangal. Pratāparudradeva ruled from 1497 to 1539 A. D. Therefore the Sarasvatīvilāsa must have been composed in the first quarter of the 16th century. Foulkes thinks (Intro. p. xx) that the work was composed about 1515 A. D. His argument is that though the commentary of Mādhavācārya was written about two hundred years before the Sarasvatīvilāsa, the latter is entirely silent about it in his work and that the reason of this is to be sought for in the rivalry of the two dynasties of Pratāparudra and Kṛṣṇarāya of Vijayanagara which was set at rest by a marriage alliance about 1516 A. D. Vide Prof. S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar's ‘sources of Vijayanagar History’ (p. 116), where we are told that the daughter of the Orissa king married to Kṛṣṇadevarāja was named Jaganmohinī (according to some) or Tukkā (according to others) and Sewell's ‘A forgotten empire’ p. 320. Another argument advanced by Foulkes for 1515 A. D. as the date of the work is that during the latter part of his reign Pratāparudradeva had come under the influence of the great Vaiṣṇavite saint Caitan ya, who made Purī his residence during the last years of his life and that the Sarasvatīvilāsa has in the beginning an invocation of Śiva. Caitanya was born in śake 1407 Phālguna Full-moon (i. e. in 1486 A. D.); vide Bhandarkar's 'Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism' (p. 83) and Caitanya is said to have gone to Purī about 1510 A. D. and died in 1533 A. D. (Beames in Ind. Ant. vol. II, p. 1 ff). Both these arguments are not of much weight. As a matter of fact in some mss. there is an invocation of both Viṣṇu (Hayagrīva) and Śiva; *vide* Descriptive Cat. of Government S. mss. at Madras vol. VI, p. 2426 No. 3221. The latest work of certain date that the Sarasvatīvilāsa names is the Smṛticandrikā and it is rather matter for surprise that no work belonging to the 14th and 15th centuries is quoted or named by the Sarasvatīvilāsa. But this circumstance alone is hardly of any worth in face of the positive statement in the work itself that it was composed by Pratāparudradeva Gajapati. Vide JBORS. vol. V, pp. 147-148 and Ind. Ant. for 1929, pp. 28-33 for information about the Empire of Orissa and its emperors, Kapilendra (who died in 1470 A. D.), Puruṣottamadeva (1470-1497) and Pratāparudra-deva.

v1.c6.s85.18

There is a ms. of a work called Pratāpamārtaṇḍa or Prauḍhapratāpamārtaṇḍa (D. C. ms. No. 48 of 1872-73) which is ascribed to Pratāparudra, ruler of Utkala, whose capital was Kaṭaka on the banks of the Citrotpalā. It mentions Kapileśvara Gajapati, his son Puruṣottama, father of Pratāparudra. In the colophon the king is described as 'Gajapati-Gauḍeśvara-navakoṭi-karṇāṭa-kalabarageśvararūpa-nārāyaṇa' &c. The work is divided into five Prakāśas on Padārthanirṇaya, Vatsarādinirūpaṇa, Tithinirūpaṇa, Vratanirṇaya (such as Navarātra &c.), Viṣṇubhakti. He expressly mentions as his authorities Hemādri, Kalpataru, Ratnākara, Mitākṣarā, Mādhavīya, Anantabhaṭṭa, Smṛticandrikā, Aparārka, Pārijāta, Kālādarśa, Devadāsa. Here there is an express mention of Mādhava which refutes Foulkes' theory set out above.

Linked texts (15)